While this really is interesting, I do think that engagement, enthusiasm
and simple economy of effort will encourage subject research informing
teaching. The main dependencies being the area of study, the level of
study and the degree to which these fit with student studies.
Surely, though, our chief concern should be the potential for pedagogic
research for not merely informing but actually transforming teaching
practice?
Probationary exercises and introductory courses - including certificates
- attempt to gain (and if possible ingrain) a professional interest in
teachers seeing such engagement as a professional boon, as well as a
duty. Too little, though - and we need to address how that engagement
can be better fostered. School teachers have INSET days - bare and
weak, but now a standard of professionalism. We need something like this
as a first step in HE.
Yours
Andrew Morgan
-----Original Message-----
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development
Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of mprosser
Sent: 21 February 2011 02:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PhDs and Learning & Teaching
Just to clarify.
In the presentation I made at several places in the UK I was quoting
Marsh and Hattie about the lack of a relation between teaching and
research. But Hattie and Marsh's work was based upon correlating student
evaluations of teaching with numbers of publications and citation rates.
I had two reactions to this. The first was that this was being used as
an argument to separate teaching form research. It was argued that this
meant we could turn our better researchers into research only and have
teaching only staff. This would mean that we would lose half of our best
teachers if we turned our best researchers into to teaching only or
increased their research load. I then argied that we should turn all of
our best teachers into teaching only and so accept that we would lose
half of our best researches. The conclusion to separate teaching from
research requires a correlation of close to -1 (ie about -.7). A
correlation of close to 0 says there is no relation, but certainly does
not justify separating teaching from research. In any event, is student
evaluation the best way to judge teaching, is number of publications and
citations the best way to judge research.
This question raised in our mind whether another way of looking at the
relation was to see how the way teachers experience and approach their
teaching relates to how they experience their subject matter and how
that related to how they experience or approach their research. We were
able to find evidence that suggested if staff described their research
more in terms of a series of independently constituted projects - they
were much more likely to describe their teaching in more information
transmission (bits of knowledge) and teacher focused ways - focus on
what they planned to teach. On the other hand, if staff were able to
explain the relationship between how their various research projects
related to each other and to overall development in their field, they
were much more likely to describe their teaching in terms of trying to
change and/or develop students conceptual understanding and were more
student focussed - focus in what they wanted students to learn. In some
ways I felt that this research was the most important I had done - but
it has generated little interest.
My overall conclusion is that to be a good teacher in higher education,
you need abroad understanding of your filed. You need to be able to
explain how the various parts of the field relate to each other and to
be able to explain how the field is developing. One very good way of
being able to do this is through research and a PhD. But if the PhD is
very narrowly focused and if the research is very narrowly conceived
then it may not help.
Anyway, it is and important an complex issue. I do not believe there are
simple or easy answers. Much of the policy debate seems to assume a
simple and easy answer.
Mike
Michael Prosser
Professor and Executive Director
Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning
The University of Hong Kong
Pokfulam Road
Hong Kong SAR
Tel: +852 2857 8529
Fax: +852 2540 9941
URL: http://www.cetl.hku.hk/
-----Original Message-----
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development
Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Reddy
Sent: Sunday, 20 February 2011 2:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PhDs and Learning & Teaching
Research and Teaching always run a merry dance, depending on the
academic wind. When QAA is due, L&T shoots to the fore, and HEA
memberships, scholarly activities, etc, and audit trails are all
important. When REF or RDAPS is key, publications are too. I always use
the analogy of juggling three balls to non-Academy friends: one is
research, one teaching, one admin and all the grind we're increasingly
asked to do. We can only have hand to two, with the other in the air,
but are expected to do all three. Sometimes, we have to hold one, while
single hand juggling the other two to get the latest priority item done.
Often one gets dropped and has to be picked up later. In Education there
can be the option (temptation?) to merge two. Then you may end up with a
bowling ball and an egg. Good luck with that.
At Newport, we are being REQUIRED to join HEA or enrol on a PGCertHE;
not necessarily a bad thing. Support is being given to do this, but the
writing's on the wall: it's a negative reinforcer now, not positive. Not
having Academy status is bad, rather than having recognition being good.
Not having a PhD or research activity is common at new universities, but
should not be harshly criticised. This is where bowling ball/egg
innovations in teaching are prevalent. With many pre1992 institutions
the teaching ball rolled away into the dust years ago; an annoying
distraction from the important work.
|