“Engaging established staff with UKPSF SD 3 A report from a small-scale action research project Phil Poole Director of Learning & Teaching
UK Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education (HEA, 2006) Standard Descriptor 3 Supports and promotes student learning in all areas of activity, core knowledge and professional values through mentoring and leading individual and/or teams; incorporates research, scholarship and/or professional practice into those activities Examples of Staff Groups Experienced staff who have an established track record in promoting and mentoring colleagues in learning and teaching to improve the student learning experience
UK Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education UKPSF (HEA, 2006) Six areas of activity Design and planning of learning activities and/or programmes of study Teaching and/or supporting student learning Core Knowledge and understanding Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and supporting learning Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development Respect for individual learners The subject material Appropriate methods for teaching and learning in the subject area and at the level of the academic programme Assessment and giving feedback to learners Developing effective environments and student support and guidance systems Professional Values How students learn, both generally and in the subject The use of appropriate learning technologies Commitment to incorporating the process and outcomes of relevant research scholarship and/or professional practice Commitment to development of learning communities Commitment to encouraging participation in higher education, acknowledging diversity and promoting equality of opportunity Methods for evaluating the effectiveness of teaching The implications of quality assurance and enhancement for professional practice Commitment to continuing professional development and evaluation of practice
Context of the research • Established staff CPD – characterised by a low engagement with centrally (formal) directed educational development activities • Established staff do care about L&T and do develop and innovate, but UKPSF has a implicit message about accountability for engagement with a specific range of activities derived from a constructed view of what academic practice for L&T looks like • How could the professional practice of experienced academic staff UKPSF (SD 3) be represented in terms of the Standards (given the current level of engagement in formal CPD? ) • Could I organise the recognition of engagement in professional development (for L&T) in a way that would be productive/acceptable for colleagues?
A model for professional learning Knight et al. (2006) observed prior to the launch of UKPSF, “It is not clear upon which conception of [Educational Professional Development] EPD this emerging framework [UKPSF] is based, not least because the original consultation document… lacked a coherent, research-informed theory of learning. ” They conclude that in terms of evidencing engagement in professional development, non-formal learning (which occurs through engagement in social learning within a complex web of interactions that constitute academic life) is likely to be a more significant response than formal learning. Knight, P. , Tait, J. & Yorke, M. (2006) 'The professional learning of teachers in higher education', Studies in Higher Education, 31 (3), pp. 319 -339.
Holistic Professional Development Brew and Boud (1996) suggest ‘that a holistic view should be adopted: “one which places as central the staff member and their roles, and which emphasises negotiation and flexibility in response to the diversity of academic activities’. • covers diverse aspects of the academic role–teaching, research and administration. • applies at a variety of stages in an academic career. • provides opportunities for linking personal and professional development. Brew, A and Boud, D. (1996) ‘Preparing for new academic roles: an holistic approach to staff development’, International Journal of Academic Development, 1 (2), pp. 17 -25.
Academic CPD Research carried out by Becher (1996) identified a range of activities in which academics engage as part of their professional development: • courses and conferences • professional interactions • networking • consulting experts • learning by doing • learning by teaching • personal research. Becher, T. (1996) 'The learning professions', Studies in Higher Education, 21 (1), pp. 43 -55.
Formal and non-formal CPD activity Helen King (2004), based on a national study of Earth Sciences tutors, who cited the following contributions to their pedagogic practice: – – – discussions with colleagues (94%) supported colleagues to develop their teaching (46%) networked with colleagues from other institutions (40%) read books/articles on learning and teaching (38%) read web based information on learning and teaching (31%) participated in learning and teaching workshop (27%) discussions with staff in your institutional EDU (24%) studied for/hold a L&T qualification (16%) attended a learning and teaching conference (11%) applied of teaching development funding (9%) undertook research into learning and teaching (6%) member of a subject or professional centre for teachers (4%). King, H. “Continuing professional development in higher education; what do academics do? ” In Planet, No 13 (December 2004) pp 26 -29.
References Michael Eraut’s research indicated that 80 -90 % of the professional learning discovered was in the Work Process category Contents Work Process with learning as a byproduct Learning Actions located within work or learning processes Learning Processes at or near the workplace Participation in group processes Working alongside others Consultation Tackling challenging tasks and roles Problem solving Trying things out Consolidating, extending and refining skills Working with clients Asking questions Getting information Locating resource people Negotiating access Listening and observing Reflecting Learning from mistakes Giving and receiving feedback Use of mediating artefacts Being supervised Being coached Being mentored Shadowing Visiting other sites Conferences Short Courses Working for a qualification Independent study Fig 2 Models of Learning at Work (Eraut, 2008)
Contentions • Operating at SD 3 has to be dynamic and requires continuous updating and therefore needs a model of professional development and learning (crucially for the L&T component) • Recognising academic development opportunities in a broad way could come closer to the reality of staff engagement with educational development? Could we meet the challenge of UKPSF for established staff through a more holistic approach which recognises the complexity of HE academic life (rather than a separate focus on T&L as represented by the Standards)? • If we propose to encourage staff to capture (measure? ) non-formal, rich engagements, any reporting and recognition scheme could not simply count formal engagements, it would have to involve a process of recording and reflecting on developmental engagements of all types (an (e-)portfolio approach).
An e-portfolio to support holistic CPD
CCCU L&T Strategy 2006 -10 Proposed an Academic Professional Development Framework which will: • • Provide all academic (and learning support) staff with a series of coherent and graduated CPD activities which accord with their career stage and development needs. Broadly align the University’s framework with the three stages of the UK Professional Standards Framework (2006). Coordinate the demands on academic (and learning support) staff to provide evidence of their continuous academic professional development. Provide an e-Portfolio system that acknowledges the multidimensional nature of academic staff development and is flexible and straightforward to use. The electronic ‘Active CV’ function will support and encourage continuous reflection on staff’s academic profile.
Research strategy • Phase 1 Loosely-structured interviews with Heads of EDUs in 12 HEIs – – Two Russell Group Two Pre-92 Two Post 92 Six ‘new’ universities (previously University Colleges) • Phase 2 Interviews with CCCU Ho. Ds (16) SMT (4) • Phase 3 Interviews with CCCU established staff who had applied for teaching excellence awards (20)
Phase 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The UK PSF not yet widely adopted by the sector to underpin CPD approaches beyond Descriptor 2 (as of 2007) Engagement of established staff in centrally organised staff development (provided by EDUs) is only working for relatively few established staff. Established staff are wary of ‘staff development’ as a concept Research and scholarship is universally recognised as the route to promotion. CPD activity is primarily concerned with academic success at a discipline level, the teaching role of staff is only slowly being included as a measure of professional practice. HERA roles, academic review, promotion, performance related pay and appraisal, all have a bearing on any attempt to set standards for recognition of academic practice HE will be expected to come into line with other similar professions in its approach to accountability that includes the role of teaching and learning. CPD (e-)portfolio approaches are in their infancy within the sector.
Phase 2 • Findings from Phase 1 shared with the University through formal I think there always been a view that someone who throws committees and forums, SMT, HR Staff Development Office, Director themselves life and soul into their teaching may not fare as well of Research. as people who do other things. There is this belief that promotion • is more likely to be based on research or administration and that teaching and learning is a poor relation. I think that is an all Loosely structured interviews with 16 Ho. Ds and SMT engaged with pervading …people do believe that actually. Having said that, staff development there is also the view that when you are appointed as a lecturer, that is the baseline. Its assumed that everybody does that. There is the counter argument that in order to get advancement, you have to do something different, in addition. Being competent at learning and teaching is the basic job.
E-portfolio I would absolutely be against a portfolio I think it would work to encourage people to have approach because that is placing a opportunities to reflect on the diversity of the things that further burden on staff…I have seen they get involved in over a year. The eportfolio and schools] have had to what teachers [in sharing parts of them would be the do in terms ofthat vehicle to do portfolios for the but perhaps we need to think aboutcontribution of a the design payments…. I will be template within it that helps them bring that information the road where reluctant to go down with them. . you are asking staff to do that. It depends what time and other things it took up. On one sense you could say it ought to be there because we ought to be accountable and we ought to be able to demonstrate that we do add value in terms of the way we approach teaching etc.
Phase 2: Ho. Ds findings 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Discourse about L&T does not feature highly in formal engagements around professional development. A great many assumptions are made about individuals’ L&T practice. Good practice with L&T is assumed beyond a certain professional stage (Descriptor 2) Academic recognition is not closely aligned with L&T excellence, therefore it has a low status and corresponding attention Ho. Ds would appreciate a focus on L&T at appraisal and clear direction from the University towards achieving a balance between research, scholarship, leadership, administration and L&T in professional development activities Accountability for professional development will need to be introduced sensitively and purposefully. L&T will require transparent acknowledgement within recognition and reward frameworks E-portfolios will take time to establish, in particular outside of the health and education professions
Phase 3: Established staff 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Tacit perceptions of their professional identity determines individuals’ priorities for engagement with CPD Professional learning starts in teaching, feedback from students and pedagogic inquiry (non-formal CPD) Dialogue and joint activities with trusted colleagues can be a significant resource (non-formal CPD) Formal CPD engagements were helpful if they were directly linked to significant current issues. External engagements were more important for benchmarking practice, with some providing possible opportunities for innovation Developing professional narratives (fellowship applications) was a significant learning opportunity but there was uncertainty about the benefits of maintenance of a portfolio Would welcome more recognition of L&T contributions and be willing to develop (and maintain) a CPD portfolio if there were transparent recognition and reward systems (i. e. confidence in the institution values)
Affordance of (e-)portfolios The prevailing discourse around e-portfolios in support of professional development demonstrates high expectations: • “. . enable faculty members to display their teaching accomplishments for the record. ” • “. . contribute to more sound personnel decisions as well as the professional development and growth of faculty members. ” • gather ‘evidence’ and data on teaching effectiveness • structure self-reflection • foster an environment where discussions about teaching becomes the norm • provide resources to support application for awards, grants and tenure • Assembling a portfolio can provide insights which can embed theory in practice • Encourage professional learning and promote self-development Seldin, P. (2004) The teaching portfolio: a practical guide to improved performance and promotion / tenure decision. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Stefani, L. , Mason, R. & Pegler, C. (2007) The educational potential of e portfolios: supporting personal development and reflective learning. Abingdon: Routledge.
Problems for a (e-)portfolio approach • Evidencing formal engagements is easy, capturing evidence of professional growth is more difficult • Turning tacit knowledge into explicit is unlikely to be achieved when creating personal narratives through a portfolio (Eraut) • Reflection can damage your professional health (Radloff) • Context is critical to reflection (Boud and Walker) • Purpose and clarity are essential - mixing developmental and accountability is not advised (Buckridge) • People respond differently to (e-)portfolios • Managers and academics will need professional development to support and exploit their potential
(e-)portfolios as a strategy for SD 3 1. 2. 3. 4. Meeting the challenge of capturing and presenting formal and non-formal CPD engagement for benchmarking professional engagement Creating (evidenced) professional narratives is a significant learning opportunity for established staff (Jones, 2009; Mc. Lean & Bullard, 2000). Sharing a holistic picture of academic engagements could facilitate informed discussion around institutional and individual priorities (Stefani, 2005) Resolving centre-periphery perceptions (locating responsibility for educational development firmly in departments) (Clegg, 2003)
Challenges for capturing contribution to L&T within SD 3 1. CPD for established staff has to be dynamic and sustained. 2. For L&T to achieve a significant status alongside other aspects of the professional role there has to be clarity and transparency of institutional values within academic practice. 3. To be motivating, recognition and reward frameworks have to be established which encourage staff engagement in systematic development for L&T. 4. Engaging Ho. Ds in achieving a balance that gives due emphasis to educational development within the reality of holistic professional development. 5. Finding systems which recognise and evidence non-formal and formal professional development that are acceptable to academics and management. 6. Educational developers have to accept the need for strategic alliances with HR/Staff Development to achieve our goals. 7. Mandatory accountability for CPD (including L&T) is on the Government agenda. ”Perhaps the single greatest challenge for staff development is the marrying of individual needs and demands for development on the one hand institutional priorities on the other. ” (Brew & Boud, 1996)
Accountability for CPD: a professional requirement “We recommend that the Government require the Higher Education Academy as a condition for continued support through HEFCE to develop arrangements to encourage established academic staff to engage in professional development in relation to their teaching responsibilities and to set up systems to record their development. In return for this support from the taxpayer through the Academy we expect higher education institutions to press their staff to continue their professional development. ” House of Commons. (2009) Students and universities: eleventh report… of the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee: volume 1. London: Stationery Office. (HC 2008 -09 170/1). Available at: http: //www. publications. parliament. uk/pa/cm 200809/cmselect/cmdius/170 i. pdf (Accessed: 12 September 2009).
References § Brew, A & Boud, D. (1996) ‘Learning and teaching policies In higher education: mediations and contradictions in practice', British Educational Research journal, 29 (2), pp. 802 -819. § Boud, D. & Walker D. (1998) ‘Promoting reflection in professional courses: the challenge of context’, Studies in higher education, Volume 23 (2), pp. 191 -206. § Buckridge, M. (2008) ‘Teaching portfolios: their role in teaching and learning policy’, International Journal for Academic Development, 13 (2), pp. 117 -127. § Clegg, S. (2003) ‘Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 70, Number 1, March 2000 , pp. 113 -136 Contents § Eraut, M. (2000) ‘Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 70, Number 1, March 2000 , pp. 113 -136 § Jones, E. (2009) ‘Personal theory and reflection in a professional practice portfolio’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, pp. 1 -12, (i. First article). § Klenowski, V. , Askew, S. & Carnell, E. (2006) Portfolios for learning, assessment and professional development in higher education. ’ Assessment and evaluation in higher education. 31 (3), pp 267 -286. § Knight, P. , Tait, J. & Yorke, M. (2006) 'The professional learning of teachers in higher education', Studies in Higher Education, 31 (3), pp. 319 -339. § Mc. Lean, M. & Bullard, J. (2000) ‘Becoming a university teacher: evidence from teaching portfolios (how academics learn to teach)’, Teacher Development, 4 (1), pp. 79 -97. § Stefani, L. (2005) PDP/CPD and e portfolios: rising to the challenge of modelling good practice. EDUCAUSE, Auckland, April 2005
Скачать презентацию Engaging established staff with UKPSF SD 3 A
60c4cb98d128c4086be0a6114543b6f8.ppt