HERDSA logo
[ HERDSA ] [ Proceedings Contents ]

Teaching development grants: A case study from Hong Kong

John Jones
 Educational Development Unit
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
The question that arises from this Investigation Session Paper is:
"How can we best utilise the potential offered by 'government development money' to enhance teaching and learning".
This question is addressed via a case study of Teaching Development Grants (total HK$150 million) which have been made available by the University Grants Committee in Hong Kong, with particular reference to HK Polytechnic University. The importance of coordinated institutional strategic plans for enhancing teaching and learning are discussed.

Introduction

The University Grants Committee of Hong Kong announced in 1995 that a total of HK$150 million (about A$25 million) would be made available, to August 1998, for the support of teaching and learning. This money was to be available in three 'tranches', or portions. The first portion of HK$50 million was to be allocated among the seven universities on a pro rata basis, subject to each university producing an acceptable plan for the use of the money. (This was allocated in February, 1996). Universities could then expect the same amount about a year later, subject to a satisfactory report upon the use of the first portion. This accounts for HK$100 million in total. The remaining HK$50 million will be allocated on a competitive bidding basis, with preference being given to inter-institutional projects.

In some ways the initiative is similar to the National Teaching Development Grants (NTDG) scheme in Australia, which operates under the auspices of CAUT. The major difference is that all of the NTDG money is awarded nationally, as a result of competitive bidding. In Hong Kong a majority of the funding goes directly to individual institutions, for approved purposes.

Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU) is the largest of the seven universities in Hong Kong, with more than 1,000 permanent teaching staff and a student headcount of about 20,000. Its share of the first 'tranche' of HK$50 million amounted to HK$10.8 million, with a further HK$10.8 million expected in early 1997. A further (approx.) HK$6 million has been added from PolyU funding, giving a total of about HK$27 million for teaching development in the current triennium.

The next section describes a Strategic Plan for Assurance and Enhancement of Learning and Teaching (SPAELT) , at PolyU, in which the UGC Teaching Development money plays a key role. Some of the principles underlying the SPAELT are outlined. Finally, some questions are raised about the use of teaching development project funding for the improvement of learning and teaching.

A PolyU case study

PolyU, along with all other universities in Hong Kong, was required by UGC to produce a plan for the use of the Teaching Development Grant money. This task was allocated to a Working Party chaired by the Vice-President (Staff Development). As outlined in the Introduction, PolyU planned to allocate a total of HK$27 million for teaching development over the period of the triennium, consistent with its SPAELT. The major elements of that plan are as follows.
  1. Support for Teaching Development Projects in four focus areas:


    This represents a total of HK$23 million, and is by far the largest portion of the SPAELT money. The philosophy underlying the allocation of the money, and the associated support framework, are discussed below.

  2. Initial training and support for new academic staff, and a developmental "framework" for all staff [HK$2 million]

  3. Establishment of a framework, and procedures, for dissemination of "good practices" - especially those arising out of the Teaching Development Projects. [HK$2 million]
Central to the strategic plan is the allocation of money to PolyU staff for teaching development projects - together with the establishment of a "framework" for the dissemination of good practices, expertise and insights that arise from them. There are a number of principles associated with this, which were derived from The Action Learning Project (ALP), funded by the UGC in 1994. ALP is an umbrella project which coordinates about 50 "action research" sub-projects conducted by academic staff in Hong Kong universities. The Project is headed by a coordinator and seven associate staff who "service" the projects, and ensure coordination among them.

A similar structure is being established for the SPAELT in PolyU. The main features of this, and some of the principles underpinning it, are the following.

  1. Developments in Teaching and Learning should be consistent with the overall strategic plan for the university.

    PolyU has produced a Strategic Plan to the Year 2001. Included in this are elements involving the development of curriculum, innovative teaching methodologies, learner-centred approaches, and interactive multimedia teaching methodologies. This is the reason for the particular foci for the teaching development grants. (It should be mentioned in passing that the funding associated with each of these areas is indicative, and some virement is likely).

  2. Staff should "own" teaching innovation and development.

    This is the reason that most of the money has been made available to staff for projects which will enhance teaching in ways that they feel are realistic and feasible in the specific context, consistent with broad strategy statements.

  3. Staff who are funded for projects should be accountable - and supported.

    It is common to build a degree of accountability into funded projects. The counter perspective, which is being adopted in PolyU, is that "the institution" is also accountable for ensuring as far as possible that the aims of the funded project can be achieved. A newly established Learning and Teaching Development Committee is the body responsible for this, with the Educational Development Unit (EDU) serving as the executive support arm. Staff who obtain teaching development project grants will be viewed as "development consultants".

    (All of these points were fully covered in briefing documents distributed on campus, and in a briefing seminar for staff at large).

  4. Multiplier effects should be built into the teaching development grants structure.

    Staff who receive grants will be required to:

    1. report upon progress at regular intervals, and contribute appropriately to in-house publications;
    2. participate in teaching development Workshops, Seminars, etc. in order to disseminate the expertise and insights gained during the projects.

  5. Staff who gain funding and generate good quality educational "products" should be rewarded and acknowledged in the same way as those who receive research funding and produce publications.

    It has been explicitly stated that this recognition will be given; though, putting that statement into practice will be problematic! A start has been made on a protocol for the "refereeing" of Interactive Multimedia Learning Packages, and it is expected that this may serve as a pilot for the evaluation of other educational products.

This may all seem rather rose-tinted! To an extent that must be true, as the plan and the hopes have yet to be put to the test. However, early indications are encouraging. A call for Teaching Development Project Proposals went out to PolyU staff in March, 1996. By the closing date in mid-April a total of 99 project proposals, requesting a total of HK$27 million had been received. What is especially encouraging is that:
  1. proposals were received from 23 of the 26 academic departments in PolyU, with further proposals from two "service" units;

  2. about 250 staff were signatory to the project proposals.
This last figure is especially encouraging. A significant proportion of staff on campus, in almost all departments, have already been involved in planning teaching and learning developments, via their submitting of project proposals. It is hoped that this involvement will be further fostered via the dissemination processes already referred to, and the call for further funding early next year.

Discussion

There are many ways in which money could be spent in attempting to improve teaching and learning in universities. Some of these include: There is an utter dearth of research evidence as to which of these (if any) is most likely to lead to changes in teaching behaviours or arrangements - much less student learning. However, preliminary evidence from some of the Action Learning projects referred to earlier suggests that such projects can have these effects. As well, it seems intuitively reasonable that teacher initiated efforts to improve teaching and learning are likely to be most effective - especially when those teachers are given material resources and an appropriate support framework to help them achieve their aims.

There are a number of questions which it would be fruitful to discuss, and continue to explore through further research.

  1. What are the most useful "framework elements" for the support of Teaching Development Projects, and the dissemination of information from them? (And what part can institutional educational development units best play?)

  2. How are Teaching Development Project schemes best evaluated?

  3. What is the place of (a) national (b) local institutional initiatives? And what is the best funding mix across these two approaches?

  4. What is the cost effectiveness of Teaching Development Grant schemes vis-a -vis other forms of educational development?
Author: John Jones, Educational Development Unit, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong
Fax: (852) 2334 b1569 Email: etjjones@polyu.edu.hk

Please cite as: Jones, J. (1996). Teaching development grants: A case study from Hong Kong. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/jones.html

[ HERDSA ] [ Proceedings Contents ]
This URL: http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/jones.html
Created 4 May 2002. Last revision: 24 May 2002.
© Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc