A (comprehensive) academic staff development programme

Does your theory in action correspond to your espoused theory?

or, in more traditional terms: do you practise what you preach?

if not, should you modify your practice or your preaching?

The session addresses these questions for academic staff development by posing the scenario below. The reading for the session is an actual response to the scenario developed in late 1994.

Background: An Academic Staff Development Programme[1]

Outline

The concluding sections examine the implications (resources and timescale) of adopting this scheme. Appendix 2 contains some of the philosophical material used in developing the approach.

The proposal

Borrowing from both TQM and action-learning, the proposal is for us to move towards the situation in which all activities are performed from a basis of work teams or project teams.

What this might mean is explored, initially, in terms of two existing proposals at very different levels of institutional activity. The first is the training of Deans and Heads of Departments in which an approach consistent with a proposal approved by the National Staff Development Fund is developed and the second is the monitoring of teaching proposals described in the University of Newcastle 1994 Quality Submission and the Quality Assurance in Teaching Guide that was attached to that Submission.

Training of deans and heads of departments

The differences are in the detail of the process, not the intended outcomes. The "needs analysis" would be achieved through the process (instead of through a process prior to the 'training'); the "conduct" of the programme, would include activities that could be categorised as "seminars and workshops" - but the main benefits of the programme would not primarily arise during these, but from the activities that are conducted following these; and the 'resources' would be a vital part of preparation for and use during the programme.

The programme would involve a sequence of segments (one per semester?) each segment commencing with one or more 'sessions'

The 'sessions' would be designed to identify the 'issues' to be addressed for each period and to establish the teams for the tasks developed around each particular 'issue'. Each team might be dealing with a different issue, or a different emphasis within the issue. The teams may well need to include staff who were not present at the 'issues-setting' session. Initially both the total group sessions and the individual team meetings would be facilitated, but the individual team meetings would rapidly move into a 'self-facilitation' mode - reporting regularly to their facilitator and reporting at the completion of the period to the whole group. Each team's 'facilitator' would be available to be consulted as the team required, and would keep in touch with the team in an informal manner throughout the 'period'.

The procedures used by the teams would parallel problem-based learning and 'Action Learning' in their processes - thus working with actual day-to-day activities of the Dean (and Head/academic staff - depending on the particular 'issue'): defining the 'issue' clearly; identifying knowledge/material needed by the team; planning action; collecting information about the impact of that action; analysing that information; and deciding on subsequent action. This to be repeated in 'cycles' as frequently as the particular 'project' required and the time period allowed.

The initial 'session' for any particular period might be completely open: any issue could be raised by participants, or it might be given a focus in advance - by VC/PVC/external considerations (eg the Profile submission; the budget round; course review).

The group (Deans/Deans + deputies/Deans + Heads etc) would be required to undertake a commitment to attend the 'sessions' (arranged in advance for the year at specified times) and required to participate in a team for the subsequent period or participate in the monitoring of team activities (depending on the actual task - and probably related to the size of the Faculty).

I have developed a more detailed description of one possible period in the sequence, with a predetermined focus (quality assurance in research). Even with such a focus the tasks set at the end of the initial sessions will cover quite a wide range, depending on individual Faculty needs. The description is attached as Appendix 1: TRAINING OF DEANS AND HEADS OF DEPARTMENT, DRAFT PROGRAMME, QUALITY ASSURANCE IN RESEARCH.

Monitoring teaching

The additions would involve planning of 'action' at the beginning of a teaching period - planning that action with colleagues; reporting on the impact of that action at the end of the period to those colleagues; and having access to a 'facilitator' or 'monitor' throughout the semester. These would be very beneficial additions; some of them are incorporated in the current description of the monitoring scheme as suggested procedures.

In detail the process would involve groups of staff (teams) meeting before the start of semester to exchange ideas about their teaching in the coming period; to undertake a specific commitment to monitor one or more specific approaches that they intended to implement; and to agree on draft monitoring procedures. For small Departments the 'team' could be the whole Department; for larger Departments, a sub-set involved in subjects at the same level or in the same discipline area. Contact (mainly informal) might occur within teams and/or with their 'mentor' during the semester and the team would exchange experiences at the end of semester, at which time they would also complete their monitoring report(s) to the Department which would reflect their activities as a team that semester. They would also agree tentative ideas for the next offering of the subjects involved in their discussions - these to be confirmed at the start of the next semester within which those subjects are offered.

When this procedure is first introduced in any Department each team would have a facilitator or mentor present at their initial and final discussions. These people might come from CALT or from other teams within the Department or Faculty. Their main role would be to prompt discussion by questions when appropriate and to make suggestions or supply references (or offer to find such).

Existing staff development activities

The Foundations of Tertiary Teaching programme. The scheme should be a standard feature of the Foundations of Tertiary Teaching programme. The programme should use a similar strategy for the three initial days and these should result in the identification of a task for each participant to perform over the semester following completion of the initial three days. These tasks should involve aspects of their own teaching and be more detailed than the normal activities we would expect to see identified in the routine monitoring of teaching procedure (see above). The Foundations programme should already be described as incorporating such tasks, and their monitoring and reporting, as an integral part of the programme (in line with the 'decisions' incorporated in the '94 Quality Submission). The Foundations programme could be seen as one 'project' within the strategy.

Teaching Development Grants. Where would the existing teaching development grants fit into this scheme? They could be seen as consistent with the scheme, but involving more extensive tasks, requiring additional funding. No doubt the TDG teams would benefit from the availability of a 'facilitator'. However, once the strategy is fully operational the TDG scheme may be redundant. But some teams will need access to additional resources for their projects and the TDG funds could go towards this end - with the current mechanism used for approving applications from teams for funds.

Study Leave. The major influence of this strategy on 'study leave' would be to emphasise the need for proposals to be based on specific projects (the equivalent of 'tasks' in the proposal) with definable outcomes. Staff should increasingly see Study Leave as an opportunity to engage in more extensive projects (in any field of activity) than they could cover in the normal multi-activity semester on campus, but otherwise consistent with those projects. Experience with the strategy should make it easier for staff to identify projects that would be suitable for 'study leave' in areas other than research.

CALT [2] workshops. CALT conducts a variety of workshops, at the request of individuals, Departments or Faculties or on its own initiative (prompted by its perceptions of staff needs). Some examples are: small group teaching, group dynamics, lecturing to large groups.

Many of these 'needs' will arise in projects identified by work teams or project groups. The approach to them in that environment is likely to lead to more effective outcomes, but the potential to cover a mixed (and larger) group could arise from application of the strategy described here. In that context the 'workshop strategy' is much more likely to be effective and experience-based. CALT staff would represent one of the 'resources' available to teams and the published materials that CALT has available or could obtain would represent others.

The 'normal' staff development 'needs'

These 'needs' usually encompass two different issues. The most obvious is knowledge of formal requirements, but the more important, and more difficult to tackle, issues involve attitudes and skills (personnel and leadership skills). Both sets are more likely to be covered in an effective manner by identifying projects, and project teams, and implementing (and reporting) in the manner described for Deans etc, above. Simple information-supplying sessions are generally ineffective at achieving either goals (information or attitude).

For many of these 'issues' the sessions (both initial and final) would benefit from the presence of experts in the field and access to such people for advice throughout the ensuing projects would be necessary - possibly organised, mediated or negotiated by the facilitators. The material resources available to teams would also play a vital role - and would result in the accumulation of resources outlined in the National Staff Development Fund proposal. The approach to acquiring information, developing skills and appropriate attitudes in these areas would borrow heavily from problem-based learning procedures.

Resource implications

The strategy challenges many deeply embedded beliefs held by the majority of academic staff and managers. Some would see the approach as anathema to the academic ethos (and/or to the free market/user-pays ethos). Others would see it as an infringement of 'academic freedom'. It is certainly a trade of individual freedom for collective responsibility (see the early Open University and the early Griffith University approaches to curriculum as earlier examples - containing warning lessons for the survival of the endeavour).

Encouraging counter indications to these concerns come from problem-based learning, where students operate much as described in the strategy and where good programmes have staff similarly involved.

The approach would represent a major shift in the work ethos for most staff: they would be talking about the ways in which they perform their tasks in a manner that would be unusual for most of them. But while the early stages of implementation may well feel as if they are an additional load on staff, the final outcome should not only be beneficial, in terms of the quality of our work, but would also lighten the real load on staff.

If the University agreed to adopt the strategy it must plan its introduction carefully and ensure that it gains support from academic staff at the 'chalk face' level as it proceeds. A phased implementation would be vital, with the results from initial activities being widely promulgated, and clearly supported by 'the University'. While activities at the Dean and Head level might be easier to initiate than those at ordinary academic staff level, it will be important to initiate some of the latter in selected (volunteer) Departments on the same time-scale, and give them as much prominence and support as the activities with Deans and Heads.

In this approach to implementation the resources required could be adjusted to those deemed appropriate for a workshop-based staff development strategy.

To incorporate a task-team based mode of operation throughout the institution would probably take about four years, a time consistent with TQM experience.

Conclusion

My views are reinforced by surveys of senior management in the USA and UK that indicated that less than ten percent of such people felt that normal training programmes had contributed significantly to their ability as managers; by findings of research into learning that strongly support experiential learning and problem-based learning as effective strategies; the demonstrable failure of current academic staff development strategies to challenge beliefs about teaching and learning (as demonstrated by staff practices); and my own experience over many years in higher education.

Many of the ideas are but minor (but productive) extensions of the activities that we should be able to expect of all concerned professionals in any field. They attempt to recognise the complexity of the educational endeavour while accepting the most recent research findings about the influence of context on learning behaviour.

I do not believe that, once established, the strategy represents an increase in staff load, but it will (or should) result in a change in emphasis of staff activity - changes that have been urged by many commentators for decades.

I believe that they are feasible and that they have the potential to produce improvement, in a way that few other approaches have any chance of achieving. Indeed, many of the standard approaches have been demonstrated to be counterproductive - we can't do worse and may well do much better.

Notes

1. The proposal is a minor variation of one submitted to the University of Newcastle in December 1994

2. CALT, the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching, is the academic development/academic staff development unit at the University of Newcastle in Australia.

3. Equal Employment Opportunity

Appendix 1

TRAINING OF DEANS AND HEADS OF DEPARTMENT

DRAFT PROGRAMME - QUALITY ASSURANCE IN RESEARCH

1.0 General Outline

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (and Vice-Chancellor?) should attend at least the opening of the first session. The Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) should attend all three sessions if possible.

Facilitation of decisions will be co-ordinated by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Quality Assurance) who will be assisted by Staff Development personnel from CALT.

Attendance at all specified sessions should be mandatory.

By the end of the third session a set of tasks for the ensuing period will have been identified; a timetable for performing and reporting on the tasks agreed and teams established for performing the tasks.

It will probably be advisable to run the second session twice, dividing the total group in two for the purpose. Whether this is done on a Faculty basis or by dividing the larger Faculties into two groups appearing in the different sub-sessions, is yet to be decided. The third session should be run four times on a Faculty basis.

2.0 First Session - Deans etc

After any brief discussion of the total input, each Faculty group will then identify strategies and activities for tackling the issues. These will then be shared with the total group and each Faculty probed for more specific information where that seems necessary. Faculty groups will then be given a chance to revise their list of activities and the session will finish with the total group identifying the most significant features of their response to the issue of quality assurance in research, identifying the legitimate range of approaches across the Faculties.

3.0 Session 2 - Heads of Departments (or equivalent)

The aim will be to produce a set of outcomes similar to Session 1.

4.0 Session 3 - All Participants

Each participant will be supplied the outcomes from Sessions 1 and 2, organised by Faculty. Each group (Faculty or sub-set of a Faculty) will examine this material and identify the first two priorities for action in their Faculty. The actual activities identified might be a variation of those listed in the printed material, in the light of any ideas arising from actions proposed by other Faculties or by further reflection on the actions proposed by Sessions l and 2 for that particular Faculty.

The top priorities from each group will be briefly shared by the whole session and then each group will work on their first priority, expressing it in terms of a specific task or set of tasks to be performed in the subsequent periods (probably half-semester). Groups would be asked to identify an appropriate task team within the Faculty, possibly including in the team members of staff who are not present at the event.

The tasks will then be shared with the total group in much the same way as occurred at the end of Sessions 1 and 2, but this time attempting much more specific descriptions and including procedures for monitoring the task and reporting on it. Each group will then work on their second priority, identifying a different task group where that is feasible. The third session will finish with agreement on at least the first priority tasks to be tackled within each Faculty, including the names of those responsible for monitoring the task and reporting at Faculty and University level. A time within which their first meeting will be held will also be agreed by each team.

5.0 Subsequent Activity

At the end of the task period, sessions of similar composition to Session 3 will be held for each team to report on the outcomes of their activity.

The process will be repeated with a different topic each half-semester. At the conclusion of each report session a collected set of task descriptions will be distributed to all participants by CALT.

Appendix 2

Philosophical background to an Academic Staff Development Programme

I start this background document with an extract from the Philosophy statement at the beginning of the current version of the University of Newcastle Quality in Teaching Guide. This seemed an appropriate statement for a staff development programme. The succeeding sections pose questions and list considerations that guided me in developing the major proposal.

Philosophy
(from the University of Newcastle Quality Assurance in Teaching Guide)

The University's Act lists among its functions:

the advancement and transmission of knowledge by the pursuit, recognition and achievement of excellence in scholarship, research and teaching

and its Mission Statement includes the University's commitment to:

provide a wide range of teaching, research, scholarship and service at the highest level of excellence and consistent with its aim of maintaining national and international esteem

The University is committed to the belief that the quality of its major activities (as identified in the extracts from the Act and the Mission Statement, above) is the professional responsibility of its academic and support staff and sees the task of the organisational elements of the University (Departments, Boards of Studies, Faculty Boards, administrative and service Branches and Divisions and central management) as being to foster and support that professional responsibility.

The University's approach is predicated on the belief that one indication of good professionals in any field is that they continually reflect on, and learn from, their own practice, and that they keep at least informal records of their monitoring activities and of the changes that their reflection suggest might lead to improved practice. Such considerations should apply to university teaching, research and community service and to activities in support of these.

To this end the main thrust of the University's quality assurance procedures is to assist staff to perform their professional responsibility to the best of their ability with the resources that the University can make available. The nature of those resources, their distribution and the quality assurance procedures themselves should be subject to regular reviews and adjustment to maximise the University's effectiveness in supporting and encouraging its staff in their pursuit of excellence in all their activities.

Towards a global academic staff development programme

I decided that it would be worth trying to devise a staff development programme using the same approach at all levels. It should be flexible enough for that purpose - ie the approach should be able to be adapted for all levels, all functions of academic staff and all academic areas - so, the strategy should be capable of covering:

• teaching
• research
• community service
• contributions to university service
• leadership by HoDs/Deans/PVC's/VC

The strategy/procedure should imply answers to questions like: Information sessions are not very effective - if we are to have sessions - what should be their purpose? - their process? - who involved? - who facilitates? If we don't conduct 'information sessions', how can we effectively convey information?

The 'programme' should incorporate ideas from:

• reflective practice
• problem-based learning (PBL)
• action learning
• experiential learning
• strategic planning
• TQM
• nominal groups

A computer-mediated process could be useful, at least as a follow-up device.

The orientation of staff development should be forward-looking - ie planning, rather than retrospect - except for the necessary evaluation of practice, but that evaluation should be specifically designed to give information to assist in decisions on action.

The programme should involve the participants (eg Deans) in identifying issues and the organisers (facilitators) assisting participants to examine those issues and to devise actions (tasks) to address them.

Resources would need to be collected and made available at appropriate times for each specific group. The resources are likely to be in the form of printed material, books, journal articles, extracts and people (NOT to give lectures - but able to respond to questions) but may include visual and audio material and CAL or CBT programmes.

Questions for individuals or task teams - for the particular function or task (eg this history tutorial, this research encouragement activity) would be a variation on the following questions.

• What do you intend to achieve (aims - objectives)? How do you record those intentions?

• How do you propose to achieve those objectives (general strategy AND specific actions)?

• How do you intend to check whether you are achieving your goals. What information will you collect? How? What will you do with the information?

• How will you report on your monitoring and subsequent action to the 'University' (ie the next level of organisation above your position)?