|
| [ HERDSA ]
[ Proceedings Contents ] |
Many Australian universities now conduct formally accredited courses such as a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education or Tertiary Teaching as part of a concerted staff development effort to increase both the profile of teaching as an academic activity and the professional expertise of their staff. Conventional educational wisdom tells us we must know our students in order to cater adequately to their needs, yet such courses are so new that few demographic details are available on the student population. This paper presents a profile of the motivations, expectations, demographics, and reasons for withdrawal of two cohorts of Graduate Certificate in Higher Education staff/students at the Queensland University of Technology, and concludes with suggestions derived from the data for potential restructuring of the course.
It is now axiomatic that any analysis of issues in Australian higher education begin with a backward glance at the source of many of these issues - the introduction of the Unified National System in 1988. Collegiality and the need to present a united front at this stage in the history of the academic profession in Australia compel me to comply with this new tradition. Hence the historical background which follows.
The emergence of interest in professional development for the teaching role of academics certainly post-dates 1988, and can be linked to several aspects of the UNS: the un/holy alliances of former teachers' colleges/CAEs (with a vocational orientation and a high proportion of staff with teacher training qualifications) and 'old universities' (with a research orientation and research qualified staff - a situation which persists: see Diversity in Australian Higher Education Institutions 1994 and Gibbs, 1995a); the slowing rate of promotions in universities (Over, 1993); and the debate over the relative weighting of teaching vs research in promotion selection criteria (Over, 1993; Ramsden, Margetson, Martin and Clarke, 1995; Gibbs, 1995b; Everett and Enterkin, 1994). Other factors allied with these to lead to a blossoming of Graduate Certificate courses in tertiary teaching: quality assurance and accountability procedures which have refocussed attention on teaching as 'the core business' of universities (Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, as reported in BMH 17 April 1995); the introduction of the Training Guarantee Act, which led universities to establish staff development units (whether academic or general or both); the growing acceptance of formal student evaluation procedures, often revealing a surprisingly high level of student dissatisfaction with their teaching; the extension of use of the Course Experience Questionnaire.
In the regular assessments of the 'health' of universities, it has often been commented that appointment to an academic position has never been contingent on the possession of teaching qualifications (Ashby, 1969; Main, 1994), much less tertiary teaching qualifications - indeed, Ramsden et al. (1995) query whether university teaching is a profession at all, since it requires no formal qualification in teaching, and no ongoing inservice training, characteristic of most professions. Yet both Australian and overseas studies (e.g. Harman and Wood, 1990; Ramsden et al., 1995; Altbach, 1995) consistently report that the majority of academics are both more interested in, and spend most time on teaching rather than research, that they feel 'pressured' to do research by their institutions, and that teaching is undervalued by their institutions.
The collective response to these pressures has been to establish semester long induction programs targetted at tutors (as at Curtin and ANU), present one-off workshops in particular aspects of teaching and learning, especially in managing the large classes which have become endemic since 1988. Ramsden (1995) reports the success of such extended programs with new staff, adducing the importance of socialisation into a profession within the first three years as a major factor in establishing good professional practice, especially when they are complemented by supportive institutional practices such as mentoring by senior staff, and good relationships with course coordination (see also Bertola and Murphy, 1994).
The Graduate Certificates in many Australian universities grew out of these shorter courses, and, I would suggest, from mixed motives: a recognition that staff operating in a culture which revolves around the possession of paper qualifications might prefer their staff development activities recognised in an accreditation; that a focussed course which blended a theoretical component with practice would induce long-term change more than one-off workshops; that the peer group approach would permeate institutional culture via a ripple effect by bringing together staff from across the organisation; and perhaps more strategically, to bolster the academic credibility of staff development units with real EFTSUs.
Some investigation has been conducted into the needs of new staff. Unsurprisingly, such studies (e.g. Main, 1994) have found that the initial needs of new academics are for practical information on pay and conditions, what to do in tutorials and laboratory demonstrations, how to load projectors. These are obviously matters for an induction program.
However, when I began teaching in the Graduate Certificate in 1995, I was struck by the numbers of staff who were in fact 'experienced lecturers', and who, moreover, were less than enamoured of the amount and the difficulty level of the educational theory I presented in my unit, Adult Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.
Now our team of four staff are committed to continual improvement in the course, and a closer alignment of the course objectives with expressed learning needs; we have always encouraged our staff/students[1] to provide us with oral and written informal feedback on the course, and have used formal Student Evaluations of teaching and the individual units. However, I decided on a (slightly more) systematic collection of demographic data, since our students were obviously not 'new' staff, and because I was intrigued by what they hoped to gain from formal study, and by their aversion to the theoretical component, which I had expected to be part of their reason for enrolment.
Our Graduate Certificate consists of four units, Adult Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, The Reflective Practitioner, Issues and Contexts in Higher Education in Australia, Program Design and Evaluation. It had been promoted particularly to new staff in the generic induction programs at the beginning of each semester, and in the (few) department-based induction programs, by flyers distributed to all academic staff, through the university newspaper, and the monthly ASDU newsletter. It is promoted as a highly practical course grounded in the student's own disciplinary practice, with low class contact time, resource-based so as to accommodate teaching and research commitments, and 'flexible' in relation to time and place (attendance is not compulsory) and assessment (contracts and projects are negotiable). Yet the aims of the course firmly establish the theoretical and contextual bases of higher education as the highest priority, over practical skills. We state that in order of priority, our aims are:
So, to our questions - who enrols and who doesn't?
| Gender | Male 8 | Female 13 | Neither 1 | |
| Age | 20-30 3 | 31-40 11 | 41-50 5 | 51+ 3 |
| Marital status | Single 3 | Married 19 | ||
| Dependent children | Yes 11 | No 11 | ||
| Youngest child | 7 had children <5 | |||
| Highest degree | Bachelors 3 | Masters 7 | Grad Dip 1 | PhD 11 |
| Years teaching experience | a) Av. 11 yrs, skewed by one with 30 yrs, one with none b) 5 <5 years, 6 x 6-12 years | |||
| Level | a) didn't know b) AP 1 | SL 2 | L 6 | AL 2 (1 PT) |
| Ethnicity This question troubled many: |
18 Caucasian | 1 Greek 1 Turkish 1 Indian | ) ) 3 NESB ) | |
| Faculty | Info Tech 1; Bus 1; Sci 3; Health 8; Law -; Humanities/Soc Sc 3; Education -; Built Environ/Engineer 6 | |||
| Active in community service | Yes 15 | No 7 | ||
| Major life change in last year | Yes 12 | No 10 | ||
| Would you have paid | Yes 7 | No 12 | Unsure 3 | |
| Gender | Male 1 | Female 8 | Neither - | |
| Age | 20-30 1 | 31-40 4 | 41-50 4 | 51+ - |
| Marital status | Single 2 | Married 7 | ||
| Dependent children | Yes 5 | No 4 | ||
| Youngest child | Only 1 had children younger than primary school age, but 4 had primary aged children. | |||
| Highest degree | Bachelors 5 | MastersGrad Dip 0 | PhD 2 | Hospital qual. 2 |
| Years teaching experience | 4 < 5 years | 3 x 6-12 years | 2 x 12-15 years | |
| Level | AP - | SL 1 | L 3 (1 PT) | AL 5 (all PT) |
| Ethnicity This question did not trouble this group |
6 Caucasian (Ed: corrected from '18' in original file) | 1 Persian 1 Greek 1 Italian | ) ) 3 NESB ) | |
| Faculty | Info Tech -; Bus 1; Sci 1; Health 5; Law -; Humanities/Soc Sc 1; Education -; Built Environ/Engineer 1 | |||
| Active in community service | Yes 8 | No 1 | ||
| Major life change in last year | Yes 5 | No 4 | ||
| Would you have paid | Yes 3 | No 6 | Unsure - | |
Women enrol at much higher rates than men, even on raw figures. Given the dominance of male to female academics at QUT (70:30), women are disproportionately enrolled in the program. The largest age group is the 31-40 group, though the 41-50 group is also well-represented. Not surprisingly, the 51+ group is poorly represented; surprisingly, 'new academics', whom one would expect to be in the 20-30 age group, enrol in very low numbers, which bodes ill for the Ramsden notion of socialisation into the profession. Predictably, given the commonest age of students, the vast majority are married or in a stable partnership; almost equal numbers have dependent children as do not. A minority had children of less than primary school age, also correlated with age, and, as the adult learning research indicates (Tough, 1968), with participation in formal educational programs.
The 1995 cohort had a majority of PhDs as the highest qualification, followed closely by Masters; the 1996 cohort is predominantly Bachelors qualified, because of a large group of clinical nursing facilitators who enrolled together as a result of a promotion in a part-timers' induction program conducted at departmental level. This is reflected in the appointment levels of students: in 1996, the majority were Level A/Associate Lecturers (all part-time), whereas in 1995, the clear majority were at Lecturer level. Qualifications, age, and appointment level are also related to years of teaching experience. The 1995 group were surveyed in two batches - Group a had an average of 11 years' experience, with one person having 30 years at QUT, Group b being divided relatively evenly between those with less than five years' experience (and therefore 'relatively new academics') and those with between 6-12 years. The 1996 cohort were by a small margin 'relatively new academics'. The faculty spread is interesting: Health, and Built Environment and Engineering clearly predominated in 1995, with small numbers from Science, and Humanities and Social Science. In 1996, Health staff form a clear majority.
Tough's analysis of the correlates of participation in formal education programs stimulated me to include general questions in the questionnaire about involvement in community organisations and whether there had been a major life change in the year before enrolment. An overwhelming majority were 'busy people', with a high community service ethic; approximately half reported that they had experienced a major life change (death of a parent, new job, home move, etc.), and half had not. The proposition that such a change precipitates enrolment in a formal educational program could not therefore be substantiated. Perhaps more significantly in terms of motivation, an overwhelming number of staff in both years indicated that they would not have enrolled had they to pay the $720.00 fee per subject.
Obviously, we are not attracting the 'preferred target' of new staff and young academics, or the senior staff who might transform professional values about teaching in their departments through modelling. We are not achieving our aim of 'preparing' staff for teaching in higher education. We are barely reaching the large numbers of NESB staff in our institution: only one of the 6 NESB staff was less than fully fluent in English. We are not penetrating certain faculties, most especially Education (which may be understandable, given the qualifications in that faculty), Business and Information Technology or Law, three of the largest faculties. It is difficult to decide whether high research achievement as measured by a PhD is in any way related to a desire to complement one's research qualifications with a teaching qualification.
We should not be surprised by the pragmatic expectations staff have of the course. Wlodkowski (1985) reminds us that the need for competence in relation to work is one of the central motivational factors for undertaking learning; students have to also see value in the course, and perceive a good chance of success. I have suggested above that low valuing of staff development in teaching functions inhibits enrolment, but we might also consider other psychological factors. One of the optional questions in my unit in a section on general adult participation in education asked what were the risks associated with enrolment in this particular course. I had only one submitted response, and while I note that the staff member concerned was acutely lacking in self-confidence, especially regarding her academic ability, I reproduce her comments:
And to our next questions - who drops out and why?
In 1995, seven staff withdrew, two failed because of non-submission of assignments despite extended due dates and encouragement, and two deferred (but have not since re-enrolled). The major reason given was excessive workload and time constraints; two staff transferred to other institutions and did not avail themselves of the external studies option; another was severely ill. These are of course 'safe' and 'acceptable' reasons typical of follow-up telephone surveys. In 1996, two students have withdrawn, one from workload, and thus far three other students have not submitted assignments, have not contacted me, and have not attended classes. This is higher than the general course attrition rate in coursework postgraduate courses (not Masters), of 20% (QUT Statistics Bulletin, 1994). Only three students in the two cohorts reported directly that the course 'did not meet their needs', with one student acerbically commenting that she would spend her time 'on something more worthwhile'. Most of the withdrawals have occurred at the 4-6 week mark, which is traditionally the commonest drop out point, when the first assignment is due, and 'reality bites'. Retaining students has involved a high time and energy commitment for the staff involved; time extensions for assignments are standard, the reasons being given as 'marking', 'too busy teaching', 'a flu'. I have myself been disconcerted occasionally by the lack of effort applied to pre-reading and assessment tasks, on the grounds that 'it was all the time I could afford'. Yet graduates invariably report real benefit from undertaking the course, both in terms of understanding their roles as academics, and of improved practice and more enthusiasm for teaching.
What conclusions can we draw? The small numbers obviously make any interpretation statistically unreliable - but 'they're all I've got', as they say. However, the low enrolments of themselves confirm the arguments about the value placed on teaching and consequently on professional development for improved teacher quality. While I do not believe that our aims for the course should align totally with student expectations and motivations - what is education for, if not a goal higher and of more challenge than one's present inclinations and values - I do believe we should expand the Graduate Certificate to allow an elective on practical teaching strategies, and another on using the new technologies. These, I believe, should be offered as independent units, for staff not prepared to commit themselves to what is generally a two year part-time course. Such subjects might encourage more staff to take the remaining two units to complete an accredited course. Further, I believe any units should be offered without charge to staff, as a standard staff development activity. This would imply a real valuing by management of tertiary teacher training programs.
Ashby, E. 1969. The Academic Profession. London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.
Bertola, P. and Murphy, E. 1994. Tutoring in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Beginner's Practical Guide. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
Crebert, G., Kelly, P., Ryan, Y., Weeks, P. 1995. 'Where's the recipe? Student expectations of a quick fix and teaching in a Graduate Certificate of Education'. Paper presented at the Australian College of Education Conference, Adelaide.
Diversity in Australian Higher Education Institutions 1994. 1996. Higher Education Series Report No. 26. Canberra: DEET (Higher Education Division).
Everett, J. and Enterkin, L. 1994. 'Changing attitudes of Australian academics'. Higher Education, 27: 203-227.
Gibbs, G. 1995a. 'Models of staff development'. New Academic, 4(3): 15-17.
Gibbs, G. 1995b. 'How can promoting excellent teachers promote excellent teaching?' Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(1): 74-84.
Harman, G. and Wood, F. 1990. 'Academics and their work under Dawkins: A study of five NSW universities'. The Australian Educational Researcher, 17(2): 53-74.
Main, A. 1994. The Development of Preparation Courses for New Academic Staff. Canberra: AGPS. EIP Report.
Over, R. 1993. 'Correlates of career advancement in Australian universities'. Higher Education, 26: 313-329.
Ramsden, P. 1995. Using Research on Student Learning to Enhance Educational Quality. GIHE Occasional Paper No. 2. Brisbane: GIHE.
Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E. and Clarke, S. 1995. Recognising and Rewarding Good Teaching in Australian Higher Education. Canberra: AGPS.
Tough, A. 1968. Why Adults Learn: A Study of the Major Reasons for Beginning and Continuing a Learning Project. Toronto: Ontario Institute of Studies in Education.
Wlodkowski, R. 1985. Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
| Please cite as: Ryan, Y. (1996). The Graduate Certificate in Higher Education: Who enrols, who doesn't, who drops out and why. 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/ryan.html |