Review of the ITL Academic Development Programs
Interim Report - 8th November 2007

Introduction

This document outlines, in broad brush strokes, the ways in which the ITL proposes to develop its contributions to academic development programs in 2008 to address the current needs of the university community identified in its 2007 review of these programs.  These revisions are intended to bring the ITL academic development programs into alignment with the new structure of the ITL as well as with the University’s new overarching teaching and learning management structures and strategies. 

The current ITL contributions to academic development programs covered by the review are:

1. Sessional staff development programs
   
2. The ‘Principles and Practice of University Teaching and Learning program
   
3. The four units of the graduate Certificate in Educational Studies (Higher Education)
   
4. The Research Higher Degree Supervision Development Program

In addition to the considerable existing evaluation data on these programs, the review has considered anonymous submissions from past and current individual participants in the programs gathered by online surveys, and data collected in interviews with Associate Deans L&T in which they reported on their internal faculty consultations in relation to these programs.  The critical reflections and peer review of the ITL team have also informed the review.

Broad Directions

In addition to the strategies related to particular programs (discussed below), there are some general features which the 2008 renewal of the programs will seek to incorporate:

1. There is a need to provide greater flexibility across all the programs.  This flexibility relates to broadening the choice of learning experiences that make up these programs, broadening the teaching contributions to these programs –especially in terms of faculty input, broadening the entry pathways (RPL), ensuring better articulation with diverse disciplinary pedagogies and faculty cultures and better linking with faculty academic development programs. This has been addressed in relation to each of the programs described below.
2. Broadening the ownership and engagement with these programs in some faculties through increased ITL-faculty collaboration and shared responsibility for these programs.
3. Better matching of individuals with identified development needs (for instance through PMD or faculty teaching QA systems) to the most appropriate program or alternative development strategy.
4. Better alignment of academic development programs and strategies with the needs of different stages of the academic career (ranging from sessional staff to L&T leadership development) and emerging views of the academic role at Sydney.
5. Develop a university strategy for recording academic development achievements of staff in relation to other development functions such as PMD and to facilitate articulation with subsequent academic development programs.

The following pages set out proposals in relation to each of the academic development programs.

1. SESSIONAL STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

The ITL does not offer a separate development program for sessional staff.  The needs of sessional staff are not well met in the existing ITL central Principles and Practice of University Teaching and Learning program.  Some faculties have already developed high quality programs for sessional staff, often in collaboration with the ITL, (for example Arts with Education & Social Work, Economics & Business, Science, Engineering, Pharmacy). However this is not consistent across all the faculties.  Building on existing practice, the ITL proposes to work with the faculties to develop a new university-wide approach to academic development for new sessional staff.

Key features of this approach will include:

• Sessional staff basic teaching training and development is best provided within faculties, by faculty staff.  Several faculties already have high quality programs in place.

• Develop resources, or negotiate access to existing resources, to support faculty based programs. These resources might include the Carrick Sessional staff development project resources; resources already developed for existing faculty based programs; other resources as required.

• In consultation with faculty representatives develop university guidelines in relation to the training of sessional staff.  These might include recommendations for university expectations of minimum requirement for training provided to new staff; recommendations regarding training objectives and outcomes; recommendations regarding articulation with other faculty and university development programs and support processes (e.g. faculty induction programs, P&P, UoS team collaborative learning programs, mentoring programs, PMD processes etc) including a policy in relation to Recognition of Prior Learning.

• A strategy for recording completion of training and development for sessional staff

• A strategy to allow postgraduate higher degree students to access sessional staff development offerings as an optional element of their studies at the university

• A strategy for articulating into recognised university teaching foundation programs (e.g. Principles and Practice of University Teaching& Learning)

2. PRINCIPALS AND PRACTICE OF UNIVERITY TEACHING AND LEARNING

The current ITL program has been extremely effective in supporting teaching and learning change in most faculties and the extent of this change now presents opportunities to modify the program to develop a hub and spokes model which better recognises disciplinary pedagogies and contexts and which will facilitate the transition of participants into faculty teaching networks.

Key features

• Principles and Practice of University Teaching and Learning (P&P) will be reconstituted as two days centrally and the equivalent of one day in the participant’s faculty or cluster with an optional central meeting following the faculty process – possibly linked to the start of the following P&P session

• The central component will be developed from the existing P&P curriculum

• Incorporate an introductory session into the central program that positions the program in relation to university and faculty strategies and recognises and values participants’ disciplinary backgrounds

• The faculty component will be determined by faculties in relation to their particular needs (i.e. different faculties may identify different processes) in relation to negotiated guidelines and standards.  But this component might include experiences such as seminars on teaching by experienced teachers in the discipline, observations of teaching, mentoring, team teaching, supported reflection on teaching, faculty teaching fora etc.

• Where such faculty activities & systems do not already exist, the ITL will work with faculties to develop strategies appropriate to their needs and resources

• The faculty components will be developed in consultation with A/Deans in each faculty but will aim to achieve the following outcomes;

1. Practical teaching skills in disciplinary teaching contexts (e.g. studio teaching, PBL, large group lectures etc as appropriate to the faculty context.
   
2. Understandings of faculty implementation of central university policies e.g. assessment practices, student evaluation of teaching practices etc.
   
3. Linking participants to their faculty networks in relation to teaching enhancement and management strategies,
   
4. Linking participants into teaching / unit of study teams

• Contributing to the faculty components will also provide development opportunities for more experienced teachers – which might be recognised in other academic development programs (e.g. RPL for Graduate Certificate units)

• The ITL will work with the Acting Deputy Provost (L&T) and PVC, and the Associate Deans to refine the policy and processes by which experienced teaching staff in particular, might be exempted from completing P&P.  This will seek to avoid the current situation where such participation does not contribute to creating a supportive teaching culture in faculties

• Explore the possibility of providing more of the program (either central or faculty component) as online independent study tasks –possibly a preparatory or follow-up task on personal career issues in relation to teaching development

3. UNITS OF STUDY IN THE GRADUATE CERTIFICATE IN EDUCATIONAL STUDIES (HIGHER EDUCATION)

While recognising that the current units of study have produced significant changes in teaching across the university and that graduates fill most of the faculty T&L leadership positions, there is however scope to improve the flexibility of some of the units of study particularly in relation to the workload, disciplinary relevance and use of the distributed teaching and learning expertise which exists across the university. 

• Recommend to the Faculty of Education & Social Work postgraduate programs review that the course be made more flexible through the introduction of a choice of second semester units of study.  In this way participants might choose from a range of units of study in addition to the two units currently offered.  There are several suitable units of study already offered in Education & Social Work, Medicine, Health Sciences and Science.  The choice of second semester units could also include the Supervision Development unit, the Flexible Learning unit taught by ITL or a WBL task within the portfolio unit of study offered by the faculty.

• Modify the teaching and learning experiences within the existing second semester units to recognise and accommodate:

1. The diversity of participants’ motivations and workloads
   
2. Different levels of pedagogical expertise of participants
   
3. The different disciplinary teaching practice contexts of participants’
   
4. The strategic needs and priorities of participants’ faculties and the university
   
5. The distributed teaching and learning expertise that exists within the university
   
6. New institutional teaching and learning management structures
   
7. Support emerging and existing faculty teaching enhancement structures and groups.

• An ITL based project option will continue to be provided as an option for staff from faculties which do not wish to provide faculty based learning opportunities and as an alternative for those staff members who would prefer this.  This might be a based on a central teaching development initiative (e.g. GGA / RLT etc) or it might be based in an academic development issue.

• This will be achieved initially by reorganizing some of the semester two class meetings and modifying the group project currently used in the second semester unit of study in the following manner:

1. Retain the common introductory sessions on higher education scholarship and evidence based practice
2. Modify the group inquiry task to be a group WBL style project of the participants’ choosing. These projects will ideally be based in the participants’ own faculty or cluster and will be negotiated with relevant people in the faculty/cluster. The projects might involve participants working on existing faculty TIES projects with other faculty colleagues as well as their colleagues on the course, they might work collaboratively with staff from their faculty/cluster on a new faculty project - identified in advance by the faculty or a project identified by the university / ITL for this purpose, they might work with a unit of study team in their faculty to improve practical teaching strategies in particular settings etc. The WBL elements will be overseen by staff with teaching expertise in the faculties – in lieu of the existing mentoring arrangements. As an alternative this might be a role for the cluster coordinators.
3. Assessment could be based in a task relevant to the project. There could be common assessment criteria to be demonstrated but the method of demonstration will be determined by the participant. It might be in the form of a presentation in the faculty or a contribution to a publication like Synergy or an application for a TIES grant or a report on a TIES grant etc.
4. Develop a ‘recognition of prior learning’ strategy which would facilitate participants’ applications for credit and advanced standing on the basis of other studies or experience or contributions to faculty based academic development programs – for instance Sessional Staff programs or Faculty based elements of the Principles and Practice of University Teaching and Learning program.

• There should be scope for faculties to negotiate preferred pathways (e.g. choices of units or projects) on behalf of their staff.  For instance a faculty might wish to request that its staff should contribute to a series of cluster T&L seminars as their WBL task. 

• The reflective development units (one in each semester) should continue to focus on the individual’s development as a reflective teacher however the existing tasks could be re-oriented towards an authentic task – possibly one related to gathering and documenting information in relation to PMD, promotion or award applications.

• Develop a strategy to allow members of the university who are not enrolled in the program, to participate in relevant aspects the units of study if they are interested, i.e. attend particular seminars or cooperate with course participants on particular projects or activities.

• Work with faculties in relation to the selection and recruitment of staff to complete the program to ensure that faculties derive maximum benefit.  The ITL would also work with senior faculty leaders to identify appropriate alternative development strategies to address individual performance issues.

• Liaise with the PVC & senior faculty leaders in relation to the requirement in some faculties to mandate the completion of the graduate certificate.   For some individuals this is not a productive strategy in terms of contributing to an enhanced teaching and learning culture in the faculty.

• Ensure this program is developed with a view to contributing and benefiting from the current Carrick project on developing a flexible graduate certificate

• Review with the faculty of Education and Social Work, the current administrative arrangements for this program.

4. RESEARCH HIGHER DEGREE SUPERVISION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

While recognising that the current program is considered to be excellent by many of those who have completed it, the view in some faculties is that it is not meeting the diverse needs of the university community, particularly in relation to registration requirements.  In particular there are issues noted with the time required to complete the current program and its relevance to local supervision issues.  The current provision of the program by the ITL is not seen to make good use of available practical supervisory expertise in the university.

• It is recommended that the Research & Research Training committee review the current arrangements for provision of training and credentialing of supervisors at the university.  This review might consider the following features:

Key features

Reducing the length of time required for completion for supervision / co-supervision eligibility for new supervisors – this might be achieved by adjusting the policy requirement to be only a component of the existing program (three F2F modules) possibly with a follow-up program either based in the faculties (mentoring / co-supervision / local development activities) or using some of the online reflective development activities from the existing program.

Developing faculty based supervision development strategies which would complement existing central resources.  These faculty activities might address more practical skill development – for example strategies for dealing with problem students in particular disciplinary settings – or be based on local version of the existing central program.  These activities should recognise local supervision practices.

How to make better use of the distributed supervision expertise that exists within the university in both the central modules, the on-line activities and the proposed new faculty based development activities.

The committee might consider how a revised strategy might better engage with relevant university structures and faculty stakeholders in promoting and running the program.

Note: Recommendations along these lines were presented to the Research and Research Training committee on the 6th November 2007.

Simon Barrie

For the ITL review team