PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

As this research has shown, teaching does matter in New Zealand university English departments. But it could matter more, and the notion of scholarship needs reconceptualisation in order for more value to be placed on teaching. Such reconceptualisation needs to come not only from individuals (who would rather devote time to activities for which they are adequately rewarded) but also from departments (which influence and enforce the cultures and systems that decide what activities get rewarded - and how) so that the university as a whole (which determines such cultures and sends the messages about what really matters) can implement, promote and support a broader notion of scholarship - one which values all the roles an academic undertakes and moves beyond the teaching/research binary currently afflicting the New Zealand academic system.

Both individually and collectively, New Zealand English academics must engage in critical, self-reflexive debate about teaching and research, about scholarship, and about the PhD programme in English. As Heather Murray ( 1 996) suggests,

English . . .is a discipline which has been, paradoxically but quite characteristically, both inward-turned and lacking in self-reflexivity. Those who work in English are much more likely to have a strong sense of critical history than of disciplinary history; but we need to turn onto our own day-to-day practices the close, between-the-lines, and sceptical reading skills customarily reserved for texts. That will allow us to 'work in English' in an additional way, by taking the discipline itself, past and present, as a subject of scrutiny

(Murray, 1 996, p . 1 2). Scrutinising ourselves, our practices, our perceptions, our values, and our priorities, as this thesis has attempted to do, will open doors for discussion, reflection and, hopefully, reconceptualisation and reform. And reform is clearly needed. As Part Four has shown, 97% of New Zealand English academics believe that teaching should be valued more, but less than half of them are actively and regularly involved in teaching development, in the form of seminars, workshops or discussion groups. Not one department regularly provides its own seminars or workshops on teaching and learning issues, and only two departments have identified staff members as links between the English department and the TLC. As suggested in Part Four, the following changes need to occur on an individual and departmental level in order for teaching to matter more:

• English academics must begin to reconceptualise their role as academics. The triennial English department conference offers a forum at which debate around this issue could occur.

• More discussion needs to take place about teaching - between individuals, as well _as

within and across departments.

• Peer review of teaching should be encouraged and supported.

• English departments should organise departmental or college/faculty teaching and

learning seminars/forums/conferences.

• Publishing on teaching should be encouraged and rewarded.

• All English academics should work towards building a teaching portfolio to

accompany promotion applications, as well as to provide a medium for critical reflection on teaching.

But most respondents feel little inclination to devote precious time, that might be more profitably directed towards research, to activities that the system fails to adequately reward or support. They feel (72%) that more emphasis needs to be placed on criteria other than publications in the evaluation of the scholarly performance of academic staff. Promotion policies claim equal weighting for teaching and research, but, my findings (and many other international studies) indicate that these proclamations simply are not matched in practice. Scholarship remains narrowly conceived as research, and academics continue to be well-rewarded for their roles as researchers, but not as teachers (despite the fact that teaching occupies most of their time and interest).

English academics need to demand more tangible evidence from university administrators of a proclaimed commitment to activities other than research, and call for a reassessment of academic priorities. In fact, the debate has to be university-wide and commitments need to be made at all levels in order for reform and reconceptualisation to occur. Promotion policies and the PhD programme need particular attention. In both,

teaching is currently undervalued; indeed, in the PhD it is ignored almost completely. English academics could lead the call for reform by agitating for the following institutional changes:

• the appointment at department or college/faculty level of a special person responsible for discipline-specific teaching and learning development - for running

training programmes, facilitating discussion, organising seminars, encouraging peer­

and self-assessment, co-ordinating part-time tutors, and liaising with the TLC. • More substantial and accessible grants for teaching development.

• Sabbaticals and overseas leave dedicated to the development of teaching.

• Improved promotion policies and practices which take more account of teaching activities and achievements.

• The establishment of Teaching and Learning Committees at a senior level.

• The appointment of a Pro-, Assistant-, or Deputy-Vice Chancellor for Teaching.

• The introduction of substantial and competitive teaching awards and medals to

match existing research ones.

• The dissemination of information on teaching through regular publications, and the

organisation of university-wide Good Practice Days and Teaching and Learning Conferences.

• The provision of accessible, effective and appropriate initial training, and the

expectation of long-term, ongoing professional development in teaching.

Change also needs to occur m the PhD programme in English. Only 37.8% of

respondents agree that the New Zealand PhD in English prepares students for an academic career in a New Zealand university, while only 34% agree that it prepares

them for one overseas, yet 63% believe that most PhD students want to become

academics. If the PhD is indeed the qualification that opens the doors to academia, it

should provide training that values research and teaching as equally important

components of an academic' s role. Such training would work towards reconceptualising the role of scholarship and, more particularly, creating a university culture in which teaching matters. To this end, the following reforms need to take place in the PhD programme in English in New Zealand:

• Introduce course work

• Run regular seminar series • Improve funding

• Improve supervision

• Reassess thesis requirements

• Address issues relating to academic life as a whole • Introduce teaching expectations.

Until we reconceptualise what it means to be a university academic, however, teaching will remain the poor cousin of research: undervalued, under-rewarded and under-funded. T eachers will continue to enter academia unqualified and untrained, and unwilling to risk promotion opportunities by devoting scarce research time to acquiring teaching qualifications and undertaking on-going training. Boyer's multi-faceted notion of scholarship and his call for a reassessment of academic priorities have been heeded by many institutions and critics in the US and the UK, as well as in Australia, and the time is well overdue for New Zealand to join the discussion.