Professional development

The evaluation of teaching is only half the effort in improving and enhancing teaching at an institution. Professional development plays a crucial role in completing the cycle of quality teaching enhancement. In the literature, professional development is also referred to as educational development, faculty development, teacher development and academic development (Chalmers & O'Brien, 2005; Elvidge, Fraser, Land, Mason, & Matthew, 2003; Fraser, 2005a; Patrick & Lines, 2005; Radloff, 2005; Skelton, 2005, 2007). In this discussion, the term professional development will be used to refer to all initiatives related to developing, improving, enhancing and sustaining the quality of teaching.

Professional development that takes a centralised approach encompasses activities related to developing and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning in an institution that is managed and coordinated by one centralised body (Chalmers & O'Brien, 2005; Kanuka, 2010). In such a

case, the roles of such a body typically vary from providing teacher training workshops, providing opportunities for teachers to meet and talk about teaching, providing support for the scholarship of teaching, managing the assessment of teaching, managing supplementary activities to enhance teaching and finally ensuring recognition and reward for teaching (Chalmers & O'Brien, 2005; Prebble et al., 2005; Wisker, 2006). Roles may also include the provision and monitoring of student learning support, curriculum design, involvement in organisation policy development, as well as those that go beyond the institutional parameters to span across the higher education sector (Chalmers & O'Brien, 2005; Wisker, 2006).

In a decentralised approach, staff development is managed by a smaller unit or department placed within a school or a faculty. Activities are on a smaller scale and are targeted to develop teaching and teachers through, for example, lunch time forums, dissemination of project outcomes in weekly e-mails (Radloff, 2005).

i) Professional development: between teaching conceptions and teaching strategies

Researchers of teacher thinking present mixed opinions regarding teacher thinking and professional development. Some researchers place changing teaching conceptions before teaching strategies. Much of the work done by Trigwell, Prosser and their team of researchers (Trigwell & Prosser, 1996, 2003, 2004; Trigwell et al., 1994) suggest that developing teachers’ student-focused conception of teaching, as opposed to teacher-centred orientation, is a precursor to affecting student-focused approach to teaching. If teachers do not hold a student- focused conception of teaching, introducing student-focused strategies “will be a futile and

misunderstood pursuit” (Trigwell et al., 1994, p. 83). Kember and Kwan (2000) also found strong relationships between teaching conceptions and teaching approach, thus believed that

“fundamental changes to the quality of teaching and learning may only result from changes to conceptions of teaching” (p. 489). Other writers with similar views are Martin, et al. (2000), Norton (2005), McAlpine, et al. (2006), Light and Calkins (2008) and Postareff and Lindblom- Ylanne (2008).

Conversely, some researchers hold the view that addressing teaching strategies in professional development programmes is fundamental in improving quality teaching (Eley, 2006; Hativa & Goodyear, 2002; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Hativa and Goodyear (2002), for instance, found that award-recipient teachers did not even notice that they were using some effective teaching strategies as they relied on intuition, rather than conscious decision-making. They propose that professional development programmes begin by increasing teachers’ knowledge of a variety of teaching strategies so they can choose strategies suitable for their context.

Other studies suggest weak or no relation between changing conceptions in professional development programmes and improved teaching practices. Kane et al. (2002) found no explicit link between the two while Light and Calkins (2008) acknowledged that it is difficult to influence conceptions of teaching in professional development programmes. However, Gibbs and Coffey (2004) found more student-centred conceptions of teaching after more than 60 hours of professional development programmes of various kinds. It is not clear from the research whether teaching conceptions or teaching strategies should take precedence in professional development.

The researcher argues that both teaching conceptions and teaching strategies can and should be developed simultaneously. The importance of critical reflections, reflective practices, engagement in learning community and the scholarship of teaching are also referred to. The researcher also argues that advocating scholarly teaching in professional development approaches can promote concurrent enhancement of teaching conceptions and strategies that is based on pedagogical research and literature. A scholarly approach in professional development efforts in the Western world appears to be the current trend. The following section discusses this and its related issues.

ii) Professional development: considering scholarly approach

One of the challenges faced by university teachers is to strike a balance between teaching and research. Marsh and Hattie (2002) suggest that a desirable aim of a university is to increase the relation between teaching and research. However, they also implied that in becoming productive researchers, academics acquire research skills in daily tasks rather than being formally trained.

Academics receive considerable training in how to be productive researchers and are constantly exposed – through professional reading, conferences, and collaboration – to role models who are productive researchers (p. 634).

The idea that academics receive considerable training to be productive researchers is an assumption. Not all academics in all institutional contexts have the privilege of being involved in or being coached into research activities. Some are left to learn to teach or do research on their own. Holding this assumption can work against helping teachers reconcile teaching and research, and further developing their teaching practices. Skelton (2005) argues for professional

development that “puts professionalism at its centre” (p. 137) - one that provides a context in which higher education teachers can explore the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, or what is better known as the scholarship of teaching. Writers on

quality teaching stress professional development that assists teachers in developing and enhancing teaching through the scholarship of teaching.

To begin with, it is important for such professional development programmes to be systematically structured. Some projects on the scholarship of teaching are cited. For example, Trigwell et al. (2000) described the Australian Scholarship of Teaching Project 1999 that comprised five units: training in scholarly discourse, scholarly peer review, proposal preparation, publication, and a teaching portfolio. Walker et al. (2008) describe a programme at the University of Minnesota that comprised three facets for deep engagement with scholarship: helping teachers engage with scholarship, putting scholarship into action and finally contributing to scholarship. Mackenzie (2010) describes the Learning Community project at the University of Glasgow, the UK that consisted of meetings, seminars and workshops to discuss scholarly teaching particularly through the discussion of participants’ Teacher Development Projects. These projects have helped teachers (i) engage with scholarship, (ii) put scholarship into action, (iii) provide evidence of their scholarship and iv) disseminate the research outcomes.

Smith’s (2008) model at Griffith University, Australia is a multi-phased programme that not only takes a scholarly approach to professional development but develops it based on outcomes of teaching evaluation. It is an integrated programme that is embedded in the institutional framework. It is designed to link teaching evaluation with staff development. The model comprises two phases of student evaluation and three phases of integrated staff development. More importantly, it employs four sources of information about teaching: self-reflection, peer review, student learning outcomes and student experience evaluation in order to provide a clearer, more valid and comprehensive picture of teaching/learning situation in the institution.

All the above projects reflect careful thought and consideration in design and implementation. Firstly, the programmes are structured into incremental steps that range from exposure to scholarly research to putting it into action and sharing its outcome. A comprehensive and well- thought out design that guides teachers well in developing reflective teaching and scholarly culture can counter issues of lack of continuity and lack of institution-wide participation (Haigh et al., 2011). Secondly, the use of consultants or experts in scholarship can help develop and sustain interest in teaching-based research. Among the problems in engaging teachers with scholarly teaching is lack of familiarity with the language of educational research (Haigh et al., 2011), lack of familiarity with the measurement tools used in education as opposed to those used in subject-disciplines (Walker et al., 2008), and lack of faith in the value of educational research (Boshier, 2009; Brawley, Kelly, & Timmins, 2009; Dewar, 2008). Finally, a sustained

programme allows the culture of scholarship to take effect on teachers’ interest and practices

(Walker et al., 2008).

Although these SoTL programmes reported positive outcomes (cf. MacKenzie et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2008) there is also evidence that the gap between teaching and research widened despite current professional development efforts to promote teaching-based research. It has become a major impediment in developing teaching and raising its standard equal to that of research. The source of the problem lies in lower value accorded to pedagogical research compared to disciplinary research. Research on teaching in higher education is seen as being in

the “second-class academic ghetto” (Brawley et al., 2009, pp. 23-24) for lack of “theoretical

rigour” and “original contribution” to knowledge (Boshier, 2009, p. 3). Related is the issue of

academics’ primary affiliations to their subject disciplines and professions (Haigh et al., 2011; Halse et al., 2007; Healey, 2008; Healey & Jenkins, 2003; Lueddeke, 2003). Largely to blame, according to these authors, is the existence of a double-standard in criteria for research funding and for academic recognition and reward (Brawley et al., 2009; Healey, 2005a, 2005b; Kreber, 2003; Vardi & Quin, 2011; Walker et al., 2008). Teaching and scholarly research are still undervalued due to strong forces in market competition, league tables and the emphasis on skills and knowledge specialisations (Barnett, 2005; J. Taylor, 2007).

At this juncture, it is appropriate to acknowledge the complex relationship between teaching and research. It has been noted earlier that there are diverse ways to look at the nexus. Studies have shown that the source of the complexity lies in the different ways academic staff and students conceive the ideas of teaching, learning, knowledge and research (Buckley, 2011; Griffiths, 2004; Zamorski, 2002). This has resulted in different ways of looking at how they interact, as well as the extent to which they are related. Boyer’s (1990) distinctions between research types of discovery, application and integration are still relevant today (Healey, 2005a). This calls for sensitisation towards the different ways research can be built into the teaching- learning environment. Conceptual distinctions between research-based/-led/-informed/-oriented teaching have offered structured ways of looking at the nexus and diverse possibilities for developing it. Some researchers promote student involvement in research as they are at the receiving end of the teaching-research integration (for example, Buckley, 2011; Jenkins, Healey, & Zetter, 2007) while others discuss the influence one has on the other (for example, Willcoxson, Manning, Johnston, & Gething, 2011). How the teaching-research nexus is developed, implemented, recognised and rewarded requires critical reflection on an institution’s underlying philosophies. It also calls for thoughtful planning so that institutional goals and the

nation’s goals, as well as tensions that may arise from these different goal levels are given due attention (Griffiths, 2004).

The onus is on higher learning institutions to raise the status of teaching and scholarly research within a particular institutional context. It does not mean fighting the external forces but to develop alongside it, opportunities for scholarly teaching to develop. The integration of

professional development programmes into the whole university system as in Smith’s (2008)

model is emphasised. Such effort requires a change of mind set at the university top level. The management need to recognise the worth of research on teaching in higher education and build into the institutional mechanism, a reward system for it, consideration for funding and more importantly to provide platforms for its growth that are linked with other institution-wide practices such as teaching evaluation and remedial teaching programmes.

iii) Mentor programme

Mentoring is a programme that can be built into faculty development, to socialise academic staff members who are new to the profession, to provide emotional and discipline-specific support, and to provide guidance with career development (Cawyer, Simonds, & Davis, 2002; P. P. Wilson, Valentine, & Pereira, 2002). In a university setting, mentoring is often cited as providing protégés with assistance in teaching and doing research (Balmer, D'Alessandro, Risko, & Gusic, 2011; Mathews, 2003; P. P. Wilson et al., 2002). Reported benefits of mentoring are reciprocal; feeling of acceptance, improved confidence and having higher

motivation for professional growth on the protégés’ side and having better job satisfaction on the mentors’ part (White, Brannan, & Wilson, 2010; C. B. Wilson, Brannan, & White, 2010).

Traditionally, it involves a “dyadic” or one-on-one relationship between a senior faculty

member who acts as the mentor to a junior member known as the protégé (Mathews, 2003; P. P. Wilson et al., 2002).

More recently, emerging models have moved away from dyadic to multiple mentoring (Sorcinelli & Jung, 2007). It is argued that in reality, faculty challenges are multiple and change from one academic task to another (Balmer et al., 2011; de Janasz & Sullivan, 2004). Faculty

development is a cyclical learning process. Eventually, protégés seek a “mentor of the moment” (de Janasz & Sullivan, 2004, p. 269) or “convenient mentor” (Cawyer et al., 2002, p.

235) who is accessible at the time of need. The need to develop a “constellation of

relationships” among protégés, peers and mentors highlights the importance of providing

different kinds of help by various work peers of different areas of expertise (de Janasz & Sullivan, 2004, p. 84).

There are several major issues to be mindful of when designing a mentor programme. Firstly, is to conceptualise the programme and decide on its objectives in order to determine the kind of approach suitable to the needs of a particular academic setting (Lumpkin, 2011). Second,

suitable mentor-protégé pairing is also pivotal; taking into account mentor/protégé characteristics, and gender and disciplinary preferences to ensure trust, mutual respect and higher sense of commitment to the process (Mathews, 2003). Letting protégés choose their own mentors is preferred (Balmer et al., 2011; P. P. Wilson et al., 2002). Third is proper monitoring

– ensuring mentor accessibility, maintaining consistent mentor-protégé contact (2002) and

sustaining effective mentor-protégé communication (2011). Finally, the effectiveness of a mentor programme needs to be evaluated to ensure a meaningful experience for both participants. Evidence-based evaluation is necessary. Qualitative research approach is claimed to be better in capturing mentoring processes (Lumpkin, 2011; W. McMillan & Parker, 2005).

iv) Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching (PGCert)

Often in a higher education institution, there are teachers who, while holding a relevant qualification in their subject area, are new to the teaching profession due to career change or are fresh graduates who have had no formal qualification in teaching (Butcher & Stoncel, 2011). For these teachers, a postgraduate certificate in teaching (PGCert) can serve as a formal in- service training that provides pedagogical foundation. Following Dearing Report (1997) recommendations, all higher education institutions in the UK are now offering Higher Education Authority-accredited introductory courses for new teachers (Gosling, 2010; Kandlbinder & Peseta, 2009). In other Western countries, such as the USA, Australia and New Zealand, a PGCert is not mandatory but is offered for those interested in pursuing a university teaching career (for example, Gosling, 2010; Humboldt State University, 2012).

To implement PGCert as part of professional development, there are three issues of concern to this project. First is in making PGCert mandatory for beginner teachers. When new teachers are taken temporarily out of faculty functions, their long-term participation in PGCert programmes results in lack of faculty resource. It does the new teachers injustice if PGCert participation is made mandatory by way of affecting promotion, salary increment or tenure for the new (Gosling, 2010). The second issue concerns making real impact on academic practices. It was found that teachers with no teaching qualifications struggle to keep up with new language and jargon, with qualitative research approaches and with the fact that there is no clear solution to teaching/learning issues (Kandlbinder & Peseta, 2009). The third issue relates to generic or discipline-based approach to professional development discussed previously. Long (2010) found that although some teachers reflect on discipline-specific conceptualisation in talking about teaching, generally, their teaching approaches are not discipline-specific despite claiming so. Further, literature that supports discipline-specific pedagogy is scarce (Wareing, 2009). Wareing (2009) advocates a trans-disciplinary approach to teacher training (including PGCert)

due to the non-homogeneous nature of new teacher composition (Butcher & Stoncel, 2011; Wareing, 2009). Occasional references to specific disciplines are however encouraged (Butcher & Stoncel, 2011; Roness & Smith, 2009).

2.2.4 Situating the professional development unit within the