Professional Development in Higher Education

New Dimensions and Directions

Gill Nicholls

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781135377090
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Staff development and teaching accreditation is becoming a reality in UK higher education teaching. This volume explores the implications of continued professional development and institutions such as the ILT, outlining the options and approaches to professional development.

1

The changing landscape

Introduction

It was not a bad idea, whoever first conceived and proposed a public means for treating the sum of knowledge, in a quasi industrial manner, with a division of labour where, for so many fields as there may be of knowledge, so many public teachers would be allotted, professors being as trustees, forming together a kind of common scientific entity, called a university.

(Immanuel Kant, 1798, 1979: 23)

Kant’s perception in 1798 still has a poignancy and relevance today. His recognition of the conflicts between knowledge creation and teaching, which surround academic life, were insightful and definitive in his time and are arguably even more relevant to the changing landscape of higher education today. One of Kant’s premises related to the conflict surrounding what he termed ‘thinkers in the university and businessmen of knowledge’, respectively creators and traders of knowledge. This tension between producing knowledge and transmitting knowledge is now a major discussion point in governments and universities across the world, and is an issue that still has not been resolved, but is under continual scrutiny.

The tensions related to the teaching-research nexus have been revisited many times in the evolution of higher education. The regularity of this revisiting and the discussions associated with it have increased as knowledge, knowledge production and transmission through a variety of means including technology have also increased. Added to this is the speed with which the integration of academic, industrial and government research into universities has occurred, which has further fuelled the debates surrounding research and teaching quality. A consequence of this has been the division of labour related to teaching and research. Whether this division has been forced or has happened through osmosis is not completely clear. However, it has led to a growing trend for academic teachers and high-level professional researchers within a faculty to identify themselves less as teachers and more as subject specialists and researchers. As a consequence of this type of integration, a perception has developed in universities that, in general, teaching and research are not mutually exclusive. However, and ironically, many feel that while research is found to be positively associated with teaching effectiveness, teaching loads are considered as having a negative impact on the capacity to undertake research. In Kant’s description nothing has changed. Yet, in the context of the wider view of higher education it is necessary to contextualize the research-teaching nexus as it stands at present. This in itself requires a consideration of the changing world of higher education, albeit a brief one.

The changing world of higher education

The research-teaching nexus has been established as a well-founded area of discussion, but cannot be seen in isolation. While the perceived differences between researchers and teachers have been gaining pace within the academic community, the higher education system itself has been and is still going through a process of change, by moving towards mass education and more formalized external regulation (Westergraad, 1991; Elton, 1992). The expansion within the sector has highlighted shortcomings in the types of teaching and learning environment universities provide for their students and staff (Hattie and Marsh, 1996; Rowland, 1996). Nixon (1997) suggests that ‘higher education now has a less homogeneous student population, which in turn has led to a diversification of course content and structure as a means of differentiated learning’. It has become clear that the educational settings that exist have not been able to cater for an increased diversity of students and the way in which these various students learn. Equally important is the speed with which new technologies are influencing possible teaching-learning environments. Clearly then the changing nature of student intake, curriculum and pedagogy is affecting the way in which academics have to function.

A further complication to the situation of teaching and research has been the change occurring in staffing structures in higher education. Kogan suggests: ‘The cohesion afforded by traditional structures is likely to be eroded as status and other differentials increase, especially between staff with permanent appointments and those in temporary or part-time contracts’ (Kogan, Moses and El-Khawas, 1994: 62–63). This differential is currently increasing, with top-level academics having to produce high-profile research, while the day-to-day work of teaching and research in universities is, as Ainley (1994) suggests, ‘sustained by a growing army of insecurely employed contract staff who make up to a third of all academic employees’ (p 32).

These changes have left academics in a dilemma: do they concentrate on keeping up with innovations in teaching and learning, do they try to adapt to a changing student population, do they keep up with their research or do they try to do all of these? Many academics in an attempt to resolve their own dilemma have looked to the higher education’s reward structures and systems to gain insight and reassurance into which direction to go. The reward system reveals without a shadow of a doubt why so many academics place their research before teaching even if they feel passionately about their teaching. Research is rewarded; teaching is not! A consequence of this is that ‘the occupation of university teacher no longer automatically offers autonomy and status’ (Nixon, 1996: 7).

Alongside the reward systems favouring research, research itself has become more specialized with evidence to show how the research taking place in universities has little or no connection with teaching. Thus the balance between research and teaching has grown weaker. Within the changing landscape the teaching-research nexus has not lost any of its fervour or prominence; it has intensified.

The intensity has been caused by an increased demand for the need to improve the quality of teaching found in higher education institutions. The debate has taken on another dimension in the face of increased pressure for research excellence from such external assessment procedures as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). The dichotomy of research or teaching has yet again taken centre stage, a stage that now includes external regulation and imposed professional development as a means of raising teaching quality. With these issues in mind, now is an appropriate time to re-evaluate the role of professional development and what teaching, learning and scholarship in higher education mean. It is important to consider why and how we find ourselves in the present situation. What has made the landscape change?

Historical background to the ILT

This section discusses the historical background to the inception of the Institute of Learning and Teaching (ILT), and places the role of professional development in higher education within that context. Following the Dearing Report and the Government White Paper on Higher Education, the role of professional development has not only changed but has been given new dimensions and directions. These include the need for new lecturers to enrol on induction courses and programmes that are assessed in some form. Within this context there has been the introduction of continuing professional development plans that are closely linked to appraisal, promotion and professional standing. Much of the current debate focuses on the establishment of the ILT and the implications this will have on higher education institutions in the future.

The Dearing Report

What makes the present situation especially interesting is the impact of recent reviews and reports on higher education including the influential National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE) chaired by Sir Ron Dearing, and commonly known as the Dearing Report (NCIHE, 1997). This made recommendations that were to have significant implications for the status of teaching and the notion of professional development in higher education. One of the main features of the report was the inception of the ILT, and the notion of imposed or enforced professional development. The ILT was born out of the Dearing Report, which recommended the immediate establishment of a professional institution for learning and teaching. The main recommendations in the report were set out as follows:

Recommendation 13

We recommend that institutions of higher education begin immediately to develop or seek access to programmes for teacher training of their staff, if they do not have them, and that all institutions seek national accreditation of such programmes from the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.

(para 8.61)

Recommendation 14

We recommend that the representative bodies, in consultation with the funding bodies, should immediately establish a professional Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. The functions of the institute would be to accredit programmes of training for higher education teachers, to commission research and development in teaching and learning practices, and to stimulate innovation.

(para 8.61)

Other key recommendations in the Dearing Report included Recommendation 6, which covered the prospective role of the ILT in respect of students with disabilities; it recommended that ‘the learning needs of students with disabilities be included in its research and programme of accreditation and advisory activities’.

Recommendation 13 by implication suggests some form of ‘enforced’ development programme for new members within the higher education community. This is not to say that some institutions were not already involved in good practice and providing new staff with extensive induction programmes. However, the statement in the Dearing Report clearly gives professional development a different dimension, by implying that it is now expected and indeed a prerequisite for probation to be completed. Recommendation 48 suggests: ‘Over the medium term, it should become the normal requirement that all new, full-time academic staff with teaching responsibilities are required to achieve at least associate membership of the Institute for Learning and Teaching for successful completion of their probationary period.’

Within this new environment of expectation and quasi-enforcement the Report also proposed that the Institute of Learning and Teaching could recognize levels of expertise in teaching by conferring various categories of membership, that of associate member, member and fellow. This suggests that development is no longer a choice but a requirement, which is differentiated through demands and expectations.

The Government’s approval for such an institution was made clear in its response to the Dearing recommendations. The response states:

The Government sees the new Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education to be established by the higher education sector as having a key role to play in enhancing the professional skills and status of teachers in higher education and in spreading good teaching more widely. The Government’s long term aim is to see all teachers in higher education carry a professional qualification.

(DfEE, 1998: 19–23)

The nature of the professional qualification is as yet unresolved, as the ILT is not at present in the position to operate a ‘licence to practise’, nor does the higher education community appear to want such a licence. The Dearing Report envisaged that the successful completion of an accredited programme or pathway would be a normal requirement for successful completion of probation. This links into the concept of a ‘licence to practise’ as operated by many professional bodies. The recommendations did not stop with initial entry, but suggested that continual professional development (CPD) be monitored and regulated. The report stated that:

Membership of a professional body normally carries with it an obligation to remain in good standing, to maintain the level of one’s professional expertise and to update one’s knowledge on a regular basis. Thus, if it wishes to parallel the activities of other professional bodies, the Institute will need to establish:

• Guidelines for regular commitment to CPD for all its categories of membership;

• Procedures for verifying these activities in terms of demonstrable outcomes achieved.

These recommendations indicate the nature of the anticipated change that will be required, or even demanded, of the academic community. Within the context of this changing landscape of higher education, challenges are being made to some of the fundamental concepts and notions of what it is to be an academic. These challenges are proving contentious from a number of perspectives. At first sight it appears that the long-standing view of the autonomous academic is being threatened, as is the main perceived focus of academics’ work, that of research. The notion of achieving a level of competence that matches a licence to practise is not only daunting to those primarily concerned with research, but is also conceived as an imposition to the academics’ raison d’être. Such initial reaction led the consultation documents following Dearing to ask questions related to professional development and a licence to practise, among many other issues. The higher education community was asked to consider the following questions: 1) What kind of relationship, if any, should there be between the accreditation of programmes/pathways and any conferment of a licence to practise upon individual staff? 2) Should accreditation eventually become mandatory for all teaching staff?

Institutional responses to these questions varied considerably. In the context of the changing landscape it is important to consider the implications of introducing imposed professional development to meet criteria of a professional body. The criteria as suggested by the ILT raise issues about academics as professionals, and their anticipated behaviour as professionals within a professional body. These issues are dealt with extensively in Chapters 2 and 5. However, it is necessary to highlight here the way these changes are taking place. Suggesting that the academic community requires a professional body assumes that academics do not already engage with this level of professionalism. It also assumes that throughout the academic community there is more bad practice than good in the areas of teaching and learning, and hence that teaching and learning support needs monitoring in a formalized way, requiring competence to be shown, accredited and rewarded by membership to the professional body. It is these assumptions that are questioned and discussed in this book.

Establishing the Institute for Learning and Teaching

The remit for implementing the recommendations of the Dearing Report were given to the Institute for Learning and Teaching Planning Group (ILTPG), led by Professor Roger King and comprising representatives of a range of key stakeholder organizations within higher education. (Terms of reference can be found as Appendix A of the Dearing Report.)

The planning group’s remit was to shape the creation and establishment of the ILT. This was to be established by taking account of views within both the higher education sector and other professional bodies associated with higher education. These included the UK funding bodies, higher education teaching unions and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). Through a consultative forum and six working groups the ILTPG attempted to sketch and develop a working framework for the ILT. A main aim for this framework was given at the launch of the ILTPG, when Professor ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Author biography
• 1. The changing landscape
• 2. The demands and functions of the ILT
• 3. The changing role of professional development in higher education
• 4. Assessment, reflection and professional development
• 5. A new professionalism for higher education?
• 6. Teaching, research and scholarship: the role of professional development
• 7. Ways forward in professional development
• 8. Beyond the ILT
• References and further reading
• Index