27 March 2008

Staff Forum
The next staff forum will be held in G106 12 - 1pm this Friday 28 March. This forum will take another look at the Refocus on Teaching and Learning Strategy.

Enhancing Teaching and Learning at OP
We have opened a new blog under the banner "Enhancing Teaching and Learning at Otago Polytechnic". The link to this blog is http://enhancingteachingandlearning.blogspot.com/. I would like to encourage you all to sign up and to at least keep an eye on the resources posted and discussion that takes place. Better still - participate in the discussion, or post your own examples of good practice.

I am hopeful that this blog will be an important medium by which we can share the many examples of good practice happening at the Polytechnic.

Leadership Team
Participation in Trial of NZQA's new Quality Assurance System
Otago Polytechnic is one of four ITPs participating in the trial of the new evaluative quality assurance system in 2008. Mike Collins, Alistair Regan and Sue Thompson attended a training workshop in Wellington last week. Martin Grinsted, a lead auditor for ITP Quality, has been appointed to work with us as our evaluative coach as we prepare for self assessment of some aspects of our evaluative processes by July 2008.

The self assessment will be focussing on our existing evaluative tools such as Annual Programme Evaluation Review, Course Evaluations, First Impressions Survey and Programme Satisfaction Survey. We will also be doing an in depth review of the results and graduation process. The self assessment is followed by an external review plus an external evaluation of the trial. Participation in the trial provides Otago Polytechnic with the opportunity to help shape the new quality assurance system.

Information on the tertiary reforms and the trial can be found on the following websites:

TEC:
http://www.tec.govt.nz
NZQA
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/for-providers/tertiary/index.html

More detailed information will be available after Easter.

Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund
Please note that in light of the Easter break, we have extended the date for applications for this fund the first round of to 31 March. Talk to Terry Marler if you have an idea you would like to pursue.

Sustainable Futures Breakfast
Thanks to those who attended the breakfast recently with Dr Morgan Williams - the first in a series of visitors to assist in building the capacity of the institution to delivery education for sustainability.

The Polytechnic signed an MoU with the Swedish based organisation The Natural Step. Dr Williams is the NZ Chairman. The MoU is attached and can be seen on Polybase.

Dr Williams also delivered a workshop in the city which 10 staff attended. His presentation notes can be seen on the Sustainable Futures page on the Polytechnic's website.

Good News
A contract has been signed to deliver Creative studies classes at the Prison for Corrections. This will start the prisoners down a qualification pathway. Congratulations to Jane Venis and her team for their flexible approach to this project.

Working Bee
A reminder re the Leadership Team Working Bee which was rescheduled for Saturday 29 March. If you are able to help (for part or all of the day) and have not already put your name down, please let Simon Noble know asap.

Congratulations
To Bernie Thijssen, Maree Steel, and Roger Southby, who have been promoted to Senior Lecturers.

Fun Committee
A correction to the Xmas party date - this should have read Friday 28 November.

Cheers
Phil

Wikis as courses

Copied from original post on Learn Online.

Dave Bremer, a colleague at Otago Polytechnic criticises my interest in using MediaWikis for online learning.

My problem with this is that Wiki’s are just textbooks…

It is true that in the past, and the vast majority of wikis today are primarily reference materials or text books. But over the past 2 years, a few individuals and institutions have been exploring the use of wikis to develop and manage courses, hoping to leverage the benefits of collaborative editing and open access.

Some examples:

Harvard, US: Law and the Court of Public Opinion. An early example of an open access course that uses a course blog, email forum, Second Life meeting spaces, and a course wiki.

Utah State, US: Introduction to Open Education. Inspirational in its simplicity, and a proven success through its primary use of a wiki that blogging students use as a course schedule.

Media Lab, Finland: Composing Open Educational Resources. Inspired by Intro to Open Ed, this course has been developed on the Wikiversity platform that follows the same simple course schedule format for blogging students to follow. Note the numbers of people in the edit history and discussion page, demonstrating the benefits of collaborative course development.

Otago Polytechnic, NZ: Designing for Flexible Learning Practice. Also following the simple schedule format for blogging students to follow, but on the Wikieducator platform. This course uses a course blog for announcements and weekly summaries, and will be using web conferencing for lectures. Note the use of the Wikieducator Liquid Threads (a threaded discussion feature on the discussion page for the course). Also note the Print to PDF feature which came in very handy on the course orientation day.

Otago Polytechnic: Horticulture. This project mainly uses the wiki as a storing house for lesson plans and activity sheets for use in class or by distant learners. It follows Otago’s development structure based around competency units with a library of resources page and activity sheets set as sub pages to each unit.

Otago Polytechnic: Travel and Tourism. This project also follows the Otago development structure of unit pages with library and activity subpages. The teachers in the course are using course blogs for each of the subject areas and simply point to activity sheets on the wiki depending on the needs of the classes.

Otago Polytechnic: Massage Therapy (link to Programme Manager’s blog post update). Uses the wiki as a storage bay for resources and activity sheets with course blogs announcing new things to the students. Has an interesting use of RSS to a start page to bring together all the different courses to create a course hub.

Otago Polytechnic: Anatomy and Physiology of Animals. A text book developed in Wikibooks, with lesson plans and activities developed in Wikieducator for use in different contexts including face to face classes, or courses within the learning management system. The text book has been picked up by eLearning designers in Vancouver and will be developed further on the open licenses, integrating the activity sheets as well.

In all these examples, I think it would be a stretch to call them simply text books (apart from Anatomy of Animals which is quite deliberately a text with activity sheets to support it). It is difficult to avoid creating texts while creating courses however - as evidenced in just about any LMS course development. This is why some of the wiki courses listed here are using the Otago development structure. The structure encourages the separation of information and other reference materials from lesson plans and activity sheets firstly to maximise re-usability, and secondly to assist teachers who are developing there courses on the wikis to think more deliberately about what it is they want their students to be doing, and to create a variety of different activities around a single learning objective for use in different contexts.

More info about Otago’s exploration of wikis for developing and managing courses on Wikieducator.

Refocusing on Teaching and Learning - synopsis

REFOCUSING ON TEACHING AND LEARNING


Lifting Our Game

Why a refocus?

• A necessary step if we are to be the top performing ITP in terms of educational quality, one of our strategic objectives
• To prepare ourselves for the new quality regime, currently under development by TEC
• Because our student success indicators are below our targets, and have slipped again this year

What does refocus mean?

• Putting teaching and learning first
• Applying consistently our current policies and initiatives for quality teaching and learning
• Reprioritising resources, including the roles of some staff
• Ensuring good practices in some Schools becomes good practice in all Schools
• Building a stronger culture in support of quality teaching and learning
• Augmenting our support for teaching and learning

It does NOT mean:

• Big change
• Changing our systems
• Cutting across existing good practice where that is occurring

What does the strategy involve?

Four elements:
1. Enhance leadership of teaching and learning
2. Improve the measurement of our academic performance and act promptly and decisively on the evidence before us
3. Further lift the capability of teachers
4. Require higher levels of accountability

Enhance Leadership of Teaching and Learning

• A Leadership Member with a specific responsibility to champion best practice in teaching and learning
• A new quality improvement team – the ‘eyes and ears’ of best practice within the Polytechnic, and externally

Enhance Leadership of Teaching and Learning

• A team of Principal Lecturers or other top teachers, with time release, to augment EDC to support the development of teaching and learning practice
• A clear responsibility for HOS/HOPs, and Programme Managers to lead improvements in teaching and learning
  • actively lead curriculum improvement
  • observe staff teach

Improve the measurement of our academic performance, and act promptly and decisively on the evidence before us.

• Regular measurement and reporting of key indicators for quality:
  • student withdrawal, retention, completion, success and satisfaction rates
  • student progress towards success
  • staff participation in staff development on teaching and learning
  • staff teaching qualifications
  • uptake of feedback processes

Improve the measurement of our academic performance, and act decisively on the evidence before us

• Listen to students more frequently – focus groups
• I.e. acting on the evidence

Further lift the capability of teachers

• Dedicated staff development days, with an emphasis on teaching and learning- 4 days per year, compulsory participation
• Ensure compliance by teachers with our requirements for student and peer feedback
• Mandate managers to initiate feedback processes where teachers fail to do so, or to demonstrate they have acted on this feedback

Require higher levels of accountability

• Insist on compliance, monitor progress, ensure consequences for non-compliance
• In-depth discussions on the performance of each and every programme
  • i.e. Leadership Team meeting with HOS/HOPs, Programme Managers and staff to review success and quality indicators
  
  
  
  
  
  

Response from Phil Ker to Linda Robertson

>>> Phil Ker 13/03/2008 10:46 a.m. >>>
Hi Linda,

Thank you very much for this thoughtful feedback - very much appreciated. As is my practice, I would like to take the time to respond to some of your points, and to your recommendations.

First up, I am a little mystified by your interpretation that the strategy is based on an assumption of inadequate teaching. Nowhere is that mentioned, and indeed, if there are some basic assumptions they are twofold: our leadership of teaching and learning (including my own) has not been as focused as it could have been, and we have not been consistent in our application of strategies which are known to impact positively on teaching and learning, and ultimately student success. Also, the specific point is made that the strategy is not about focusing on the weaker programmes - it is about lifting our game generally, and doing what we do well more widely and more consistently. Thus, the strategy is consciously about targeting the whole Polytechnic.

Further, the recent changes we have made - and there are many - have not failed. Rather, they have not been applied consistently. There is no intention to make further changes, and certainly not to abandon what we have put in place. Rather, to be resolute about following through on what we have put in place already. This is a matter of leadership - at all levels.

You challenge the issue of having HoDs entirely involved in teaching practices. I must disagree with you here. The literature is persuasive that this is a key factor in improving the quality of teaching and learning. That is not to deny the leadership that must also come from our best teaching practitioners - and that is also explicitly recognised in the strategy. I agree with you wholeheartedly in your comments about the role of professional development, and the desirability of improvements in teaching originating from the individual teacher. This is very much encouraged in how we now operate. But the truth is, we have significant areas of the Polytechnic where our teachers need to lift their game, and have not responded to our current ground up approach. So - it is intentional that the strategy will call some people to account, and in that senses is prescriptive. No apologies for that at all. But please put this in perspective. The strategy is also affirming of the many, many areas of good practice, and seeks to identify and promulgate that good practice. The strategy does not intend to alienate good staff, and having reread the strategy many times I think that good staff would have to choose to be alienated. That would be a pity because we have done so much to affirm and celebrate good teaching, and we need the grass roots leadership of all of our many good teachers. But let's not be blinded to the fact that some of staff do let us down!

Turning now to your proposals:
1. It is intended that current structures are used. This strategy does not require any changes in programmes or by individual teachers where good practice is the current norm.

2. I absolutely agree that more attention must be paid to new lecturers. Heather Day is already working on changes, but there is much more that we can do - and will do.

3. I fully support action research approaches to improving teaching practice. The new "Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund" explicitly encourages this. I hope to see staff like yourself submitting proposals to access this fund.

4. I fully endorse that HoS/HoPs need to ensure that staff have goals relating to teaching practice in their IDPs.

One lecturer's response

Leadership Team Strategy Discussion Paper

One lecturer’s response

9/03/2008


I was unable to be at the recent meeting so have decided to write a response.

I am delighted to see that you are focusing on teaching and learning. It is of course, our core business. On a personal note this topic is my passion and is an area of my work where I am constantly learning. This has been possible through reading current literature, attending education conferences and for several years I was teaching on a post-graduate course to introduce health professionals to teaching/learning processes (always a good way of learning).


I have one comment about the validity of your basic assumption that inadequate teaching is responsible for high attrition rates. Do we know this? There are many other reasons for people leaving courses. This basic premise appears to be unsound.

Even if it were true, it would appear that a few courses need to be targeted not the entire polytechnic. 70% exceeding targets of success rate seems like a reason for celebration not reform.


The document states that there have been recent changes in staff development funding; expanded EDC; requirements for staff to have teaching qualifications etc. Have these new initiatives improved the teaching in the polytechnic? Is the only measure the attrition rate? If so has this changed for the better since these initiatives have been implemented? Apparently not as the paper states that there is a problem, so do we abandon the recent changes (they appear not to be working) as we bring on new ones?


I’m very unclear of the role of the current staff development group in the proposed changes. Should they not be the leaders in any focus on improving teaching? As well as running courses and providing leadership in teaching / learning within the Polytechnic, such a group should have a pivotal role in educational research. One solution would be to ensure that leadership should come from this group with more support provided as necessary. Having heads of schools actively involved in teaching practice would appear to be counterproductive. While some HOS/Ds may have expertise in this area, in general this would seem to be unlikely. They are not employed because of expertise in this area.



The idea of openness in teaching practice already occurs in some departments. In my experience it this happens less frequently now due to pressures on new staff to take over classes immediately rather than allow some sharing of courses so that role modelling is a possibility.


To me, inspiring people by providing opportunities to see and hear about effective teaching practice is preferable to laying down rules about everyone attending sessions for 4 days in the year. Apart from the expense of such a venture, staff are reluctant to put aside this many days for meetings when they are hard pushed to get the basics done. I would rather see requirements for new lecturers to spend time with other lecturers (not just a one off) and for attendance at an educational conference to be encouraged and supported.


The professional development process is a wonderful opportunity to ensure that teaching practice is targeted and on the list of goals to be identified by all lecturers. Place the responsibility for identifying educational needs or interests with the lecturer. This would require quality courses to be available through the polytechnic (which already happens – do we need to expand this?) and that staff are advised of education conferences or courses at other institutions. HOD/Ss and managers would have a role here to ensure that such goals do appear and are supported at a departmental level.


Having recently experienced the system when students’ feedback on a course does not meet the required 80% approval rate, I am somewhat sceptical at the Polytechnic’s ability to provide helpful and constructive assistance to anyone deemed not to be up to standard. I was appalled at my treatment so don’t have much confidence at the ‘efficiency’ orientation of the current feedback system. Since then, others have confirmed this kind of treatment – I had no idea until it happened to me. So, there is a long way to go for system to be changed – in particular the culture changed from being punitive to being supportive. I can fully understand why lecturers do not do students evaluations.


In the 2nd section, there is a list of KPIs that does not include feedback from HOD/S. As this was a big thrust of the 1st section, I find this an interesting omission.


The prescriptive nature of this enterprise is surprising. Good teaching is student centred and I would have thought that good management used the same principles when dealing with staff. There is a great deal of teaching expertise in the staff – let’s not alienate those who are committed to good teaching practice. Wording used implies big brother is watching eg. ‘staff will be observed …. by their HOS/HOD’. Hopefully this is not the intention and that there is a plan to develop collaborative relationships between staff and managers etc. in this exercise. It seems very unfair to put in regular observations without equally regular opportunities for staff to observe others teaching, go to courses to up-skill, get informal feedback from peers (of their choice) or other learning opportunities. Mind you I assume that this is part of the plan – its all matter of how it is implemented eg. as a directive or as a goal developed by the lecturer. If there is to be a system of departmental monitoring, then someone with expertise in teaching/learning processes should be the first choice rather than someone in the management structure (this may of course be the same person).


In summary I am proposing that:

Current structures are used to provide support for teaching practice and that resources be made available to include research within their remit
More attention should be paid to the needs of new lecturers in regard to their classroom skills and their knowledge of students learning.
An education exercise such as an ‘action research’ study should be undertaken by all new lecturers as a way of involving them in the analysis of teaching practice and using feedback constructively.
HODs take responsibly to ensure that all staff include goals related to teaching practice in professional development plans and that the related resources are provided.





Linda Robertson
Occupational Therapy

Refocusing on Teaching and Learning: Lifting our Game

Leadership Team Strategy Discussion Paper:

Refocusing on Teaching and Learning: Lifting our Game

Introduction

It was signalled at our staff meeting on February 8th that one of the priorities for 2008 was to refocus our energies on teaching and learning. Of course, this does not mean that resource management will not remain a very high priority – it will. But over the last three years we have made significant improvements to our resource management processes, so that much good practice is now embedded in our “business as usual”.

So, what does a refocus on teaching and learning actually mean?

We will all have different perspectives on this, but from our point of view it is about ensuring that we have the best possible programmes of learning, engage in the best possible teaching, and are getting the best possible outcomes for our learners. In short, that we deliver consistently to our stated brand values, in pursuit of our strategic objective to be the top performing ITP in terms of educational quality.

It is in pursuit of this strategic objective that this strategy paper has been prepared. To be the best in terms of educational quality means lifting our game in all programme areas. Those programmes that are exceeding our targets can be helped to do better; and those that are falling short must be supported to improve. This is what the strategy is all about.

This strategy is also about preparing and positioning ourselves for a significantly new quality regime – one which has signalled a future in which the quality of teaching and student support will be carefully monitored, and in which achieving good outcomes for learners is more important than complying with quality procedures. The dramatic shift is towards an evaluative model of quality, i.e. understanding what is happening and why, rather than merely reporting on results.

Thirdly, this strategy is a partial response to some concerns we have with our success rates. So, how are we performing at the moment?
Approximately 70% of our programmes meet or exceed our target of an 85% success rate. However, on average we are well below this target, and results overall have slipped by 2% this year. On the positive side, our student retention rates are very high – perhaps reflecting the energy we have put into this area over the last couple of years.

Although average success rates are not as we would want, it is important to affirm that we have programme areas that are performing exceptionally well – we have exemplars of both good practice and excellent outcomes in our own organisation. So, we will not have to go elsewhere for case studies and resources on how to lift our game.

It is also important to affirm that we have implemented many initiatives to improve teaching and learning, even though we have had significant resource issues to manage. Much has been done Polytechnic-wide: greater clarity around roles and expectations of lecturers, more effective performance reviews, better reward (salary review, promotion) and recognition (excellence awards) processes, more generous, yet better focused, staff development funding, an expanded EDC, requirements for academic staff to have teaching qualifications, new feedback processes (student and peer feedback on teaching), improved student surveys, a new student induction and orientation programme (still developing), and the recently announced, just implemented teaching innovation fund. And there are some excellent complementary initiatives at School level, including robust processes to monitor and respond to student progress.This is an impressive list of initiatives, so why has our average success rate dropped? Perhaps our targets are too optimistic? Our students less capable? Perhaps we have taken our eye off the ball? Have spread ourselves too thinly – asking everyone to do too many things so that nothing is getting done as well as it could/should be? “Any or all of the above” could be a partial explanation. However, it is also possible that we have not consistently applied our initiatives in all areas, all of the time. Two hypotheses underpin this strategy, and have passed the high level test of being seen as plausible by our Heads of School/Programme.

• We have not maintained a consistent and appropriate leadership focus, at all levels, on teaching and learning; and especially on ensuring best possible outcomes for learners. Instead, we have focused our managers on educational efficiency. Of course, all have remained concerned about and have done their best to maintain quality – the leadership issue is an organisational one, not an individual manager one.
  
• We have not managed quality as resolutely as we could have – we have not always, nor consistently, taken advantage of data which is available to us, nor always followed through on the evidence we do generate from our systems. Nor have we always ensured consequences for performance that is not up to scratch.
  

So, what is proposed is not a radical rethinking of what we have been doing, but a genuine refocus, one intended to help us to build capability and to develop a very strong quality culture which is centred on excellence in teaching and learning. A range of possible initiatives follows. These have been endorsed in principle by HOS/HOPs, but need to be discussed, accepted as appropriate, or not, then prioritised for implementation. Not all will be affordable right now, even if we agree they are appropriate. And to build a strong quality culture will take at least two or three years of consistent focus.

Also, what is proposed may not change what many schools/programme areas are currently doing – but the strategies may add significant support.

1. Enhance leadership of teaching and learning:

• Assign a specific responsibility to a Leadership Team member to support and improve teaching and learning across the whole Polytechnic – a champion for best practice. This will help us to keep our eye firmly on the teaching and learning ball when we are making our decisions.
  
• Form a quality improvement team to support the Leadership Team role, one which includes the Institutional Research Officer, Internal Academic Auditor, an AQU member, an EDC member, one of our professorial staff, and a member from each Academic Group. This team will be the eyes and ears for good teaching and learning and would be charged with identifying and promulgating best practice in teaching and learning around the Polytechnic.
  
• Appoint a team of Principal Lecturers or other advanced teaching practitioners, reduce their teaching load and direct that time to supporting other teachers across the Polytechnic.This team would augment EDC (as adjunct EDC staff) and would have a responsibility to work with staff to bring about improvements which evidence tells us needs to be made. We do already have some Principal Lecturers carrying out this role in their Schools, but actual practice is variable, and time has not been provided to allow for effective leadership at this level. We could look at 6 to 10 of these staff to work across the Polytechnic.
  
• Shift our management focus so that our HOS/HOPs and our Programme Managers have a responsibility to engage directly with improving teaching and learning in their programme areas. This will mean, amongst other things:
  
  o HOS/HOPs would actively lead curriculum improvement in their area and would observe their staff teach. The former is the norm, the latter seldom occurs.
  
  o Programme Managers would also observe staff teach, providing some degree of triangulation with HOS/HOP observations of teaching capability.
  
  o Having our HOS/HOPs and Programme Managers engaged in the observation of teaching practice, would be an essential ingredient in the development of a quality culture that embraced openness in our teaching practice, and which would include staff observing their colleagues. Of course, staff development initiatives will be needed to support this role.
  
  Each HOS/HOP would have a responsibility to maintain a record of, and report on, the teaching capability of their staff, highlighting strengths and gaps/areas for improvement, both for individual teachers and collectively for the School/Programme area. Such reports could/should be informed by student evaluation of staff teaching and should be key inputs into individual development planning.
  Note: There is a persuasive body of literature that leadership which is focused on teaching and learning is central to raising the quality of teaching and learning.
  
  

2. Improve the measurement of our academic performance and act promptly and decisively on the evidence before us.

What we don’t measure we will be unlikely to manage, and certainly won’t manage well. We could collect relevant data on appropriate KPIs quickly and accurately and present it to the relevant staff in a highly visible form. Where under-performance is revealed managers have the responsibility to act promptly to ensure underperformance is addressed. In our organisational objectives for 2008-10 we have chosen the following KPIs as measures of teaching quality:
- Student retention rates
- Student completion rates
- Student success rates
- Student satisfaction rates

Are these right? Best? Sufficient? No, but they are necessary, and are being monitored externally. Success and quality are complex concepts and we will need to develop more sophisticated metrics. These measures are currently all extracted after the fact, often called “lag” indicators. Our challenge is to produce data whenever we can in a timeframe that enables action to be taken in the current teaching cycle. Therefore, we could, and it is proposed that we do, report monthly on:

- Student withdrawals
- Student progress towards success


We could also report on other indicators such as the number of staff who have teaching qualifications, who access professional development around teaching and learning, and who receive student feedback on their teaching.

Each of these are “lead” indicators that alert us to how well we are currently doing, giving us the option to take action to change the final outcome of our lag indicators. For example, if we detect significant early withdrawals in a programme we can enquire as to the reasons, and if the responsibility rests with us we can put in place strategies to encourage other students not to withdraw. Similarly, if we know which students are struggling with assessments, we can provide additional support.

We could also listen to students more frequently – not through more surveys but through facilitated, including independently facilitated, and well focused student feedback sessions in which we engage students by programme area.

Currently under preparation are comprehensive summary reports by programme on all academic indicators from 2007, compared to 2006 where data is available. These reports will be available soon, and a session to discuss the data for every programme will be set up. This discussion process will bring together School/Programme management and Leadership Team members, as follows:

- The HOS/HOP and Programme Managers, and any staff who are able to attend.
- From Leadership Team: Phil Ker or Robin Day, Sue Thompson and the relevant Group Manager. Other LT members may join the discussion depending on the value they feel they could add – based on their reading of the reports. The discussion will consider in detail all of the available data about teaching and learning, will agree on good practice areas for wider dissemination, and will result in an agreed action plan for addressing any areas which need improvement.Ideally, each School/Programme area will discuss the reports in preparation for the meeting with Leadership Team. It is proposed that such discussions become a regular element of our quality process – possibly twice a year, and the first one of the year would replace the current programme review process. NB: Again, there is persuasive literature about the value of well focused dialogue as a means to build organisational culture. Some Schools already practice this on a whole of staff basis.

3. Further lift the capability of teachers

We have made significant provisions for assisting staff to develop their teaching capacity, but too often these are not taken up, or not followed through – with workload frequently offered as the reason. So, we have an issue of the priority we attach individually and as an organisation to quality. We can signal that quality is critical in a number of ways:

• Dedicate time for our teachers to work on improving their teaching and learning: one teaching and learning development day per quarter. We could either:
  - Forego one teaching day per quarter (with teachers providing other structured learning activities for students on that day), or
  - Nominate one day in each semester break which is not available for annual or discretionary leave, or
  - A combination of the above.
  These sessions would focus on enhancing learning, providing staff with opportunities to engage with known good practice - from within Otago Polytechnic, from other institutions and from the literature. The sessions could also address specific teaching and learning issues we are grappling with e.g. implementing core skills, reducing over-assessing of student performance.
  
• Ensure compliance by teachers with our requirements for student and peer feedback, and ensure that this feedback is acted on. This issue is not without its complexity. Our current processes have a strong development focus, and are protective of staff in that they are deemed to be the “owners” of the feedback they receive – being entrusted to follow through with actions to improve where feedback suggests there is a need. Our managers are only privy to the feedback if staff choose to share it, or wish to be considered for salary review. The literature in this area is persuasive of us retaining the essence of the system we have in place. On the other hand, a number of staff appear to be letting the side down – by not getting feedback, and/or by not demonstrably responding to that which they do get. We have solid evidence on the former, anecdotal on the latter.
  
• The current situation can be balanced by changing our policy to mandate for managers to initiate feedback processes, and to receive the reports under the following circumstances:
  o The staff member has refused to initiate the feedback;
  o The staff member has failed to demonstrate that feedback received has been acted on.
  
• Provide teaching staff with accurate and timely data about student progress and achievement (see 2 above). Teaching staff can benefit from knowledge about the whole student, not just the course they are responsible for. Some schools already have excellent processes for holistic monitoring of student progress – processes which could well be replicated elsewhere.As well, managers must have access to the same data so that they are able to ask the right questions of their staff. This is the intent behind our decision to require assessment results to be entered progressively into Jasper.It is intended that exception reports on student progress will be extracted monthly – showing which students in which courses are not presenting assessments on time, or are failing. Such “at risk” students must be followed up, preferably by the staff in the teaching team, who can be supported by Student Services personnel.
  
• Introduce the expectation that all teaching staff will be observed in their teaching each year by their HOS/HOP and/or their Programme Manager, with the frequency being dependent on the validated capabilities of the teacher. Those whose student feedback and observations were very good might be observed only every 3/4 semesters and might even undertake observations themselves – to help spread this load. For each School and Programme area it would be helpful to have an annual programme of:
  o Teaching observations – by whom, when
  o Student feedback
  o Colleague feedback
  o Performance discussion
  There may be merit in having structured face to face student feedback undertaken at the same session as the observation, “administered” by the HOS/HOP or Programme Manager. We could also consider using our Principal Lecturers/”advanced practitioners” for developmental observations.

4. Require higher levels of accountability

• This has been mentioned already, but needs to be focused on in its own right. Over the last 2 – 3 years we have set quite rigorous expectations of staff around aspects of performance which will undoubtedly improve quality, and have allowed for a settling in period for staff to adjust to a new accountability regime. This regime includes:
  o Performance reviews
  o Development planning
  o Teaching qualifications
  o Student and peer feedback
  o Course feedback
  In some programme areas uptake of these quality processes has been impressive. In others, uptake is patchy at best.
  
  It is now time to insist on compliance, to monitor progress regularly and to ensure consequences for non-compliance.
  
• However, the issue is not about mere compliance with quality processes. Rather, it is about our staff performing to the highest possible standard. Whilst by far and away most staff do a great job, some let the team down.At the end of the day, there are two key tests for us to apply: is teaching practice good enough for our students? Will this practice enhance or diminish our reputation? By “teaching practice” is meant our programmes (how they are structured, what’s in them and how they are taught and assessed), our treatment of students, the quality of teaching, the quality of academic administration.If the answers to either of the questions above is “No”, then the practice must change, and must do so in an agreed timeframe, or the staff member must seek employment elsewhere. What we do want is to retain our strong development orientation, but not to tolerate those who will not or cannot improve following identification that their practice is unacceptable.
  
• Follow through on our accountability requirements with regular monitoring and review of progress. This means putting in place measurement processes so that HOS/HOPs have timely access to the full picture of how their staff and programmes are performing.And it means that we place a high priority on monitoring progress – not just through written reports but through engagement with our evidence base and well focused dialogue. Hence – the twice a year discussion session with each HOS/HOP as suggested earlier in this paper.These discussion meetings would focus primarily on the quality of our teaching and learning practices as follows:
  o Are our quality requirements being implemented? (see above re performance reviews, development planning, student feedback etc.)
  o Is satisfactory progress being made towards our organisational objectives around teaching and learning?
  o Is satisfactory progress being made towards School/Programme area objectives around teaching and learning?
  o What are the emerging issues for the School/Programme area concerning teaching and learning; and what support does the School need to address these?
  Such meetings would be well supported by management information which would increasingly be supplied centrally. They should also be supported by School/Programme area information which provides the necessary context for the data we have available centrally. And, ideally, full discussion of the outcomes being achieved for students will have occurred before the meeting with the Leadership Team.
  
  In summary, it is proposed that our refocus has the following elements:
  
• Our management and leadership more explicitly concentrates on the quality of teaching and learning.
  
• Management information better supports both our understanding of our performance on quality matters, and our decision making.
  
• More support for teachers to teach more effectively.
  
• Accountability is more focused, with an emphasis on developing excellent teaching and active addressing of performance which is below par.
  
  At this point readers could be forgiven for lamenting: more work, where will we get the time, where will we get the resources!!!! And these are all valid concerns/ questions. However:
  
  - First and foremost we need some attitudes to shift, and ultimately the emergence of a more teaching and learning focused culture, and a stronger quality improvement culture.So, our first gains will not require more resources, merely focus and willpower implementing fully what we already have in place. For many staff, nothing will change – already good practice will simply continue. The improvements, and therefore the effort, will be at the margins.
  
  - Second, resources need to be prioritised. This is especially so with the changes proposed centrally.
  
  - Third, some resources need to shift. In school and programme areas this will be about, in part, substituting the current quantity of teaching and assessment work with a better quality of teaching and assessment work. In the longer term we will benefit from more time in the short term spent on improving our practices.
  
  It is no coincidence that the changes signalled in this paper come at the same time as we have signaled an intent to “tame the workload tiger”. If we are relentless in reviewing our priorities, removing unnecessary work and lifting the personal and professional effectiveness of all of our staff, then we will be able to achieve not only a quantum leap in quality, but also the diversification of revenue which is our other key priority for 2008. And with diversified revenue comes more resources. With higher quality comes a higher reputation, a more secure enrolment base, and more credibility within our community and nationally. Success often begets more success!
  
  What we do have to do, though, is to set realistic timeframes to achieve what has been suggested. Resources don’t shift overnight, but they will shift if we plan to do so and that will be the next step!
  
  
  NOTE:
  
  This paper was not intended to capture everything we might do to improve the quality of teaching and learning, rather, to focus on changes to process, attitudes and organisational culture. There is much we can do in terms of enhancing student support and learning environments, both of which can positively impact on teaching and learning. Those issues are for another day.

Permaculture course progress

Original post on Learn Online

So I’ve been going along to the Sunday sessions for the Permaculture Design course, where we now have 11 face to face participants and 5 online participants.

In the face to face sessions we have been focusing a lot of time on the principles and ethics of permaculture. I agree that these need a lot of time and they are quite inspiring ideas that could be applied to just about everything we do (even organisationally), but I get a sense that the face to face participants might be feeling that the course is moving too slowly and that they would like to start getting into more tangible activities.

I’m really glad though that the online group is there with us. Their emails and blogs have given me a lot of motivation to research and maintain the course wiki and related resources, which in turn has kept me feeling as though the course is very active. However, because the face to face participants seem to be not participating online, they may be feeling that the Sunday sessions aren’t moving along quickly enough. Today Kim and I spent a few minutes showing the face to face groups around the online work being done, so I hope some of them will come on and start putting more into the course so that they may get more out of it, but I suspect that that is not what they expected when they enrolled in the course.

So far we have the course wiki that includes the course schedule and links to any media recordings we capture throughout the course, as well as a discussion page that captures the latest from the online participant blogs (we’re still waiting on 3 more). We have also started a Permaculture Design textbook over at Wikibooks that would at first appear to be all by me, but I’ve simply been copy and pasting the handouts, and some of the notes from the participant blogs as a process of my own study in the course. The text will hopefully evolve into a self sustaining resource for many others to use once it reaches that critical wiki point. And there’s an email forum running for people to keep in close contact if they struggle with anything other than email.

What has surprised me is the level of interest that was quickly expressed by people from Portugal to Vermont, and how web savvy they all are It turns out that international interest in permaculture is quite high, which is easily verified by the extensive network of websites and media over the Net for it. With the the online participants helping us to use this pilot course to develop online communication channels and information, we will hopefully have a certificate level course soon, with an online study option, that will help enhance and sustain the face to face course.