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