A key component of the entire SCA project has been that of
reflection. Our very first data collection activity required us to reflect on
institutional positions, polices and perspectives with regard to teaching and
learning. We also essentially asked our interviewees to reflect on their own
professional learning, and at then at various points in the project, we as the
research team were asked to reflect: on the experience, on the collaboration
and on our own professional learning. And then we were asked to contribute to
this blog – to share through this less formal yet equally revealing medium, an
experience, a process, an event, that came about as a result of the study.
Thus, some further reflections …
I spent quite a bit of time contemplating what might be an
appropriate title for this posting. What did I really want to say in reporting
on a particular outcome of the study? Telling a story was one thing – and might
have some value or generate some interest – but my sense was that the sub-text
would be more interesting. I was curious about the extent to which my
enthusiasm about what had been achieved (uncovered?) as a result of the study
at my institution might be clouding my judgment as to what was really happening
– and potentially could happen – in changing conversations about teaching and
learning at my institution.
But first the story …
As part of the larger study and working with the different
data sets (document analysis, survey and in-depth interviews) we (Brenda,
Nicoline, Jean and I) worked on our institutional case study report. This was a
challenging process as we grappled with issues around audience (who would read
this tome?), and argument (what message did we want to get across?). We were
fortunate, however. Brenda, as the principal investigator on the project,
provided much of the preamble for all of the institutional case studies and
this provided an immediate way into the writing process. Nicoline and Jean were
both working on their PhDs which were situated within the study. Their
scholarly insights helped to strengthen the analysis and the discussion. We
shifted between using ‘report-like’ text and following a more discursive
approach – highlighting enablers and constraints for the professional learning
of academics in their teaching role while seeking to understand what this might
mean for teaching and learning at the institution. The institutional case study
report is available on request (email
brenda@uj.ac.za),
its contents are not the focus of this posting. What is interesting is how the
document emerged as an instrument for change.
The case study report served at the institution’s Committee
for Learning and Teaching at a time when a task team had been commissioned by
the Committee to investigate the Promotion and Recognition of Teaching at the
institution. This proved serendipitous as the task team took the research
findings as set out in the case study report on board as a point of departure
for their work. As their set of ground-breaking recommendations (including
issues relating to promotion, teaching sabbaticals and fellowships, and peer
review of one’s teaching) went out to faculties for comment, an opportunity
arose via the annual in-house Scholarship of Teaching and Learning conference
to capitalise on these different outputs and activities. Thus we conceptualised
a closing event for the conference that would bring together the findings from the
case study report and the recommendations of the task team in a unique way
exploring: “New ways of talking about teaching: Acknowledging teaching as an
institutional good”.
The session was made up of short inputs on key aspects from
the case study report and the task team’s recommendations. These were
interspersed with opportunities for ‘multi-group brainstorm’ sessions during
which responses from the audience of over 100 academics were captured in real
time and displayed on the screens in the venue. The excitement was palpable and
the response both positive and interesting as people spoke about how the
recommendations will let them ‘come out of the teaching closet’, but also how
they expressed concerns about what exposure of their teaching practice to peer
review might mean for them.
I believe the event was special and it felt good to end the
conference on a high note. But what about that sub-text I spoke of earlier? The
interesting bits lie beneath the story. There is the issue of agency, both
corporate and personal. In conceiving the session with colleagues from the
Centre for Teaching and Learning in the way that we did – using the audience,
the technology – represented a considerable risk on my part as the one who
would have to stand in front and manage the process. I was willing to take the
chance because I believed that the institutional case study report provided
credibility and substance. As a group we were confident as we sought to ‘deal’
with audience in a currency we felt they would understand and value
(research!). This same ‘currency’ was recognised when the task team referenced
the study in their report.
Another issue relates to the responses of the academics. The
excitement about the different recommendations made to recognise teaching, on the
one hand, and the hesitancy to accept a review process on the other hand. These
are matters that are unfolding as I write and as the faculties submit their
responses to the recommendations. Already applications for teaching fellowships
have been called for. It will be instructive to see how these processes evolve.
But finally, it is about effecting change (dare we use the
word ‘transformation’) across the system. It is about a multi-site study funded
nationally to support such change. It is about how change takes time (this SCA
study has been ongoing now for four years), and how those of us in academic
development (agents) have to take risks both individually and corporately to
use what has been achieved to challenge existing structures and adopt new discourses
around teaching and learning. To date the project has generated a number of
outputs in the form of journal articles (over and above the different
institutional case study reports). The three PhD students have all made
significant progress and as I write, a number of other publications are in
various stages of preparedness. This is important not only for the contribution
this makes to scholarship, but also because this is the currency we need to use
to effect change, to enable us to take risks and to stand up ‘at home’ for what
we believe in so that we might alter the landscape. I remain cautiously
optimistic.
Susan
