LEARNING TO TEACH IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
An
investigation into the influences of institutional context on the professional
learning of academics in their roles as teachers
DRAFT VERSION: 15 December 2016
Authors
Vivienne Bozalek University of the Western Cape
James Garraway Cape Peninsula University of Technology
Nicoline Herman Stellenbosch University
Jeff Jawitz University of Cape Town
Patricia Muhuro University of Fort Hare
Clever Ndebele North West University
Lynn Quinn Rhodes University
Susan van Schalkwyk Stellenbosch University
Jo-Anne Vorster Rhodes University
Chris Winberg Cape Peninsula University of
Technology
Abbreviations
AD Academic
Development
CHE Council
on Higher Education
DoE Department
of Education
DVC Deputy
Vice Chancellor
DHET Department
of Higher Education and Training
HAUs Historically
Advantaged Universities
HDUs Historically
Disadvantaged Universities
HE Higher
Education
HELTASA Higher Education Learning and Teaching Association of
Southern Africa
HESA Higher
Education South Africa
ICTs Information
and Communication Technologies
NRF National
Research Foundation
PGDIP (HE) Post Graduate Diploma in Higher Education
QEP Quality
Enhancement Programme
SES Socio-economic
status
SOTL Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning
TDG Teaching
Development Grant
USAf Universities
South Africa
UOT University
of Technology
VC Vice-Chancellor
Glossary
This glossary provides definitions of
phrases as they are used in this document.
Academic development – all
aspects of support for higher education learning and teaching, including
professional learning and student learning
Agency - the
power of individuals or groups to change their practices, conditions or
contexts
Culture - the
norms, values and ideas that reside within a specific context
Formal
learning - professional learning that takes place through organised workshops
and programmes, lunch hour seminars, teaching conferences, short courses and
qualifications
Informal
learning - happens through day to day interactions with colleagues and peers
in the work contexts. Lecturers also learn by doing, continued practice and
experimentation.
Institutional
context – the university context, that is influenced by systemic and macro
forces, and that in turn influences the working conditions of academics
Learning
to teach, professional development and
professional learning – all refer to
lecturers learning to teach in formal or informal settings
Structure - the
social arrangements, power relations and resources available in any context
Teaching –
engagement with learners to enable their understanding and application of
knowledge, concepts and processes, including design, content selection,
delivery, assessment and reflection
Teaching
and Learning Centre – a catch-all phrase to denote units responsible
to support teaching and learning enhancement, including professional learning.
Bionotes
Vivienne
Bozalek is a Professor and Director of Teaching and Learning at the
University of the Western Cape. She has engaged with professional development
of academic staff both at an institutional and cross-institutional level. She
has led and been involved with a number of collaborative research projects on
innovative and socially just pedagogical practices and participatory
methodologies in higher education.
James
Garraway is an Associate Professor and Acting Director of the Centre for
Higher Education at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology. He is involved
with formal and informal staff development initiatives for the Western Cape
region, as well as within the university itself, with a particular focus on
transitions, which is also his R & D focus.
Nicoline
Herman is the Deputy Director of the Centre for Teaching and Learning at
Stellenbosch University and is responsible for the institutional professional
learning programme for newly appointed academics. She completed her PhD studies entitled The role of context in decision making about
professional learning by lecturers at a research-intensive university, as a
student on this project.
Jeff
Jawitz is an Associate Professor in the Centre for Innovation in Learning and
Teaching at the University of Cape Town.
He has played a central role in the development of a programme for new
academics as well as in establishing the PGdip and Masters programme in Higher
Education Studies at UCT.
Brenda
Leibowitz has a Chair in Teaching and Learning in the Faculty of Education at
the University of Johannesburg. She researches and manages several projects at
the national level and at the University on teaching and learning, professional
learning, the scholarship of teaching and learning and social justice.
Patricia
Muhuro is a senior academic developer in the Teaching and Learning Centre at
the University of Fort Hare. She
teachers as well as coordinates the Postgraduate Diploma in higher education
and training programme. Her research interests centre around academic professional learning and student retention
programmes, particularly those that use technology to enhance teaching and learning.
Clever
Ndebele is an Associate Professor in the Education Faculty at North West
University. His research interests are
in academic professional development and student success. He has worked in the field of academic professional
development previously at the Universities of Venda and Fort Hare.
Lynn
Quinn is Associate Professor and head of
department of the Centre for Higher Education Research, Teaching and Learning
at Rhodes University. She was integral in the development of a Postgraduate
Diploma in Higher Education for lectures and one for academic developer. Her
interest is in all aspects of academic staff development and building the field
of academic development.
Susan
van Schalkwyk is Professor in Health Professions Education and
Director of the Centre for Health Professions Education in the Faculty of
Medicine and Health Sciences at Stellenbosch University. Apart from her
academic development work, she has a particular interest in doctoral education,
academic writing and the mentoring of young researchers through collaborative
endeavours.
Jo-Anne
Vorster is a senior lecturer in the Centre for Higher Education Research,
Teaching and Learning (CHERTL) at Rhodes University. She was involved in
conceptualising and teaches on a range of modules on the PGDip (HE) for
lecturers and the PGDip (HE) for academic developers. Her current research
interests include processes for building the field of academic development and
curriculum development in HE.
Chris
Winberg holds a South African Research
Chair in Work-integrated Learning and leads the Work-integrated Learning
Research Unit at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology. Chris’ research
focus is professional and vocational education, with a particular focus on
engineering education, the professional development of university teachers and
technical communication.
List of
figures and tables
Figure 3.1: A continuum of
professional development and professional learning activities
Figure 5.1: University types by
research/PhDs and concomitant trends (after Cooper, 2015)
Table 5.1: Summary of participating institutions
Table 6.1: Organisation of findings in 6.1
Table 6.1: Summary of objectives and
outcomes
Table 9.1: Summary of recommendations
Thank you to the researchers and
field-workers who contributed to the data gathering and other aspects of the
research: Chrissie Boughey, Jean Farmer, Wendy McMillan, Gita Mistri, June Pym,
Linda Sheckle, Kevin Williams, Jennie Wright.
We pay tribute to the contribution of
Wendy McMillan, who was an avid member of the project and who passed away,
sadly, on 23 December 2015.
Funding for the project was received
from the NRF in the form of two grants over a six-year period:
2011 – 2013: Structure, culture and agency
Grant
number 74003.
2014 – 2016: Interplay of structure, culture and agency: A study on
professional development in higher education
Grant
number 90353.
We are grateful to the participating
universities for sanctioning the participation of their staff in the research,
to all interviewees for agreeing to be interviewed, as well as those who filled
in the questionnaire.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This report forms part of the
National Research Foundation (NRF) – funded project entitled “The interplay of structure,
culture and agency: contextual influences on the professional development of
academics as teachers in higher education in South Africa” which was undertaken
by 18 researchers at eight universities during 2011 – 2016.
While the idea that academic staff
might benefit from educational development entered higher education in the
1960s, it was the arrival of democracy and increased access to higher education
that shifted understandings of the role of university teachers in South Africa.
Since then, while global trends have influenced academic staff development in
South Africa, the local context has played a critical role in shaping its
meaning and scope. Given that South
African aspirations for social and economic transformation are, to some degree,
vested in the work and roles of academic staff, it could be argued that
academic staff developers have an important role to play in helping
universities create enabling conditions and building capacity for teaching and
learning. Contextual differences, however, impact on the nature of academic
work and cannot be ignored in an unequal society like South Africa. A deeper
understanding of context across higher education institutions could provide
insights that might better inform policy at the national level.
The literature on international and
South African professional academic development reveals professional learning
as multi-layered and extremely complex. Theoretical consistency is required to
address staff development consciously and critically. The social realist tradition
offers a way of understanding the interplay of the dynamics of change, power,
causality and agency in teaching and learning systems, and thus provided the
theoretical framework for the study on which this report is based. The research
was undertaken in order to investigate conditions which enable and constrain
the professional learning of academics in their role as teachers and how
academics respond to these conditions, in a range of different South African
higher education institutional settings.
The aims and objectives of the
research were:
1.
to make
suggestions about how to enhance professional development/professional learning with regard to teaching at each of the
eight participating institutions;
2.
to make
suggestions at the national level for appropriate and context-sensitive policy to enhance teaching and learning in
South Africa;
3.
to
contribute to the international debates on professional development with regard
to teaching and learning with specific
reference to the concepts of ‘structure, culture and agency’ as developed in the work of social realist
Margaret Archer;
4.
to
contribute to the international debates on collaborative research;
5.
to make
suggestions at the national level regarding collaborative research on teaching and learning and about how to support
this].
The study had a dual focus that took
both the national context (policy, socio-economic trends, and the higher
education landscape) and the institutional context into account. The eight
participating institutions comprised three historically advantaged
institutions, three historically disadvantaged institutions and two universities
of technology. The group included three rural institutions, and there were also
three ‘research-led’ institutions. A
multi-level and embedded multi-case study was undertaken in order to
investigate the support for quality teaching and the professional development
of academics from a variety of perspectives across and in varied institutional
contexts. The research approach was collaborative, participatory and
practitioner-led, across five different phases.
Phase one
At the national level a desktop study
investigated relevant national policies, the influence of national
organizations and associations and national trends.
Phase two
At each of the participating
institutions a series of documents were compiled by team members using jointly
designed research instruments. These included: a brief description of the
institution in terms of size, shape, geographical setting, resourcing, student
population; a discussion of how teaching and professional development is
described in publically available documents such as policies and mission and
vision statements; and a reflective discussion of the conditions, activities
and impact of the professional development unit/centre for teaching and
learning (compiled by the head of the relevant unit/centre). In addition,
institutional policy documents related to teaching and learning were collated.
Phase
three
An electronic survey with closed and
open questions was distributed to all permanently employed teaching academics
at all eight participating institutions in 2012 (n = 735).
Phase four
Audio-recorded interviews were
conducted by project team members with a range of academics at each
participating institution (n = 116).
Phase five
At the end of years one, three and
six of the project, each researcher wrote a short reflection on their
participation and the workings of the project.
The national level data and the
institutional documents collected during phases one and two were analysed by
sub-groups within the research team. The open answers in the questionnaires
(phase three) and the transcriptions of the interviews (phase four), were
analysed by project members from each participating institution. Data from the
open questions in the questionnaires and the interviews were analysed according
to the following set of themes, which were arrived at by the team via a
thematic analysis:
1. How good teaching is understood – it
was felt that before one can understand how good
teaching is promoted, it is necessary to describe how this is defined at an institution, and whether there is a
shared understanding.
2. The stature of
teaching – its relative status in relation to research, administration and community interaction; the
significance of the activity of teaching for academics.
3. How teaching is promoted at the institution – how professional
development is understood to occur, how it is described as being promoted; and
how individuals believe it should be promoted.
4. How
individuals describe their own roles in their learning to teach.
The study endorses the concept of
‘professional learning’ that is broader than the notion of professional
development, and is lifelong and agentic.
A key finding is that there is a continuum from formal learning opportunities,
more ad hoc and informal learning opportunities, to the most informal of all,
ie. learning from one’s own ongoing
practice. These are all important. The relationship between these dimensions of
learning is complementary and mutually reinforcing. A further salient finding
is the valuing of research and/over and above teaching, signaled at all eight
of the institutions. This is compounded in especially some of the HDIs, where
there is a concomitant pressure for academics to obtain postgraduate
qualifications in their disciplines. An important area for further research and
strategizing in South Africa, as well as other higher education contexts where
there are competing priorities for the enhancement of scholarship and
capacitation is how academics can enhance their capabilities in a more holistic
or integrated manner, than is at present made feasible.
The domain of culture has been shown
in the study to be extremely significant in reproducing and transforming
dominant ideas about teaching and learning in higher education. This domain is
salient at all institutions, whether historically advantaged or
disadvantaged. The study endorses the
view that agency is significant. A contribution of this project is the
suggestion derived from the findings that agency and reflexivity promote the negotiation
of obstacles. Further investigations into how less committed teachers can be
encouraged to learn to teach, requires further consideration.
Finally, the study suggests that
inter-institutional large-scale collaborative research within the South African
higher education setting is feasible, but challenging. There are few guidelines
for how to ensure successful collaborative research environments. Such
information would go a long way to support this burgeoning approach. Finally,
this study process also points to the interrelationship between research,
learning, professional practice, thus how various forms of scholarship are
interlinked.
A number of recommendations emerged
from this work relating to issues of professional learning and methodology. In
sum, the actions suggested by this document for immediate attention at the
national level are:
1.
that a
policy on professional learning with regard to the teaching role (or a chapter
within a broader policy document on the professionalization of the HE academic
cohort) be written drawing on some of the key findings to emerge from this
work;
2.
that a
good practice guide for institutions, academic developers and faculty
management be commissioned;
3.
that the lessons from this research be incorporated into funding
policies of the DHET (for example, support for good teaching might require
focused funding, but in addition, is dependent on funding and functionality of
the HE system as a whole and on funding and functionality of individual
institutions).
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Rationale
and problem statement
1.3 Focus
1.4 Aims
and objectives
2 NATIONAL
CONTEXT
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Policy
documents and implications
2.3 National
and professional organizations
3 LOCATING
THE STUDY IN THE LITERATURE
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Formal
and informal professional learning opportunities
3.3 Principles
underpinning the provision of professional academic development
3.4 The
South African context
3.5 Social
realist account of change
3.6 Collaborative
research
4 RESEARCH
DESIGN
4.1 Research
approach
4.2 Research
strategy
4.3 Analysis
of data
4.4 Parallel
studies
5 FINDINGS AT THE MACRO LEVEL
6 FINDINGS AT THE MESO AND MICRO LEVEL
6.1 The
interplay of structure, culture and agency
6.1.1 Opportunities
for professional learning at the eight institutions
6.1.2 Beliefs
about teaching and about professional learning
6.1.2.1 Status of teaching
6.1.2.2 Conceptions of good teaching
6.1.2.3 Beliefs about professional learning
6.1.3 Conducive
environment for professional learning
6.1.4 Lecturers’
responses to their environments
6.2 Collaborative
research
7 DISCUSSION
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Professional
learning
7.3 Institutional
context from a social realist perspective
7.4 Collaborative
research
7.5 Strengths
and limitations of the research design
8 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Recommendations
relating to professional learning
8.2 Recommedations
relating to research methodology
9 CONCLUSION
Appendix One: Publications
emanating from the project
Appendix
Two: Questionnaire
Appendix
Three: Template for
institutional reports
Appendix
Four A: Schedule for interviews
with lecturers
Appendix Four B: Schedule for interviews with
Vice-Chancellors, Deputy Vice- Chancellors and Deans
Appendix Five: Prompts for reflective responses on
research process
1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
This
report forms part of the National Research Foundation (NRF) – funded project
entitled “The interplay of structure, culture and agency: contextual influences
on the professional development of academics as teachers in higher education in
South Africa” which was undertaken by researchers at eight universities from 2011
to 2013, with a second tranche of funding from the NRF from 2014 to 2016.
The project emerged out of a call
from the NRF in 2010 for educational research to be undertaken collaboratively,
by researchers from at least three institutions, of which one should be rural.
A team of 18 researchers working in the field of professional academic
development were motivated to become involved in this project as they all
worked to enhance teaching and learning in their universities. The team saw
this project as an opportunity to reflect on their own institutional contexts
and on quality teaching and the way professional learning with regard to the
teaching role is supported at their institutions and their academic development
units.
The
project is an investigation into contextual influences on the professional
learning of academics as teachers in higher education in South Africa. It is
based on an analysis of the national context and eight case studies at public
higher education institutions. The eight institutions and sites for the case
studies are:
The lead research institution for
2011 – 2013 was Stellenbosch University. For 2014 – 2016 it was the University
of Johannesburg.
1.2 Rationale and problem statement
Furthermore, academic developers, ie
those who support the professional learning of academics, require a research
base and a capacity to undertake research and reflection in their field of
work. An important means to extend this research base and capacity is through
the sharing of expertise, and one way to encourage this is through
collaborative research. Thus it is useful to understand the potential of this
activity, as well as the contextual features that enable and constrain this.
1.3 Focus
When the first grant proposal for
this research was written, the focus of the research was academics’
participation in ‘professional development’ activities. At the time of writing
this report a greater sense of what is understood by ‘professional development’
with regard to the teaching role exists. As will be discussed in the literature
review in chapter 3, ‘professional development’ applies to participation in
formal programmes and opportunities that are provided by academic developers.
This term is contested by those who advocate the use of the term ‘professional
learning’, arguing that ‘professional learning’ emphasises a more life-long,
agentic and self-directed approach to learning. It includes formal as well as
informal opportunities to learn. ‘Learning to teach’ is a further term that is
applied to this activity. ‘Professional learning’ and ‘learning to teach’ draw
attention to the ways in which learning
to teach occurs not only via acquiring theory and ideas about teaching in
courses and workshops, but also via ongoing practice, reflection and attention
to detail and enhancement. These processes are supported by the social
interaction and material conditions at departmental, faculty and institutional
level. Furthermore, as is discussed in the study, there is a strong
interrelationship between motivation to learn to teach and the material and
social conditions that promote this motivation. Thus various terms are used in
the study: academic development,
which is the generic term given, especially in South Africa, to the field of
teaching and learning support and enhancement; professional development, when the focus is on the formal
opportunities academics have access to; professional
learning or learning to teach,
when the focus is on the role of the lecturer as learner; and teaching, when the focus is on
conditions that enable and constrain good teaching - and thus indirectly,
learning to teach well. ‘Professional
learning’ connotes a broader range of activities than ‘learning to teach’. It
suggests that teaching is a profession, with regular practices, standards, associations
and networks – even though these are not uniformly upheld and acknowledged in
society. The focus of the study is not solely on the conditions which promote
learning to teach, but in addition, the role of lecturers and how they respond
to these conditions.
The focus of the study is the period
when data was collected (2011 – 2012) although some of the statistical data
reflect earlier years, for example HEMIS data from 2009. The chapter on the
South African higher education setting has an ‘updated’ chapter, as this would
be of more interest and value to the readers. It is evident that at many of the
university-specific conditions have changed. However the general structural and
cultural conditions at the eight universities remain similar to what they were
in 2011 – 2012, other than the condition of the emergence of the
#Rhodesmustfall and #Feesmustfall campaigns.
Despite the fact that the research was conducted before these campaigns,
the key points highlighted in this study remain pertinent:
· the substantial inequality between public higher
education institutions in South Africa, which is a feature of the greater
inequality highlighted by the student protests;
· the minimizing of the importance of teaching and
through this, of student success;
· and the great lengths to which a significant
subsection of university teachers go to teach students well and to enhance
their teaching ability.
This study emphasizes the importance
of close attention to conditions ‘at the coalface’, when strategizing for
social transformation and change to teaching approaches, and highlights the
significant role within such transformation drives, of structural, and cultural
features, and individual and group agency.
A final dimension of the focus is the
output, process and experiences of the researchers in this large national
study. The time scale for this is 2011 – 2016.
1.4 Aims and objectives
The aims and objectives of the
research were:
1.
to make suggestions about how to enhance
professional development/professional learning[1] with regard to teaching at each of the eight participating institutions;
2.
to make suggestions at the national level for
appropriate and context-sensitive policy to enhance teaching and learning in
South Africa;
3.
to contribute to the international debates on
professional development with regard to teaching and learning with specific
reference to the concepts of ‘structure, culture and agency’ as developed in
the work of social realist Margaret Archer;
4.
to contribute to the international debates on
collaborative research;
5.
to make suggestions at the national level
regarding collaborative research on teaching and learning and about how to
support this[2].
This report covers the background to
the study, the national setting, theoretical underpinnings, the research
design, the findings and discussion of issues arising out of the findings, and
concludes with recommendations for policy and practice at various levels of
South African higher education (HE) as a system.
The report continues in Chapter Two
with a description of the structures at the macro level, primarily the
regulatory and policy framework affecting teaching development, which would
have had an influence on how professional learning was conceptualized and
conducted during the period under study.
2 CHAPTER TWO: NATIONAL CONTEXT
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a background
for the study, and an overview of national policy, higher education
organisations and socio-economic trends which impacted on higher education
during the period 2011 – 2012.
One of the assumptions of the project
is that the national policy context (amongst other factors) has direct
implications for professional learning, both across institutions, within institutions
and within faculties and departments. Therefore it is not possible to look at
individual institutions and departments as if these are distinct or autonomous
- not only are these HE institutions interconnected with each other, but they
are interrelated with other spheres such as primary and secondary institutions
(Bozalek & Boughey, 2012). The idea that
higher education universities are ‘entangled’ – bound to the other in
‘relations of obligation’ (Barad, 2010:265) is suggested by several of the interviews
with VCs, and developed at more length in the chapter produced as a result of
this project by Bozalek and McMillan (2017).
The HE
landscape in SA has changed considerably since the 1994 transition to
democracy. These changes implemented at the level of policy, legislation,
enrolments and the numbers of institutions, focused on the development of a
coherent higher education system to provide a quality learning experience for
all – staff and students. The diversity that exists across the system is
significant, resulting in many national imperatives playing out quite
differently on the ground. This institutional differentiation and the
historical legacy influenced, and continues to influence, the emergence of
opportunities for the professional learning of academics.
In 2011
student enrolments in higher education in South Africa stood at 938 200,
supported by 16 935 academic staff (DHET 2013). The figure for academic staff
remained relatively static and did not keep pace with student enrolments, an
observation which has obvious implications for conditions related to teaching
and learning. In 2012 only 35% of all permanent academic staff members were in
possession of a doctorate (Cloete, Sheppard & Bailey 2013). The implications of the increasing student
numbers on the one hand and the relatively small percentage of academics who could
take on the full range of teaching responsibilities, including the
responsibility of doctoral supervision, were considerable. The need for more
staff to qualify at higher levels had implications for the development of their
roles as educators since the need to develop the researcher and the teacher
capacity and identity can conflict and impact on time available for each.
2.2 Policy
developments and implications
The overview of policy documents and
the regulatory framework affecting higher education in South Africa was
complemented by the experiences of research team members, who worked in this
sector.
The most
significant shifts at the level of policy were heralded by the passing of the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA)
Act 85 of 1995 which brought into existence the National Qualifications
Framework (NQF) and the South African Qualifications Authority as a ‘guardian’
of the framework. The adoption of an
outcomes based education (OBE) framework had and continues to have implications
for academics who had to learn a new ‘language’ to describe their work and had
to master a new set of principles informing curriculum design and
assessment. Assessment had to be
designed using criterion-based referencing and academics were expected to
engage critically with the new requirements for curriculum development.
Workshops were held throughout the country to assist academics with this new
kind of work but no formal requirements were laid down for academics. In 1997
the White Paper on Higher Education
expanded the brief of the higher education sector by listing its purpose as
being:
● to meet the learning needs and aspirations of individuals
through the development of their intellectual abilities and aptitudes
throughout their lives;
● to address the development needs of society and
provide the labour market
. . . with the ever-changing high- level
competencies and expertise necessary for the growth and prosperity of a modern
economy;
● to contribute to the socialisation of
enlightened, responsible and constructively critical citizens;
● to contribute to the creation, sharing and
evaluation of knowledge. (p. 7-8)
These
purposes required a change in the way higher education in general was
understood as well as the way individual institutions understood their
roles. The idea, for example, that
higher education should provide graduates for the labour market had in the past
not been a central concern for the traditional universities. The White Paper
signalled the need for academics to engage with their educator roles at a level
above the technical concerns related to the development of curricula or the
facilitation and assessment of student learning. As such, it had profound implications for
staff development.
The White Paper of 1997 also provided
for the introduction of quality assurance in higher education through the
establishment of the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) as a permanent
committee of the Council of Higher Education (CHE). The HEQC is responsible for several quality
related functions including i) institutional reviews ii) programme
accreditation iii) national reviews and iv) capacity development.
The criteria for institutional
reviews included one specifically devoted to teaching and learning. The first round of institutional audits was
conducted by the HEQC between 2004 and 2011
(http://www.che.ac.za/media_and_publications/other/audit-status-all-audited-institutions-january-2014).
All institutions were required, for the first time, to report on the
arrangements they had in place to assure the quality of teaching and learning,
including the development of academic staff as educators. The second round of audits was not
implemented as originally conceived and instead the HEQC launched the quality
enhancement programme (QEP) which began in 2016 and focussed on the development
of quality systems of teaching.
The 1998 Skills Development Act established Sector Education Training
Authorities (SETAs) in a number of areas.
One such SETA is responsible for Education Training and Development
Practices (ETDP SETA). The Skills Development Levies Act of 1999
established a skills development levy to be paid by all employers to provide
funding for a National Skills Fund administered by SETAs. Some universities allocated
this funding directly for the development of academic staff as educators,
whilst at others the funds were absorbed into the general budgets of the
universities.
The National Plan for Higher Education of 2002 led the way to a
restructuring of the South African higher education system, through a series of
mergers and incorporations that reduced the number of institutions from 36 to
23,[3]
clustered in three institutional types: traditional research universities, universities
of technology (UoTs) and comprehensive universities. This restructuring had profound implications
for academics in relation to their teaching roles. Each Institution was
required to develop a suite of programmes which would allow them to achieve the
mission and vision that had been identified and successfully graduate students
from their sets of programmes. The so-called ‘research intensive’ universities
which were relatively unaffected by the restructuring needed to consider how
the privileging of research related to undergraduate teaching. In a similar
fashion, UoTs developed from former Technikons needed to help academic staff
undergird their curricula with more theory on knowledge, technology and
society. Finally, within institutions
which moved from ‘traditional’ to ‘comprehensive’ status there were staff who
needed to develop the capacity to develop vocationally based programmes.
A new Funding Model for Higher Education introduced in 2003 allocated
state funding to public universities on the basis of academic activities in the
form of teaching and research outputs.
The model consisted of two components: i) undesignated block grants and
(ii) earmarked grants (Ministry of Education, 2003). The allocation of block grants was determined
by institutional research outputs (publication units and research Masters and
doctoral graduates), teaching outputs (completed non-research degrees and
diplomas) and teaching inputs (full-time equivalent student enrolments). Block grants also contained a development
component related to research and teaching needs. Teaching Development Grants (TDGs) were
allocated, initially where outputs did not meet national norms, and later to
all universities. Earmarked grants were used to support specific purposes, for
example, the funding of the foundation phase of Extended Curriculum Programmes
(ECPs).
The 2003 Funding Model had profound
implications for teaching and learning, not least because of the rewards which
were perceived to accrue to research. In
some institutions, the attainment of research outputs became a priority which
was managed by means of performance appraisal and other mechanisms. This put
pressure on staff to research and arguably jeopardised the amount of time
available for teaching and for professional learning. The pursuit of research
outputs also put pressure on staff to complete higher degrees, most notably the
doctoral degree. Again, this impacted on the time available for teaching and
for teaching development.
In principle,
TDGs were intended to foster a focus on the enhancement of teaching and
curriculum design. In the initial years these grants were not limited to this
purpose and were loosely monitored. In many institutions few gains were made as
a result. In 2008, a Working Group was
established to review the use of TDGs and recommended, amongst other things
that all institutions should be eligible for one regardless of their
performance against national norms. Once
again, the availability of potential funding had implications for staff development
activities. In some cases it projectivised spending on teaching development,
tying it to activities that could be shown to require funding within a
three-year cycle, or allocating more money (and thus control) to teaching and
learning units specifically. In some cases it freed up funding for creative
initiatives in faculties and lifted the visibility and status of teaching
development. At the time of
writing this document the DHET has circulated a proposal for changing the way
in which earmarked grants are to be allocated to higher education institutions
from 2017. It is proposed that University Capacity Development Grant will now
be a combination of the Teaching Development Grant and the Research Development
Grants. It remains to be seen how this new proposal will be implemented and how
it will impact on teaching and learning. It could reduce the polarisation
between teaching and research, on the one hand, or it could increase the
competition between the two roles, especially if these are represented by
different role-players in the university.
2.3 National and professional organisations
Higher
Education South Africa (HESA), formed in 2005, represented the 23
Vice-Chancellors of all South African public universities. Its mandate was to
facilitate the development of public policy on higher education and to
encourage cooperation among universities, government, industry and other
sectors of society. HESA’s strategic
plan and framework (2010-2020) made broad reference to sustaining quality
throughout the university system including teaching and learning, and research.
The organisation changed its name in 2015 to Universities South Africa (http://www.universitiessa.ac.za/).
A HESA
(2011) proposal for growing the next generation of academic staff highlighted
many of the key challenges facing the sector. These included a number of issues
relevant to this research including the inequality across the sector, the very
limited ‘postgraduate pipeline’, prevailing cultures in the different
institutions, as well as factors relating to academics such as remuneration,
mobility, and the age profile. The proposal also provided a strong rationale
and substantial recommendations for developing teaching capacity amongst the
next generation of academics. The potential for the findings of this research
to support the endeavours of the HESA proposal strengthened the rationale for
this study.
In 2006
the South African Technology network (SATN) was established to promote the
particular interests of the five Universities of Technology with sub-committees
to address issues related to teaching and learning, such as assessment and
work-integrated learning. The mandate of the committees was to enhance teaching
and learning across the sector through sharing practices.
The
Higher Education Learning and Teaching Association of Southern Africa (HELTASA), initiated in 2005, is a professional association for educators
and other role-players in the tertiary sector building on the work of its
predecessor, the South African Association for Academic Development (SAAAD).
HELTASA encourages collaborative work between academics and policy-makers,
statutory bodies and other professional associations with an interest in higher
education. Within and across institutions HELTASA endeavours to promote
networking between staff in central units responsible for enhancing educational
quality and faculty-based academic staff with a scholarly interest in teaching
and learning. As such it has the potential to serve as an important driver in
the work towards enhancing the professional learning of academics in their
teaching role. In 2009 HELTASA launched the National Teaching Excellence Awards
in collaboration with the CHE. This
initiative served to acknowledge and publicise the concept of teaching
excellence. Its function was complemented in 2015 by an additional teaching
excellence scheme, the Teaching Advancement at University (TAU) Fellowships
programme, also under the aegis of HELTASA.
HELTASA’s
main forum is an annual conference which provides opportunities for networking
and sharing research and experiences. HELTASA also endeavours to support the
sector through a range of special interest groups (SIGs). The Professional
Development SIG was formed in 2007 with the goal of establishing a support
network for addressing the key challenges in the professional development of
academics. The Academic Development
leaders SIG supports member in providing leadership for learning and teaching,
implementing strategic direction of their institutions and engaging in and
promoting research in learning and teaching. The remaining SIGs have focussed
on Foundation Programmes, Tutoring and Mentoring, Access and Admissions,
E-learning and Writing Centres.
HELTASA
therefore, provides a range of enabling opportunities both for the professional
development of academics in their teaching role as well as for AD practitioners
whose work is to facilitate such professional development. However the impact of this work appears to be
limited to the community of academic development practitioners. A review of the
2011 HELTASA membership list suggests that few disciplinary academics saw the
organisation as their home
(http://www0.sun.ac.za/heltasa/mod/resource/view.php?id=28, 2011).
Further
conferences focusing entirely or in part on teaching and learning in higher
education emerged in the decades after 2000: the South African Educational
Research Association (SAERA), which is linked to the American Educational
Research Association (AERA) and promotes research on higher education; and the
University of Kwa-Zulu Natal’s University Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education conference. This has been in addition to the emergence of several
universities’ partially in-house teaching and learning conferences and
symposia.
A number
of discipline-based national organisations in South Africa focus on aspects of
teaching and learning in higher education. The South African Association of
Health Educators (SAAHE) hosts an annual conference that attracts AD
practitioners and academics teaching in the health sciences. The Southern
African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education (SAARMSTE) has its own journal and provides support for capacity
building in this field. The research-focussed Centre for Research in
Engineering Education (CREE) at UCT helped to establish the Society for
Engineering Education in South Africa (SEESA) in 2011. Each of these
organisations contributes to the mosaic that makes up the SA higher education
landscape and influences the practice of individuals across the system.
Several
of the statutory professional bodies in South Africa play a role in the higher
education context including inter alia the
Engineering Council of SA, the Health Professions Council of South Africa, the
South African Institute for Chartered Accountants, the South African Council
for Social Service Professions and others. Many of these professional bodies
require that their members earn continuing professional development (CPD)
points and in some instances, recognise training in areas of teaching and
learning as being appropriate CPD events.
This chapter has shown that developments during the previous two
decades have focussed on the construction of a single uniform higher education
system to provide quality education for all.
Various legislative, financial, governance and infrastructural
initiatives have been undertaken to build and steer the new system. Efforts to build a network of opportunities
for professional learning of academics have been supported in part by a number
of professional and voluntary associations.
Results of these efforts with regard to equality of opportunity for
staff and students alike, and with regard for opportunities to learn to teach
have at best been mixed, as will be demonstrated in chapters five and six of
this report, and by the #Fees must fall and #Rhodes must fall student
demonstrations in 2015 and 2016.
3 CHAPTER
THREE: LOCATING THE STUDY IN THE
LITERATURE
3.1 Introduction
This chapter comprises a review of
three bodies of literature informing the study: professional learning; a social
realist approach to change and context; and collaborative research.
The idea
that academic staff might benefit from educational development entered higher
education in the 1960s, coinciding with the massification of higher education,
rapid technology changes, pressures to publish, and changes in thinking about
the role and nature of higher education (Grant et al. 2009). In South Africa, the arrival of democracy and
increased access to higher education shifted understandings of the role of
university teachers from student development (the ‘underprepared’ student) to
teacher development (the ‘underprepared’ teacher and, by implication, the
‘underserved’ student) (Volbrecht 2004; Boughey 2007). The agenda for staff
development has struggled to find coherence in the post-apartheid context with
its increasing pressures of teaching, research, publication, institutional
transformation, community engagement and systems of ‘hard’ management. There is
subsequently little shared understanding between academic development
practitioners and university managers of the priorities for academic staff
development. Practices have, at times, been contradictory: discourses of social justice blend with
discourses of student deficit, while modernist approaches to development
persist, even while it is acknowledged that these approaches fail to address
key issues (Bozalek & Boughey, 2012; Bozalek & Dison, 2012). Global trends have influenced academic staff
development in South Africa, although the local context has played a critical
role in shaping its meaning and scope; there are thus important differences
between South African understandings of professional learning and dominant
international versions (Gosling 2009 A and B).
This chapter
contains an overview of the literature on the professional learning of academic
staff in their teaching roles. It begins with a survey of the international
literature on formal and informal provision, then explores some of the
underpinning principles on which this provision is based, and finally looks
more closely at the importance of the South African context in which
professional academic development is situated. The literature is followed by
the conceptual framework that guides our own understanding of professional
learning of university teachers.
The
international literature describes a wide range of professional development
activities in support of academic staff in their teaching roles: seminars (Boud
1999), workshops (Steinert et al. 2006), formal programmes (Butcher &
Stoncel 2012), educational research grants (Brew 2012), teaching academies
(Olsson & Roxå 2013), departmental ‘workgroups’ (Trowler 2008), collegial
networks – both face-to-face (Walker 2001; Vogel 2009) and online
(Duncan-Howell 2009), consultations and peer review processes (Sachs & Parself
2014), such as teaching awards (Wright et al. 2004) and teaching portfolios for
ad hominem promotion (Seldin 2004;
Trowler & Bamber 2005). A number of terms have evolved to describe these
practices, such as ‘academic staff development’ (Ballantyne, Borthwick & Packer
2000); ‘educational development’ (Amundsen & Wilson 2012; Cilliers &
Herman 2010), ‘professional academic development’ (Quinn 2012), ‘professional
development’ (Guskey 2002) and ‘professional learning’ (Boud 2005; Knight, Tait
& Yorke 2006).
The terms
have histories of usage and different nuances (Leibowitz 2016a), for example
‘educational development’ has largely been understood as comprising taught
courses, something that academic developers provide for academic staff
(Webster-Wright 2009), implying a more passive role for university teachers,
while the term ‘professional learning’ (Knight et al. 2006) implies a more
active role for university teachers in pursuit of their own learning.
Regardless of the ‘baggage’ that these terms may carry, the literature suggests
that both ‘professional development’ and ‘professional learning’ are relevant
practices in support of improved student learning (Mayer & Lloyd 2011).
The
literature claims a variety of benefits for a range of professional development
and learning practices – from theory-based learning on formal programmes to
less formal practice-based learning through mentoring or critical reflection on
practice. While taught programmes tend to foreground theory, it is not only in
formal programmes that university teachers engage with learning theories.
Participants in seminars and reading circles also engage deeply with
educational theory. Similarly, it is not only through informal learning that
university teachers deepen their engagement with practice; formal systems for ad hominem promotion, for example,
require teaching portfolios that involve candidates in developing rich,
detailed descriptions of their practice. Professional development and learning
can be group-based (e.g., participation in teaching and learning networks and
projects) or individual (e.g., a staff member engaging with student feedback on
his/her teaching). The literature thus suggests that a range of both formal and
informal, individual and group, theoretical and practice-based learning opportunities
are important for professional growth and development, from enrolment on formal
professional development programmes to participation in informal supportive
networks.
The
terminology noted above has also shifted in emphasis from educational development or academic
staff development to professional
development and professional
learning. The shift from ‘learning to teach’ (Ramsden 1992) to ‘professional
learning’ (Knight et al. 2006) is indicative of the growing importance of the
professionalization of teaching in higher education, despite its continuing
lesser status in relation to research (Brew 1999). Professionalism is
predicated on the idea that the professional can apply systematic knowledge to
practice; Eraut (1994) describes this as a key attribute of a profession. As
professionals, university teachers would be expected to possess systematic
knowledge related to teaching and learning since systematic knowledge is bound
up with the idea of professional judgment (Evans 2008; Winch 2015). University
teachers should be able to legitimate their actions through appeal to the
systematic knowledge base that underpins their practice and to employ it in
decision-making (Edwards & Daniels 2012). Eraut (1994) believes that the
personal attributes of confidence, commitment, openness to feedback and a deep
professional commitment to the value of one’s work is essential in professional
practice. In professional learning, the flow of knowledge is not necessarily
one way only. Professional communities themselves take part in knowledge
creation (Nerland & Jensen 2012). In
the context of university teaching, Gosling and O’Connor (2006) propose a
Review of Professional Practice (RPP) model, a non-judgemental collaboration
between academic developers and academic staff for the purposes of professional
learning. The importance of organisational cultures, practices and support has
been recognised as critical, as the ‘lack of organisational support can
sabotage any professional development effort, even when the individual aspects
of professional development are done right’ (Guskey 2002, 48).
The
emphasis on informal opportunities to learn has been accompanied by the view
that learning that occurs in the micro setting is more significant than that
which occurs as the result of centrally provided formal learning opportunities
(Knight, Tait & Yorke, 2006) and therefore, that attention to the work
environment is crucial to ensure professional learning (Boud & Brew, 2013; 2017). It is
suggested by McKinney (2006), Bozalek, McMillan, Marshall, November, Daniels
and Sylvester (2014) and Buller (2015) that within such enabling environments,
lecturers and teaching are valued both by peers and by management. According to
McMurray and Scott (2013) a climate that fosters learning displays attributes
of support, trust and fairness, and innovation and recognition. According to
Trigwell (2012) the feelings evoked by, and towards, our contexts, are of more
significance than any permanent emotional dispositions we might have. This is supported
by Costandius (2012), who states that the emotional reactions of humans usually
reveal characteristics of their environments. Cultivating caring environments
at institutions of higher education could therefore be a potentially productive
approach to enhance the decision making of academics for participating in
professional learning opportunities for teaching (Herman, 2015). The literature has cited factors other than
interpersonal relationships as impacting on professional learning. For example
workload has been cited as a feature affecting professional learning by
academics in national and international studies (Kahn, 2009; Cilliers &
Herman, 2010; Boud & Brew, 2013; Clarke & Reid, 2013). The influence of
culture in the localized network or the ‘microculture’ for teaching and
learning has been demonstrated in a research intensive university in Sweden
(Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009). Roxå (2014:abstract/n.p.) makes the point that
they ‘provide opportunities for professional sophistication as well as for defensive
withdrawal from the organizational context surrounding them’.
The
research literature on academic staff development points to both the importance
of relevant theoretical knowledge for underpinning practice and that of
supportive networks for collaborative learning from experience, critical
reflection on practice and wider participation (Mayer & Lloyd 2011).
Academic staff development could be located along a continuum with largely
theory-based learning at the one end of the continuum and informal,
practice-based acquisition at the other end.
|
|
|
Theory
|
|
|
|
|
PH D
(HE)
M
Phil (HE)
PG
Dip (HE (T&L)
|
 |
Seminars
Reading
Circles
|
|
 Formal |
|
|
|
Non-formal
|
|
|
Teaching
Portfolios (eg., for Ad hominen
promotion)
Accreditation
|
|
Short
courses
Work
groups
Mentoring
|
|
|
|
|
Practice
|
|
|
The
different positions on the plane above correspond to Ryle’s (1949) classic
distinction between ‘knowing that’ (theoretical knowledge that underpins
practice) and ‘knowing how’ (skilful practice). Schwandt (2005) explains these
positions in terms of two models of professional learning. In Model 1,
practices are understood to be underpinned by relatively fixed bodies of
disciplinary knowledge that can be applied to well-defined problem situations.
Model 2, on the other hand, involves practitioners in purposefully and
cooperatively redefining problems and developing new ways of doing through
interaction with one another and with material objects in the site of practice.
Although there are always elements of Model 1 in Model 2, the latter has
greater relevance to practice. There are many variants along this continuum,
and different professions tend to have a preference for different positions
along the continuum.
Academic
staff development has occurred in the absence of an explicit educational model,
although the practice has been hybrid, teaching both the underpinning theory in
classroom settings (Model 1), with the inclusion of context and practice
through critical reflection on practice or through practice-based assignments
(Model 2). Academic staff are required to learn on-the-job from day one, often
without guidance, mentoring or support. Separating university teachers from
their departments into generic staff development spaces might be inappropriate,
particularly if it promotes decontextualized teaching ‘skills’. As Wenger
points out, the workplace should be the central arena for professional
learning; foregrounding the training room (or online equivalent) as the main
site of learning teaches the professional to be a student rather than a
practitioner (Wenger 1998). It can be difficult for academic staff to relate
theoretical knowledge to practice when making the transition from the training
room to their own classrooms. In this regard it is important for academic
developers to understand something of the situated workplaces of the university
teachers whom they are supporting (McAlpine & Harris 1999; Boyd, Smith &
Beyaztas 2015).
Central
to the idea of teaching excellence in the literature is ‘reflective practice’.
Reflective practice is the bedrock of professional identity (Schön 1987).
Reflecting on performance and acting on reflection has long been understood as
a professional imperative in higher education (Barnett 1997). Reflective practice is understood as the
process of learning through and from experience towards gaining new insights of
self and practice (Edwards and Daniels 2012; Reich & Hager 2014; Siebert &
Walsh 2013). This involves examining the assumptions of everyday practice and
requires practitioners to be self-aware and to critically evaluate their own
responses to practice situations. By engaging in critical reflection,
practitioners open themselves to scrutiny, and thus might become subject to
self-control and self-surveillance (Zembylas 2006) but, if implemented
meaningfully, reflection invites practitioners to question the ethics, values
and underpinning theories that form the basis of their practice. As such,
reflection on practice offers a potential challenge to existing practices in
higher education.
Dewey
(1910) was an early proponent of the importance of reflection for rational
action. Dewey’s principles of reflective practice were taken up by Schön (1983;
1987) who extended these principles to explain skilful practice, including the
teaching of skilful practitioners. Later scholars argued that Schön’s
conceptual framework ignored the importance of context in practice in
professional education and introduced the concept of critical reflection.
Freire (1985) introduced this concept, understanding that teachers and their
students should be liberated from social oppression, and making the point that
teachers make conscious political choices, such as to be ethical in thoughts
and actions. Excellent teachers, Freire argues, are disposed to change: they
acknowledge their personal attitudes and are self-aware of the process of
change. Freire saw critical reflection
as the culmination of a movement from social conditioning to critical
reflection towards praxis. Mezirow (2000) proposes three types of reflection
for transformative action: ‘content reflection’ in which the subject thinks
deeply about the content of what was taught/learned; ‘process reflection’ in
which the subject considers and evaluates the strategies used to
teach/facilitate learning; and ‘premise reflection’ in which the subject
confronts personal assumptions and values.
The concept has entered many fields of education. Bryan and Recesso
(2006) in computer engineering describe teachers’ reflective activities as a
deep engagement with values, beliefs and assumptions. Critical reflection is
thus intellectually unsettling; its outcome is changed practice, with a social
justice focus across many fields and professions (Benade 2015). Critical
reflection ‘lays bare the historically and socially sedimented values at work
in the construction of knowledge, social relations, and material practices . .
. it situates critique within a radical notion of interest and social
transformation’ (Giroux 1983: 154-155). Critically reflective teaching practice
challenges both strategies and beliefs about teaching and learning within the
wider socio-economic and political fabric of society and is concerned with
exposing and challenging discourses, narratives and discursive practices at
play within society.
Recent
studies have suggested that the knowledge-base for higher education teaching
and learning has not stabilised into a systematic body of knowledge (Vorster
& Quinn 2012), although, as pointed out above, there has long been an
understanding that knowledge built through critically reflective practice
contributes significantly to professional learning (Brookfield 1995; Van Mannen
1995). While ‘critical reflection’
remains the mainstay of professional learning (see e.g., Ashwin et al. 2015),
there is emerging critique of this (see e.g., Bozalek & Zembylas 2016).
There has also been an emerging body of additional concepts that have become
fairly standard in both formal and informal learning at introductory and more
advanced levels. These include: the role and importance of the higher education
context; learning theories (particularly social constructivism) and
learning-centred pedagogies (with a growing focus on ICTs for teaching and
learning); constructive alignment (Biggs 2000); ‘epistemological access’ to
disciplinary knowledge (Morrow 2004) (and what this means for challenging
deficit understandings of student learning); ‘threshold concepts’ (Meyer &
Land 2006); and graduate attributes (Barrie 2006), including ‘employability’
(Barrie et al. 2010).
Much of
South African aspirations for social and economic transformation are vested in
the work and roles of academic staff (CHE 2016). Undoubtedly, professional
academic staff development and learning is needed in the South African higher
education context and academic staff developers have a role to play in helping
universities to create enabling conditions and to build capacity for teaching
and learning.
There is growing understanding in the
literature that the broader contexts, such as the type of university (research
intensive, teaching intensive) (Clegg 2009; Cooper 2015), the nature of the
discipline or vocational/professional programme (Maton, Hood & Shay 2016;
Boyd, Smith & Beyaztas 2015); the institutional context (Wright et al., 2004); the departmental
culture (Trowler 2008; Guskey 2002) as well as the resources available for
teaching and learning – whether these are appropriate and adequate for large
group teaching (Gibbs & Jenkins 1997) laboratory-based teaching (Bates
& Poole 2003) or ICTs for teaching and learning (Laurillard 2002; Bozalek,
Ng’ambi & Gachago 2013; Czerniewicz & Brown 2013) – impact strongly on
what teachers are able to achieve.
The
literature on universities in rural settings has been dominated by ‘deficit’
understandings of rurality, such as geographic remoteness, low educational
levels of the population and a range of other ‘difficulties’ (White & Corbett 2014). Mgqwashu (2016)
argues that higher education encourages students to turn against rural life and
that the ‘social goods’ of higher education in South Africa cannot be
considered without reference to rurality. Rurality is understood to be a
demographic as well as social category, which intersects with other indicators
of social inequality. In general it implies distance from urban centres, sparse
population, lack of amenities and infrastructure, and material and sometimes
social deprivation. Thus in the SA
context history and geography intersect; whether a university was ‘previously
disadvantaged’ and continues to be under-resourced, whether its physical location
affects the institution’s ability to attract and retain academic staff, and in
this way, impact on teaching quality. These issues have been explored by
articles emanating from the research – for example cultural and structural
features in Leibowitz et al. (2015); and features pertaining
directly to how rurality intersects with previously disadvantaged institutions
in Ndebele, Muhuro and Nkonki (2016). Disparities in staff-student ratios,
access to resources and a student population that for many and complex reasons
is underprepared for university study, serves to perpetuate historical
inequities in teaching and learning practices in rural institutions (le Roux
& Breier 2012).
Contextual
differences impact on the nature of academic work across contexts. For example,
teaching in a poorly resourced context with a 1: 80 staff to student ratio of
largely underprepared undergraduate students makes different demands on an
academic staff member than teaching in a research-intensive, well-resourced institution
where there are many more postgraduate students. In the former case, academic
staff would have a primary teaching focus and putting pressure on such
lecturers to both improve their qualifications and publish in accredited
journals might not be appropriate in terms of their context; on the contrary
such pressure will draw resources and energies away from much needed
undergraduate teaching and learning.
The key
contextual features associated with history, geography and resources cannot be
ignored in an unequal society like South Africa. For instance, national
policies expected to lead to the enhancement of teaching and learning should
not be based primarily on good practice at elite institutions, nor solely on
the needs of disadvantaged institutions. A deeper understanding of context
across higher education institutions could provide insights that might better
inform policy at the national level – e.g., is the push for the PhD
appropriate? Should all funding/ranking be based on research outputs? Should
teaching-intensive universities have another ranking system?
The
literature on international and South African professional academic development
reveals professional learning as multi-layered and extremely complex.
Theoretical consistency is required to address staff development consciously
and critically and the social realist tradition offers a way of understanding
the interplay of the dynamics of change, power, causality and agency in
teaching and learning systems. Work on professional development and learning in
South Africa has drawn on social realism to reveal the ‘deeper levels of
reality’ (Quinn 2012: 47) and to explore the causal power of the system as well
as the agency of teachers, and to do so in a nuanced manner, taking into
account the complexity of the multi-directional relationships that exist. It
also takes into account history and social structure, but at the same time,
allows for an investigation into the role of human agency and creativity.
Our
study is based on the idea that the higher education system consists of two
domains: structure and culture. The structural domain typically comprises
‘roles, organisations, institutions, systems’ (Archer 1996: 1). Culture is
understood as the dominant register of ideas or propositions, and is not always
coherent or unitary (Archer 1995). Archer and Elder-Vass (2012) understand
culture as emerging from iterative cycles of interaction between the cultural
system and sociocultural interpretations. In any setting an entity will have
cultural or structural properties (Elder-Vass 2010). These properties will
create enablements or constraints. It is how they interplay with the third
domain – human agency – that leads to the variability of outcome in any
situation. Agency is derived from human reflexivity (Archer 2007), a process of
internal deliberation in which concerns, commitments and knowledgeability play
a role. The role of reflexivity in agency and how it
helps to explain how teachers in
one institution attained levels of excellent teaching practice in a challenging
environment is explored in more detail in Winberg (2017).
Archer’s
(2007) notion that actions depend on our knowledgeability implies that
reflexivity alone is insufficient to characterize how individuals respond to
their conditions. A useful concept for investigating higher education
institutions and their role in fostering educational development (or lack
thereof) is that of ‘emergence’. According to Elder-Vass (2010, p. 8), multiple
properties of an entity can interfere with or reinforce each other, leading to
many possible outcomes. Elder-Vass writes, ‘Causal efficacy is a product of the
parts and the relations combined’ (2010, p. 23). This is important when considering
how universities produce varied educational outcomes: we need to consider the
parts that make up the organization, and how they interact, at different
levels.
Our
framework thus takes ‘context’ to be a set of relationships of various
properties which can be analysed in relation to the domains of structure,
culture and agency. These domains are separated for the purposes of
understanding the interplay of relations, but they are not separate entities in
their own right. Contexts, in the case of individual higher education
institutions, are the settings in which the systemic relations interact with
the individual.
Transforming
our positions in society is possible but ‘their transformation depends partly
upon the subjective reflexivity of primary agents in seeking to play an active
part in re-shaping society’s resource distribution’ (Archer 2000: 11). Primary
agents can respond to social or institutional structures and cultures by
forming new collectivities that share a desire for transformative action. As
such, they become corporate agents. Corporate agents have ‘capacities for
articulating shared interests, organising for collective action, generating
social movements and exercising corporate influence in decision-making’ (Archer
2000: 266). The capacity to bring about social transformation is accomplished
through particular modes of reflexivity. Archer argues that while structural
properties shape the situations that agents face, their modes of reflexivity
define their concerns, and that social practices are produced from agents’
reflexive deliberations. Archer also refers to group agency, a concept further
developed by Donati, who maintains that corporate agency can be fostered
deliberately by cultural and structural features (Donati, 2010),
Collaborative research refers to
projects that seek to contribute to the scholarship in the field by bringing
together a group of researchers within that field as co-investigators. It
implies a sharing of activities within a project with everyone working towards
a shared goal. The term ‘community of enquiry’, was used by Christie et al (2007)
to stress that the collaboration leads to new knowledge. The nature of the
collaboration is often determined by the discipline. For instance, those in the
natural sciences often represent a much ‘tighter’ or structured relationship
where the same design and instruments are used. A loose collaboration and
sharing might be the case in the humanities and social sciences (Lewis, Ross &
Holden, 2012). Either way, collaborative work is recognised as being complex
(Kahn et al. 2012; Sullivan et al 2010) and not without significant challenges.
The opportunity to share expertise, particularly in terms of research practice,
and to be exposed to a range of perspectives and positions, is desirable and
studies point to enhanced quality of outcomes (Kezar 2005, Kahn et al 2012). An
important outcome of collaborative research can be the professional learning of
those involved in the project (Leibowitz, Bozalek, Carolissen, Nicholls,
Rohleder & Swartz, 2012; Cox 2006; Walker 2001; Smith, MacKenzie, & Meyers
2014).
Work that has focussed on
collaborative educational research
has identified a range of issues that can add to the complexity of the
engagement in such projects. These include the size or diversity of the group
(Brew et al. 2012), its disciplinary composition (Bossio et al. 2014) and other
features such as power dynamics and social and educational histories (Griffin,
Hamberg & Lundgren, 2013). An important outcome of collaborative research
can be the professional learning of those involved in the project (Leibowitz,
Bozalek, Carolissen, Nicholls, Rohleder & Swartz, 2012; Cox 2006; Walker
2001; Smith, MacKenzie, & Meyers 2014). The extent to which this research
project was collaborative, resulting in productive learning, is discussed in
the findings, Chapter 6.2.
4 CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN
4.1 Research approach
The research approach was
collaborative, participatory and practitioner-led, in that academic developers
responsible for professional development at eight institutions came together to
undertake research that would foster their critical reflection on their
practice. The literature on professional
academic development and a social realist lens were used to examine how change
occurs. The approach was also pragmatic (Creswell 2003; Greene, Kreider & Mayer
2005; Roziek 2013), thus driven by a motivation to ascertain findings that
would lead to practical recommendations.
It was a form of insider research (Trowler 2011) as all researchers
worked within higher education, with the concomitant advantages as well as
disadvantages of conducting research as insiders.
The research design was informed by a
critical realist approach (Bhaskar 1998) that sees reality as occurring on
three planes: the real, underlying
relationships; the actual events as they occur and the empirical, as individuals experience
these events. The study thus sought to ascertain the underlying relationships
and explanations, via the empirical. The research is also informed by the
analytical distinctions between, at the systemic level, the structure
(including power relationships, resources and rules) and culture (the dominant
ideas and the discourses), and the interplay with individual and group agency -
as discussed in the Chapter 3.5.
4.2 Research strategy
A multi-level and embedded multi-case
study (Yin 2013) was undertaken in order to investigate the support for quality
teaching and the professional development of academics from a variety of
perspectives across the macro, meso and micro levels, and in varied
institutional contexts. The research
focused on the level of the empirical, ie the experiences of academic
developers, administrators and academics. It also utilised information obtained
from publicly available data on the national and institutional settings, and
policy documents at the national and institutional level. These provide information
about structures, as well as the culture, or body of ideas that are formally
encoded in policy. Policy is seen to be
‘real’ and as having real consequences despite the limited impact it might
have, as it is ignored, watered down or adapted, as is succinctly captured in
Reynolds’ and Saunders’ metaphor of the ‘policy implementation staircase’ (cited in Trowler, 2002). The use of publicly
available documents and references to macro trends provides a context - and
counterfoil - which may either support or dispute the subjective accounts
provided by the various role-players.
Phase one
At the national level a desktop study
investigated relevant national policies, the influence of national
organizations and associations and national trends.
Phase two
At each of the participating
institutions the following documents were compiled by team members using
jointly designed research instruments (see Appendices Three and Four):
● Document
One, containing:
a) a brief description of the institution in terms
of size, shape, geographical setting, resourcing, student population
b) a discussion of how teaching and professional
development is described in publically available documents such as policies and
mission and vision statements
●
Document Two, containing:
a
reflective discussion of the conditions, activities and impact of the
professional development unit/centre for teaching and learning and was compiled
by the head of the relevant unit/centre
●
Institutional policy documents related to
teaching and learning - all of these were submitted to a central database.
Phase three
An electronic survey with closed and
open questions was distributed to all permanently employed teaching academics
at all eight participating institutions in 2012 (see Appendix Two).
Altogether 736 responses were
received. The response rate varied per institution, with 272 (33.5%) being the
highest response rate at one institution and 21 (3%) being the lowest. Only
four out of the eight institutions were able to make significant use of the
numeric data for their institutional case studies. The difficulty of
disseminating the questionnaire at especially the HDU’s due to technical and
communication difficulties, attests to the key focus of this study – that
institutional context makes a qualitative difference, whether to professional
learning or to data gathering for research purposes. The questionnaire was
answered on a voluntary basis, with 89% reporting that they were either ‘very
interested’ or ‘passionate’ about teaching, and 75% indicating that they had
attended some form or professional learning opportunity at their institution.
Phase four
Audio-recorded interviews were
conducted by project team members in pairs, ie from one participating
institution with four to five members of the senior management at another
participating institution (eg Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellor
responsible for teaching and learning and two or three Deans) by the end of
2012. (See Appendix Four for the interview schedules.) 10 – 16 teaching
academics from each institution were interviewed and audio-recorded. The
participants were selected according to a predetermined matrix of criteria
including discipline, seniority, gender, race and degree of participation in
professional development opportunities. These interviews were conducted by
members of the project team (six institutions) or by research assistants at
their own institutions (two institutions).
In some instances more interviews
than the prescribed minimum were conducted, leading to a total of 116
interviews across the eight institutions.
Phase five
At the end of years one, three and
six of the project, each researcher wrote a short reflection on their
participation and the workings of the project based on a series of questions
(see Appendix Five).
4.3 Analysis
of data
The national level data and the
institutional documents collected during phases one and two were analysed by
sub-groups within the research team. The open answers in the questionnaires
(phase three) and the transcriptions of the interviews (phase four), were
analysed by project members from each participating institution. Data from the
open questions in the questionnaires and the interviews were analysed according
to the following set of themes, which were arrived at by the team via a
thematic analysis:
1. How good teaching is understood – it was felt
that before one can understand how good teaching is promoted, it is necessary
to describe how this is defined at an institution, and whether there is a
shared understanding.
2. The stature of teaching – its relative status in
relation to research, administration and community interaction; the
significance of the activity of teaching for academics.
3. How teaching is promoted at the institution – how
professional development is understood to occur, how it is described as being
promoted; and how individuals believe it should be promoted.
4. How individuals describe their own roles in their
learning to teach.
These themes pertain broadly to what
emerged most strongly from the data. Themes 1 and 2 are most closely associated
with the systemic domain of culture, although there are structural dimensions,
especially with regard to the stature of teaching, in that policies promoting
the stature of teaching, would be regarded as ‘structures’, or as structural.
Theme three pertains most directly to structural issues, but includes the
conceptions of professional learning that academics held. The deeper the team
delved into the data, the more apparent it became that teaching is not promoted
solely via formal learning opportunities. For this reason section 6.1.3 of this
report, on conducive environments, focuses on cultural and structural features
in the teaching and learning environments. The emerging appreciation of the
significance of cultural and structural features of the environment represented
a shift in the study to include an enlarged understanding of what enables and
constrains professional learning in higher education. Theme 4 pertains most
directly to the dimension of individual and group agency.
Data on participants’ engagement with
the research process collected after year one were analysed by three team
members, with a focus on the outcomes of collaboration and the challenges to
researchers’ identities (see Leibowitz, Ndebele and
Winberg, 2014). Data collected after year three were analysed
and written up by 14 of the team members with a focus on the cultural and
structural conditions influencing the outcome of the collaboration, and
significance of corporate or group agency (see Leibowitz et al, 2016).
Ethics
The project obtained ethical
clearance from the lead institution for 2011 - 2013, Stellenbosch University,
and from each participating institution. All information identifying specific
individuals has been removed at the stage of transcription and storing of data.
4.4 Ancillary studies
Several ancillary sub-studies were
conducted, for example into the working conditions of extended curriculum
lecturers; professional development in the health sciences and the influence of
biography on the professional identities of academic developers. Four Phd
students conducted parallel studies using selections of the data.
5 CHAPTER
FIVE: FINDINGS AT THE MACRO LEVEL
This
chapter presents the structural and cultural features at the macro terrain . The
conditions at the eight participating universities are summarized in Table 5.1
below. The eight institutions participating in the study, via their
institutional reports, serve as examples of the structural and cultural
macro-features of South African higher education. They demonstrate the socio-economic
disparities between institutions and institution types. The uneven terrain on which
they operate has the potential to influence academics’ professional learning –
as will be discussed in more detail in chapters six and seven.
|
Institution
type
|
No.
|
Location
|
Focus
|
Merged
|
Student
population
|
No. of
campuses
|
Student/Staff
ratio (SAIRR 2012)
|
|
HAUs
|
|||||||
|
|
1
|
Urban
|
Research
|
|
Elite schools
|
3
|
19 to 1
|
|
2
|
Urban
|
Research
|
|
Elite schools
|
4
|
23 to 1
|
|
|
3
|
Rural
|
Research
|
|
Elite schools
|
1
|
19 to 1
|
|
|
HDUs
|
|||||||
|
|
4
|
Urban
|
Teaching and research
|
|
Disadvantaged schools
|
3
|
27 to 1
|
|
|
5
|
Rural
|
Teaching
|
Merged
|
Disadvantaged schools
|
3
|
34 to 1
|
|
|
6
|
Rural
|
Teaching
|
|
Disadvantaged schools
|
1
|
33 to 1
|
|
UoTs
|
|||||||
|
|
7
|
Urban
|
Teaching
|
Merged
|
Disadvantaged schools
|
8
|
34 to 1
|
|
|
8
|
Urban
|
Teaching
|
Merged
|
Disadvantaged schools
|
8
|
41 to 1
|
This chapter
makes use of the reports generated during Phase Two of the study, namely the
reports on the eight institutions and reflections on the workings of the
Teaching Development Centre, as well as Cooper’s (2015) division of South
African universities into three main categories or bands. These bands are based
largely on their research outputs, PhD and M graduates and their ratios of
undergraduate to postgraduate enrolled students. Cooper’s division is used as a
counterfoil to the data generated by the researchers during Phase Two of the
study.
An
adapted version of Cooper’s (2015) division is provided in Figure 5.1.
According to Figure 5.1 there is an upper band of research-intensive
universities, a middle band of universities with a moderate to good research
profile and a lower band of universities with a concomitant low research
profile (Figure 5.1).
The
universities participating in this study fall into the bands as follows: HAU1
and HAU2 fall into Band 1; HAU3 and HDU4 fall into Band 2; and HDU5, HDU6, UOT7
and UOT8 fall in Band 3.
Figure 5.1: University types by
research/PhD’s and concomitant trends
(after Cooper, 2015)
Interestingly,
as Cooper (2015) observes, the greatest burden of low socioeconomic status (SES) students remains predominantly within
the lower band of universities, where students would be expected to require the
most help with their studies, and so teaching staff may face greater
challenges. Furthermore, there is a general trend of decreasing staff: student
ratios as one moves down the bands (see similar lecturer: student ratios in
Table 5.1). In the two upper band universities in this study there has not been
an increase in African students over the past few years (in one case, a drop)
but, more importantly, many of these same students are second-generation
university students. The situation is contrasted with the bottom band where
students are more likely to be first generation and generally predominantly
African (see, for example, the feeder school profiles in Table 5.1). Second
generation students have a distinct advantage in undertaking university studies
as compared to their first generation peers. Furthermore, those universities in
the lower bands were more likely to have been affected by the mergers, which
can, in some cases, create unstable conditions for academic staff. Jansen
(2003, p. 43,) for example, noted how ‘the impact of mergers on staff, in all
cases, has been devastating for the emotional and professional lives of all
staff, at all levels’. Comments on the impact of the mergers are
also recorded in a chapter arising out of the research, Bozalek and McMillan
(2017).
Band 1
Band 1,
including HAUs 1 and 2, represents medium sized, urban universities which tend
to be characterised as ‘top’ universities in the country, as indicated by their
high levels of research outputs and their general reputational legitimacy. For
example, places in the university are strongly contested for by candidates and
many of the feeder schools are recognised as being the ‘best in the
country’. As a result, HAUs 1 and 2 are
able to attract highly qualified staff and enrol the highest achieving school
leavers into their programmes. The staff:student ratio is relatively low, at
about 1:21. Although such students may experience economic, social and learning
difficulties, these are relatively small in number when compared to those of
students at the HDUs.
These
HAUs have not been subject to any form of merger. They are not, however,
historically and culturally equivalent. The one has a long history of student
support, particularly, for lower SES students and was the forefront in the
country in the development of alternative admissions and innovative teaching
practices, even though these may have been contested terrains within the
university (Kloot, 2009). The other ‘top’ university, though currently more
strongly engaged in teaching and learning, does not have this historically
developed culture, and academic development staff hold predominantly
non-academic positions.
Band 2
The
second group of universities in Figure 5.1 falls within the middle, average
research and PhD graduate band. This is
represented in the study by HAU 3 and HDU4.
The
first university within this stratification, HAU 3, is a small university
situated away from economic hubs. Despite
its semi-rural positioning it prides itself on both its strong research and
teaching and learning focus. In 2010 this university had the best throughput
rate in South Africa, with furthermore a favourable and comparatively low staff
student ratio of 1: 19 (Table 5.1) . It is able to attract well qualified staff
and students from the upper echelons of school leavers. The university has, through judicious
employment of well-qualified academic staff in their teaching and learning
centre, taken something of a central role in the field of academic staff
development. Furthermore, the teaching and learning centre has had much success
in taking their developmental message to a significant group of academic staff,
in part made possible through the commitment of senior management over time to
this project.
The
second university in this middle band, HDU4, is that of a medium sized HDU in a
peri-urban area. This university has a
long tradition of activism and resistance to discrimination in society and in
education. Though predominantly a ‘coloured’
university the student population is
becoming increasingly African, with coloured students only making up about 47%
of the student body between 2012 and 2016 as opposed to over 80% before 1994
(Cooper, 2015). The university appears to be on a rapid growth curve in
developing itself as a research university, and recently moved into the more
top group of research universities, rather than being situated with the less
research intensive HDUs. Despite this staff tend to be active in their
engagement with teaching and learning opportunities, even though there is a
relatively high staff to student ratio of 1:30. The teaching and learning
centre comprises one senior staff member
and a small cohort of faculty teaching and learning specialists
distributed across the university rather than being housed in a central unit. There was in the past a large
and vibrant unit that was effectively closed by management with many of the
staff taking on leading positions in teaching and learning units in other
universities. This serves to emphasise the point often made about academic
development centres in South Africa and elsewhere, that is, that they are often
vulnerable and subject to restructuring (Palmer, Holt & Challis, 2011;
Gosling, 2009A; B; Leibowitz 2016a).
Band 3
Situated
in Band 3 are UoTs 7 and 8 and HDUs 5 and 6. From Figure 5.1 and Table 5.1, it
appears that universities in Band 3 are in somewhat of a double bind. They are,
firstly, often burdened with large numbers of students who may require more
significant support and time devoted to teaching than is the case with the more
elite universities. At the same time
there is a push in some of these universities for staff to improve their
research outputs, yet they start from a low base of research expertise,
requiring much effort to navigate this gap. Consequently, such staff may experience
difficulty in finding time for staff development initiatives, even though there
may be a great need for such support. In addition to this there are less
resources at these lower band institutions for both students and staff due to
historical legacies of privilege (Bozalek & Boughey, 2012).
UoTs 7
and 8 fall into the lowest research band. These are both merged
institutions. Pre-merger the
then-Technikons consisted of regional, minority black (Indian and coloured)
establishments and predominately white establishments. Post 1994, the ratio of
Africans increased to over 60%, up from an earlier figure of approximately 10
%. There has thus been a substantive shift in demographics. Furthermore, these
universities, in part because of their lower entrance requirements and fees and
their perceived closeness to the job market, tend to attract more lower
socio-economic status (SES) students (Cooper, 2015).
The UoTs
are large to medium sized institutions having student:staff ratios of
approximately 40: 1 (see Table 5.1). In the institutional reports it was
reported that at these UoTs teach more intensively and hence find less time for
staff development than lecturers in other universities.
Both the
UoTs highlighted the importance of focusing on innovative technological
solutions in society. However, they are also increasingly under pressure to
raise their research profiles and outputs so as to be seen to be more on par
with the research intensive universities, though this may be more of a focus
and mission from management rather than a groundswell, cultural issue within
the university. Consequently, as with the more research-intensive universities,
finding time and opportunity for academic development may be constrained.
In
respect of the merger, tensions still simmer around a plethora of unresolved
merger issues; for example, different conditions of service, salaries and
access to promotion as well as larger issues of merging different cultures, a
concern that was never adequately dealt with at the time of the mergers (Reddy,
2007). These issues were highlighted in recent staff disruptions (Eye Witness
News, 20/4/2016) at one of these universities, which resulted in the cessation
of teaching. The disruptions were directly attributed to these human resource
(HR) and cultural differences. These issues are further discussed later in this
report under the chapter ‘conducive environment for professional learning’.
Despite
these difficulties, both institutions currently support teaching and learning
centres with staff employed on academic contracts, rather than their being seen
as simply service/administrative staff, as is the case at several other
institutions. Thus despite the contradictions and difficulties academic staff
may experience with taking up teaching and learning development opportunities,
the universities themselves seem to value academic development staff by
affording them such status.
Within
this lower band research group, there are two medium-sized, rural, historically
disadvantaged universities, (HDUs 5 and 6), relatively distally situated from
economic hubs and other universities. One of these universities has been
merged. These universities, along with the UoTs, attract more lower SES, often
African students and do not necessarily have the academic historical reputation
to attract the most qualified academic staff as compared to the top
universities. Furthermore, it has been observed, that staff turnover in these
rural areas is higher than in urban areas and this makes less effective
initiatives aimed at staff development where there is not necessarily a more
permanent and substantive group of ‘trained’ staff. Despite this they have
vibrant teaching and learning initiatives and centres populated by staff on
academic contracts and, at least in one case, strong reputational cachet as a
university that has developed future leadership in South Africa.
Both
these universities have lower staff:student ratios than the UoTs, but still
relatively high at 1:32 (Table 5.1), which, it can be suggested, has an impact
on opportunities (time) for staff development. They also experience upward
pressure to increase research outputs to improve research rankings.
Conclusion
In
concluding this chapter, it is possible to identify patterns of university
types (Figure 5.1) and trends (Figure 5.1 and Table 5.1) which accord with
these general patterns. These trends appear matched to distinct difficulties
which staff in the lower research intensive universities are likely to
encounter in their teaching; and, by association, whether and what sorts of
academic development they are likely to engage with. Conditions pertaining to
geographic location, institutional type, feeder schools, staff:student ratio
and history of support for staff to learn to teach appear salient. Factors not
covered in this chapter, given its focus on teaching and learning, would
include funding. This was not investigated directly but the impact of funding
and resourcing is evident from lecturer accounts in chapter six. These institutional
conditions are only one side of the story. A more fine-grained understanding of
the contexts and histories of the individual universities is also necessary in
order to understand what may enhance or hold back staff’s take-up of academic
development opportunities. This is the focus of chapter six.
6.1. Contexts for professional learning and
lecturer agency
The discussion is organized according
to the following topics and data sources:
Table 6.1: Organisation of findings
|
Topic
|
Aspect of the Interplay
|
Data Source
|
|
Opportunities for professional
learning at the eight institutions
|
Structure
|
Reflective reports per institution
(Phase Two, Document Two)
|
|
Beliefs about teaching and about
professional learning
|
Culture
|
Interviews with senior managers
(VCs, DVCs, Deans) and academics
|
|
Conducive environments for
professional learning
|
Structure and culture
|
Interviews with academics
|
|
Individual and group agency
|
Agency
|
Interviews with academics
|
6.1.1 Opportunities for professional learning at
the eight institutions
This chapter
provides a synopsis of the findings concerning opportunities available for
professional learning as reflected primarily in the institutional case study
reports collected during phase two. The synopsis highlights the different forms
of academic professional development, the structures in place to enhance
professional learning, with particular focus on the role of academic staff
developers and policies.
The
study found almost the full range of opportunities discussed in the literature,
from the more formal to informal, as listed below:
1. Formal
and accredited:
PhD
programmes on higher education
Masters
programmes on teaching and learning
Post
graduate diplomas in higher education teaching and learning (offered in six of
the eight institutions by 2013, where three institutions in the Western Cape
offer one on a shared platform)
Short
courses
2. Formal
(organized by mostly academic developers) but not accredited:
Workshops
Mentor
programmes
Hands on
training (for example for using ICTS – instructional design)
Consultations
with academic developers
Teaching
and learning conferences
Incentive-oriented:
Funding
schemes eg grants for innovations or research on teaching
Institutional
or faculty teaching excellence awards
Policy
and strategy led:
Teaching
and learning strategies
Policies
on performance evaluation and promotion
Committee-led:
Institutional
and Faculty Teaching and Learning Committees
Other
formal:
Student
feedback systems
3 Informal:
Self-reflection
Conversations
with colleagues and supervisors
Observation
of senior staff and excellent teachers as role models, and encouragement from these
This
range was found across the institutions. The impact of these opportunities was
not investigated in the study, and is an area worthy of further investigation.
Generally a variety, including the more and less formal, could be found at each
institution, although the accredited Masters programmes tended to be offered at
a limited number of institutions, and predominantly at the HAUs. This gives rise to the following questions
for further investigation: 1) Why have these programmes tended to be offered
mainly at HAUs? 2) What is the effect of this at institutions not offering such
programmes? 3) Would it be advisable for all universities to offer such
programmes, or could collaboration and sharing amongst institutions be a useful
strategy?
As will be discussed further in 6.1.2,
the more formal opportunities tended to be voluntary, but compulsory in some
cases for new academics or those who received unsatisfactory student feedback.
Activities organised by academic developers in central teaching and learning
centres were more likely to be interdisciplinary, and those taking place in the
faculties, to be more discipline-oriented.
Structures aligned most directly with
professional learning were:
·
The DVC (Academic/Teaching)
·
The Deputy Dean (Teaching)
·
The Head of Department did not have an overt
teaching function but featured prominently in the interviews, as either
promoting or hindering an academic’s professional development
·
Teaching and Learning Centres
·
Academic developers in faculties
· Teaching and learning ‘champions’ (drawn from the
pool of academics, and utilized to make presentations and participate in
projects and task teams)
· Recipients of teach excellence awards (similarly
as with ‘champions’)
(The effectiveness of the different
models was not investigated.)
From the institutional reports the
following issues pertaining to these structures received attention:
Status and stature – frequently
academic developers who did not enjoy academic status felt that this hampered
their voice and sense of identity, ability to undertake research and
reflection, and thus their effectiveness. In institutions where it was felt
that the academic developers were extremely competent, or well qualified
academically, this appeared to enhance their effectiveness and ability to
effect change. An extract from the reflective reports illustrate the importance
of perception of competence amongst academic developers, tied in some cases to
issues of disciplinarity:
… lack
of expertise in the Centre in relation to teaching in all the disciplines,
particularly science disciplines. There are lecturers, particularly in the
Science Faculty, who do not believe that the generic courses offered have
sufficient relevance for their contexts (including the teaching of large
classes). (Reflective report, HAU1)
Setting about to consciously
capacitate themselves and enhance their academic stature, academic developers
at HAU3 quickly reaped the benefits:
At the
end of the 1990s, staff employed in the Academic Development Centre were
minimally qualified to work with academic staff with most only qualified at
honours level. In the context of the
need to work within a new brief of contributing to institutional development
through staff and curriculum development, all without master’s degree set about
completing them. … The need to work with curriculum development and constructs
such as learning outcomes and criterion referenced assessment was also
identified as a gap and colleagues in the Centre set about their own staff
development programme, reading widely and discussing their understandings. This impacted on the quality of the work they
were called upon to do not least by allowing them to claim a degree of
expertise in the areas in which they were working. The willingness of staff to pursue their own
development and to support each other in this aim is something which must not
be overlooked in accounting for the success the Centre has had in working with
the professional development of educators not only at XXX University but also
elsewhere. (Reflective report, HAU3)
In HAU3 the ability and demonstrated
competence in teaching on formal programmes also contributed to the perception
of their competence as academics. On the basis of their experience HAU3 also
developed the first Postgraduate Diploma in Higher Education for academic
developers.
In contrast, some of the institutions
did not have enough academic development staff and had to ‘outsource’ this
function (for example HDU6). A further issue to do with location of academic
developers, was that they were frequently placed in a central office outside of
faculties, yet if they offered diploma courses, they were required to work
mostly through faculties of education. Their complicated relationships with
these faculties also influenced their ability to effect change.
Resources
for professional academic development
The study found that in almost all
the institutions resourcing for academic professional development was both
external and internal. A significant source of professional learning for
academics at one HDU was the provision of learning opportunities at a HAU. This
was viewed by some lecturers as particularly beneficial, as it meant exposure
to the ideas of that programme, and of the ideas of experienced lecturers who
participated alongside them, in that programme:
… even
very experienced lecturers who were with me, they were saying, oh, this is the
way to do it. We realised quite a
lot. The questions they were asking were
really relevant questions. (Lecturer
HDU6)
This points to the concentration of
cultural resources in the form of knowledge about teaching and learning in
specific institutions, and allied to this, the importance of
inter-institutional contact.
Funding for professional academic
development was provided by some of the HEIs from their mainline budget,
whereas some universities relied heavily on funds from external sources.
External funders included those outside the country, nongovernmental
organizations, the Teaching Development Grants and skills development grants.
It should also be noted that the funds were generally allocated for formal learning
opportunities or what was defined in the introduction to this study as
‘professional development’, rather than to encourage informal learning
opportunities or to enhance conditions in which teaching and learning takes
place.
6.1.2 Beliefs about teaching and about
professional learning
In 6.1 various structures supporting
professional learning were described. This section explores institutional
contexts at the level of culture, that is, the range of beliefs, values and
attitudes about teaching and learning and the professional learning of
lecturers that emerged from the data. The data also reflects on conceptions of
good teaching, which is important as these have implications for how academics
may be supported or encouraged to learn to teach.
6.1.2.1 Status of teaching
In
official documentation (for example, institutional vision and mission
statements) all eight institutions foregrounded the importance of knowledge
dissemination (teaching) as one of their core purposes. However, the data from the eight
institutional case studies showed that there was, among teaching staff
particularly, a continuum of beliefs related to the status of teaching in
institutions.
Across
the board respondents reported an ongoing tension between the status of teaching
and the status of research, believing that the dominance of a research culture
made it difficult for them to focus sufficiently on the teaching aspect of
their role as academics:
Even the
one now (teaching development workshop held recently), I was supposed to be
there, but I had to go to a paper-writing retreat. So I was writing papers for publication …
(Lecturer, HDU6)
The prioritization of research
broadly and postgraduate studies particularly limited time and motivation for
engagement with undergraduate teaching and learning and with professional
learning.
In some
of the HDUs and UoTs it was been necessary to enhance disciplinary and research
capacity. A senior manager at HDU5 stressed
the extent of this need:
I would
like to see that all my HODs are on a Masters level”. (Senior manager, HDU5)
The unintended consequence was that
the role of teaching was now perceived as being less important than that of
research.
We have
excellent incentives for research, wonderful financial incentives, rewards,
recognition … As far as I'm concerned,
teaching and learning has lagged behind in terms of the emphasis that is placed
on it in terms of the recognition for excellence in teaching... . (Senior Manager,
HDU6)
For
those academics who saw a clear link between their teaching and their research,
the tension between the two core roles was less marked; research was seen to be
necessary to ensure that their teaching was responsive to changes in their
disciplines. Reward structures, particularly those related to promotion,
appeared in many institutions to emphasize research outputs more than good
teaching. Some believed that although they were being told (through policies,
etc.) that teaching was valued, in reality it was research ‘that count(ed)’.
All of
the implicit and explicit messages favour research and allocating time there …
at the end of the day ... being a researcher is key to your success ... at
[institution]. (Senior Manager, HAU1)
In some
research intensive institutions findings suggested that a great deal had been
achieved with regard to increasing the status of teaching and learning
vis-à-vis that of research and it was acknowledged that there were many
excellent teachers who valued their roles and regarded teaching as one of their
core functions.
And I
have incredible job satisfaction. I love
research. I love teaching. I love working in the profession and I find
that the university affords me a very rich space to bring all those interests
into a sort of relationship and it gives me an opportunity to kind of grow in
quite interesting ways… . (Lecturer, HAU3)
… vision
would be that everybody takes their role as a teacher seriously; values it
equally to the other aspects of their academic life like research, and that
they become critical, reflective teachers. (Senior Manager, HAU3)
The valuing of and commitment to
teaching and learning was signalled in a range of ways in institutions by, for
example: the creation of key positions such as deans of teaching and learning;
university policies related to probation and promotion; through awards for
‘good’ teaching and through the funding of scholarship of teaching and learning
initiatives and other projects related to teaching and learning and through the
establishment of well resourced teaching and learning centres – though this
varied greatly from one institution to another.
The signaling of the value of
teaching was sometimes contradicted either in practice, or in the policies or
other forms of public documentation themselves. An interesting example of this
is an analysis on the website of HAU1 conducted by Jawitz and Williams (2015) which
reveals that the website displays noticeable absences with regard to signaling
the importance of teaching and learning – despite what is pronounced about the
importance of teaching in other forums.
In both
of the rural HDUs as well as in the two UOTs that were part of the study,
teaching was regarded as having lower status than research:
Publication
is what it’s all about. There is very little, if any reward for good teaching
or recognition. (Lecturer, UoT8)
In
addition, in these institutions the importance of disciplinary expertise as the
basis for good teaching was recognised and both senior managers and academics
noted the need to achieve higher degrees and do research in one's field to
enhance teaching. However, it was noted by some that being a good researcher
did not mean that one was necessarily a good teacher.
Junior
staff as well as temporary teachers were usually expected to teach large
undergraduate classes so that senior academics, who are also often prolific
researchers, could have more time to devote to their research endeavours. The
incentives available to researchers and the weighting given to research in
terms of career advancement contributed to research being seen as primary.
There seemed to be, however, an emerging sense that much had been done to raise
the capacity of staff to do research and that it was time to enhance the status
of teaching in the same way:
being a
former technikon … we did not have a focus on research and therefore his [the
dean’s] emphasis is more on research …
So while I teach I also research at the same time because the university
is very clear that we need to have research outputs … . (Lecturer UoT7)
From the
data it is clear that teaching and learning, although a core activity of higher
education, was generally not as highly valued as disciplinary research. To change this, beliefs and values around
these core activities needed to be challenged. In addition there was a frequent
variance between policy and practice, and between what was stated by senior
managers (eg Vice Chancellors and Deans) and middle level managers (eg heads of
department). Finally at especially HDUs there were competing priorities due to
capacity constraints and other factors such as the mergers, where young
academics required capacity development with regard to the teaching role and
the need to gain postgraduate qualifications in their disciplines simultaneously.
6.1.2.2
Conceptions of good teaching
Predictably, good teaching was
understood and described in many different ways ranging from linking teaching
to philosophical explorations of the macro purposes of higher education, to
descriptions of the range of practices and skills which make academics ‘good’
teachers in their specific disciplinary and institutional contexts. Teaching
that enabled institutions to realise their vision and mission was seen as
desirable. A comparison of the views of
senior managers and of teaching academics revealed similarity, but also
variance. Academics tended to view good teaching in relation to their own
teaching, their students and the possible outcomes. Senior Managers, especially
the Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor level, were more inclined to
take a national and policy-related perspective, to view teaching in relation to
their own management of staff capacity, or to talk with empathy about the
conditions in which academics taught.
At a
basic level good teaching was seen to require curricula that are aligned and
taught by teachers who are well prepared. Good teaching was described as
multidimensional and complex and differing according to context, including year
of study, and focus of discipline - whether theory or practice-based. Some
teachers viewed good teaching as a way of making a difference in students'
lives or as giving back to society.
… you
ought to be able to make a difference … contributing to the development of …
people's minds and skills in a meaningful kind of way. (Lecturer UoT7)
Although
the notion of good teaching as the transmission of knowledge from the teacher
to the student was evident in the data, many argued that it was necessary to
engage students actively. Others used
more philosophical explanations to describe good teaching as going beyond
simply ‘transmitting’ a body of knowledge to students; it was understood as
enabling students to be creators and not just passive recipients of knowledge.
As a senior manager in an institution said:
… the
quality of teaching and learning … hinges on what the students can engage with
… getting students to participate ... knowing ... when to stop talking and
getting students to talk … . (Senior Manager HDU6).
While some
had an instrumentalist notion of good teaching as ensuring student success and
good throughput rates, for others it was about introducing students to ideas
that lead to transformed understandings of the world and of themselves. Some
saw good teaching as developing students' in-depth understanding of
disciplinary fields. Some academics saw their role as ‘the cultivation of
highly educated graduates’ (Senior Manager HAU3). In addition, it was seen as
important to develop students as independent learners.
Good
teaching, according to some, should take account of the social context and
should foreground the ‘cultivation of humanity’ rather than just ‘produce
competent technocrats’ (Senior Manager HAU3).
…
there’s a need for the recognition of teaching as something much more than the
simple transformation of usable information and rather as the cultivation of a
personhood. (Lecturer HAU2)
One of
the goals of good teaching and learning was described as needing to develop
students with a consciousness of their responsibility towards the country and
the world at large and the need to contribute to changing society for the
better. It was noted that good teaching should also pay attention to the needs
of the discipline or the field through appropriate curriculum development. In
addition, good teaching required an awareness of how the world was changing,
including what different technologies mean for learning and pedagogy.
Particularly
given the history of South Africa, many saw good teaching as ensuring that students
who graduated were competent in their fields, were able to find suitable
employment and contribute economically to their families’ prosperity and to the
development of the country.
Good
teachers were seen by some as academics who were able to respond positively to
teaching challenges, especially those related to increased class sizes,
diversity of the student cohorts and the articulation gap between school and
university. For some this meant coming to terms with the fact that traditional
lecture formats and in particular ‘chalk and talk’ teaching were not leading to
the kind of learning needed and to look for more interactive methodologies.
Good teaching was complex and changed as required by changing contexts.
[Students]
are not always as prepared as they used to be, so I have to put in more effort
to help them scaffold their learning. … I can’t just go into the classroom and
teach … . (Lecturer HAU3)
Practices
that were considered to be part of good teaching included ensuring the active
engagement of students in their own learning and responding to student
diversity; developing good relationships with students including showing
concern for the whole person; teaching in ways which boost students’ confidence
in themselves and their abilities; teaching students to be critical thinkers,
competent professionals and good citizens of South Africa and the world.
Creativity
was seen as an important component of good teaching. This included the use of
innovative teaching and learning methods. The use of information and
communication technologies (ICTs) to engage students in learning was regarded
as important. The importance of providing students with good feedback to
promote learning was seen as an aspect of good teaching. For others
collaborative teaching and sharing good practices were facets of good teaching.
Good teaching responded to student diversity and to the needs of workplaces.
For some, depending on their institutional contexts, good teaching was
constrained by limited resources including lack of adequate infrastructure and
very large classes.
For many interviewees, good teaching
resulted from academics who were passionate about their disciplines and
committed to their students’ learning and well-being. Some believed that
academics were ‘born good teachers’ and that ‘good teaching is instinctive and
intuitive’; ‘either you can teach or you can’t…you’ve either got it or you
haven’t’ (Lecturer HAU1).
Others
believed that good teaching was rooted in scholarship both in relation to
disciplinary knowledge and to knowledge from the field of higher education
studies. Good teaching thus had a philosophical basis.
[Teaching
and learning are not] some kind of technical or neutral process … the ultimate
test … for … any university is the extent to which we have engaged with
profound epistemological and ontological issues, teaching and learning issues
and curriculum issues. (Senior Manager HAU3)
Linked
to this, for many, was adopting the identity of reflective practitioners. The
latter led to renewal and change, thus enabling better dealing with challenges
related to contemporary higher education contexts.
Initially
[you are] very confident and secure about the information that you have gleaned
… because you enjoy teaching .... Then you begin … to realize how much you
still need to learn, ways you still need to grow and ways that you can make
learning more exciting to your students, because you realize it isn’t just a
matter of giving them information, it’s a matter of stoking that desire to
learn themselves and to become as fascinated about your discipline as you are.
(Senior Manager HDU5)
The variety of conceptions of good
teaching and how this is attained goes some way towards explaining the variety
of views on professional learning, which is discussed in the next chapter.
Across
the eight institutions there was a range of beliefs and opinions about whether
professional development in relation to teaching and learning was necessary in
higher education; what form such professional development should take; who
should undertake professional development; what motivated academic staff to
engage in professional learning and what the enabling and constraining
conditions were for academics to participate in professional development
activities.
The data
from the case studies indicated that the majority, particularly members of
senior management and younger lecturers, believed that some form of
professional development was necessary and useful for higher education
teachers.
...
[academic staff development] is critically important … We need to make sure
that every academic who stands in front of a class is a competent teacher and
understands some of the basic theories of teaching and learning and how
teaching and learning takes place … So we really believe very deeply in the
professionalization of teaching and that one can develop scholarship of
teaching and learning … . (Senior Manager HAU3)
This
belief in the importance of professional learning is tempered by results in the
questionnaire suggesting that actual participation in professional learning
opportunities across the board might be low.
Whilst 75% of respondents reported attending professional learning
opportunities with regard to teaching, 41% attended such opportunities once a
year or less.
Some
academics (especially more established academics) had the view that their
disciplinary qualifications and knowledge equipped them adequately to teach
and/ or that learning to teach happened through immersion; that being thrown in
at the deep end was the best way to learn.
For many
academics, the desire to improve their teaching was intrinsically motivated by
their passion for their discipline and for their deep concern for their
students’ learning and well-being. For some this was complemented by their
commitment to and belief in lifelong learning. In some institutions, though,
staff engaged in professional development activities to promote job security
and promotion possibilities.
Some
made the argument that changes in higher education with increased student
numbers and a more diverse student body meant that traditional ways of teaching
were no longer effective; that lecturers needed to develop new ways to deal
with new teaching and learning challenges and that therefore academic staff
development was crucial.
There
was a range of underpinning beliefs about what professional development for
academic staff should be. Some had a
pragmatic view and were most interested in training opportunities to learn
important and useful skills to solve specific problems; some were looking for
‘tips and tricks’, or a ‘pocket guide for teaching’ (Institutional reflective
report). In some cases, academics wanted training in particular aspects, for
example, how to use teaching technologies, cope with large classes, and so on.
While
some understood professional development as little more than skills training,
for others professional development entailed deeper exploration of the values,
theories, beliefs and ideologies which underpinned their disciplines and the
teaching of their disciplines.
…a huge
influence on my teaching I must say has been this whole scholarship of
teaching, of reading, of understanding, of you know, trying to see why are the
students doing this … reading books … reading articles. (Lecturer, UoT7)
There
was, however, variation in terms of academics’ willingness and commitment to
see academic staff development as a scholarly endeavour which entailed
engagement with the literature of higher education studies.
For some
professional development was viewed as promoting critical reflection as
challenging academics to think critically and to shift their views on their
teaching practice. Professional
development was viewed as a space to question common sense theories of teaching
and learning.
… we
constantly need to re-evaluate what we are doing … get ourselves out of our
comfort zones and challenge ourselves and be challenged by other people, by
doing things differently. (Lecturer, HAU1)
Critical
reflection on one’s own
teaching practice was understood by interviewees as a central to development
and growth, as is discussed in the study on excellent teachers by Winberg,
2017.
For the
majority who were in favour of professional development there was acknowledgement
that there were many, both formal and informal, opportunities for academics to
learn to teach that might lead to improved student learning. For some, the
spaces to learn from others had been invaluable.
[The
induction programme] was an amazing experience for me to meet other academics
from across disciplines… and it was a wonderful way of induction. ... we’ve
gone through a joyous experience and you have this sense of an [institutional]
community. (HAU1)
Informal
learning opportunities included learning from knowledgeable peers, including
through team teaching / informal discussions in departments; being mentored by
a more experienced peer, forming supportive communities of practice and so on.
For others professional development entailed self-study.
Although
some lecturers felt that enhancing teaching proficiency and understanding
teaching and learning was something individuals should do for themselves, many
others strongly believed that, as few lecturers had any formal teaching
qualification, there was a need for formal institutional structures for the
professional development of academics as teachers.
I think
what the [Teaching and Learning Centre] has done in the institution is develop
that sort of institutional teaching and learning network … I think that's why I
was so inspired and motivated to join the institution’s initiatives because it
was the first time that I felt there was a community on my own campus.
(Lecturer HDU4)
There
was a range of opinions on the best format for formal professional development
structures but these included formal qualifications such as a Postgraduate
Diploma in Higher Education, short courses, workshops, writing breakaways for
the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), teaching fellowships for
promoting SoTL and so on. There was considerable support for specific
programmes such as those currently on offer in some institutions. There was
also some debate as to whether formal staff development initiatives should
involve lecturers from across the various disciplines or be discipline
specific. It was noted that there were
pros and cons to both modes.
Given
the range of attitudes and beliefs, there was much disagreement as to whether
the staff development opportunities provided by institutions should be compulsory
or voluntary and for whom professional development was most appropriate. Good
arguments were advanced for both compulsory and voluntary participation with
some arguing that only lecturers who had or who were deemed to ‘have a problem’
should be compelled to attend staff development initiatives. Some thought that
negative feedback from students on teaching might be a criterion for deciding
who should participate. It was acknowledged that compliance in response to
university policies or only for career advancement purposes may not lead to the
kind of learning hoped for.
I
wouldn't make anything compulsory. I
really think it's about persuading people.
It's about people seeing the value of engaging with the teacher roles. I wouldn't make it compulsory, ever. (Senior
Manager HAU3)
There
were also examples in the interviews, where staff attended activities because
they were compulsory, and became more enthusiastic due to the exposure to new
ideas and practices.
In
conclusion, for some academics formal learning opportunities were experienced
as enabling and enriching whereas others – a minority - resented them and
experienced them as impositional. If participation in all forms of professional
learning were to be encouraged it is necessary to have shifts in institutional
culture and to value and promote the role of teaching and of professional
learning much more highly – and this across institutional type.
In previous chapters it was suggested
that there was a strong appreciation of the value of formal offerings as well
as of the work of academic developers.
From the interviews with academics it emerged, however, that their
working environments significantly influenced their attitudes towards their
teaching – and by extension, their professional learning. In this chapter key
features of the working environments and how they appeared to influence
learning to teach are discussed.
Workload
and class size
One of the features within lecturers’
working contexts that featured in academics’ accounts was that of high
workload. The research findings across all institutions indicated high workload
and the accompanying lack of time, as major constraints on the uptake of
professional learning opportunities. This feature appeared more prominently at
the HDUs, underscoring the points made about institutional inequality in chapter
five. Academics mentioned ‘‘over-crowded classes, where the university teacher
to student ratio can reach up to 1:500’’ (reflective report, HDU5). Heavy
workloads were linked to a shortage of posts at three disadvantaged
institutions.
Employment
conditions
The existence of staff without proper
teaching contracts, who could not access the institution’s resources, was
mentioned at HDU5 and the casualisation of staff teaching on the extended
degree programmes was mentioned at HDU4. The casualised
status of extended degree programme lecturers is developed in one of the
ancilliary studies supported by the project – see Garraway (2015). The high administrative burden,
sometimes as the result of teaching large classes, was particularly problematic
at UoT7, UoT8, HDI4, HDI5, and HDI6.
Physical infrastructure and resources
The
dimensions of infrastructure and available resources for teaching and learning
were cited by colleagues across the institutional range as impacting on
teaching and learning. One of the few
positive comments about physical conditions was expressed by a lecturer at a
historically advantaged university:
I’ve got
no complaints about the environment in terms of teaching. Our labs are well
equipped, as you can see our lecture halls are well equipped and I think we’ve
got a very good platform and things can actually only get better from here. [XXX]
University offers a fantastic environment for us as lecturers. It gives us the
opportunity to be... to reach out and touch the most recent technology. (Lecturer, HAU2)
Although
physical conditions were mentioned across the board, this was more so at HDUs:
I offer
them extra lectures, you know, lecture-driven tutorials… because of the
facilities, like the lecture venues that … don’t support a projector, I’ve
actually done a workbook for students.
... if they can’t see the board or they can’t hear me, they’ve still got
the notes in front of them. … because I have problems with voice projection in
large classes, I end up circling the lecture venues, so that everybody can get
to hear me at some point in time. … I spend a lot of time making my notes and
getting them printed and following up with … the note making. I try to put them in a way that is easily
understandable. I spend a lot of my time
on that and if I had more, if I didn’t have to really do all of that, in other
word if students could see the board, … I wouldn’t have to give them as
comprehensive notes and then I could actually spend time on research and my own
professional development. (Lecturer,
HDU5)
This quote has been reproduced at
length, as it demonstrates how lack of facilities can influence professional
learning. A fuller account of the interrelationship between
the material and discursive and how these are mutually reinforcing, is provided
in Leibowitz (2016b). A
similar point about the link between material resources and teaching approach was
mentioned in UoT7:
I think
a lot of what one does is determined by the circumstances … sometimes the
circumstances force you into … or let’s say minimizes the amount of options
that are available to you and sometimes … yes it is chalk and talk … because
that’s all you can do at that moment … that’s all you have available to you at
that moment. (Lecturer, UoT7)
This
relationship between inadequate facilities and transmission type teaching is
called into question by lecturers who circumvented these constraints by
adopting radically different teaching approaches. See page 56, section 6.1.4 for
one example of a creative teaching approach as a response to inadequate
teaching conditions. The relationship
between resourcing and teaching models requires further investigation and
discussion.
Collegial relations
For many
colleagues, the first port of call with a learning query was their colleagues.
In an analysis of the questionnaire results, the majority of respondents, from
all but one of the participating institutions, indicated they would first
choice for assistance with a teaching and learning related issue was to
approach a colleague in their department and thereafter the internet. At the
eighth institution, approaching a colleague was rated among the top two
options. This points to the significance of collegial relations. A “toxic”
departmental environment at HAU2 discouraged an academic from becoming involved
in activities, including professional learning related activities, in her
department. Comments about collegial relations emanated from interviews at many
of the institutions, but were more strongly connected with low morale at one
HDU where lack of morale and interest in teaching was cited. Comments about
lack of collegiality and low morale were also cited with specific reference to
the after effects of the mergers:
…the
institution paid enough attention to harmonising senior management levels but
not nearly enough to manage change itself on the ground level of teaching where
people work in completely opposing teaching ideologies, let alone political
ideologies on the mergers. I think that
created a massive drain of energy. We’re muddling through that but it’s still
left a bit of rigor mortis behind it. (Lecturer, UoT7)
Collegial
relations strongly encouraged professional learning, when the collegial network
was committed to teaching:
It’s a
great team of people and there are really exceptional educators who I learn
from all the time. (Lecturer, UoT7)
However,
when the dominant culture in a department was not supportive of teaching and
learning, this could have the opposite effect:
I have
never been encouraged to attend any professional learning for teaching; on the
contrary colleagues have sometimes discouraged me to attend. (Questionnaire
response, HAU2)
Comments
about high or low morale or about predominantly positive or negative cultures
pertaining to teaching and learning were made across the board, HAUs and HDUs.
However in the interviews it was possible to locate an intensity of feeling
about morale or domain attitude towards teaching and learning at specific
institutions. This suggests that it would be possible, given an accurate
analysis of conditions at those institutions where collegial relations militate
against professional learning, to effect change in this regard. One of the
means to effect this change, is academic leadership, which is discussed next.
Academic leadership
The data
from all participating institutions signaled the crucial role of academic
leadership for ‘‘creating an intellectual space and language to talk about
teaching and learning’’ (Reflective Report, HDU4) and for ‘‘shifting’’ the
‘‘university culture’’ (Reflective Report, HAU1), and even the ‘‘national
culture’’, towards ‘‘valuing teaching’’ (Reflective Report, HAU2). Senior
managers from two research intensive universities acknowledged their
responsibility to create an environment in which staff and students can perform
and reach their potential. This sentiment was shared by a senior manager at a
teaching focused institution who argued that “the main thing that we can do,
[is] to create the environment for people to develop themselves” (Senior
Manager, HDU5). At HAU1 there was also the sense that there was institutional
support and recognition for teaching, but this was highlighted as a more recent
phenomenon:
I think
the institution is becoming more engaged with these issues - and there is now a
DVC with responsibility for teaching and learning and there are teaching and
learning formal committees - but this engagement is relatively new. (Senior
Manager, HAU1)
In the
reflective reports reasons to do with structure were advanced for why on occasion
senior managers were less likely to play a supportive role. In one HDU it was
because at that institution Deans and HODs did not rotate, leading to problems
of stasis with certain managers. Conversely, in one rural HDU the rapid
turnover of DVCS meant having to reacquaint incumbents with an understanding of
the importance of teaching and learning, and of supporting learning to teach
each time.
In this chapter
the focus turns to how the role of academic leadership is experienced by
academics as one of the important influences on their work environments and on
their professional learning:
We have
a very good head of department who is very supportive in general, and that
helps, it makes a huge change from last year. (Lecturer, HAU1)
Heads of
department were cited as providing moral support for the professional learning
of academics, on occasion unlocking funding to pay for attendance at
professional development opportunities, sharing experiences, or mentoring new
lecturers.
There
were numerous examples of Deans or heads of departments participating in
professional development opportunities, such as diploma programmes and short
courses, and the positive impact this had on other colleagues at the same
institution. At HDU6 a head of department attended a PGDIP (HE) at another
university and implemented what she learnt in her department:
I
believe that I have been trying by all means to implement [what I learnt]. Because as we speak now, in terms of
assessment and quality assurance, I have made sure that before the examination
question papers were submitted to examination chapters ... they submitted the question papers to me as
head of department so that I can submit them there ... I made sure that we
create a day and have a meeting where we would all come together and moderate
all those question papers, from the technical part of it... (Lecturer and head
of department, HDU6)
Lecturers
at various universities also complained about their heads of department as
unsupportive of their professional learning. Respondents to the questionnaire
at one research intensive institution
indicated that the language used by their line managers, when referring to
teaching and the professional learning for teaching, was sometimes ‘devaluing’,
and included words like “waste” and “an unaffordable luxury” (questionnaire
response). An interviewee mentioned that her head of department told her it was
“unacceptable” for her to spend so much time on her teaching and that she was
not “cost-effective to the department”(Lecturer, HAU2).
A
misalignment between institutional structures such as policies and the role of
middle management, and cultural features such as the institutional values also
resulted in situations where teaching and its related activities were highly
regulated but not necessarily valued. This is discussed in more detail
in relation to HAU2 in Van Schalkwyk, Leibowitz, Herman and
Farmer (2015). A significant finding at the three
research-intensive institutions and one university of technology in this
research was a perceived disconnect between the views of senior management and
the approaches of middle management. One of the lecturer level interviewees was
very clear about this:
So
everything, it’s like really the middle management, the middle structures, are
quite problematic in the sense of, do they really understand what the goals of
top management is? (Lecturer, HAU2)
Conditions
external to the university
Conditions external to the university
directly influenced internal work environments. This point was made most
emphatically by colleagues in the two rural HDUs, where inhospitable conditions
discouraged colleagues from remaining long in these regions. The conditions at the two rural institutions, HDU5 and HDU6, are
discussed in more detail in Ndebele, Muhuro and Nkonki (2016). These
conditions included lack of amenities such as good schools, libraries or
shopping centres, as well as resources such as water and electricity:
And I
find sometimes the electricity goes out and go ‘oh God, how am I supposed to
teach if there’s no water?’ and then the students obviously don’t come to
campus. There’s no electricity because
the electricity got cut and for some or other reason …. So these are some of
the contextual factors that I … didn’t really think would impact my functioning
but these are some of the things that I’ve had to cope with. And I have coped
with it. (Lecturer, HDU6)
A feature not unique to universities
in rural environments, but expressed more strongly in those, was having to
travel to teach on campus across long distances.
Students
Students featured in lecturers’
accounts as constraining as well as encouraging lecturers’ professional
learning. Their positive responses often encouraged lecturers to learn to teach
even better. However in some lecturers’ accounts the students were apathetic,
did not attend classes, were militant, or the large class sizes or students’
expectations forced the lecturers to teach in a manner that did not encourage
an approach to teaching in harmony with the international literature on good
teaching:
I
know that from the high school students, most of the students they want to be
fed with information, so that is what I really do. … the kind of students, they force you to do
that because if you don't teach them you... it will be a disaster. (Lecturer,
HDU6)
Students were the source of many of
their lecturers’ inspiration and the focus of their professional or ethical
responsibility. Their difficulties also encouraged some lecturers to learn how
to teach them better:
So my
students, yes, and some of the challenges that they face, have been the big
triggers [of my professional learning]. (Lecturer, UOT8)
Finally, students were a source of
learning for some lecturers:
I …
think that I’m as much a learner as I am a teacher because I learn from the
students every day. I learn from them. I
see teaching and learning as a communal enterprise between me and the students
… . (Lecturer, UOT7)
The responses of academics to
students varied, in the same vein as responses to other aspects of the working
contexts, such as workload or lack of time. In the next chapter some of the
reasons for these varied responses are discussed.
6.1.4 Lecturers’ responses to their environments
Chapter 6
has thus far concentrated on the conditions in which lecturers taught, and the
various structural and cultural conditions which enabled and constrained their
growth as teachers – as these conditions were described by the interviewees. At
this point it is necessary to focus on the manner in which academics responded
to their working contexts, with a focus on the concept of agency as outlined by
Margaret Archer.
A
central feature in Archer’s depiction of human agency is that humans respond
differentially to the enablements and constraints that they face, and the
greater the constraint, the greater the expense to which people would have to
go to overcome these. One of the most striking features of the interviews,
especially but not solely in the HDUs, is the lengths to which lecturers might
go to overcome what they perceive as constraints:
Look,
it’s hard to say the environment is conducive, but I think we have the attitude
to make it conducive, we look beyond the potholes. (Lecturer, UOT8)
This does not imply that lecturers
have entirely free will, autonomous of the conditions in which they live. An
analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation at three of the
institutions in the study, HAU2, HDU4 and HDU5, concluded that extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation to learn to teach might help academics to overcome dire
conditions, especially intrinsic motivation, but that this motivation itself is
affected by these conditions. This point is developed further, based on a
comparison of transcripts with lecturers at three of the participating
institutions (Leibowitz, 2016c).
An in-depth analysis of lecturers’ responses to the so-called burden
of insufficient time from the questionnaire data at one institution (Jawitz
and Perez, 2016) provides an example of how
individuals respond differentially to constraints placed before them. Some
academics cite the lack of time as a reason not to participate in professional
development, whereas others say they participate, despite a lack of time, and that
they ‘make time’ for this:
Teaching
large classes and lecturing a large number of weeks as well as trying to do
some research makes it difficult to find additional time to engage in
professional learning for teaching. I make the time because I think it is that
important. (Lecturer, HAU1)
A key construct that accounts for
lecturers’ varied responses to their contexts in the data is that of
reflexivity, which was summarized in chapter 3.5, with reference to Archer
(2007) as a process of internal deliberation in which concerns, commitments and
knowledgeability play a role. Concerns and commitments featured strongly in the
accounts of lecturers who were very passionate about their teaching. Throughout
the data there was evidence in all institutions of some lecturers being
strongly intrinsically motivated to teach well and thus to pursue some form of
professional learning. Their passion for their disciplines, for teaching and
for their students’ learning were sufficient impetus for them to seek and take
advantage of both formal and informal professional learning opportunities:
What
actually pushed me [to engage in professional learning opportunities] was
seeing that sometimes students needed help that I may not be able to offer
them. (Lecturer, HDU6)
In some instances this concern was
complemented by a concern for the social good, and the kinds of contributions
students might make on graduating:
I guess
I realised more and more that teaching is really what gives me a buzz. ...
teaching is transformative and really making an impact on students' lives,
particularly at first-year level … I've always tried to think about producing
scientists, but different kinds of scientists. So scientists who will be able
to think more broadly about the wider context of science. So it's seeing it as
transformative, not just for individuals, but also for society. (Lecturer,
HDU4)
Agency is also influenced by
knowledgeability and emotion (Archer, 2007). Thus a lecturer’s sense of agency
is also influenced by his or her own capacity. An example of this is from an
interview with a lecturer at HDU5, who struggled with unconducive teaching
conditions. The lecturer worked in the faculty of education and used knowledge
about education to devise a solution:
… it was
such a big class and we had them in … that test venue, I realized there’s no
way that I’m going to be successful here. … the first few weeks, I would try to
out shout at them. Then I realized this is not going to work - and this is part
of an article I’m trying to get published at the moment. I then thought to myself, these are adults,
so why don’t we form cooperative learning groups? …This whole peer learning
system I purely did because I knew I was not going to manage and I needed the
learners in the class to help me ... . (Lecturer, HDU5)
The lecturer’s own access to cultural
resources (knowledge about teaching) enhanced her sense of success, her
satisfaction becoming the emotion that might modify her goals and re-orientate
her future behaviour. This is an example of the interplay between structure,
culture and agency that is key to Archer’s work on change.
As discussed in chapter 3.5 agency is
not exercised by individuals alone, but importantly, also by groups. Archer
(2000:11) refers to this as ‘corporate agency’. In many lecturers’ accounts
group agency featured strongly, in particular at HDU4 and UOT7 and UOT8:
We are a
close-knit team, four of us share an office so there’s a good synergy among us.
… We are all on the same level … two … have PhDs, they are older, have a bit
more life experience, so they invest in you but it’s a cross pollination thing.
(Lecturer, HAU1)
Corporate
agency in the form of supportive groups are significant in all contexts, but
appear to play an even more significant role in those where conditions appear
to academics as adverse.
Conclusion
The data
collected via the survey as well as the interviews suggest that there are
varied conceptions of what is good teaching, some aligning more directly with
policy and the literature on good teaching than others. These views differ
amongst senior level administrators such as DVCs responsible for teaching and
learning and amongst teaching academics, although senior level administrators
appear more aware of policy prescriptions. There are similar forms of provision
of professional development across the universities, with this provision being
provided in central units as well as faculties. Financial support for
professional development from state funding is ring-fenced and used directly
for teaching and learning in some institutions, whereas in others it is
absorbed into the universities’ general operational budgets.
Across
the board use of the services of centres for teaching and learning appears to
be taken up by academics to a limited extent, though there is much appreciation
of this support from those who use it. The data suggests that influences on
teaching and learning include this professional support, but that structural
and cultural conditions in the work environment are as, if not more
influential. These conditions include the material conditions in which teaching
takes place, which are most strongly related to funding of institutions and
good governance, and ‘messages’ about the importance of teaching and learning
to teach. Data collected during the
2010/2011 period suggests teaching is signaled to be less important than
research, at all eight institutions.
The
final observation to be drawn from the data collected in this chapter, along
with chapter 5, is that there are clusters of factors that affect teaching and
learning and learning to teach in institutional types, but that there is not a
one to one, predictive relationship between institutional type and outcome with
regard to learning to teach. One of the reasons for this is that lecturers’
individual or group agency and the knowledge that they bring with them to the
teaching situation affects how they strategise to teach well.
Chapter
7, the third chapter which reports on the data collected for the study focuses
on the research process itself. Chapter 8 provides a discussion on the study as
a whole.
7 CHAPTER
SEVEN FINDINGS ON COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH
This chapter responds to research
objectives 4 and 5 concerning collaborative research. It is based primarily on
the analysis of the three sets of the project participants’ reflective reports
and a discussion at the final meeting of the project. Before establishing what
factors constrained and enabled the collaboration, it is necessary to consider
whether the collaboration has been successful in terms of the outcome.
The coming together as a group of
educational researchers was facilitated as a result of obtaining the NRF grant.
The mechanics of the project were complex. Communication was inevitably via
email and sporadic, interspersed with periods of significant activity, often
centred around the two or three-day face-to-face meetings that were scheduled
twice a year to facilitate planning, collaborative working sessions and
writing. For those from more rural areas, these face-to-face gatherings
represented significant chunks of time away from the office as travel time
could extend these meetings to a full working week. The way in which the group
was assembled could be regarded as a mix of strategic and convenience
selection. The grant requirements necessitated certain selections in terms of
institutions (a mix of rural and urban, HAIs and HDI), but it is fair to say
that within that framework, the team was largely based on existing networks and
former collaborations. Thus from the start of the collaboration there were various
forms of diversity. This diversity played out in many ways, including in terms
of level of expertise and experience (both as academic developers and as far as
research was concerned), age, background, gender and race. In addition,
although all project members were engaged in academic development activities,
they differed significantly in terms of the roles they filled in the different
institutions, their practice, and their standing in these institutions. They displayed a broad range of methodological
positions and perspectives. This
collaborative research project differed from many others (for example the
Griffin, Hamberg and Lundgren 2013 study on gender) in that it comprised
members from a large number of institutions (eight), across one country;
although members all shared the desire to enhance teaching and learning at
their institutions, they did not share an interest in the same theories (on
learning and social change); and many of the members, including the principal
researcher, did not have teaching or academic status.
Structural features enabling the
research were the ability to work on sub-projects in smaller teams, access to
resources made possible by the NRF funding, and further resources made
available by some of the senior researchers’ own institutions, especially where
these institutions were well resourced. Structural features constraining the
research were the busyness of the researchers and the demands by their work
contexts, the long distances to travel to the research meetings by especially
members from rural university sites. Cultural features enabling the
collaboration included the commitment of the team members to the idea of
supporting and enhancing teaching and learning and what was described by one of
the team members as a ‘spirit of generosity’ where team members were willing to
share resources and knowledge with each other. A feature constraining the
collaboration leading to a lack of clarity was the planning of the project
while it was in motion, caused partly by the short notice given to apply for
the grant and partly by the lack of research experience by the group leader.
This was in one sense an enablement, as it allowed for flexibility and openness
towards the unexpected, seen as so important in large-scale collaborative
research by Johansson (2013).
The collaboration cannot claim to be
unique, but certainly was rare in higher education circles in South Africa. The
context is shifting as increasing numbers of academic developers obtain their
PhDs – which in and of itself it an important catalyst of research – eventually
leading to more senior appointments at both associate professor and professor
levels, thus growing the cadre of researchers who potentially have access to
the resources and standing needed to embark on larger scale studies. In
addition, more colleagues in the field are obtaining NRF ratings which enable
them to submit applications for dedicated grants, including those specifically
focused on teaching and learning. Given
the importance of collaborative research for comparative studies on academic
development and for capacity-building, it is necessary that attention is given
within such projects to the structuring of the collaboration in order to ensure
maximum sharing and capacity building.
Productivity
With regard to the outputs, reports
were prepared for each participating institution. Research outputs generated
are listed below, with full titles of publications in Appendix 1.
Phds: four registered, two complete
A poster by a team member working on
her PhD won a runner up prize at the Society for Research into Higher Education
(SRHE) student research pre-conference meeting in December 2012 and in 2014
One special issue of the South African Journal of Higher Education
with five papers reporting on data obtained in the study (2016)
One book with three chapters
reporting on data obtained in the study (2017)
One article in a newspaper (Mail and
Guardian)
19 journal articles published
29 conference presentations or panels
One day national colloquium reporting
on the findings of the research
A blog on the project.
Outcome
At the final project meeting members
reported satisfaction about the research outputs and agreed that working in
such a large group across institutions allowed for a more comparative and
context-sensitive approach. The comparative dimension with its broad sweep gave
more authority to the findings. On the negative side was the fact that the
findings were not dealt with in as much depth and nuance as might have been the
case with a more intensive study or with researchers who had more time
available to dedicate to the research, by nature of their professional
responsibilities; and by the end of the project the wealth of data had not been
mined nearly as much as it could have been. It is interesting to note that the
data that was analysed for scholarly publications was analysed in more depth
and gave rise to more fine-tuned observations, than data that
With regard to the learning and
capacitation of team members, in their reflective pieces team members reported
learning about the theory of social realism, about research techniques and
about professional learning. Several reported learning about collaborative
research, with one member reporting gaining confidence from this process, to
undertake a collaborative study at her own institution. From the reflections it
would appear that the less experienced researchers reported learning and
appreciating what they learnt more than the more experienced researchers.
An interesting dimension to the project
was the degree of insecurity, threat to academic identity and anxiety reported
by many of the team members in the earlier years of the project (discussed
in more detail in Leibowitz, Ndebele and Winberg, 2015) - which had abated by
year six:
I experienced
with time a feeling of acceptance, warmth and a sense of belonging in a
community of academic development practitioners. This sense of ‘belongingness’ emerging from
the togetherness and shared purpose is what I have grown to value as a member of
the collaborative project.
With regard to the opportunity to
reflect on their work, participants said they understood the tasks they engaged
in better, although this was by no means the greatest area of benefit.
The argument that inter-institutional
research collaboration is important for capacity building, developed in this chapter,
complements that made in chapter 6.1.1 that inter-institutional collaboration
or sharing of expertise is an important means to enhance teaching and learning
in South Africa.
7.1 Introduction
The aims and objectives of the
research and the outcomes for each are summarized below:
Table 7.1: Summary of Objectives and
Outcomes
|
No
|
Objective
|
Outcome
|
|
1
|
To make suggestions about how to enhance
professional development with regard to teaching at each of the eight
participating institutions
|
At the time of writing this report
presentations on the data and findings have been made in six of the participating universities
|
|
2
|
To make suggestions at the national level for
appropriate and context-sensitive policy to enhance teaching and learning in
South Africa
|
These are provided in Chapter Eight.
|
|
3
|
To contribute to the international debates on
professional development with regard to teaching and learning with specific
reference to the concepts of ‘structure, culture and agency’ as developed in
the work of social realist Margaret Archer
|
This is discussed in Chapter Seven, and various
publications in more depth.
|
|
4
|
To contribute to the international debates on
collaborative research
|
This is discussed in Chapter Seven, and two
journal articles.
|
|
5
|
To make suggestions at the national level
regarding collaborative research on teaching and learning and about how to
support this[5]
|
These are provided in Chapter Eight
|
The aim of this chapter is thus to
draw the various findings together and to suggest any relevant points for the
various bodies of literature on which the project has drawn, and to present
broad implications on the following topics:
● Approaches
to professional learning
● Approaches
to the concept of context, change via the interplay of structure, culture and
agency
● Approaches
to collaborative research.
The chapter culminates with
considerations of the strengths and limitations of the research design and the
implications thereof for researching teaching and learning in higher education.
The study endorses the concept of
‘professional learning’, that is broader than the notion of professional
development. It is lifelong and agentic, as discussed in Chapter 3.1. The
lecturer is encouraged to learn by the quality of the offerings of formal
learning opportunities and the credibility of the academic developers who offer
these, by aspects of the working environment as well as by the lecturers’ knowledgeability
and their concerns and commitments. The latter would be influenced by the
lecturer’s own biography. The study does not ‘pronounce’ on whether
participation in formal learning activities should be compulsory, but it does
provide some examples where making such activities compulsory provides
individuals with a positive exposure to these opportunities, that might not
have been the case if these were not compulsory. The question of whether
offerings should be made compulsory or not should take into account the
credibility of the programmes and those offering them, as well as of the
prevailing culture. The need for a credible and professionalised academic
development cohort has been signalled as an important component of a conducive
environment for professional learning (Quinn & Vorster, 2014; Vorster &
Quinn, 2015).
A key finding is that the range, from
formal learning opportunities, more ad hoc and opportunities, to the most informal of all,
ie. learning from one’s own ongoing
practice, are all important. The relationship between the more formal and the
more informal professional learning opportunities is complementary and mutually
reinforcing. A finding is for on the one hand the need for a professionalized
and well-capacitated academic development staff cohort, and on the other,
ongoing attention to the conditions in which academics work and teach. This
finding, unlike the view of writers such as Knight, Tait and Yorke (2006) and
others who maintain that the learning that occurs in the faculties and
departments is ‘more significant’, cautions against a binary between formal and
informal learning approaches. Both are necessary and important and more
attention should be paid to how to enhance the relationship between the two, or
between the various aspects of the institutional context, including policy,
human relations prescriptions, formal learning opportunities, academic
leadership, a caring environment and so on. One of the points of concern is
that where the dominant culture in a department or faculty does not provide
cultural resources for lecturers to learn to teach, and devalues attention to
professional learning, local networks then perform a negative function. This
supports the position maintained by Roxå (2104) that microcultures can maintain
a defensive position against the surrounding organizational context.
Thus instead of discussing where professional learning should be
provided, managers and academic developers should be asking: 1) Is there
sufficient motivation and encouragement within a particular context for
academics to learn? 2) Is there support for academics in the environment to
develop critical reflection about their teaching? 3) Are there sufficient
opportunities for academics to draw on ideas and concepts about teaching and
learning to enrich their teaching? And if not, what can be done about this?
The findings also support the notion
of group agency (or ‘corporate’ agency) and suggests that the deliberate
cultivation of positive collaboration is significant for professional learning.
These groups occur most naturally within departments and faculties, and should
be supported across faculties or disciplines as well as between institutions.
There have been important developments in this regard in South Africa
subsequent to the data collection for this study, including the collaboration
of three universities in the Western Cape on the PGDIP (HE: T+L) and the
Teaching Advancement at University (TAU) Fellowships Programme, initiated in
2015. During the TAU Fellowships programme teaching academics from across the
country have signaled appreciation for inter-university networking. This is not
without its challenges, however. According to a study ancillary to this
research by Quinn and Vorster (2015 – listed in Appendix One) in which they
examine the challenges of reproducing a PGDIP (HE) for their own institution,
for colleagues at other institutions, differing cultures and frames of
reference pose a challenge.
A salient finding is the valuing of
research and/over and above teaching, signaled at all eight of the
institutions. This is compounded in especially some of the HDUs, where there is
a concomitant pressure for academics to obtain postgraduate qualifications in
their disciplines. The notion of the integration of the various roles of the
academic, signaled by the Boyer Commission in the US in the 1990s (Boyer, 1990)
provides a way out of this unhelpful binary between research and teaching. An
important area for further research and strategizing in South Africa, as well
as other higher education contexts where there are competing priorities for the
enhancement of scholarship and capacitation is how academics can enhance their
capabilities in a more holistic or integrated manner, than is at present made
feasible.
The study has shown a variety of
conceptions of good teaching amongst managers and academics. Most of these
conceptions are in harmony with the literature on good teaching, as outlined in
Chapter 3.3 and some are not. Given that the sample of lecturers interviewed is
skewed sharply in favour of those who are committed to good teaching and
professional learning, this is a cause for attention and further investigation.
There are various possible explanations for this variance: 1) formal and
informal learning opportunities have not penetrated the cohort of academics as
widely and deeply as one would hope; 2) traditional or unquestioned conceptions
of good teaching remain deeply embedded, despite exposure to new conceptions;
3) actual conditions academics work under may impede their engagement with or
full integration of new ideas.
6.3 Institutional context from a social
realist perspective
The findings of the study confirm the
importance of adopting a contextualized approach to matters of professional
learning, where the context is seen as the “environment in which the (‘macro’)
features of the system are either reproduced or transformed” (Archer 1995, p.
11). The ‘macro’ system has been described at the national level and the
institutional contexts are the settings where the macro features have been
outlined. A key finding in this respect, is that the macro features of the
South African society and national higher education policy environment are
indeed reproduced, and on occasion transformed, at the local university level[6].
The study demonstrates how the agency
and roles of individuals and groups, especially of teaching academics, but also
of middle level and senior academics, can make a difference. However the study
provides a glimpse of how the inherent inequality in the system strongly
influences what appears to be possible to achieve, with regard to teaching and
learning.
Archer (1996) maintains that both
structure and culture are significant in accounts of social change or stasis,
and that neither should be neglected. This study confirms the significance of
both domains. With regard to structures, policies, academic development
centres, and posts such as deputy dean: teaching are all significant. The manner in which material and cultural
resources interact to produce teaching and learning outcomes or practices (see
more detail in Leibowitz, 2016b) is an important area for future investigation.
The interrelationship between disadvantage and rurality as a specific
socio-economic condition has been highlighted in this study and is worthy of
further investigation.
The domain of culture has been shown
in the study to be extremely significant in reproducing and transforming
dominant ideas about teaching and learning in higher education. This domain is
salient at all institutions, historically advantaged and disadvantaged. The
role of senior managers and middle managers has been highlighted as a group
which plays an important part in how dominant conceptions of teaching and
learning are either reproduced or transformed. The extent to which dominant
ideas are either coherent or contradictory is an important aspect of the
conception of culture as described by Archer (1996). She draws a distinction
between the coherence of the ideas, and how this is imposed or disseminated
amongst people. Indeed, in this study there was found to be a lack of coherence
of ideas regarding the stature of teaching at the institutional level, but in
addition, a weak engagement with or dissemination of these within certain
institutions, and further, a contradiction between the cultural domain and various
policies and processes in the structural domain (for example incentive
policies, timetables or performance evaluation and promotion processes). This
condition might have changed since 2012, when the data was gathered.
Nevertheless, this is an important area for further investigation and action.
Structures advancing and incentivizing research, for example the NRF, still
exist. Such structures have an influence on culture, viz ideas about the
importance of teaching.
According to Archer, human agency is
neither autonomous (ie that humans possess free will) nor is it reduced to the
extent that the systemic level is entirely determining. She also cautions against seeing agency as
‘conflated’ with the systemic level, such that one cannot separate out the
workings of the systemic and of agency. In this study the significance of
agency is highlighted. Agency and reflexivity account for the variation in
responses between individuals to the structural and cultural conditions they
face. However the manner in which agency and the level of structure and culture
interact is complex and nuanced, and by no means ‘brute’. In other words, the
interplay exists in tiny micro-interactions that academics engage in each day,
rather than necessarily in grand events such as a major student protest or
change in policy. This suggests once again that it would be worth complementing
the theoretical framework used in this study, with one focusing on ongoing
practice, repetition and shared meanings.
With regard to agency the study
suggests that knowledgeability plays a significant role in advancing
professional learning. Knowledge and expertise is derived from prior learning
(for example where one studied or taught previously), knowledge resources
provided via networks (for example professional or disciplinary associations)
and interaction with colleagues in faculties and departments. The knowledge is
also derived from the professional learning opportunities, for example the
PGDIP (HE). Where there is limited expertise on a topic relating to teaching or
professional learning in an institution, inter-institutional collaboration or
sharing once again becomes a possible solution. In addition the example of
HAU3, where staff in the Centre for Teaching and Learning consciously took it upon
itself to capacitate its members, signals the need for support from senior
managers for this capacitation, alongside attention to the identity and general
academic growth, of academic developers.
The study endorses the view that
agency is significant. A contribution of this project is the suggestion derived
from the findings that agency, and reflexivity promote the negotiation of
obstacles. Agency is itself influenced by the constraining and enabling
conditions in the environment. Intrinsic motivation fuels the desire to learn
professionally amongst academics committed to teaching, far more so than
extrinsic motivation (motivation driven by instrumentalist purposes and
external drivers) (this point was made in the study at three of the
participating institutions, using self-regulation theory, by Leibowitz, 2016c).
However the information at hand is not able to shed light on the effects of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation amongst academics less interested to learn
to teach (those who were less likely to respond to the questionnaire or to
agree to be interviewed, and possibly the majority at many universities). Investigations
into how less committed teachers can be encouraged to learn to teach, requires
further consideration.
7.4 Collaborative research
The study suggests that
inter-institutional large scale collaborative research within the South African
higher education setting is feasible, but it faces challenges pertaining to
geographical distance, busy work schedules, different levels of research experience
and under-resourcing at some of the participating institutions. A case in point
with regard to under-resourcing was the inter-institutional questionnaire,
which was a struggle to disseminate at several of the universities, in
particular at HDUs.
Furthermore, the study suggests that
although this is not necessarily easy, it is possible to cultivate a learning
and sharing environment within such collaborations, a general point made about
group reflexivity and sharing by Donati (2012). There are few guidelines for
how to ensure successful collaborative research environments. Such information
would go a long way to support this burgeoning approach. The line of enquiry on
collaborative research brings together several key strands in this study: the idea
that collaboration can be consciously built and that it is important; that one
learns by doing with more experienced others (Wenger, 1998) but that formal
theoretical knowledge as well as tacit knowledge is also required; and that
cultural and structural enablements and constraints are mediated by individual
and group agency. Finally, this research process also points to the
interrelationship between research, learning, professional practice, thus how
various forms of scholarship are interlinked.
7.5 Strengths and limitations of the research
design
This research approach was not only
collaborative, but to a degree participatory: in the sense that academic
developers engaged in professional development were researching their own
professional contexts and searching for information that would inform their own
work. This rendered the research, designed by people whose roles allowed for
relatively little time for research, perhaps more messy and ‘building the plane
while flying’ than it might have been, as a more ‘pure’ or ‘scientific’
project. However the participatory nature of the design enhanced the immediate
use value of the project and encouraged a measure of self awareness and
criticality amongst the research team, who were able to test their own assumptions
of their work against the data from their own and other institutions.
The design, involving eight
simultaneous studies utilizing common instruments, was helpful in allowing
silences and differences to emerge that would not have emerged in single case
studies. However the multiple case studies were static and therefore did not
maximize the potential of the concept of the interplay of structure, culture
and agency, which usually allows for a tracing of patterns and changes as these
occur over time. A further research weakness already mentioned was the
difficulty of implementing a survey across the institutions. The survey was
significant in that it the first of its kind and provided a broad-sweep view of
attitudes towards professional learning in the country. It was only analysed
numerically in three institutions,
although the open-ended data was mined in more depth. The survey and interview
data set is weighted in favour of academics who are enthusiastic about teaching
and professional learning. Various findings would need to be explored and
tested with a cohort that is less committed to the teaching function.
It should be noted that the data
collected from the survey and interviews record research participants’
perceptions only. This might lead to the interpretation that the claims and
recommendations which can be made are limited, because substantive data to
confirm or refute perceptions was not gathered. However, the data collected
from the interviews made possible a deep understanding of people’s experiences
of their higher education environment. This interpretive research approach was
complemented by the collection of other forms of public documentation, national
trends and statistics. Furthermore, particular attention has been paid to not
treating what either managers or academics have said as if this provides a
picture of reality. To paraphrase critical realists, there might be a reality
out there, but our knowledge of it can only be partial or ‘fallible’ (Sayer,
2011, p.47). Related to this conflation of description with reality, is the
danger of reading into the accounts contained in this study as if this provides
a picture of South African higher education in 2016. The data was collected in
2011 and 2012. Some of the impressions created by this report are still
pertinent, whereas the influence of recent events such as the #Feesmustfall and
related movements have not been traced at all.
Finally, it should be cautioned that
using a particular theoretical framework determines the questions which can be
asked and so both reveals and obscures insight into professional development
and teaching and learning in general (Ashwin, 2009). Various possible couplings
of theoretical frameworks with that of structure, culture and agency have been
referred in earlier chapters of this document. The matter is of sufficient
interest to several members of this team, that a book arising out of this
concern has been produced (see Leibowitz, Bozalek and Kahn, eds, 2017 – listed
in Appendix One).
In this report we have described an
investigation that aimed at exploring the influences of institutional context
on the professional learning of academics in their roles as teachers. The dual
focus of the study has enabled the depiction of the national landscape while at
the same time allowing for individual institutional case studies to be
presented. In this final section a number of recommendations relating to issues
of professional learning, including those that require attention at a national
level are proposed. These are discussed in the section that follows and
developed further into possible actions in Table 8.1. Thereafter,
recommendations emanating from what has been learnt as a result of conducting
the study, particularly in terms of methodology, are also shared.
8.1 Recommendations
relating to professional learning
Most interviewees across these
different levels of seniority agreed that the
discourse, science and art of teaching needs to be strengthened nationally.
This enhancement could be accomplished through such endeavours as professional
staff development programmes for both senior and lecturer level academics. It
was found that currently the majority of professional development programmes
are directed particularly at novice academics and that the middle layers of
academics (such as senior lecturers, course
convenors and Heads of
Department) would benefit from capacity development as well. The results of the
questionnaire indicated that much current development has limited take-up, with
most academics indicating that they had only attended staff development
opportunities once a year. It is therefore recommended that conditions make it
possible for academics to attend more frequently. At the same time as making these
deeper professional development programmes available, it would be necessary to
conduct research on the impact of these. It is encouraged on a national level
to release monies for studying the impact of these programmes across HEIs.
While the
findings show that more and improved professional development opportunities
need to be supported, the conditions under which academics are teaching should
also be investigated and ameliorated; for example,
While the findings show that more and improved professional development
opportunities need to be supported, the conditions under which academics are
teaching should also investigated and ameliorated - for example, the
staff:student ratios differ significantly across HEIs, faculties and
disciplines. These disparities have a direct impact on the quality of teaching
and learning. From the questionnaire it is indicated that eighty percent of
respondents perceived that their workload prevented them from engaging with
teaching and learning development activities. In addition to this, It was found
that history, geography and resources also have a direct effect on the quality
of teaching and learning. For example, the high turnover of teachers at rural
universities than at better resourced universities which had a significantly
lower turnover is a significant factor. The stability of the academic teaching
staff is important in ensuring continuity and maintaining standards. The
increasing casualisation of staff, as for example in some foundational
programmes, militates against development of the identity as a university
teacher and consequent investment in the academic endeavour, including
reflexivity and the scholarship of teaching.
Important findings leading to
recommendations are that currently the majority of professional development
programmes are directed particularly at novice academics and that the middle
layers of academics (such as Heads of Department), as well as senior managers, would
benefit from capacity development as well. A further important recommendation,
which is not currently implemented, would be the provision of dedicated time for academics to engage in more
extensive capacity development.
The tension between commitment to
research and to teaching, which produces a binary needs to be addressed. This
dualism between teaching and research is not improved, but further exacerbated
by the suggestion made by a number of senior management for teaching-only and
research-only tracks. In order to bring about such parity between research and
teaching, it is recommended that more
formal recognition be provided for professional development in teaching and
learning - as is the case with research. Ways of recognising good teaching
need to be re-imagined and implemented so as to provide mechanisms for such
reward. Provision should be made institutionally for comparable allocation of
time for academics to engage with teaching as is the case for research. Senior
management appeared reluctant to make teaching development compulsory. However,
university management across the case studies have research performance
criteria. It is recommended that there should be mechanisms at a national level
to promote the status of teaching and learning so that a culture of teaching
and learning, including the engagement in professional learning towards the
enhancement of teaching and learning, can be promoted. Similarly, it is
recommended that there be institutional policies, resources and arrangements to
make teaching and learning visible and to promote its status.
Research findings also indicated that
many academics learn through engagement with peers from their departments or
disciplines, thus it is important for each academic department to have a
‘critical mass’ of scholarly and engaged teachers. This means that effective
professional development should acknowledge the importance of such communities.
It is recommended therefore that communities
of practice should be encouraged and strengthened. The data also shows that
academics learn from a variety of sources including internet access,
conferences, and Teaching and Learning Centres. It is thus recommended that
online services are developed, that academics have the opportunity to attend
teaching and learning conferences, and that Teaching and Centres have the
resources to further the learning of their own personnel.
Infrastructural problems make it
difficult for academics to engage in good teaching and need to be addressed so
that academics are able to engage in quality teaching and professional
development. Leadership (at each level
within the institution) and administrative processes impact directly on
teaching and thus proper attention needs to be paid to teaching and learning
development at each of these levels. The roles of the incumbents at each of
these levels should be made more explicit with regard to teaching and learning.
The Teaching and Learning Centres at
some institutions are providing support across a variety of institutions. It is
suggested that sharing this load would be helpful, as the collaborative
planning and teaching of staff development activities, including formal
qualifications, could be strengthened through the use of the resources (including people) at the individual HEIs.
Financial support, for example through the collaborative Teaching Development
Grants, is one way to encourage the further learning of academic developers and
of professionalising the field.
Developmental opportunities for academic developers was also stated as a
need by some interviewees. It is also recommended that opportunities are
provided for academic developers (or staff in teaching and learning centres) to
develop their own knowledge and skills to enable them to facilitate both formal
and informal professional learning opportunities for academic staff across the
disciplines in their institutions. New academic developers could be inducted
into the field through mentoring,
coaching, apprenticeship, fellowship programmes, workshops and/or through a
formal programme such as postgraduate diploma in higher education specifically
for academic developers. Allied to this is the need for more stable working
conditions for academic developers in some institutions.
Since the
inception of this research there have been a number of significant
collaborative and developmental projects, some of which have received funding
from the Collaborative Teaching Development Grants, which could be considered
as ‘good practice’ examples, or which, due to their broader regional or national
significance, should be considered for more permanent funding. The following
are illustrative, and do not cover the full range of such initiatives:
· The Teaching Advancement at
Universities (TAU) Fellowship Programme (a national Heltasa initiative project
currently hosted at the University of Johannesburg)
· The Postgraduate Diploma in
Higher Education for Academic Developers (currently hosted at Rhodes
University)
· The Postgraduate Diploma in
Higher Education (Teaching and Learning), collaboratively developed and
co-taught by three universities in the Western Cape.
Different levels of academics who
were interviewed perceived teaching and learning in disparate ways. Senior
management, for example, felt compelled to improve pass-rates, and constructed
good teaching through this lens. Interviews with academics suggest several
adopted knowledge-transmission approaches to teaching and learning. It is recommended that opportunities are
found to facilitate alternative perspectives on good teaching.
Finally, the study affirms the need
for further conceptual and empirically based research into professional
learning in South Africa.
In sum, the actions suggested by this document for
immediate attention at the national level are:
1) A policy
on professional learning with regard to the teaching role (or a chapter within
a broader policy document on the professionalization of the HE academic cohort)
be written which incorporates some of the suggestions in Table 8.1 below;
2) A good
practice guide for institutions, academic developers and faculty management be
commissioned, which, taking into account how much context influences
professional learning, develops the points outlined in the final three columns
in the Table below;
3) The lessons from this research be incorporated
into funding policies of the DHET (for example, support for good teaching might
require focused funding, but in addition, is dependent on funding and
functionality of the HE system as a whole and on funding and functionality of
individual institutions.
Table 8.1: Summary of recommendations with suggested actions
|
Recommendation
|
What needs to
be done
|
Level where
change needs to occur
|
|||
|
|
|
National
|
Inter-institutional
|
Institutional
|
Faculty/Departmental/Centre
|
|
Improve
status of teaching and learning
|
Create formal and informal opportunities for learning to teach which
are accessible for academics
|
Policy to reinforce the necessity for both formal and informal
opportunities
|
Inter-institutional courses and PG Dips and short courses
|
Policy to create impetus for formal and informal opportunities
across the institution, seminars, workshops, staff development programmes
|
Mentoring, peer observation, departmental support for reflection on
teaching and learning
|
|
Well-resourced and well-qualified and credible teaching and learning
support structures
|
Policy provision for centres for teaching and learning and professional development opportunities
for academic developers
|
Bodies like CHEC and HELTASA, SIGs, CHE
|
Institutional resources devoted to structures for teaching and
learning
|
Well-qualified, credible staff with academic status able to
provide a range of staff development
opportunities for teaching and learning
|
|
|
Policies to promote teaching and
learning
|
National policy on promoting teaching and learning
|
Policy rewarding inter-institutional work
|
Institutional strategic plans
and action plans to promote teaching and learning
|
Faculty and departmental plans on promoting the status of teaching and learning
|
|
|
Schemes to reward and recognise teaching and learning
|
National fellowships e.g. TAU, national policies rewarding teaching
|
Rewards for inter-institutional collaborative teaching
|
Rewards and recognition to promote teaching and learning e.g.
tenure, probation, teaching awards, fellowships, sabbaticals
|
Rewards for working collaboratively
across discipline and faculty, Faculty and departmental awards to
promote teaching
|
|
|
Involvement of key stakeholders in promoting teaching and learning
|
Leaders of CHE, DHET, NRF,
UsA actively promoting the status of teaching and learning and
inter-institutional collaboration
|
VCs, DVCs actively promoting inter-institutional collaboration with
regard to teaching and learning
|
VCs, DVCs and AD staff visibly,
actively and explicitly
promoting the status of teaching and learning across the whole institution
|
Deans, Deputy Deans and HoDs, AD staff visibly, actively and explicitly promoting the status of teaching
and learning
|
|
|
Knowledgeable leadership regarding teaching and learning to establish a culture of valuing
of teaching and learning and encourage staff to participate in staff development
initiatives
|
Structures such as CHE, DHET, NRF provide knowledgeable leadership
on teaching and learning
|
Most knowledgeable AD and other academic staff provide leadership on
cross-institutional endeavours, learning
from each other
|
VCs, DVCs, AD staff are provided with opportunities to improve their
knowledge regarding teaching and learning
|
Deans, Deputy Deans, Teaching and Learning specialists in
Faculties and Departments are provided
with opportunities for improving their knowledge of teaching and learning
|
|
|
|
Formal and informal opportunities for improving teaching and learning
|
National opportunities to improve teaching and learning -
international experts, meetings including time etc
|
Inter-institutional courses and opportunities for collaborative work
on teaching and learning
|
Institutional courses and promotion of informal opportunities for
improving teaching and learning including dedicated time for teaching and
learning activities
|
Faculty and departmental formal and
informal opportunities to promote teaching and learning such as peer
mentoring, dedicated time for
opportunities faculty and departmental formal and informal meetings etc.
|
|
Address
the teaching/research binary
|
Improving the status of SoTL
|
National bodies such as the
NRF to support SoTL
|
Funding and recognition for collaborative inter-institutional SoTL
|
Funding and recognition for SoTL at an institutional level
|
Faculty and departmental funding and recognition for SoTL
|
|
Provide opportunities for engagement with SoTL
|
Opportunities to hold and attend
international, national and local conferences, colloquia, symposia
|
Inter-institutional conferences, colloquia, symposia
|
Institutional conferences, colloquia, seminars to showcase SoTL
|
Faculty and departmental seminars, colloquia etc to showcase SoTL
|
|
|
Increase SoTL publications
|
Funding for SoTL research
development courses and writing for
publications workshops
|
Inter-institutional courses on developing research and writing for publication workshops
|
Institutional courses on developing research and writing for publication workshops
|
Faculty and Departmental peer mentoring on SoTL writing and
encouragement to engage in action research
|
|
|
|
Encouraging collaborative research
|
Research proposals to include a
chapter on inter-institutional collaboration
|
Proposals include chapters on supporting team members to collaborate, power relations,
interpersonal relations, leadership style, commitments required from team
members
|
Institutional rewards for collaborative research
|
Departmental rewards for collaborative research
|
|
|
Collaborative teaching guides
|
CHE providing opportunities
for teaching documentation
|
Inter-institutional guides and resources
|
Institutional
guides and resources
|
Disciplinary guides and resources
|
|
Improve working conditions
affecting teaching and
learning
|
Parity in terms of workload
|
National audit and reparative measures regarding unequal working
conditions
|
Inter-institutional collaborative teaching to reduce duplication and excessive workloads
|
Institutional audit and reparative measures regarding unequal
working conditions
|
Faculty and departmental audits and reparative measures regarding
working conditions
|
|
Acknowledging
the effect of casualisation on teaching
|
National audit
|
Inter-institutional audit
|
|
Measures taken to improve teaching and lessen casualisation of staff
|
|
|
Reconfiguring funding formula regarding students’ learning needs and
staff/student ratios
|
Perhaps more of a focus on successful outcomes for funding rather
than students registering
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acknowledging the effects of geopolitical location on teaching and learning
|
Examining factors such as rurality, institutional type on teaching
and learning
|
|
Rural
institutions are affected by the staff and students that they attract and the
resources available to them, experience in research supervision
|
|
|
|
Acknowledging the historical
legacy of education and its impact on
teaching and learning in HE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acknowledging the effects
of mergers on teaching and
learning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acknowledging the effects of marketisation on teaching and learning
|
Investigating increased pressure
for multiple demands
|
|
Less institutional
pressure on staff to accomplish
multiple tasks at once
|
Less faculty and departmental
pressure on staff to accomplish
multiple tasks at once
|
|
|
|
Administrative support for teaching and learning
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acknowledgement of effects of
infrastructure on teaching and
learning - ICTs, buildings, lecture rooms, transport, residences, access to
food
|
National minimum standards and assistance to improve this if needed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acknowledgement of the effects of interpersonal relationships on
teaching and learning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledges regarding teaching
and learning
|
Necessary knowledges regarding teaching and learning
|
Knowledge of the field of higher education and its challenges
|
Knowledge of the differences and commonalities between institutions
|
Knowledge of one’s own institution and how this impacts on teaching and learning
|
Knowledge of faculty and disciplinary knowledge
|
|
Conceptions of ‘good’
teaching, professional development etc. need clarification
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further research on what motivates teaching and the conditions under which teaching is
done needs to be conducted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explanatory notes about Table 8.1
These recommendations are made on the
basis of the data from the national overview, the institutional and reflective
reports, the questionnaire, the interviews with the senior managers, the
interviews with academics and the research team members’ reflective responses
and discussions. Many suggest actions that are partially implemented at
national level, or unevenly implemented across HEIs. Thus the actions that are
listed in the column “what needs to be done” can also be read as “what needs to
be done more or better or more consistently”. It should also be noted that some
of the recommendations suggest approaches towards professional learning and the
thinking that inform good policy, rather than actual actions. The “level at
which changes need to occur” has divisions showing what should be taken into
national policy, as well as what should occur at inter-institutional,
institutional and faculty levels. Some of the latter three columns could have
implications for national policy or could be subsumed into a ‘good practice’
guide for institutions. It should be noted that this list of
recommendations is not exhaustive, but represents the most common
recommendations that have been gleaned from the data. Furthermore, addressing
one set of needs, such as improving the status of teaching will not necessarily
translate into improved professional learning, as long as the infrastructure
and the inequitable workload conditions across institutions, faculties and
disciplines are not addressed. Another significant factor for learning to teach
in higher education is how students’ learning needs and backgrounds differ from
one institution to another. It is
therefore apparent that the recommendations and the further explications of how
to address these on various levels are entangled with each other and that it is
important to bear this in mind when considering each one of these. Furthermore, since the recommendations
address different issues and levels, some may be easier and more likely to be
addressed than others.
8.2 Recommendations relating
to research methodology
The experience of conducting this
research held many benefits for the researchers, particularly with regards to
methodology. For this reason, we include the following recommendations that
could have value for others in field.
Multi-site research into teaching and
learning is of significant value, and should be encouraged by the NRF and other
national bodies as it provides a wider lens into teaching and learning in
higher education. In order to ensure comparable data across the research
landscape, it is recommended that symmetrical interviews be conducted (ie,
selection of deans from comparable faculties).
The collaborative nature of the study
suggests further aspects for study. Collaborative research requires a level of
reflexivity comparable to that necessary for quality teaching and learning. It
is suggested that reflection on, and targeted study of, aspects related to
collaborative research (such as, project leadership, the way in which a
collaborative project is structured and managed, opportunities to work
together, geographical distances, and power differentials associated with, for
example, status, expertise, social location) could therefore lend insights into
issues related to the professional development for university teachers. The
process involved in collaboration as researchers is also recommended as an
aspect for further study.
The ways in which the challenges and
opportunities of delimiting a theoretical framework for a large-scale
collaborative study is worthy of further investigation.
Internationally
and in South Africa there is in the current era much dissatisfaction with
higher education, and much concern over the ability of higher education to
contribute towards the public good. The dissatisfaction is expressed about the
resourcing of higher education (vis in South Africa, the #Fees must fall
movement), about how higher education is governed and led, especially with
regard to performativity, managerialism and incentivisation. In some countries
higher education has become a narrow political instrument against or for the
government in power. In many instances, however, there is concern about its
ability to provide appropriate and effective education to students from a
widening social base and a question regarding its ability to deliver
appropriate solutions for society’s problems. Given the international disquiet
and the South African manifestations thereof, new, imaginative solutions are
required to the various problems informing higher education. These solutions
will require input from research that is rigorous, self-exacting, benefitting
from international exchange, but that is locally inspired and relevant.
Solutions will also benefit from teaching that is likewise, rigorous,
self-exacting, benefitting from local exchange, locally inspired and relevant.
Two important prescriptions emerge from this: firstly, that there is need for
the kind of support for teaching that encourages it to play this important role
in a self-renewing manner; and secondly, that teaching is part of the matrix of
forms of scholarship that characterizes academia. Teaching should not be seen
as separate from scholarship or research, neither as less important nor more
important. This study has pointed to the negative effect of this form of
polarized thinking. The study, with its account of change based on the
interplay between structure, culture and agency, provides a sense of the kinds
of dynamics to take into account when strategizing issues of change and of
development.
If
university teaching is to play such a dynamic role we think it should, it too,
should be fresh and imaginative. Our thinking should become unfettered by stale
binaries such as formal and informal learning, academic autonomy versus
accountability or incentives and compulsion versus intrinsic motivation. Finances
and resourcing remain a challenge. The data in this study point to the
significance of human individual and collective agency and academics’ own
commitments, which should be the basis of strategizing how to support learning
to teach in higher education. It also points to the role non-financial
elements, such as the culture in departments and faculties and messaging about
teaching. Equitable resourcing is important, but so are non-financial features
such as good governance or a culture of care. This study did not set out to
record examples of good practice in institutions, both in central units and in
faculties or departments, to support learning to teach. Several examples of
this nature were uncovered in the data, and should be the focus of future
strategies.
In the
light of resource constraints and the varied cultures of teaching and learning
that have been highlighted in the study, the need for collaboration between
academic developers and disciplinary experts, as well as between academics
across disciplines and institutions becomes a necessity rather than a luxury.
The large group process that undergirded this study is an example of both the
challenges posed by inter-institutional collaboration, as well as the many
advantages. Such collaboration can encourage forms of knowledge generation that
run counter to the idea of one, hegemonic form of knowledge, or a single story,
that legislates how we should be thinking or practicing – in the country or
internationally.
The
current concern in South Africa with decolonizing the curriculum suggests the
need for substantial change in approaches to teaching and learning at our
universities. This cannot happen without the kind of inter-institutional and
interdisciplinary collaboration that has been featured in this study. But it
also cannot happen without understanding how change in institutions occurs, nor
without understanding the role of individual and group volition in this change
process. This study has used the morphogenetic approach formulated by Margaret
Archer, based on the interplay between culture, structure and agency. The study
has found value in using this interplay as the lens to analyse how professional
learning is promoted in South African public higher education institutions.
Several ancillary studies in the project have used other frames, most notably activity
theory, practice theory, sociomaterialism and self-regulation theory. These
have all produced varied but useful findings, suggesting, firstly, that it is
not necessary for theoretical homogeneity in understanding and promoting
change, and secondly, that theorizing change is useful, but that the underlying
assumptions should be made clear. Further, it would perhaps be an appropriate
time in the light of the decolonization debates to begin to ask, which theories
are most appropriate to advance contextually appropriate knowledge, or perhaps,
how can we advance locally inspired adaptations to these theories?
This
study has pointed to the significant role played by various social and material
elements such as technology, materials, buildings, time, space, rules and
policies. These elements are all part of the entangled phenomenon that is
teaching and learning. They all support learning to teach and good teaching.
Central to these phenomena are the people that use the technologies, that
inhabit the buildings, read the books or tap on the devices. These should be acknowledged for their efforts and
treated with care. They are not mere instruments. If there is anything that the
account of change posited by social realism, and the interplay between culture,
structure and agency can teach us, it is to pay attention to the role that human
aspirations and commitments can and should play in teaching and learning, and
in enhancing the role that teaching can play in imagining a better world. It is thus imperative that students
enjoy the support and encouragement of their lecturers and university services.
Likewise with lecturers: the study has established that there are many
committed and creative lecturers in our universities who do wonderful work, and
it is imperative that they enjoy the support of their colleagues and
managers.
REFERENCES
Archer,
M. (1995) Realist social theory: The
morphogenetic approach. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).
Archer,
M. (1996) Culture and agency: The place
of culture in social theory (revised edition) (Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge).
Archer,
M. (2000) Being human: The problem of
agency. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).
Archer,
M. (2007) Making our way through the
world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. (Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge).
Archer, M. S., & Elder-Vass, D. (2012) ‘Cultural System or
norm circles? An exchange’ European Journal of Social Theory, 15(1),
pp. 93–115.
Ballantyne,
R., Borthwick, J. & Packer, J. (2000) ‘Beyond student evaluation of
teaching: Identifying and addressing academic staff development needs’ in Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 25(3), pp. 221-236.
Barad,
K. (2010) ‘Quantum entanglements and hauntological relations of inheritance:
Dis/continuities, spacetime enfoldings, and justice-to-come?’ in Derrida Today, 3(2), pp. 240-268.
Barnett,
R. (1997) Higher education: A critical
business. (SRHE: Buckingham).
Barrie,
S.C. (2006) ‘Understanding what we mean by generic attributes of graduates’ in Higher Education, 51(2), pp. 215-241.
Barrie,
S., Andrews, J., Dean, L. & Heimanis, I. (2010) ‘Employability: Realising
the potential of a university education’ in S. Brown & S. Denton (eds.) A practical guide to university and college
management: Beyond the bureaucracy. (Routledge: London).
Bhaskar,
R. (1998) ‘Philosophy and scientific realism’ in M. Archer, R.Bhaskar, A.
Collier, T. Lawson & A. Norrie (eds) Critical
realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge.
Boud, D.
& Brew, A. (2013) ‘Reconceptualising academic work as professional
practice: Implications for academic development’ in International Journal for Academic Development, 18(3), pp. 208–221.
Boud, D.
& Brew, A. (in press) ‘Learning to teach as the development of practice’ in
B. Leibowitz, V. Bozalek & P. Kahn (eds.) Theorising learning to teach. (Routledge: London).
Boud, D.
(1999) ‘Situating academic development in professional work: Using peer
learning’ in International Journal for
Academic Development, 4(1), pp. 3-10.
Boughey,
C. (2007) ‘Educational development in South Africa: From social reproduction to
capitalist expansion?’ in Higher
Education Policy, 20, pp. 5-18.
Boyer,
E. (1990) Scholarship reconsidered:
Priorities of the professoriate. (Josey-Bass: San Francisco).
Bozalek,
V. & Boughey, C. (2012) ‘(Mis)framing higher education in South Africa’ in Social Policy and Administration, 47(6),
pp. 688–703.
Bozalek,
V. & Dison, A. (2012) ‘Using the human capabilities approach as a normative
framework to evaluate institutional teaching and learning interventions at UWC’
in South African Journal of Higher Education,
27(2), pp. 383-400.
Bozalek, V. and McMillan,
W. (2017) Diffracting Learning/Teaching Entanglements: A South African
Vice-Chancellor’s Perspective. In B. Leibowitz, V. Bozalek and P. Kahn (eds) Theorising learning to teach. London:Routledge, pp. 43 – 58.
Bozalek,
V. & Zembylas, M. (2016) ‘Diffraction or reflection? Sketching the contours
of two methodologies in educational research’ in International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1201166).
Bozalek,
V.G., McMillan, W., Marshall, D.E., November, M., Daniels, A. & Sylvester,
T. (2014) ‘Analysing the professional development of teaching and learning from
a political ethics of care perspective’ in Teaching
in Higher Education, 19(5), pp. 1–12.
Brew, A.
(1999) ‘Research and teaching: Changing relationships in a changing context’ in
Studies in Higher Education, 24, pp.
291–301.
Brew, A.
(2011) ‘Higher education research and the scholarship of teaching and learning:
The pursuit of excellence’ in International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(2), Article 3
(http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol5/iss2/3).
Brookfield,
S. (1995) Becoming a critically
reflective teacher (Jossey-Bass: San-Francisco).
Buller,
J.L. (2015) Change leadership in higher
education: A practical guide to academic transformation. (Jossey-Bass: San
Francisco).
Butcher
J., & Stoncel, D. (2012) ‘The impact of a Postgraduate Certificate in
Teaching in Higher Education on university lecturers appointed for their
professional expertise at a teaching-led university: “It’s made me braver”’ in International Journal for Academic
Development, 17(2), pp. 149-162.
Christie,
D., Cassidy, C., Skinner, D., Coutts, N., Sinclair, C., Rimpilainen, S. &
Wilson, A. (2007) ‘Building collaborative communities of enquiry in educational
research’ in Educational Research and
Evaluation, 13(3), pp. 263-278.
Cilliers,
F.J. & Herman, N. (2010) ‘Impact of an educational development programme on
teaching practice of academics at a research-intensive university’ in International Journal for Academic
Development, 15(3), pp. 253–267.
Clarke,
C. & Reid, J. (2013) ‘Foundational academic development: Building
collegiality across divides?’ in International
Journal for Academic Development, 18(4), pp. 318–330.
Clegg,
S. (2009) ‘Histories and institutional change: Understanding academic
development practices in the global ‘north’ and ‘south’ ’ in International Studies in Sociology of
Education, 19(1), pp. 53–65.
Cloete,
N., Sheppard, C. & Bailey, T. (2015) ‘South Africa as a PhD hub in Africa?’
in N. Cloete, P. Maassen & T. Bailey (eds.) in Knowledge production and contradictory functions in African Higher
Education (African Minds: Cape Town, South Africa).
Cooper,
D. (2015) ‘Social justice and South African university student enrolment data
by ‘race’, 1998-2012: From ‘skewed revolution’ to ‘stalled revolution’ ’ in Higher Education Quarterly, 69(3), pp.
237-262.
Costandius,
E. (2012) ‘Engaging the curriculum in visual communication design: A critical
citizenship education perspective’ (Unpublished PhD thesis, Dept of Curriculum
Studies, Stellenbosch University).
Cox, M. (2006) ‘Phases in
the development of a change model: Communities of practice as change agents in
higher education’ In L. Hunt, A. Bromage, & B. Tomkinson (eds.), The realities of change in higher education:
Interventions to promote learning and teaching. London: Routledge.
Council
on Higher Education (CHE)/Strydom, J.F., Basson, N. & Mentz, M. (2012)
‘Enhancing the quality of teaching and learning: Sing student engagement data
to establish a culture of evidence’ in South
African Survey of Student Engagement - 2010 project. (CHE: Pretoria). (http://www.che.ac.za/sites/default/files/publications/SASSE_CHE-Enhancing_the_quality_of_teaching_and_learning_2012.pdf).
Creswell, J. (2003) Research
design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Czerniewicz,
L. & Brown, C. (2013) ‘The habitus of digital ‘strangers’ in higher
education’ in British Journal of
Educational Technology, 44(1), pp. 44–53.
Department
of Higher Education and Training (2013) Statistics
in Post-school Education and Training in South Africa 2011 (Pretoria).
Donati,
P. (2010) ‘Reflexivity after modernity’ in M. Archer (ed.) Conversations about reflexivity (Abingdon: Routledge).
Duncan-Howell,
J. (2009) ‘Teachers making connections: Online communities as a source of
professional learning’ in British Journal
of Educational Technology, 41(2), pp. 324-340.
Elder-Vass,
D. 2010. The causal power of social
structures: Emergence, structure and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Evans,
L. (2008) ‘Professionalism, professionality and the development of education
professionals’ in British Journal of
Educational Studies. 56(1), pp. 20–38.
Gibbs,
G., & Coffey, M. (2004) ‘The impact of training of university teachers on
their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning
of their students’ in Active Learning in
Higher Education, 5(87), pp. 87–100.
Gosling,
D. (2009a) ‘Educational development in the UK: A complex and contradictory
reality’ in International Journal for
Academic Development, 14 (1), pp. 5-18.
Gosling,
D. (2009b) Report on the survey of
directors of academic development in South African universities
(http://stbweb02.stb.sun.ac.za/ctl/documents/Report%20on%20Survey.pdf).
Grant,
B., Lee, A., Clegg, S., Manathunga, C., Barrow, M., Kandlbinder, P.,
Brailsford, I., Gosling, D. & Hicks, M. (2009) ‘Why history? Why now?
Multiple accounts of the emergence of academic development’ in International Journal for Academic
Development, 14(1), pp. 83-86.
Greene, J., H.
Kreider and E.Mayer, E. 2005. Combining
qualitative and quantitative methods in social inquiry. In Research methods in the social sciences, ed. B. Somekh and C. Lewin, 274-282.
London: Sage.
Griffin,
G., Hamberg, K. & Lundgren, B. (2013) The
social politics of research collaboration (Routledge: London).
Guskey,
T. (2002) ‘Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development’ in Educational Leadership, 59(6), pp.
45–51.
Herman,
N. (2015) ‘The role of context in decision making about professional learning
by lecturers at a research-intensive university’ (Unpublished PhD thesis, Dept
of Curriculum Studies, Stellenbosch University).
Higher
Education South Africa (HESA) (2011) A
generation of growth: Proposal for a national programme to develop the next
generation of academics in South African higher education
(http://www.universitiessa.ac.za/sites/www.universitiessa.ac.za/files/2011-%20HESA%20Building%20the%20Next%20Generation%20of%20Academics_0.pdf).
Jansen,
J. (2003) ‘Mergers in South African higher education: Theorising change in
transitional contexts’ in Politikon,
South African Journal of Political Studies, 30(1), pp. 27–50.
Jawitz,
J. and Perez, T. (2016) Asserting agency: Navigating time and space for
teaching development. SAJHE, 30 (6).
Jawitz, J. and Williams, K. 2015. Presence and absence:
Looking for the presence of teaching and teaching development in the website of
a 'research led' South African university. Cristal, 3 (1).
Johansson,
A. (2013) ‘Negotiating with neoliberal instrumentalism: The foreseeable and the
uncontrollable’ in G. Griffin, K. Hamberg & B. Lundgren (eds.) The social politics of research
collaboration (Routledge: London).
Kahn, P., Petichakis, C.
&Walsh, L. (2012) ‘Developing the capacity of researchers for collaborative
working’ in International Journal of
Researcher Development, 3(1), pp.
49-63.
Kahn, P.
(2009) ‘Contexts for teaching and the exercise of agency in early-career
academics: Perspectives from realist social theory’ in International Journal for Academic Development, 14(3), pp. 197–207.
Kezar, A.
(2005) ‘Redesigning for collaboration within higher education institutions: An
exploration into the developmental process’ Research
in Higher Education, 46(7), pp.
831-60.
Kloot,
B. (2009) ‘Exploring the value of Bourdieu’s framework in the context of
institutional change’ in Studies in
Higher Education, 34(4), pp. 469-487.
Knight,
P. (2006) ‘Quality enhancement and educational professional development’ in Quality in Higher Education, 12(1), pp.
29–40.
Knight,
P., Tait, J. & Yorke, M. (2006) ‘The professional learning of teachers in
higher education’ in Studies in Higher
Education, 31(3), pp. 319–39.
Laurillard,
D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching:
A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies
(second edition). (Routledge Falmer: London).
Leibowitz, B. (2016a) ‘The professional development of academics as
teachers: Reconsiderations’ in J. Case & J. Huisman (eds.) Investigating higher education: A critical
review of research publications (SRHE: London).
Leibowitz,
B. (2016b) In pursuit of socially just pedagogies in differently positioned
South African higher education institutions, SAJHE, 30 3, 219 – 234.
Leibowitz, B. (2016c) Professional academic
development – the influence of context on motivation, SAJHE, 30 (6), 191 - 206.
Leibowitz,
B., Bozalek, V., Carolissen, R., Nicholls, L., Rohleder, P. & Swartz, L.
(2012) ‘Educating the educators: Creating a powerful learning environment’ In:
B. Leibowitz, L. Swartz, V. Bozalek, R. Carollissen, L. Nicholls and P.
Rohleder (eds.), Community, self and
identity: Educating South African university students for citizenship (pp.117
– 129). Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Leibowitz,
B., Bozalek, V., Farmer, J., Garraway, J., Herman, N., Jawitz, J., Mc Millan,
W., Mistri, G., Ndebele, C., Nkonki, V., Quinn, L., van Schalkwyk, S., Vorster,
J. and Winberg, C. (2016) Collaborative Research in Contexts of Inequality: The
Role of Social Reflexivity. Higher
Education, online. DOI:
10.1007/s10734-016-0029-5.
Leibowitz,
B., Bozalek, V., van Schalkwyk, S. and Winberg, C. 2015. Institutional Context
Matters: the professional development of academics as teachers in South African
Higher Education. Higher Education, 69 (2) 315 – 330).
Leibowitz,
B., Ndebele, C. and Winberg, C. 2014. The role of academic identity in
collaborative research. Studies in Higher
Education, 39 (7) 1256 - 1269.
Lewis,
J.M., Ross, S. & Holden, T. (2012) ‘The how and why of academic
collaboration: Disciplinary differences and policy implications’ in Higher Education, 64(5), pp.693–708. (http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10734-012-9521-8).
McAlpine,
L., & Harris, R. (1999) ‘Lessons learned: Faculty developer and engineer
working as faculty development colleagues’ in International Journal for Academic Development, 4(1), pp. 11-17.
McKinney,
K. (2006) ‘Attitudinal and structural factors contributing to challenges in the
work of the scholarship of teaching and learning’ in New Directions for Institutional Research, (129), pp. 37–50.
McMurray,
A. & Scott, D. (2013) ‘Determinants of organisational climate for academia’
in Higher Education Research &
Development, 32(6), pp. 960–974.
Ndebele,
C., Muhuro, P. and Nkonki, V. (2016) Rurality and the professional development
of university teachers. South African
Journal of Higher Education, 30 (6).
Olsson,
T. & Roxå, T. (2013) ‘Assessing and rewarding excellent academic teachers
for the benefit of an organization’ in European
Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), pp. 40-61.
Palmer, S., Holt, D. & Challis, D. (2011) ‘Strategic leadership of
Teaching and Learning centres: from reality to ideal’ in Higher Education Research & Development, 30(6), pp. 807-821
Prosser,
M. and K. Trigwell (1997) ‘Perceptions of the teaching environment and its
relationship to approaches to teaching’ in British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1(67), pp. 25-35.
Prosser,
M. & Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding
learning and teaching: The experience in higher education (Open University
Press: Ballmoor, Buckingham, England).
Quinn, L. (2012) Re-imagining
academic staff development: Spaces for disruption (SUN Press:
Stellenbosch).
Ramsden,
P. (1992) Learning to teach in higher
education. (Routledge: London).
Reddy,
T. (2007) ‘Staff perceptions of the merger between two South African regional
technikons’ in South African Journal of
Higher Education, 21(3), pp. 485–502.
Reich,
A. & Hager, P. (2014) ‘Problematising practice, learning and change:
Practice-theory perspectives on professional learning’ in Journal of Workplace Learning, 26 (6/7), pp. 418-431.
Roziek, J. (2013) Pragmatism and post-qualitative futures. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education 26(6), pp. 692-705.
Roxå, T.
(2014) ‘Microcultures in the meso level of higher education organisations – The
commons, the club, the market and the square’ (Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Engineering Education, Dept of
Design Sciences, Lund University, Sweden).
Roxå, T.
& Mårtensson, I. (2009) ‘Significant conversations and significant networks
– Exploring the backstage of the teaching arena’ in Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), pp. 547-559.
Ryle, G.
(1949) The concept of mind
(University of Chicago Press: Chicago).
Sachs,
J. & Parself, M. (eds.) (2014) Peer
review of learning and teaching in higher education: International perspectives
(Springer: Berlin, Germany).
Seldin,
P. (2004) The teaching portfolio
(third edition) (Anker Publishing: Bolton, MA).
Smith, K., MacKenzie, J. & Meyers, R.
(2014) ‘Exploring the feasibility of international collaboration and
relationship building through a virtual partnership scheme’ International Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 8(1) article 7.
Steinert,
Y., Mann, K., Centeno, A., Dolmans, D., Spencer, J., Gelula, M. & Prideaux, D. (2006) ‘A
systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve
teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8’ in Medical Teacher, 28(6), pp. 497-526.
Sullivan, P.S.O., Stoddard, H.A. &
Kalishman, S. (2010) ‘Collaborative research in medical education: A discussion
of theory and practice’ Medical Education, pp. 1175–1184.
Trigwell,
K. (2012) ‘Relations between teachers’ emotions in teaching and their
approaches to teaching in higher education’ in Instructional Science, (40), pp. 607-621.
Trowler, P. (2012)
Doing insider research in universities.
Kindle Edition.
Trowler,
P. (ed.) (2002) Policy and institutional
change: Intentions and outcomes in turbulent environments (SRHE and OUP:
Buckingham, England).
Trowler,
P. (2008) Cultures and change in higher
education: Theories and practices (Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke,
England).
Trowler,
P. & Bamber, R. (2005) ‘Compulsory higher education teacher training:
Joined-up policies, institutional architectures and enhancement cultures’ in International Journal for Academic
Development, 10(2), pp. 79-93.
Trowler,
P. & Cooper, A. (2002) ‘Teaching and learning regimes: Implicit theories
and recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through
educational development programmes’ in Higher
Education Research & Development, 21(3), pp. 221–240.
Trowler,
P. & Knight, P.T. (2000) ‘Coming to know in higher education: Theorising
faculty entry to new work contexts’ in Higher
Education Research & Development, 19(1) pp. 27–42.
Van
Mannen, M. (1995) ‘On the epistemology of reflective practice’ in Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,
1(1), pp. 33-50.
Van
Schalkwyk, S., Leibowitz, B., Herman, N. & Farmer, J. (2015) ‘Reflections
on professional learning: Choices, context and culture’ in Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, pp. 4-10.
Vogel,
M.P. (2009) ‘Exploring the conditions for academic teachers’ informal collegial
learning about teaching: A social network approach’ in Educate, 9(2), pp. 18-36.
Volbrecht,
T. (2004) ‘The story of South African academic development in international
perspective: Have we lost the plot?’ in South
African Journal of Higher Education, 17(2), 2003, pp. 110-117.
Walker,
M. (2001) ‘Collaboration with/in a critical community of practice’ in M. Walker
(ed.) Reconstructing Professionalism in
University Teaching (The Society for
Research into Higher Education and Open University Press: Buckingham, England).
Webster-Wright,
A. (2009) ‘Reframing professional development through understanding authentic
professional learning’ in Review of
Educational Research, 79(2), pp. 702–39.
Wenger,
E. 1998. Communities of practice:
learning, meaning, and identity (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).
Weurlander,
M., & Stenfors-Hayes, T. (2008) ‘Developing medical teachers’ thinking and
practice: Impact of a staff development course’ in Higher Education Research & Development, 27(2), pp. 143–153.
Winberg,
C. (2017) ‘Extreme Teaching’: Exercising Agency in Difficult Contexts. In: B. Leibowitz, V.
Bozalek and P. Kahn (eds) Theorising
learning to teach. Routledge. pp. 172 –
188.
Winch,
C. (2015) ‘Towards a framework for professional curriculum design’ in Journal of Education and Work, 28(2),
pp. 165-186.
Wright,
M.C., Assar, N., Kain, E.L., Kramer, L., Howery, C.B., McKinney, K., Glass, B.
& Atkinson, M. (2004) ‘Greedy institutions: The Importance of institutional
context for teaching in higher education’ in Teaching Sociology, 32(2), pp. 144-159.
Yin, R.
(2013) Case study research: Design and methods. 5th edition. Los
Angeles: Sage.
Zembylas,
M. (2006) ‘Work-based learning, power and subjectivity: Creating space for a
Foucauldian research ethic’ in Journal of
Education and Work, 19(3), pp. 291-303.
Bozalek, V. and
McMillan, W. (2017) Diffracting Learning/Teaching Entanglements: A South
African Vice-Chancellor’s Perspective. In B. Leibowitz, V. Bozalek and P. Kahn
(eds) Theorising learning to teach.
London: Routledge, pp. 43 – 58.
Garraway, J. 2015. Academic staff development in foundation
provision. South African Journal for
Higher Education, 29 (1) 26 - 44.
Jawitz, J. and Williams, K. 2015. Presence and absence:
Looking for the presence of teaching and teaching development in the website of
a 'research led' South African university. Cristal, 3 (1) http://cristal.epubs.ac.za/index.php/cristal#.VY1ogmC2D8E
Jawitz,
J. and Perez, T. (2016) Asserting agency: Navigating time and space for
teaching development. SAJHE, 30 (6).
Jawitz, J. and Perez, T. 2015. Investing
in teaching development: navigating risk in a research intensive institution International
Journal for Academic Development, 21 (3),
194-205. DOI:10.1080/1360144X.2015.1081852
Jawitz,
J., Williams, K., Pym, J. and Cox, G. 2013. Why we do what we do: Interrogating
our academic staff development practice 76. In: T. Tisani and M. Madiba (Eds)
Proceedings of the Higher Education Learning and Teaching Association of
Southern Africa (HELTASA) 2012 Conference.ISBN: 978-0-620-55540-1
Leibowitz, B. (2016) Professional academic
development – the influence of context on motivation, SAJHE, 30 (6), 191 - 206.
Leibowitz,
B. (2016) In pursuit of socially just pedagogies in differently positioned
South African higher education institutions, SAJHE, 30 3, 219 – 234.
Leibowitz,
B. (2017) Researching Learning to Teach:
A Narrative on ‘Crossing Over. In: B. Leibowitz, V. Bozalek and P. Kahn (eds) Theorising learning to teach. London: Routledge,
pp. 191 - 206.
Leibowitz,
B. 2014. Conducive Environments for the Promotion of Quality Teaching in Higher
Education in South Africa. Cristal, 2
(1) 47 - 73.
Leibowitz,
B. and Bozalek, V. 2014. Access to higher education in South Africa: A social
realist account. Widening Participation
and Lifelong Learning. 16 (1), pp 91 - 109. http://wpll-journal.metapress.com/link.asp?id=X7243U561274
Leibowitz,
B., Bozalek, V., Farmer, J., Garraway, J., Herman, N., Jawitz, J., Mc Millan,
W., Mistri, G., Ndebele, C., Nkonki, V., Quinn, L., van Schalkwyk, S., Vorster,
J. and Winberg, C. (2016) Collaborative Research in Contexts of Inequality: The
Role of Social Reflexivity. Higher
Education, online. DOI:
10.1007/s10734-016-0029-5.
Leibowitz,
B., Bozalek, V., van Schalkwyk, S. and Winberg, C. 2015. Institutional Context
Matters: the professional development of academics as teachers in South African
Higher Education. Higher Education, 69 (2) 315 – 330.
Leibowitz,
B., Ndebele, C. and Winberg, C. 2014. The role of academic identity in
collaborative research. Studies in Higher
Education, 39 (7) 1256 - 1269.
Leibowitz,
B., van Schalkwyk, S., Ruiters, J., Farmer, J. and Adendorff, H. (2012) “It’s
been a wonderful life”: Accounts of the interplay between structure and agency
by “good” university teachers. Higher
Education 63 353 - 365.
Leibowitz, B., Vorster,
J. and Ndebele, C. (2016) Editors’ introduction: Why a contextual approach to
professional development? SAJHE, 30
(6), 1 – 7. (Special issue on contextual approaches to professional
development).
Leibowitz,B.,
Garraway, J. and Farmer, J. 2015. Influence of the Past on Professional Lives:
A Collective Commentary. Mind, Culture
and Activity. http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/VXkEex6WiqrkFdjYTSkY/full
MacMillan,
W. (on-line, HERD) ‘They have
different information about what is going on’: Emotion in the transition to
university. CHER-2012-1069.R2
Ndebele,
C. (2014). Approach towards the
professional development of academics as espoused in institutional policy
documents at a South African university. J Soc Sci, 38(3): 255-269
Ndebele,
C. (2014). Deconstructing the Narratives of Educational Developers on the
Enabling and Constraining Conditions in Their Growth; Development and Roles as
Educational Staff Development Facilitators at a South African University. International Journal of Education Science,
6(1), pp.103–115.
Ndebele, C. 2014. Bridging the Partition between Quality Assurance
Units and Educational Development Centres at University: Leverage Points for
Quality Development and Enhancement Director: Centre for Higher Education
Teaching and Learning University of Venda. J Soc Sci, 39(3): 303-316
Ndebele,
C. and Maphosa, C. 2014. Voices of Educational Developers on the Enabling and
Constraining Conditions in the Uptake of Professional Development Opportunities
by Academics at a South African University. International
Journal of Educational Science, 7 (1) 169 - 182.
Ndebele,
C., Muhuro, P. and Nkonki, V. (2016) Rurality and the professional development
of university teachers. South African
Journal of Higher Education, 30 (6).
Quinn,
L. and Vorster, J. (2014). Isn’t it time to start thinking about ‘developing’
academic developers in a more systematic way? International Journal for Academic Development. DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2013.879719
Quinn,
L. and Vorster, J. (2016) Conceptualising an epistemically diverse curriculum
for a course for academic developers. SAJHE
30, 6.
Quinn, L. and Vorster, J. 2015. Pedagogy for fostering
criticality, reflectivity and practice in a course on teaching for lecturers. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education. Online.
Van
Schalkwyk, S, Herman, N., Leibowitz, B. and Farmer, J. 2015. Reflections on
professional learning: Choices, context and culture. Online. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 4
- 10.
Van
Schalkwyk, S. and McMillan, W. (2016) “I have a chameleon-like existence”: a
duoethnographic account of border crossing by two academic development, SAJHE, 30 (6).
Winberg,
C. (2017) ‘Extreme Teaching’: Exercising Agency in Difficult Contexts. In: B. Leibowitz, V.
Bozalek and P. Kahn (eds) Theorising
learning to teach. London: Routledge, pp. 172 - 188.
Winberg,
C. and Garraway, J. (2016) ‘It takes a village’: attaining teaching excellence
in a challenging context. SAJHE, 30
(6).
Winberg,
C. and Pallit, N. (online) “I am trying to practise good teaching”:
Reconceptualising professional portfolios in vocational higher educaiton, British
Journal of Education Technology (BJET)
Appendix
Two: Questionnaire
(initial letter and opening statement
deleted for purposes of brevity)
Biographical Details
1. Please indicate your gender
·
Female
·
Male
2. Please indicate your year of birth
using numeric characters
3. Please indicate your race
·
Black
·
Coloured
·
Indian
·
White
·
Other
4. Please indicate your highest
qualification
5. Doctorate
·
Masters
·
Honours
·
Bachelors
·
BTech
·
PGDip
·
National Diploma
·
Other
6. If you are currently pursuing a
higher degree, please provide details
7. Please indicate the type of teaching
qualification(s) you have.
·
HED
·
ACE
·
PGCE
·
PGDip
·
Bed
·
Med
·
MPhil in HE
·
DEd/PhD
·
I am currently pursuing a teaching qualification
·
None
·
Other
8. If you are currently pursuing a
teaching qualification, please provide details
9. Please indicate the nature of your
position at your institution. Please mark all relevant options
·
Permanent
·
Contract
·
Full time
·
Part time
·
Joint appointment eg University and Provincial Administration
·
External lecturer
·
Other
10.
What is the level of your current position? Please mark all relevant
options.
·
Junior lecturer
·
Lecturer
·
Senior lecturer
·
Associate Professor
·
Professor Deputy Dean
·
Dean
·
Director
·
Senior Director
·
Researcher
·
Other
11. Please indicate your discipline.
These categories were adapted from the NRF list of primary research fields.
Please select the most relevant option.
·
Agriculture
·
Arts
·
Economic and Management Sciences
·
Education
·
Engineering
·
Health Sciences
·
Humanities
·
Law
·
Mathematical Sciences
·
Military Sciences
·
Physical Sciences
·
Natural Sciences
·
Social Sciences
·
Theology
·
Other
12.
To which faculty are you affiliated?
Teaching Experience
13. How many years have you been teaching
in higher education? Please use numeric characters
14. How many years have you been teaching
at your current institution? Please use numeric characters
15. What is the main area of teaching you
are involved in? Please mark all the relevant options
·
Under graduate
·
Under graduate and Post graduate
·
Post graduate coursework
·
Research supervision
·
Other
16.
How would you rate yourself as
teacher on a scale of 1 – 5?
(5 = Excellent; 3 = Acceptable; 1 = Very bad) (and space for comments)
17.
How would you rate your interest in teaching on a scale of 1 – 5?
(5 = Passionate; 3 = Neutral; 1 = Not interested)
(and space for comments)
Professional
Learning
(Professional
learning can be defined as the numerous activities which have to do with the
“academic/educational/faculty/staff development of academics I post-compulsory,
tertiary of higher education” (Brew 2004:5). Johnston (1998:1) adds that
professional learning is “the need for professionals to continue learning as
they practice and advance in their careers”.
18. In which
area(s) of your work as academic have you attended professional learning
opportunities at your institution? Please mark all relevant options.
·
Teaching
·
Research
·
Community Interaction
·
Management
·
Administration
·
None
·
Other
19. In which
area(s) of your work as academic have you attended professional learning
opportunities outside of your institution? Please mark all relevant options.
·
Teaching
·
Research
·
Community Interaction
·
Management
·
Administration
·
None
·
Other
20. Please
provide details of the professional learning opportunities you have attended
outside of your institution. You can include information about where it took
place or by whom it was organised, the date and the topic.
21. How often do you participate in
professional learning opportunities for your teaching?
22. Once a term or more
23. Once a semester
24. Once a year or less
25. Never
26. Other
27. What may
prompt your attendance of professional learning opportunities for your
teaching? Please mark all relevant options.
·
If I am interested
·
If the topic is relevant to my teaching
·
If instructed by my Supervisor/Head of Department
·
If I have the time
·
If there is an incentive/reward
·
If required by my institution
·
If it will advance my career
·
If it can help my teaching
·
If I want to apply for promotion
·
If I need CPD points
·
If it speaks to a need I have at the time
·
If colleagues suggest it would be worthwhile
·
If I think it would be worthwhile
·
If there is a positive attitude towards teaching
in my department
·
Other
28. Where do you go for help/support/advice
on your teaching? Please mark all relevant options.
·
Institutional Teaching and Learning
Centre/Division
·
Colleagues
·
Mentor
·
Supervisor
·
Head of Department
·
Conferences
·
Internet
·
Library
·
Teaching Dean
·
Dean
·
Specialist in the field of Higher Education
·
I do not feel the need for help
·
Other
29. If you do
ask for help/support/advice, in which areas do you ask for this? Please mark
all relevant options
·
Teaching large classes
·
Discipline in class
·
Integration of technology in teaching
·
Curriculum design and development
·
Engaging students in class
·
Facilitating interactive learning
·
Encouraging class attendance
·
Managing diversity in class
·
Issues of language in teaching
·
Using student feedback for professional learning
·
Compiling a teaching portfolio
·
Assessment of students
·
Research on teaching
·
Programme planning
·
Integrating graduate attributes in my teaching
·
Using small group teaching techniques
·
Optimising tutorials/fieldwork/practicals
·
Integrating service learning
·
Teaching in clinical settings
·
Work based learning
·
I do not feel the need for help
·
Other
Enabling and
Constraining Factors
30. My
institution provides formal recognition for engagement in professional learning
for teaching (1 – 5, where 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) Please
briefly explain your choice in the question above
31. My
institution provides resources for engagement in professional learning for
teaching (1 – 5). Please briefly explain your choice in the question above
32. My
workload often hinders my ability to participate in professional learning for
teaching (1 – 5). Please briefly
explain your choice in the question above
33. The
topics of the professional learning opportunities for teaching are often not
applicable in my own discipline (1 – 5). Please briefly explain your choice in
the question above and give examples if possible
34. I can
easily access information on professional learning opportunities for teaching
in my institution (1 – 5). Please briefly explain your choice in the question
above and give examples if possible.
We value your
input and feedback. If you have any comments or questions for the compilers of
the questionnaire, please feel free to give these below.
The researchers
would like to interview a number of respondents in order to explore certain
issues in more depth. If you are willing to be interviewed, please provide your
contact details below or send an email to XXX.
Appendix Three: Templates for institutional reports (Phase Three)
1 Institutional Level Report
Name of institution
Date
Authors
Final/draft/awaiting ethical clearance
Institutional
Context
a. Geographic
b. Socio-economic
c. Historic(including eg. recently merged)
How the institution describes itself
a.
To external audiences (marketing;
website(s); student oriented; vacancy advertisements; Audit documents; Mission
statements; etc)
b.
To internal audiences? (Internal
communiqués; ‘climate surveys’; staff orientation documents; websites)
c.
In relation to the ‘research’ ‘teaching’
& ‘social responsibility’ priorities? (teaching and learning / assessment
policies; recognition and reward documentation; as above)
Composition
a. Academic staff; support
staff; undergraduate students; postgraduate students (provide numbers and other
available information)
b. Number of faculties and
names
c. Institutional organogram
with specific reference to senior management, placement of staff development
(general) function and staff development (T+L function)
References (if any used)
2 Professional Development – Reflective Report
Name of institution
Date
Authors
Final/draft/awaiting ethical clearance
a.
History
Provide a concise
history of your unit, focusing on the nature of the provision of professional
development offered, and how it has changed in very broad terms.
b. Composition and nature of unit
Briefly describe
your centre/unit with regard to: conditions which enable or constrain its
functioning, eg. size, relationship with other relevant units, staffing
conditions of service (e.g. academic status etc), qualifications of
professional staff, no of support staff,
physical location, resourcing.
c. Provision for the professional development of
academics
Provide a
description of the kinds of provision of opportunities for professional
development offered by your unit. Refer to Chris Winberg’s table here. Include
comments on whether the opportunities are:
●
Compulsory or optional
●
Incentivized
●
How widely or freely these are available
●
How discipline specific these are.
d.
Monitoring
How do you
monitor and evaluate your activities? How do you collect evidence? How much
reflection and scholarly publication does
your unit undertake?
e. Evidence of take-up
Provide a brief
description of the extent of take up of the opportunities across the
institution over 2009 – 2011.
References (if
any used)
3 Analytical Considerations
Name of institution
Date
Authors
Final/draft/awaiting ethical clearance
a. Potential constraints and enablements
(self-described or interpreted)
b. Any intended ‘causal thesis’ underlying the
documents regarding staff development
c. Which of the “Generations” are evident /
dominant with regard to staff development?
d. Other analytic or reflective observations?
List of
Appendices
Name of institution
Annotated list
Any gaps or other issues would be mentioned at the list of appendices;
other relevant documents, eg. T+L annual reports, could be added if relevant to
show constraint or enablement regarding uptake of teaching and learning
development opportunities.
Appendices should contain the following:
Teaching and Learning policies/strategies/implementation plans
T&L Professional dev plan / Staff development plan
T&L Assessment and related issues
Institutional Appointment and Promotion Criteria/Policy
Institutional Strategic and Operational Plan
Audit reports
Inclusion of
statistics
Institutions may include stats from before 2009 and 2010
Appendix Four: Interview
schedules
Appendix 4a
Interviews with lecturers
Section One: Your attitude towards teaching
1.
Tell me about yourself as a teacher
Prompts:
a.
Your discipline
b.
What is your current involvement in teaching?
c.
Do you like teaching?
d.
Are you satisfied with yourself as a teacher?
e.
How long have you been teaching?
f.
Teaching qualifications?
g.
What are you beliefs about teaching (and learning)? How did you come
by it? Have they changed over
time? How?
Section Two: Your professional development as a teacher
1.
Does your institution have specific
requirements with regard to teaching and learning staff development? Explain.
2.
What steps have you taken to enhance your
teaching?
Prompts:
a.
Individually driven (eg, read up, reflect) – ask for examples
b.
Peer support (from Dean. HOD, colleagues in department and at other
universities) – ask for examples
c.
Take up opportunities offered by university teaching and learning
centre (including , for example,
PGDHE) – ask for examples
d.
If none, why?
3.
If you have made any significant attempts
to improve your teaching, what prompted this?
Prompt:
a.
Policy, your direct supervisor, student complaints, obstacles, your
own curiosity
4.
If you have taken up professional
development opportunities, have you implemented what you learnt on these occasions?
5.
If yes, explain and give examples of what you have implemented
6.
If you have not taken up professional
development opportunities, what kind of support
would you have wanted, and from whom, to enable you to do so?
Section Three: Relation to your environment
1.
Does your environment support or hinder
the quality of your teaching? Explain.
Prompt:
a.
probe for institutional and departmental level
b.
and students
2.
If it hinders, how do you respond/ have
you responded?
3.
Does it support or hinder your attempts
at professional development for teaching? Explain.
4.
If it hinders, how do you respond/ have
you responded?
Section Four: Closing
1.
Do you have any suggestions about what
should be done at your university to support
lecturers to develop professionally with regard to their teaching role?
2.
Anything else you would like to add?
Appendix 4b1 Interview with Senior Managers (Vice Chancellors and
Deputy Vice Chancelors)
Give some
context: ‘I’d like to ask some questions about the development of academic staff for their teaching roles. The focus of the study I am involved with is
on the conditions which enable or constrain this kind of development.’
1.
From a teaching and learning
point of view, what do you think are the strengths of your institution?
2.
What is your personal vision for
teaching and learning at your institution?
3.
What do you feel that you have
been able to accomplish with regard to this vision at this institution?
4.
What are the goals and priorities
for development of academic staff as teachers at your institution? What is the
rationale for having these particular goals and priorities?
5.
What mechanisms or systems are in
place to support the development of academic staff as teachers?
a.
Why these particular mechanisms and not others?
b.
(If unit/centre doesn’t come up here probe – I am aware that you
have a xxx what do you see as the role of this unit/centre/directorate?)
6.
Under ideal circumstances, is
there anything that you might like to do differently?
7.
How has the restructuring aimed
at unifying the higher education system from 2000 onwards impacted your
institution?
a.
More particularly, how has it affected the need for development of
academic staff as teachers? (probe from the response given e.g. what does being
a research-led institution mean for undergraduate teaching?)
8.
What is your sense of how
academic staff members respond to academic staff development initiatives?
a.
Do they take up opportunities for development?
b.
Do you have any sense of why or why not?
Now probe
the enabling and constraining factors…
Culture,
structure and agency
9.
What factors enable staff
development in relation to teaching in this institution?
10. What factors constrain staff development in relation to teaching
in this institution?
Try not to prompt or put issues
on the table, but if the following do not come up, ask specifically about:
What resources are allocated to
academic staff development regarding teaching and learning? Are they adequate?
(e.g. money, time, people, infrastructure etc)
Are there issues in attracting
and retaining quality teaching staff at your institution? (For example, some
institutions might have great difficulty attracting staff, might have a lot of
part-time staff, might have a lot of old or young staff etc. Probe the key
staffing issues.)
What are the implications of the
above question for their development as teachers? (As an optional probe if it
hasn’t been addressed in the response).
Appendix
4b2: Interviews with Deans
Give some
context: ‘I’d like to ask some questions about academic staff development
relating to teaching and learning in your faculty. The focus of the study I am
involved in is on the conditions which enable or constrain this sort of
development.’
1.
From a teaching and learning point
of view, what do you think are the strengths of your faculty?
2.
What is your personal vision for
teaching and learning in your faculty?
3.
What have you been able to
accomplish with regard to your vision for teaching and learning in your
faculty?
4.
What are the goals and priorities
for development of academic staff as teachers in your faculty?
a.
What is the rationale for having these particular goals and
priorities?
5.
What mechanisms or systems are in
place to support the development of academic staff as teachers in your
faculty?
a.
Why these particular mechanisms and not others?
b.
(If unit/centre doesn’t come up here probe – I am aware that you
have a xxx what do you see as the role of this unit/centre/directorate?)
6.
Under ideal circumstances, is
there anything that you might like to do differently?
7.
How has the restructuring aimed
at unifying the higher education system from 2000 onwards impacted your
faculty?
a.
More particularly, how has it
affected the need for development of academic staff as teachers? (probe from
the response given e.g. what does being a
research-led institution mean for undergraduate teaching?)
8.
How do members of your faculty
respond to opportunities for their development as teachers?
a.
Do they take up opportunities for development?
b.
Do you have any sense of why or why not?
Now probe
the enabling and constraining factors…
Culture,
structure and agency
9.
What factors enable development
of staff in their teaching role in this faculty?
10. What factors constrain development of staff in their teaching role
in this faculty?
Try not to prompt or put issues on the table, but if the following
do not come up, ask specifically about:
What resources is your faculty
able to draw on for the development of staff in their teaching role? Are they
adequate? (e.g. money, time, people, infrastructure etc)
Are there issues in attracting
and retaining quality teaching staff in your faculty? (For example, some
faculties might have great difficulty attracting staff, might have a lot of
part-time staff, might have a lot of old or young staff etc. Probe the key
staffing issues.)
What are the implications of the
above question for their development as teachers? (As an optional probe if it
hasn’t been addressed in the response)
Appendix
Five: Prompts for reflective responses from team members on research process
December
2011
Please write a few paragraphs on the
collaborative process.
August
2013
·
What have been the outputs and outcomes of your
participation for you thus far?
•
What have the challenges been for you in achieving
these or any outputs or outcomes?
•
What has facilitated your participation
•
In your work context/institution?.
•
By the project itself?
•
By you?
•
What has hindered your participation
•
In your context/institution?
•
By the workings of the project itself?
•
By you?
May 2016
Name
Write a comment on the collaborative
nature of the research. Here are some headings.
You can add references if you wish. You can also decide which of the
subheadings to concentrate on, in more depth
1.
Depth/duration of my involvement in the project
2.
What I gained or learnt during and from the
project
3.
What I could have gained or learnt, and what
would have needed to be different, for me to have done so
4.
What I feel the gains for the project itself have
been, due to its collaborative nature
5.
What I feel the gains for the project could have
been, if matters internal to the project, or external to it, were different
6.
What I have learnt, in retrospect, about
collaborative research
[1]
The change of terminology from ‘professional
development’ to ‘professional learning’ occurred after the original funding
proposal was written, as a result of debate within the research team and the
implications of the research findings.
[3] In 2016 there are 26 institutions
according to the USAf website http://www.universitiessa.ac.za/ .
[4] This table was prepared for a paper on the data
contained in the institutional reports (Leibowitz, Bozalek, van Schalkwyk and Winberg, 2015).
[6]
Although senior managers have been interviewed,
the research analysis has not turned to what extent these role-players, or
others, have succeeded in transforming universities. This work is still to be
done.
No comments:
Post a Comment