Previous page
Table of Contents
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
The General Board invite Departments and Faculty Boards to comment on a consultation paper on the introduction of a University course of training in academic practice and a route to membership of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILT). The paper has been circulated to Heads of Departments and Chairmen of Faculty Boards and is published below. There will also be the opportunity for the views of Colleges to be conveyed to the Board by means of the Senior Tutors' Education Committee.
The rationale for the Board's proposal to create a new course of training in academic practice is set out in the Introduction. Each section of the consultation paper then addresses a different aspect of the proposal and contains a number of questions that will require further consideration by the Board. These are summarized at the end of the paper.
The General Board hope that Faculties and Departments will take this opportunity to engage in a detailed discussion of the issues raised in the consultation paper. The paper is available electronically on the Reporter's website (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/1999-2000/weekly/). Please convey the views of your Department or Faculty Board on the issues raised in the consultation paper to Linda Newbold, Secretary, Academic Staff Development Committee (Personnel Division, University Offices, The Old Schools, Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TT), preferably by the end of the Michaelmas Term 1999. Replies may also be sent by e-mail (lmn1@admin.cam.ac.uk).
1. The University's success is based largely on the contribution, commitment, and achievement of individual members of its academic staff in delivering the highest quality teaching and research, thus maintaining and enhancing the University's national and international reputation. The University aims to attract the most able students, to recruit staff of the highest calibre, and to provide the right environment in which both students and staff are able to achieve their potential. The General Board believe that a way of facilitating this achievement is to ensure that academic staff have access to appropriate guidance, support, and training at every stage of their University careers.
2. Staff development is a positive means by which the University can demonstrate recognition of the importance of the roles performed by each individual member of staff. The function of staff development is to support staff in the performance of their designated roles and to help them to fulfil their potential during the course of their employment in the University. The Board are very much of the view that investment in staff development, whether as training for newly-appointed members of staff or as continuing professional development for staff throughout their careers, contributes directly to the success of the University as a whole.
3. The University benefits from the import of those already skilled in teaching and research from elsewhere in Higher Education. It also provides its own young academic staff with a springboard to academic careers elsewhere. The Board believes that it is important for staff to take advantage of opportunities to develop their academic skills early in their careers, wherever they are employed. The University currently takes particular care to ensure that newly-appointed University Teaching Officers are made aware of the opportunities for induction and staff development in the University. These include the provision of a short programme of preparation for teaching at the start of the Michaelmas Term and a fuller programme of staff development activities throughout the year. These have provided a useful introduction to various aspects of teaching and academic practice in the University but are limited as a means of addressing the longer-term needs of academic staff.
4. At present, with encouragement and support from their Head of the Department or Chairman of the Faculty Board, individual members of the academic staff are largely responsible for their own professional and career development. This may take the form of sabbatical and other research leave, structured staff development activities, attendance at meetings and conferences, secondments, development of educational materials and curriculum enhancement, and active association with professional bodies. The General Board are also mindful of their current proposals to improve the career structure for academic staff in the University by introducing procedures to facilitate promotion to the office of Senior Lecturer. This is a significant new development. It will provide an opportunity for career progression for academic staff which visibily recognizes excellence in teaching as contributing to the overall success of the University. Excellence in teaching manifests itself in a variety of ways and can, in the General Board's view, be greatly enhanced by participation in relevant programmes of training and staff development.
5. Nationally there is an increasing interest in, and scrutiny of training and staff development in Higher Education, and it is important that staff development provision is kept under review. The emphasis in recent years on accountability to external bodies for the quality of education provided by Higher Education institutions has heightened the importance of good teaching and effective quality assurance procedures. The principle of assessing the quality of educational provision in universities is now well established and the results of the assessments widely publicized. The University has, so far, been successful in demonstrating its stated commitment to achieving and maintaining the highest standards in teaching and research. Although the General Board do not necessarily agree with the premise that there is a need for further scrutiny and regulation of university teaching, they are mindful that the quality of teaching in universities has become a matter of widespread public interest. In recent years the sector has become more accountable for the use of its public funds. Students, too, now that they are making a more substantial contribution to the cost of their studies, have become more likely to question any perceived failure by universities to deliver good quality teaching and fair assessment.
6. The report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Committee), published in 1997, highlighted the need to find appropriate ways of recognizing the professionalism of academic staff in the Higher Education sector. As well as giving prominence to the importance of staff development, the Dearing Committee recommended the establishment of a National Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILT, further details of which are set out in Section E of the enclosed consultation document). The General Board consider that the Higher Education sector as a whole may come to regard membership of the ILT as standard for those for whom teaching is an integral part of their role.
7. The creation of the ILT comes at a time when a broad section of the Higher Education sector is already actively engaged in developing comprehensive programmes of training and development for new teaching staff. Increasingly, universities are moving towards the provision of more structured programmes, with a greater emphasis on facilitating professional self-awareness. In that context, it is highly likely that most Higher Education institutions will either set up courses leading to ILT membership or seek ILT accreditation for their existing training courses as an indication of their commitment to providing teaching of the highest quality. The University of Oxford, for example, has recently launched a course leading to the award of a Postgraduate Diploma in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education that is expected to be accredited by the ILT. Since October 1998 this University has run a pilot scheme, whereby newly-appointed University Teaching Officers have been offered the opportunity to follow one of a number of routes to ILT membership offered by the Open University Centre for Higher Education Practice or the University of London Institute of Education. Feedback from those participating in the pilot scheme indicates that courses run by other institutions are of limited value as they are not geared primarily to the aims and expectations of this University.
8. With these various factors in mind, the General Board have given careful thought to how they might improve existing arrangements for training and staff development. They consider that there is now an urgent need for the University to provide new staff with more coherent preparation for their academic role, especially in teaching, and that the University should be requiring newly-appointed University Teaching Officers to complete such a course of training. However, the Board would wish to ensure that the programme was designed primarily to meet the University's own needs, based firmly on academic practice in the University. and was effective without being too onerous. This could be achieved by providing a more substantial programme of University training which builds on the existing introductory programme, but which also addresses other areas of professional activity, including those emphasized by the ILT, thus creating an opportunity for those completing the course to achieve membership of the ILT.
9. The General Board believe that it is timely to consult Faculty Boards and Departments on the introduction of a more substantial programme of training and staff development in teaching and other aspects of academic practice. At this point, they are particularly concerned with the arrangements for new University Teaching Officers but recognize that the needs of academic staff at a more advanced stage in their careers should not be overlooked. The establishment of the ILT has given this matter a particular impetus and the Board would also welcome feedback on the perceived implications for the University and its academic staff of the creation of the ILT as a national professional body for university teachers.
10. The enclosed document sets out the options available to the University for delivering effective, relevant training in University and College teaching. The document has been structured in such a way as to include background information that will help explain the choices that are available to the University. The consultation is set out under a number of headings, and includes a number of questions that the General Board have identified as requiring further consideration. However, they are aware that some of questions raised relate to matters that are still at a very early stage in their development and Faculty Boards and Departments may not yet have firm views on how they might be taken forward. Your comments and views are welcome on the whole range of issues set out in this document but particularly those key questions denoted by an asterisk in the enclosed Summary.
A.1 Access to training in teaching should be readily available to all those who are expected to teach as an integral part of their duties. The main group of staff to which this would apply is that of University Teaching Officers. Their role is central to the University's teaching arrangements, and, in the General Board's view, there should be a formal mechanism for ensuring that newly-appointed University Teaching Officers complete an appropriate course of training in teaching early in their academic career at Cambridge. This could be achieved by making it a condition of appointment that satisfactory completion of the probationary period must include evidence of having completed a recognized course. The exact nature of the course and the extent of the commitment needed to complete it might then become significant factors in determining the length of the initial period of appointment.
Q
(i) Would the inclusion of a condition of appointment that satisfactory completion of the probationary period must include evidence of having completed a recognized course be an appropriate mechanism for the University, as a means of ensuring that appropriate training in teaching is received by all new University Teaching Officers?
(ii) What alternative courses of action might the General Board consider in respect of the above?
A.2 Many newly-appointed UTOs are already experienced university teachers by the time they are appointed to, say, a University Lectureship, although they may not previously have received any formal training in teaching. It may not be appropriate for them to undertake quite the same range of training as those who are relatively new to teaching. However, the General Board would expect some formal means of evaluating their teaching ability, taking into consideration completion of any previous training and any further training needs, to feature in their probationary period.
Q
(iii) In what form might evidence of teaching ability and the satisfactory completion of training, especially for new but experienced University Teaching Officers, best be made available to Appointments Committees when they are considering the case for reappointment?
A.3 Many other members of University staff are involved in University and College teaching by contributing to programmes of lectures and seminars, giving supervisions, supervising graduate students, taking classes, and demonstrating laboratory work. In the case of those for whom teaching forms a less substantial part of their role, the opportunity to receive appropriate training in teaching is nevertheless important.
Q
(iv) What requirements should there be for evaluating the teaching ability and training needs of University staff engaged in teaching who are not employed as University Teaching Officers?
A.4 For College Teaching Officers and those undertaking supervisions in Colleges, where the University is not the employer, any specific requirement to undertake a course of training would be inappropriate, unless the College wished to include it in the contract of employment. However, there is some interdependence between Faculties or Departments and Colleges when it comes to making teaching arrangements and both parties are responsible for ensuring that their teaching quality assurance mechanisms are complementary. Faculty Boards could play a more active part by, for example, linking conferment of formal titles, such as 'Affiliated Lecturer', 'Associate Lecturer', or 'Recognized Clinical Teacher', and indeed, appointment to 'Newton Trust Lectureships' to completion of an appropriate programme of training. There are also those who do not have any formal relationship with the University, but are engaged on a casual basis by Faculty Boards and Departments. The responsibility for ensuring that they are competent teachers falls to the Faculty Board or Department in which they are invited to teach. It is not unusual, within the Higher Education sector, for teaching staff to be engaged on this basis, and the question of how well-prepared they are for their teaching role is one which is likely to receive more attention, particularly from external assessors.
Q
(v) How might those not formally employed by the University but closely associated with Faculties and Departments and engaged in their teaching programmes be encouraged to participate in training?
B.1 In considering what might be included in a course of training that reflects a broad interpretation of academic practice in the University, the General Board have identified the following elements:
Teaching and Learning, including sessions addressing:
Finding out about University procedures
Establishing curricular aims and objectives
Accommodating individual learning needs
Lecturing and giving presentations
Small group teaching, including undergraduate supervision
Using practical work (e.g. laboratory work, IT)
Supervising Graduate Students
Examining and assessing
Improving students' learning
Providing pastoral and other support for students
Reviewing and improving teaching quality
Teaching safe working practices in laboratories
Research issues, including sessions addressing:
Relating research to teaching
Teaching research skills and methodology
Funding research
Managing research projects
Other academic skills, including sessions addressing:
Understanding how the University works
Planning and prioritizing academic work
Selecting and interviewing prospective students
Involving Graduate Students in teaching and research
Participating in teaching and academic-related committees
Negotiating with others in an academic environment
Q
(vi) Is this a sufficiently broad range of elements for inclusion in a University training course? What additional or alternative elements would you suggest?
B.2 In many Higher Education institutions, a course of this nature would lead to the award of a qualification, often a postgraduate Certificate or Diploma (details of the Postgraduate Diploma in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education at Oxford are available for comparative purposes). In other institutions, the successful completion of a course in teaching and learning might lead to a Master's Degree. Clearly, any course leading to an award would need to meet the appropriate requirements for such an award. These might include specification as to the length of study required, and the method of assessement, as well as eligibility to register for the course.
Q
(vii) Would you be in favour of the course leading to a University award? If so, what would you regard as an appropriate award?
B.3 If the course were to lead to an award, consideration would need to be given to what might be the appropriate awarding body. If the course were to have a strong central focus, the award might be made by a designated Faculty Board, Degree Committee, or other body with the authority to approve the award.
Q
(viii) Which, if any, of these arrangements would you favour? Are there other alternatives that the General Board might consider?
C.1 Running a course of training in academic practice for all those eligible to attend would be a substantial undertaking. The General Board have given preliminary consideration to the ways in which this might be achieved and identified a number of options. These can be summarized as follows:
| (a) | A single centrally-run programme, covering all elements of the course, mainly designed, taught, and assessed by a Course Director, who might be a University Staff Development Officer or an external consultant; |
| (b) | A programme with a strong common core, centrally designed, taught, and assessed but with elements that are designed, taught, and assessed by Faculty Boards in accordance with common regulations and guidelines; |
| (c) | A programme that conforms to a general regulatory framework set by the General Board but which is predominantly designed, taught, and assessed by Faculty Boards. |
Q
(ix) How would you rate these options in order of preference? What other options might be feasible?
C.2 Delivering a course of this nature will require input from those with a clear insight of the principles of university teaching and the context in which it is delivered. This will include inter alia an understanding of the ways in which students learn, and knowledge of ways in which their learning can be assessed, as well as experience in course design and evaluation. It may be that particular expertise in one part of the University could usefully be shared with others. Similarly, it may, on occasions, be necessary to draw on the knowledge of individuals, possibly from outside the University, who are engaged in research into teaching in higher education. One of the ways in which other universities have sought to facilitate the interchange of good educational practice for their academic faculties and departments has been the provision of special units dedicated to supporting teaching and learning. There has been a suggestion that a unit of a similar nature might be a useful resource in this University.
Q
(x) If such a unit were created, how would it best serve the needs of the University?
C.3 In order for the course to be completed during the early stages of the probationary period (in most cases within two years of the date of appointment), much of the time taken in attending sessions and preparing material would probably need to fall outside Full Term. One option might be for the main part of the course to be held before the start of the Michaelmas Term. The inclusion of a residential element to the course at that stage might also be useful in concentrating the early sessions into a fairly short period. However, it should be borne in mind that the course could not be fully completed without some opportunity for reflection on practice as the academical year progressed.
Q
(xi) What preferences would you have for the timing of the course?
D.1 In relation to those involved in designing, delivering, and assessing the course, it is likely that there would be a need for the following:
Course Director and Tutors (for centrally-run elements of a programme);
Faculty or Departmental Co-ordinators (for devolved elements);
Faculty or Departmental Mentors (for devolved elements);
Assessors (for devolved elements).
Q
(xii) For those roles likely to be needed in Faculties and Departments, would you favour a recognized appointment with an associated additional payment (analogous to that of Academic Staff Development Liaison Officer) or release from other duties?
D.2 It is likely that those directly involved in the design, delivery, and assessment of a course would themselves benefit from preparation and training. They could reasonably be expected to have, at least, completed the requirements of membership of the ILT, whether or not they then opt to become members.
Q
(xiii) What would be the appropriate qualifications and competencies needed for (a) the Course Director and Tutors and (b) Faculty and Departmental Co-ordinators and Mentors?
D.3 Any time spent on developing effective methods of working, particularly at an early stage in a new role, could reasonably be expected to benefit all concerned in the longer term. It would be important to ensure that the additional time needed by University Teaching Officers to complete the course was recognized as forming part of the agreed workload for the officer concerned. Thus, some compensatory reduction in other duties would probably be needed to ensure that the individual concerned could reasonably fulfil the requirement that the course be completed during the probationary period of appointment.
Q
(xiv) What advice would you offer the General Board on ensuring that protected time is set aside for training and staff development?
D.4 It is usual in setting up a course leading to an award for there to be a standard course fee. In the case of those for whom participation in such an award-bearing course would be either a formal requirement or a necessary preparation for their work, the University may need to set in place a mechanism for the remission of that fee. There may, however, be others who, whilst not required to follow the course, would wish to do so for the purpose of advancing their careers, either at this University or elsewhere.
Q
(xv) In what circumstances would it be appropriate for a course fee to be charged?
E.1 The Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (the ILT), has been set up, with the support of the CVCP and Funding Councils, as a professional body for Higher Education staff involved in teaching and the support of learning. The ILT is currently run by a transitional Council, but it is expected shortly to become a membership organization, governed by its members, reflecting their professional values and concerns, and providing a range of membership services. As well as accrediting programmes offered by Higher Education institutions as routes to membership, it will also afford individuals opportunities to submit applications for membership direct.
E.2 The ILT have advised that courses seeking accreditation should be designed with an awareness of certain specified core knowledge and professional values. In particular, members of the ILT will be expected to have knowledge and understanding of:
the subject material that they will be teaching;
appropriate methods for teaching and learning in the subject area and at the level of the academic programme;
models of how students learn, both generically and in their subject;
the use of learning technologies appropriate to the context in which they teach;
methods for monitoring and evaluating their own teaching;
the implications of quality assurance for practice.
E.3 The ILT has identified the following broad areas of professional activity as central to any route leading to membership.
Teaching and/or supporting learning in Higher Education;
Contribution to the design and planning of learning activities and/or programmes of study;
Provision of feedback and assessment of students' learning;
Contribution to the development of effective learning environments and student support systems;
Reflection on personal practice in teaching and learning and work to improve the teaching process.
E.4 Routes to membership. An initial route to membership for experienced staff is available until 30 September 2001. Those with the equivalent of three years' full-time experience of teaching or learning support in Higher Education may submit an application for membership direct to the ILT. This is based on a short self-assessment in each of the broad areas specified above, supported by two references.
From 1 October 2001, anyone wishing to join the ILT will be expected
either to have completed a programme of training on learning and teaching in higher education which has been accredited by the ILT in their own or another institution;
or to have produced a collection of evidence and a reflective commentary demonstrating their expertise and experience in the five areas listed above (generally described as accreditation of prior experiential learning, or AP(E)L).
Q
(xvi) In what ways could the University seek to influence the future direction of the ILT?
(xvii) How might the University actively support academic staff wishing to seek membership?
(xviii) Are there advantages in encouraging academic staff to take advantage of the interim arrangements for joining?
E.5 Further information about the ILT and membership details are available on the ILT website (http://www.ilt.ac.uk/), by e-mail (enquiries@ilt.ac.uk), by telephone (01904 434222), by fax (01904 434241), or by post (ILT, Genesis 3, Innovation Way, York Science Park, Heslington, York, YO10 5DQ).
The General Board are seeking feedback from Faculty Boards and Departments, particularly on the questions marked with an asterisk, although comments and views are welcome on all the points raised.
| (i) | Would the inclusion of a condition of appointment that satisfactory completion of the probationary period must include evidence of having completed a recognized course be an appropriate mechanism for the University, as a means of ensuring that appropriate training in teaching is received by all new University Teaching Officers? * |
| (ii) | What alternative courses of action might the General Board consider in respect of the above? * |
| (iii) | In what form might evidence of teaching ability and the satisfactory completion of training, especially for new but experienced University Teaching Officers, best be made available to Appointments Committees when they are considering the case for reappointment? * |
| (iv) | What requirements should there be for evaluating the teaching ability and training needs of University staff engaged in teaching who are not employed as University Teaching Officers? |
| (v) | How might those not formally employed by the University but closely associated with Faculties and Departments and engaged in their teaching programmes be encouraged to participate in training? |
| (vi) | Does the list set out in B.1 provide a sufficiently broad range of elements for inclusion in a University training course?* What additional or alternative elements would you suggest?* |
| (vii) | Would you be in favour of the course leading to a University award?* What would you regard as an appropriate award?* |
| (viii) | Which, if any, of the suggested arrangements for an award would you favour?* Are there other alternatives that the General Board might consider?* |
| (ix) | How would you rate the options set out in C.1 in order of preference?* What other options might be feasible?* |
| (x) | If a unit described in C.2 were created, how would it best serve the needs of the University? |
| (xi) | What preferences would you have for the timing of the course?* |
| (xii) | For those roles likely to be needed in Faculties and Departments, would you favour a recognized appointment with an associated additional payment (analogous to that of Academic Staff Development Liaison Officer) or release from other duties? |
| (xiii) | What would be the appropriate qualifications and competencies needed for (a) the Course Director and Tutors and (b) Faculty and Departmental Co-ordinators and Mentors? |
| (xiv) | What advice would you offer the General Board on ensuring that protected time is set aside for training and staff development? |
| (xv) | In what circumstances would it be appropriate for a course fee to be charged? |
| (xvi) | In what ways could the University seek to influence the future direction of the ILT? |
| (xvii) | How might the University actively support academic staff wishing to seek membership? |
| (xviii) | Are there advantages in encouraging academic staff to take advantage of the interim arrangements for joining? |
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
Cambridge University Reporter, 3 November 1999
Copyright © 1999 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.