Appendix 1 - RMIT Universitymams.rmit.edu.au/jhimomn8syq4z.pdfby different areas of the university. ... It is important to recognise that professional development for academic and

Appendix 1

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and Vice-President Tel. +61 3 9925 2595

MEMO

Professional Development for Academic and Teaching Staff Survey of Current Provision November 2010

Purpose To request information regarding the type of professional development for academic and teaching staff that is provided at RMIT and the allocation of resources to support these activities. Background The RMIT Business Plan recognises the need to coordinate RMITs professional development for Academic and Teaching Staff and ensure that it is designed to assist them to meet their professional needs in ways that are consistent with the objectives of the University. The principal purposes of professional development in teaching are to improve students learning by enhancing the existing strengths of our staff. As a result, staff will be better placed to advance in their careers as academics and teachers and students will have the best possible learning experience whilst at RMIT. The provision of professional development for academic and teaching staff is currently managed discretely by different areas of the university. Before developing more integration, with a comprehensive and coordinated approach to meet the needs of staff, students and university, we need to know the current funding and resource allocations supporting the professional development of RMITs academic and teaching staff. On 18th November 2010, VCE approved the development of the PD Co-ordination project, and the need for a survey of current activities and expenditure. This survey seeks information from each unit that currently supports these activities, giving the types of activities delivered, the tools developed and the fixed and variable human capital and infrastructure costs currently allocated to support this form of professional development. We need you to provide an estimate of the proportion of costs incurred or resources utilised by your unit to support the professional development of academic and teaching staff, because it is likely that your unit is currently involved in the provision of a range of activities and resources. The attached questionnaire has been designed to assist you with providing the information required. Please include any additional information that you believe may be useful. Questions or queries can be addressed to the Learning and Teaching Unit (Peter Czech ext 55048)

Appendix 2

Questionnaire It is important to recognise that professional development for academic and teaching staff can take many forms. For the purposes of this questionnaire, professional development for academic and teaching staff is defined as: The planning, development, provision and evaluation of opportunities, activities and resources that advance the professional capabilities, skills and attributes of academic and teaching staff. Note: this does not include Academic conference attendance or study leave etc. Examples of relevant PD activities:

- Formal accredited tertiary teaching programs/courses (eg. Grad Cert Tertiary Teaching and Learning, Dip VET Practice)

- Ongoing (regular & frequent) provision of non-accredited professional development programs/organised activities (facilitated or led)

- Occasional provision of non-accredited professional development programs/organised activities (facilitated or led)

- Provision of resources for self-directed professional development (online, hard copy etc) - Coordinating events with the main purpose being PD as defined above (eg. L&T Expo, RMIT

conferences, College or School forums, workshops etc) - Other

Please provide the requested information for the current year, 2010. Questions Responses

Profile of unit

What is the name of your unit?

What is the main role/s of your unit?

How many staff (FTE) are employed in your unit separate permanent staff from fixed-term/casual staff.

Does your unit provide any services that fall under the definition of professional development for academic and teaching staff (above)? If so, please describe each of these separately. As best you can, include the number of times each activity was provided and the number of academic and teaching staff who participated.

Eg. PD type: Teaching with Technology Times offered: 12 No. of participants: 89

How many staff (FTE) in your area are involved in the provision of these services and what percentage of their time is spent on providing these activities? (Separate permanent staff from fixed-term/casual staff).

Budget information

What is the overall budget for your unit in 2010 separate salary from non-salary.

Based on the information you provided above, what is the cost to your unit of providing professional development services (separate salary from non-salary)?

Appendix 2

Did your unit receive additional funding for these activities in 2010? (eg funded from government grant, LTIF etc)

Are any specific non-labour costs incurred solely for supporting professional development of academic and teaching staff as described above?

Does your unit purchase or license materials, equipment, etc directly related to professional development of academic and teaching staff as described above? If yes, please specify

Have you incurred other external costs (outside RMIT) directly associated with the provision of professional development? Please specify.

Please specify any other costs directly associated with the provision of professional development that are not included in the above questions.

Appendix 2

1. Summary of PD staff and costs at college portfolio level

Additional PD Funds received (eg LTIF, Govt)

Total Org Unit Budget in 2010

Total PD Expenditure ON L&T

T&L PD Expenditure as a % of the 2010 Budget

College / PortfolioPermanent Fixed Term/ Casual Permanent

Fixed Term/ Casual

Salary Non Salary Cost

DSC 705.4 176.01 20.3 2 643815 356940 499534 43241302 1000755 2.3%BUS 208.5 73 3.6 0 $377,195 $166,308 $56,304 $28,820,086 $543,503 1.9%SHE 245.8 129.35 13.1 0 846000 134719 0 115106808 980719 0.9%LTU 8.6 0 1.3 $145,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,196,548.00 $145,000 3.5%Human Resources 6.4 0.9 $85,000.00 $30,000.00 $640,000.00 $115,000 18.0%Office of the Director of TAFE 11.9 1.2 $141,959.00 $165,000.00 $64,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $306,959 20.5%EduTAG 16.25 1.5 0.81 $77,294.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $1,700,795.00 $87,294 5.1%Library $0 #DIV/0!Vietnam $0 #DIV/0!

TOTAL

2. College of Design and the Social Context - Summary of PD staff and costs at college/portfolio leveAdditional PD Funds received (eg LTIF, Govt)




Permanent Fixed Term/ Casual PermanentFixed Term/ Casual


DSC College Academic Development Group 9.5 1.6 7.4 1 $210,029 $24,340 $157,888 $1,028,579 $234,369 23%Architecture and Design 96 22 0.2 0 $6,163 $29,816 $15,499,116 $35,979 0.2%Art 36 13 0.7 $130,800 7804000 $130,800 1.7%Design TAFE 70 Varies $0 #DIV/0!Education 64.7 17.71 $20,914 $10,891,822 Unknown #VALUE!Fashion & Textiles 80 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 4.2%GSSSP 180 100 1 1 $41,000 $3,000 $0 $2,400,000 $44,000 2%Media & Communications 138.2 12.4 10 $150,000 $179,784 ? $329,784 #VALUE!

No. of Staff involved in providing PD (FTE) Cost of Providing PD

No of staff employed in your unit



Document: 03.a PD Survey Results.xls, Sheet1Print Date: 18/11/2011

Page 1 of 3

Appendix 2

Property and Construction & Project Management 31 9.3 1 $65,823 $60,000 $240,732 $5,617,785 $125,823 2.2%

$0 #DIV/0!$0 #DIV/0!

TOTAL 705.4 176.01 20.3 2 $643,815 $356,940 $499,534 $43,241,302 $1,000,755 2.3%Indicates info not provided and further request back to the school

3. Business College - Summary of PD staff and costs at college/portfolio leveAdditional PD Funds received (eg LTIF, Govt)






Business College Academic Development Group 12.4 3.1 $317,195 $5,000 $56,304 $1,050,686 $322,195 30.7%

Business IT and Logistics 72 # # $21,000 none $10,059,400 $21,000 0.2%Business TAFE School 59.1 38 0.5 $60,000 $140,308 $200,308 #DIV/0!Graduate School of Business and Law 25 35 0 0 $7,840,000 $0 0.0%School of Management 40 0 $0 $0 $0 $9,870,000 $0 0.0%School of Accounting 0 0 $0 #DIV/0!School of Economics, Finance and Marketing $0 #DIV/0!

$0 #DIV/0!$0 #DIV/0!$0 #DIV/0!$0 #DIV/0!

TOTAL 208.5 73 3.6 $377,195 $166,308 $56,304 $28,820,086 $543,503 1.9%Indicates info not provided and further request back to the school

# Not provided but from other data provided it appears minimal - check with HOS

3. College Science, Engineering and Health - Summary of PD staff and costs at college/portfolio leveAdditional PD Funds received (eg LTIF, Govt)






Cost of Providing PD



No. of Staff involved in providing PD (FTE)



Page 2 of 3

Appendix 2

SEH College Academic Development Group 12.8 0.6 2.4 $277,000 $15,000 $0 $1,656,800 $292,000 17.6%College TAFE Team 2 0.6 $1,000 $210,000 $1,000 0.5%School of Electrical and Computer Engineering 35 0 0 $0 $0 $12,130,000 $0 0.0%School of Mathematics and Geospatial Science 41 0 6 0 $99,000 $8,117,000 $99,000 1.2%Civil, Environmental, & Chemical Engineering $70,000 $23,500,000 $70,000 0.3%Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Eng. 51 47.75 0 0 $12,000 $15,299,000 $12,000 0.1%School of Applied Sciences 67 41 4 0 $400,000 $21,000 $43,566,000 $421,000 1.0%School of Life and Physical Sciences 37 40 0.1 0 $0 $85,719 $0 $10,628,008 $85,719 0.8%School of TAFE Engineering $0 #DIV/0!School of Health Sciences 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0!

TOTAL 245.8 129.35 13.1 0 $846,000 $134,719 $0 $115,106,808 $980,719 0.9%Indicates info not provided and further request back to the school


Page 3 of 3

Appendix 2

Transforming the RMIT Student Experience Via Professional Development for

Tertiary Teaching Practice

NeedsAnalysisResponsesReport

S:\UniversityT&LInitiatives\CurrentProjects\DVCAPDInitiative\FinalPDTTPreport2011\Appendices\03.PDTTPNAReport110822v3.docPage1of10

August 2011

Appendix 3

Transforming the RMIT Student Experience via Professional Development for Tertiary Teaching Practice

Needs Analysis Responses Report

August 2011 Preamble Purpose To consult with key Learning & Teaching Leaders about Professional Development for Tertiary Teaching Practice (PDTTP) programs to inform the design of a revised PDTTP framework for RMIT including the model, principles, formats, strategic alignment and evaluation processes required for an effective institution-wide approach to professional development of all staff involved in teaching.

Strategic Alignment RMIT Act 2010: Objects of the University, Extract Section 5 (a) to provide and maintain a teaching and learning environment of excellent quality offering higher education at an international standard; and (b) to provide vocational education and training, further education and other forms of education determined by the University to support and complement the provision of higher education by the University; RMIT Strategic Plan Transforming the Future to 2015 and draft RMIT Academic Plan. Themes: Global Connected Urban1. PDTTP Project 2011 The Professional Development for Tertiary Teaching Practice (PDTTP) project (2011) aims:

1. To develop a coordinated learning and teaching professional development program for academic and teaching staff.

2. To provide staff with greater opportunities and support to reach levels of excellence in their learning and teaching practice and achieve their career aspirations.

This Major Project for 2011 is reviewing the Universitys provision of Professional Development for Tertiary Teaching Practice (PDTTP) for academic and teaching staff with a view to identifying improvements and establishing a more coordinated approach to the provision of professional development. The development of a University-wide implementation approach including a framework, principles of PDTTP and a model for providing university wide coordination, allocation of responsibilities, resource implications and options for phased implementation are well underway.

Much excellent professional development is already taking place. These activities are currently distributed across the university and managed discretely by different areas. There is a need to ensure these activities are integrated within an institutional PDT

TP framework that is informed by the needs of staff, the university, the professions and the global tertiary education sector. 1 Transforming the Future RMIT Strategic Plan to 2015.


Appendix 3

Results Summary Key Learning & Teaching staff across the University were invited to respond to a series of questions, the responses of which are being used to inform development of the PDTTP framework and model. Fifty-one Learning and Teaching leaders received the PDTTP questions and twenty-five responded. The original PDTTP Questions are included as Appendix A. Q1 PDTTP Model preferences All respondents indicated that a PDTTP model involving both centralised and decentralised PD works best at RMIT. Q2 Meaningful and effective PDTTP Principles The responses for PDTTP have been summarised into the following list of principles:

1. Strategic alignment with RMITs current plans: Transforming the Future to 2015 and Transforming the

RMIT Student Experience (Academic Plan) 2. Program teams and collaboration based PDTTP

focussed on academic and teaching staff and including other L&T/ICT/professional staff who complement and support the RMIT student learning experience

3. Peers and professional-industry partners engagement foundational for adult learning.

4. Global, transnational and intercultural inclusion equitable and inclusive access to PDTTP resources, programs and opportunities

for all staff (HEd, VET, on & off-shore) situated, discipline-specific and reflective, good practice

5. Universal design and holistic development of PDTTP resources and programs formal (qualifications) and informal program elements cognitive, technical, social, emotional, sustainable and organizationally aspects

for enhancing learning and teaching 6. Generous resourcing

annual resourcing of time, funding and personnel support for PDTTP for Program Teams

7. Celebrating successes annually at Organizational, Discipline (including partners) and Program Team

levels 8. Comprehensive, evidenced-based annual review, quality assurance and

evaluation Program Team-based professional portfolio (s) and PDTTP Coordinator/ion

Group


Appendix 3

Q3 PDTTP resources priorities

Ranking 1 2 3

Theoretical and philosophical base 3 7 10

Research base 3 11 7

Illustrations of good practices 14 2 3

Q4 Identification of the three most effective forms of PDTTP Summary of respondents preferred forms of PDTTP:

1. Face to Face: workshops or seminars, 2-3 hours, in situ, discipline specific or cross-disciplinary, context sensitive, local needs based, discursive; targeted issues eg Course development, eLearning and technology tools, interactive, hands on (practice-based), with follow-up sessions; showcasing GP sessions; 1:1 with staff (in response to student feedback). Action-based research. Conferences (internal and external).

2. Collaborative, peer and engaged: Team, Program or School based; specific issues, project work - action based, active learning; evaluation; good practice learning & teaching, with proven student learning outcomes; peer-led PD; integrating all members of the team. Whole of College/University-based sessions.

3. Blended: face to face and online resources; just in time PD; with printed materials. 4. Online: Self-directed; or interactive; online discussions; and practical, good quality (BP),

relevant support resources; easily accessible quick guides (intranet) web-based or short videos. Online training with discussion forums.

5. Reflective: learning and deeper engagement; observation and reflection; . 6. Aligned: with work planning, with School and University priorities, coordinated. 7. Mentoring and peer observation: individual or group; with particular goals eg use of

multimedia tools, change management, collaborative engagement; individual mentoring. 8. Short-term secondments: within School or Portfolio. 9. Communities of Practice: structured, finite, focussed; communities of learners; peer-

led. 10. Specialist support: integrated; guest speakers.


Appendix 3

Q5 Characteristics of the best PDTTP models

Ranking 1 2 3

Peer and community of practice-based learning 5 9

Engagement with education managers 1 1 10

Sustained activities (rather than one off PD events) 7 5 2

All are equally important 7

Q6. Current review processes of PDTTP

1. Within the work planning and performance review process (4). 2. Participation engagement and surveys, evaluation and feedback; reaction levels (4);

requests for repeat sessions; rated feedback forms. 3. Within program team meetings (2) and regular review of CES/SES/CEQ data (3);

student survey GTS; behavioural level observation and follow-up phone calls; student learning performance outcomes (2).

4. School action plan; end of year summative feedback from Deputy Heads (L&T). 5. Peer review; observational ratings pre- and post- PD; conversations/shared reflections

(4). 6. Within PAR process; annual plan (2). 7. Self-assessment against competencies (2); advancement of curriculum design and

learner performance expectations. Written reports with measurable outcomes (2). 8. Observation of competencies or change; during PD session, or series; change in

behaviour measured eg increased productivity; (3). 9. Assessment of ongoing projects initiated during PD session/s. 10. School professional learning day/s evaluations. 11. School professional learning fund staff summary of PD outcomes. 12. Formal qualifications assessments. 13. Supervisors feedback. 14. PPiT action-research cycle, outcomes focussed; workshop data. 15. Intention to track before and after CES, GTS, OSI and students qualitative comments. 16. No current, structured review process; yet to be evaluated or implemented (4).


Appendix 3

Q7 Most effective PDTTP formats

Ranking 1 2 3

Social media 2 4

Workshops (central or local, or a mix of both) 6 12 1

Peer review and partnerships 15 1 2

Industry collaboration 2 1 4

Online modules 1 3 8

Student experts (eg IT updating & social media) 1 3

Q8 Most effective PDTTP evaluation, quality review and impact processes.

Ranking 1 2 3 4

Written feedback sheets 4 3 7 1

Work planning progress reports 3 11 2 3

Word of mouth (verbal reports) 7 3 10

Evidence of impact on improvements in the student learning experience and other L&T data (eg CES, SES, CEQ, ADS, etc)

4 2 4 3

Q9 Recommended PDTTP resources and references

Efficient writing and editing a 2 day workshop conducted for the senior advisors at the Policy and Planning Group

Professional practice networks and website RMIT website PD and DSC L & T TAFE Development Centre Practice related blogs eg Teaching Tomtom Aussie Educator

http://www.aussieeductor.org.au/teachers/professionaldevelopment.html Data and research from both the NCVER and AVETRA, attend VISTA activities and

conferences, and use Communities of practice/networks in projects/PD activities NCVER papers AVETRA Communities of Practice Networks that are led and funded


Appendix 3

http://www.aussieeductor.org.au/teachers/professionaldevelopment.html

Students/peer reviews NSW model of embedding PD and change management A couple of resources that are useful in re-thinking professional learning processes and

programs, for example: QUT Staff Development Catalogue 2011 http://www.staffdevelopment.qut.edu.au/services/staff dev catalogue.pdf Linked the diversity and coherent approach presented

Liebowitz, B., Cilliers, F., du Plessis, J., Kafaar., van der Merwe, A., Viljoen, S., et al. (2011). Orientations to academic development lessons from a collaborative study at a research-led university. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(1), 19-32.

Fleming, S., Shire, J., Jones, D., McNamee, M., Pill, A., & Mcnamee, M. (2004). Continuing professional development: suggestions for effective practice. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(2), 165-177.

The ALTC Resources Library eg a 2009 report ed. By Deborah Southwell and others (QUT) on impact of staff p.d on students learning etc.

Develop Me College L & T support services Tomorrows Professor (sm) eMAIL NEWSLETTER http://cgi/stanford.edu/-dept-ctl/cgi-

bin/tomprof/postings.php The ATN network (libraries of the ATNs) as an important source for refreshing and

developing practice. We hold annual workshops and have interest groups or communities of practice that (mainly) interact online.

The CES Analysis Projects Coffee and Cookies reports provide targeted advice for improving specific GTS indicators: http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=79y0jqrypkgo

Recommendations It is recommended that data from these responses informs the development of RMITs PDTTP framework, principles and model. In particular: The PDTTP project 2011 Phase 4:

1. PDTTP framework and model 2. PDTTP Governance? 3. PDTTP annual evaluation and quality assurance process (to be developed); and

The PDTTP draft Implementation Plan to 2015: Phase 1: Designing, conducting and evaluating program team-based PDTTP for University- wide renewal and strategic alignment Phase 2: School and College Program team-based PDTTP (Program Teams) Phase 3: Schools, Disciplines and Colleges sharing PDTTP formal and informal program team

based learning resources (Program Teams, Disciplines & Professional Industry Partners)

Phase 4: Program team-based PDTTP continuing practice and evaluation (Whole of Univ.)

August 2011 - PDTTP Project Team


Appendix 3

http://www.staffdevelopment.qut.edu.au/services/staff%20dev%20catalogue.pdfhttp://cgi/stanford.edu/-dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.phphttp://cgi/stanford.edu/-dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.phphttp://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=79y0jqrypkgo

Appendix A

Questions for L&T Leaders

1. Which model for PDTTP do you think works best at RMIT?

a. Fully centralised

b. Fully decentralised or

c. A mixture of both.

2. What in your view are the 3 most meaningful and effective principles of PDTTP that you would like to

see embedded in the revised framework.

[some examples of principles for professional development include]:

Professional development is a central factor leading to student success.

Professional development treats academics/teachers as the professionals they are.

Professional development supports academics/teachers at all levels of expertise

1.

2.

3.

3. Please rank in order of importance for your staff the following PDTTP resources:

1. a theoretical and philosophical base;

2. a research base; and

3. illustrations of good practices.

4. Professional development can take many different forms and employs various modes of

engagement. Please identify the three most effective forms of PDTTP for your discipline/school.

1. 2 . 3.


Appendix 3

5. The best models of professional development are characterized by a) sustained activities

(rather than one of PD events), b) engagement with education managers and c) peer and

community of practice -based learning.

Please rank these in order of importance (1-3) for your area:

1.

2.

3.

4. All are equally important.

6. Professional development should be systematically reviewed with evidence of efficacy.

Please outline your current processes for review of PDTTP:

7. Please rank from 1 to 3 the following PDTTP formats in the order you think they are most

effective (1 = most effective):

Social media

Workshops (central or local, or a mix of both)

Peer review and partnerships

Industry collaboration

Online modules

Student experts (eg IT updating & social media)

8. Please rank from 1 to 4 in the order you think most important the following PDTTP evaluation and quality review/impact processes: a) written feedback sheets, b) work planning progress reports, c) word of mouth (verbal reports) and d) evidence of impact on improvements in the student learning experience and other L&T data ( eg. CES, SES, CEQ, ADS, etc).

1. 2. 3. .. 4. .


Appendix 3


Please recommend any particularly good PDTTP references or resources that you use. ________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you. .

Appendix 3

S:\University T&L Initiatives\Current Projects\DVCA PD Initiative\Penny's work\Appendices\05. PDTTP project 2011

University-wide consultation and collaboration.doc Page 1 of 1

PDTTP project 2011: University-wide consultation and collaboration (alphabetical)

PDTTP Consultation and Collaboration Academic Development Groups (see colleges)

ALTC Teaching Preparation Project (external)

Academic International Project Staff

College of Business

College of Science Engineering and Health

College of Design and Social Context

Copyright Management Services (Library)

Course Experience Survey data ( School of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences)

Educational Technology Advancement Group

Forum participants (PDTTP 17th October) Goody A (2011) UWA GCTTL External report

Graduate Certificate in Tertiary Teaching and Learning ( School of Education)

Human Resources Executive and staff (Training Needs Analysis and Online Work planning and Performance System)

Information Technology Systems (Training)

International and Development Portfolio - Offshore Partnerships

Indigenous Education Staff

Learning and Teaching Investment Fund projects and staff

Library Executive and staff (see also C)

Learning Spaces Staff & Project Leaders

PDTTP Needs Analysis respondents

Online Learning Module staff / teaching partners / contracts organiser

Peer Review and Partnerships A/Prof Andrea Chester (School of Health Sciences) http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=q2bm0dqxpgno

Preparing Academics to Teach in Higher Education Project (Prof M Hicks consultant 2011)

Research and Innovation Portfolio

Resources Portfolio (Financial Services)

School of Education Survey Participants (PDTTP)

Student Services Group (Ac Port) Director and Disability Liaison Unit

Teaching with Technology staff

University of Hong Kong (CELT)

RMIT Vietnam

Vocational Education & Training Professional Development (Office of Director TAFE and School of Education)

Web Development Staff

Yammer PDTTP group (social media) - open to all RMIT staff.

Appendix 4

http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=q2bm0dqxpgno

RMITUniversity2010

Formoreinformation:CESProjectWebsite:www.rmit.edu.au/teaching/[email protected].

CESAnalysisGroupCESAnalysisGroupCESAnalysisGroup

CESAnalysisGroupRMITUniversity2011

Report on the Graduate

Certificate in Tertiary Teaching and Learning Program

2007-2010

Appendix 5

Formoreinformation:CESProjectWebsite:www.rmit.edu.au/teaching/cesanalysis

RMITUniversity2011 CESAnalysisGroup

Contents 1. ExecutiveSummary .....................................................................................................................................................3 2. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................4 3. GoodTeachingScale(GTS).......................................................................................................................................5 4. Resources.........................................................................................................................................................................6 5. ValueAdd .........................................................................................................................................................................7 6. OverallSatisfactionIndex(OSI)..............................................................................................................................8 7. GoodTeachingScale(GTS)andOverallSatisfactionIndex(OSI).............................................................9

8. IntroductiontoIndividualCourseReports..................................................................................................... 10TCHE 1011 Technology Implications of Tertiary Learning & Teaching...................................................................... 11TCHE 1032 Tertiary Learning and Teaching ............................................................................................................. 14TCHE 1034 Implementing Tertiary Learning and Teaching ....................................................................................... 17

[email protected]

CONFIDENTIALITY

IMPORTANT NOTICE Results and findings contained within this work refer to confidential information. The authors give permission for the distribution of this report by the Learning and Teaching Unit (LTU) only. This report and its findings must be treated in the strictest confidence and not distributed or reproduced without the permission of the LTU.

.2

Appendix 5


3


1. ETheGraduateCertificateinTertiaryTeachingandLearning(TTL)ProgramwasinitiatedatRMITUniversityinSemester12007.TheprimaryaimoftheTTListoimprovethelearningandteaching

xecutiveSummary

practiceoftertiaryteachersandequipthemtoteacheffectivelyintheHigherEducationsector.Threecoursesareanalysedinthisreport;TCHE1011(TechnologyImplicationsforTertiaryLearningandTeaching),TCHE1032(TertiaryLearningandTeaching),andTCHE1034(ImplementingTertiaryLearningandTeaching).ThisreportexaminestheCESresultsforeachcourse.CourseEvaluationSurvey(CES)itemswereanalysedasfourcategories;GoodTeachingScores(GTS),Resources,ValueAddandOverallSatisfactionIndex(OSI).TheGoodTeachingScores(GTS)isacombinationofsixCESitemswhichfocusonparticularaspectsofteachingwithinthecourse.Resourceitemsarethosethataredirectlyrelatedtothefacilitiesandmaterialsprovidedtofacilitatestudentlearninginthecourse.ValueAddreferstoawiderangeofitemsthataddvaluetoastudentslearningexperiencewithinthecourse.TheOSIreferstooneitemontheCESwherestudentsareaskedtoindicate

le.theirassessmentofthequalityofthecourseasawhoThefollowingtrendsintheCESdatawereobserved:

AlloftheCEScategoriesforTCHE1011haveshownasteadyincreasesinceSemester12007.However,OSIhasshownthelargestimprovementinpercentageofagreement.

AlloftheCEScategoriesforTCHE1032havefluctuatedoverthepastfouryears.However,alargespikeinpercentageofagreementoccurredforalloftheCEScategoriesinSemester22008.

TCHE1034hasmaintainedarelativelyconsistenttrendoverthepastfouryears.However,alargedropinpercentageofagreementoccurredforalloftheCEScategoriesinSemester22009.

Ateachsemester,percentageofagreementwasgenerallyabove50%foreachoftheTTLcourses,acrossalloftheCEScategoriesanalysed.

CoursesTCHE2051(InternationalisingtheCurriculum)andTCHE2384(SupervisionofHDR)arenotanalysedinthisreport,asCESdataforthesecourseswasnotavailable.

Withregardtotheindividualitems:

GTS,ResourcesandValueAdditemshavesignificantlyimprovedforTCHE1011overthepastfouryears,withhighlypositivescoresobservedinSemester12010.

GTS,ResourcesandValueAdditemshaveallfluctuatedforTCHE1032overthepastfouryears,withlittlesignificantchangeoccurringformanyoftheitems.Withexception,theValueAdditemlearningwhatwasexpectedshowedasignificantdropinagreementfromSemester12007toSemester22009.

GTSitemshavefluctuatedminimallyforTCHE1034andhaveremainedhighlypositive.ResourceandValueAdditemshavealsofluctuatedminimallyoverthepastfouryears.However,asignificantdropinagreementregardingadequatefacilitieswasobservedinSemester22009,followedbyasubsequentimprovementinSemester12010.AgreementregardingthebalancebetweentheoryandpracticealsoincreasedsignificantlyinSemester22009,howeverdroppedsignificantlyinSemester12009.

Appendix 5


4


2. ITheGraduateCertificateinTertiaryTeachingandLearning(TTL)Program,offeredbyRMITUniversitysSchoolofEducation,wasinitiatedinSemester12007.TheprimaryaimoftheTTListoimprovethelearningandteachingpracticeoftertiaryteachersandequipthemtoteacheffectivelyintheHigherEducationsector.Theprogramprovidesopportunitiesforparticipantstoexploreissuesintertiarylearningandteaching,coursedesign,assessmentandcreativeproblemsolvinginthecontextofcurrentandemergingprofessionalpractice.Buildingonprofessionalpracticeandprovidingopportunitiesforparticipantstoshapetheprogramaroundtheirneedsandexperiencesofteachinginatertiarynvironment,isakeyfeatureoftheTTL.Addedtothis,thedesignoftheassessmenttasksallowsadegree

ntroduction

eofflexibilitysothattheycanbebestintegratedintoparticipantsworkneedsandinterests.heobjT

ectivesoftheTTLaretoprovidelearningexperienceswhichenableprogramparticipantsto: achingpracticewithanopennesstocontinuouslyReflectcriticallyontheirownlearningandte

improvingthatpracticeWorkeffectivelyinelearningenvironments

g Design,deliverandevaluateculturallyappropriatelearningexperiences

Engagecreativelywithlearningsituationswithaflexibleapproachtolearningandteachin Seethemselvesascolearnerswiththeirstudentsaspartofalifelonglearningprocessofprofessionallearninganddevelopment.

AnalysisofstudentperceptionregardingtheTTLProgramwasundertakenutilisingtheCourseEvaluationSurvey(CES)distributedbysurveyservicesatRMITUniversity.Thisrep heTTL.ortanalysestheCESdataobtainedforthreeofthecoursesthatcompriset

ndTeaching)TCHE1011(TechnologyImplicationsforTertiaryLearningaTCHE1032(TertiaryLearningandTeaching)

TCHE1034(ImplementingTertiaryLearningandTeaching)oursesTCHE2051(InternationalisingtheCurriculum)andTCHE2384(SupervisionofHDR)arenotCanalysedinthisreport,asCESdataforthesecoursesisnotcurrentlyavailable.ThisreportfirstlycomparestheCESresultsforeachcourse,withafocusontheGTSandOSI.Thequantitativeanalysisprovidedisoverfouryears.Thesecondpartofthisreportcomprisestheindividualcoursereports,examiningthechangesinGTS,Resources,ValueAddandOSIoverthepastfouryears.ForthecourseTCHE1011CESresultsarecomparedforSemester1only.ForthecoursesTCHE1032andTCHE034CESresultsarecomparedforSemester1and2.1

Appendix 5



3. GoodTeachingScale(GTS)TheGoodTeachingScale(GTS)isacombinationofsixCESitemswhichfocusonparticularaspectsofteachingwithinthecourse.TheyarealsoincludedontheCourseExperienceQuestionnaire(CEQ)whichisadministeredtouniversitygraduatesAustraliawide.TheGTSscoreisanaveragescorederivedfromthepercent oseitemsare:ageofstudentswhoagreeorstronglyagreewiththesixitems.Th

Item4:Theteachingstaffareextremelygoodatexplainingthingsm

goinginthiscourseItem5:TheteachingstaffnormallygivemehelpfulfeedbackonhowIa

Item9:Theteachingstaffinthiscoursemotivatemetodomybestworkting

IamhavingItem17:TheteachingstaffworkhardtomakethiscourseinteresItem19:Thestaffmakearealefforttounderstandthedifficulties

Item20:Thestaffputalotoftimeintocommentingonmywork

ThefollowingfigureshowsthevariationsinGTSforthethreecoursesoverthelastfouryears.

[email protected].

5

Figure1.ChangesinGTSforallcoursesfromSemester12007toSemester22010 AlloftheGTSscoresexceeded50%.Asindicatedonthegraph,comparedtotheothercoursesTCHE1011hasshownthemostconsistentimprovementoverthelastfouryears.ForTHCE1032,GTSdroppedmorethan25%fromSemester12007toSemester22007,aswellasfromSemester12009toSemester22009.TCHE1034hasshownarelativelyconsistenttrendoverthepastfouryears,withaspikeinGTSagreementscoresoccurringinSemester22008.

Appendix 5



4. ResourcesResourceitemsarethoseontheCESthataredirectlyrelatedtothefacilitiesandmaterialsprovidedtofacilitatestudentlearninginthecourse.TheitemsthatrelatetoResourcesare:

Item11:Ifindthelearningresourcesfromthiscourseuseful(e.g.notes,handouts,readings,AV

materials)

Item12:Thewebbased(online)materialsforthiscourseareeffectiveinassistingmylearningItem13:Thereiseffectiveuseofothercomputerbasedlearningmaterialsforthiscourse

Item14:Thefacilities(suchasclassrooms,lecturetheatres,studios,labs)areadequateforthiscourse

ThefollowingfigureshowsthevariationsinResourcescoresforthethreecoursesoverthelastfouryears.

Figure2.ChangesinResourcesforallcoursesfromSemester12007toSemester22010 Asthegraphdisplays,ResourcescoresforTCHE1032fellbelow50%inSemester22009.SimilartoGTS,TCHE1011hasshownthemostconsistentimprovementoverthelastfouryears,withagreementscoresallabove50%.TCHE1034hasshownaconsistenttrendoverthepastfouryears,withalargespikeinagreementscoresoccurringinSemester22008.

[email protected].

6

Appendix 5



5. ValueAddValueAddreferstoawiderangeofitemsontheCESthataddvaluetoastudentslearningexperiencewithinthecourse.Theycoverdiverseaspectssuchasworkload,organisation,relevance,andclassparticipation,whichcontributetothestudentsabilitytolearneffectively.TheitemsthatrelatetoValueAddare:

tomeItem1:Thelearningobjectivesinthis

courseareclear Item2:IamlearningwhatIexpectedtointhiscourse

Item3:Thiscourseiswellorganisediliarproblems

ewhatIamlearningItem6:Thecoursecontributestomyconfidenceintacklingunfam

uiremetodemonstrat aboutright

Item7:Assessmenttasksinthiscoursereq

Item8:Theamountofworkrequiredinthiscourseis

Item10:Ienjoydoingworkforthiscourse

Item15:IfeelIcanactivelyparticipateinmyclassesItem16:Thereisagoodbalancebetweentheoryandpractice

Item18:IcanseehowIllbeabletousewhatIamlearninginmycareerThefollowingchartshowsthevariationsinValueAddscoresforthethreecoursesoverthelastfouryears.

[email protected].

7

Figure3.ChangesinValueAddforallcoursesfromSemester12007toSemester22010Despitefallingbelow50%inSemester12007,ValueAddscoresforTCHE1011haveshownthemostconsistentincreaseoverthelast4years.Followingalmosta30%dropinagreementscoresinSemester12009,TCHE1034hasshownsteadyimprovementoverthelast3semesters.

Appendix 5



6. OverallSatisfactionIndex(OSI)TheOverallSatisfactionIndex(OSI)referstooneitemontheCESwherestudentsareaskedtoindicatetheirassessmentofthequalityofthecourseasawhole.InTable9,theseresultsarealsopresentedwiththeoverallscoresforeachofthepreviouscategories(GTS,ResourcesandValueAdd)inordertodemons factionis:tratetheOverallresults.TheitemthatrelatestoOverallSatis

Item21:OverallIamsatisfiedwiththequalityofthiscourseThefollowingchartshowsthevariationsinOSIforthethreecoursesoverthelastfouryears.

Figure4.ChangesinOSIforallcoursesfromSemester12007toSemester22010Asshowninthegraph,OSIscoresforTCHE1011wereextremelylowinSemester12007,followedbyalargeandsteadyincreaseinSemester12008andSemester12010.Comparedwiththeothercourses,THCE1032hadthemostfluctuation,withOSIscoresfallingbelow50%inSemester22009.Similartotheotherindexscores(i.e.GTS,Resources,andValueAdd)forTCHE1034,OSIhasshownaconsistenttrendoverthelastfouryears,withalargespikeinagreementoccurringinSemester22008.

[email protected]

.8

Appendix 5


9


7. GoodTeachingScale(GTS)andOverallSatisfactionIndex(OSI)

ThefollowingtableoutlinestheGTSandOSIscoresforeachofthecoursesbysemester.

CourseName Course

CodeSemester GTS

(%)OSI(%)

n N

TTechnologyImplicationsforertiaryLearningandTeaching

TCHE1011 Semester1,2007 58.5 27.3 11 22 Semester1,2008 87.5 93.3 15 18ertiaryLearning&Teaching

CHE1032

Semester1,2010 97.1 100 12 24T T Semester1,2007 96.8 88.2 17 22 Semester2,2007 71.8 66.7 15 17 Semester1,2008 81.3 84.6

13 18

Semester2,2008 75.8 73.3 16 22 Semester1,2009 80.3 80

11 15

Semester2,2009 53.1 42.9 14 22 Semester1,2010 66.7 70 10 12mplementingTertiaryearning&Teaching

CHE1034

Semester2,2010 60.4 75 10 17IL

T Semester2,2007 79.8 75 15 20 Semester1,2008 76.9 61.5

13 17

Semester2,2008 94.4 100 12 18 Semester1,2009 73.3 60 10 18 Semester2,2009 67.9 58.3

25

28

Semester1,2010 78.2 69.2 13 209 Semester2,2010 88.1 90 8 1

*Note.n=numberofstudentswhocompletedtheCES;N=numberofstudentsenrolledinthecourseforthatsemester.Table1.GTSandOSIScoresforeachCoursebySemester

Appendix 5



8. IntroductiontoIndividualCourseReportsThefollowingreportsaredesignedtobeusedindividuallyinordertoassessanychangesthatmayhaveoccurredwithineachcoursesince2007.Inthefollowingreportstheresultsforeachcoursearepresentedaserrorbargraphs.Interpretingerrorbargraphs

ThelargerconfidenceIntervals,definedbythelongerverticalerrorbars,indicateasmallersamplesizeand/orthatthevariationinresponsesislarge.

Whereerrorbarsdonotoverlap,thistypicallyindicatesasignificantdifference

Example1Thereisasignificantdifferencebetweenthetwocoursesforeachitem.

. Example2.

Thereisasignificantdifferencebetweenthepurpleandreditemsinthiscourse,butlittledifferencebetweenthegreenandblueitems.

[email protected].

10

Appendix 5



TCHE 1011 Technology Implications of Tertiary Learning & Teaching GTSandResourceGraphs

Figure5.1.1ChangesinGTSitemscoresforTCHE1011fromSemester12007to2010* heGTSgraphrevealsanincreasingtrendinGTSscoresforTCHE1011ateachsemester.HighlypositiveGTScoresareevidentinSemester12010.Ts

[email protected].

11

Figure5.1.2ChangesinResourceitemscoresforTCHE1011fromSemester12007to2010*TheResourcegraphdisplaysanincreasingtrendinResourcescoresforTCHE1011ateachsemester.Asignificantincreaseinitem14occurredbetweenSemester12007andSemester12008.Furthermore,asignificantincreaseinitem11occurredbetweenSemester12007andSemester12010.

Appendix 5



TCHE1011ValueAddandOverallGraph

Figure5.2.1ChangesinValueAdditemscoresforTCHE1011fromSemester12007to2010*ManyoftheValueAdditemsshowedapositiveincreasefromSemester12007toSemester12008.Items1,2nd3displayedthemostsignificantincrease.ScoresremainedstableandhighlypositivefromSemester1008toSemester12010.a2

[email protected]

Figure5.3.1ChangesinOverallitemscoresforTCHE1011fromSemester12007to2010*Asindicatedbythegraphasignificantincreaseinoverallsatisfaction,GTS,Resources,andValueAddoccurredetweenSemester12007and2008.ScoresremainedstableandhighlypositivebetweenSemester12009and010.b

.12

2 *Note.NodataforSemester12009issuppliedasonly1studentcompletedthecourse.

Appendix 5


13


QUALITATIVESUMMARYGiventhesmallsamplesizes,abriefsummaryofallcommentsisgivenbelow.Positive

sonuseoftechnologyEnthusiasticteacher,demonstrationsandhand ective;Usefulfromastartingacademicspersp ers

Exchangingideaswithotherteach leandlearningtech

Meetingpeop ThanksGary

ewlearningou tcomes,placingmeoutofcomfortzone,meetingnewpeopleN

Greatoverview

gythatareavailableandthetypesofsituationsthat

Ienjoyedlearningaboutthenewtypesoftechnolo

theycanbeimplementedintoclass

Learningaboutthedifferenttech;veryinsightful.

Verypracticalandcurrent.Veryinformative.Livelyclasses.theknowledgeoftechnologies.

.Restofteamneedsrevisiting.Toseewherethedirectionofteachingisgoing.Enhance

Garryisveryknowledgeable.Bothapractitionerandascholarxposuretonewtech.ClearlevelofpassionfromGarry

earningaboutnewtechnologies;interactingwithacademicsEL

Negative

terestingbutnot useful.Coursecreatesfrustrationassomeitemsarenotexplained/usedfully.In

Feedbackonblogs

Irrelevanttomydiscipline.Toogeneralised.Moreengagementwithtech.Toomuchtaughtthatweknow.

troducecasestudies;strongerlinkbetweentechandoutcomes(improve);creation/encouragementithinvitescriticalthoughtintorelationtotech

In

w

Takeaway/amendonlinegroupdiscussion sanintensiveIdonothavealotoftimetodigestandreflectuponwhatIamlearningA psfeedbackonblog;morehandsonexperiencePerha None Maybelessgroupworkandmorelecturetime.

Moreclarityisneededaboutthemajorassessmentpiece.Unsureaboutwhatisrequired. oreinfoaroundassessment.Beginningthegroupassignmentrequiringuseatdiscussionboard

rlierwouldhavebeenbettertoo.AlotmoreoutofclasstimeneedednotwhatIexpected.

Mea

Appendix 5



TCHE 1032 Tertiary Learning and Teaching GTSandResourceGraphs

Figure6.1.1ChangesinGTSItemscoresforTCHE1032fromSemester12007toSemester22010TSitemshavefluctuatedoverthepastfouryears,withnosignificantchangesoccurringforanyoftheitemsromSemester12007toSemester22010.Gf

[email protected]

Bedfordat.

14

Figure6.1.2ChangesinResourceItemscoresforTCHE1032fromSemester12007toSemester22010WhilemostResourceitemsfluctuated,therewasnosignificantoverallchangeinscoresfromSemester22007toSemester22010.

Appendix 5



TCHE1032ValueAddandOverallGraphs

Figure6.2.1ChangesinAddValueItemscoresforTCHE1032fromSemester12007toSemester2ValueAdditemshavefluctuatedoverthepastfouryears.AsignificantdropinItem3wasobservedfromemester12007toSemester22007.AsignificantdropinItem2wasalsoobservedfromSemester12007toemester22009.

2010

SS

[email protected].

15

Figure6.2.2ChangesinOverallitemscoresforTCHE1032fromSemester12007toSemester22010 Overallsatisfaction,GTS,ResourcesandValueAddscoreshaveremainedrelativelystableoverthepastfouryears,withasignificantdropoccurringfromSemester12007toSemester22009.

Appendix 5


16


QUALITATIVESUMMARYGiventhesmallsamplesizes,abriefsummaryofallcommentsisgivenbelow.Positive

Positiveenvironment,

wellfacilitated tounderstand.Teacherisveryclearonwhatisexpected.Easy

StronglinktopractiseVerymotivationalandhappytodiscussissues.

ounds.Flexible.Courseintegratesinterestsandknowledgefrommanysourcestovariedbackgr

kers. mentgoodforreflection.

CoordinatordoesagoodjobofbringinginguestspeaInteresting,informative.Inclassdiscussion.1stassign

Alternativemethods,groupdiscussions,guests,Ruth.Negative

oomuchassessment.Condensetotwo.Moret ine heorypresentedatthebeginningofclassT

Coursecouldbetailoredtoaspecificdiscipl

Movingthelocationsoftheclassisdifficultrderinginformation.

apped;markassessmenttasksworththesame Blackboardcouldbeimprovedbyreo

ssessmenttask1and2shouldbesw heloadofassignmentisabitheavy

AT

Appendix 5



TCHE 1034 Implementing Tertiary Learning and Teaching GTSandResourceGraphs

Figure7.1.1ChangesinGTSItemscoresforTCHE1034fromSemester22007toSemester22010WhilsttherewassomefluctuationinGTSitems,scoresremainedrelativelystableandhighlyagreeablefromSemester22007toSemester22010.

[email protected].

17

Figure7.1.2ChangesinResourceItemscoresforTCHE1034fromSemester22007toSemester22010

MostResourceitemsfluctuatedbetweenSemester22007andSemester22010.However,asignificantdropinagreementwasobservedforItem14betweenSemester12009toSemester22009,followedbyasignificantimprovementbetweenSemester22009andSemester22010.

Appendix 5

DrAllanGoodyHigherEducationConsultant

[email protected]

EXTERNALREVIEW

RMITUniversity

GraduateCertificatein

TertiaryTeachingandLearning

Appendix 5

S:\UniversityT&LInitiatives\CurrentProjects\DVCAPDInitiative\Penny'swork\Appendices\06.aGCTTLReportFINALGoody111110.docx1

ExecutiveSummary

This external review of the RMITGraduate Certificate in Tertiary Teaching and Learning (GCTTL)offered through the School of Educationwas conducted at the request of ProfessorGill Palmer,Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic. The External Review aimed to provide an evaluation of theprogramanditscontextbothlocallyandnationally,andfrommultiplestakeholderperspectivesandmake recommendations for the future. Data was collected through a mixedmethod approachincludingdocumentanalysis,interviewsandsurveys.ThisexternalreviewwasconductedalongsideaSelfReviewbytheprogramteachingteam.

The review found that while the Teaching Team was generally positive about the program,participantsranged intheirperceptionsoftheprogramfromextremelynegativetomildlypositive.Thereappears tobeagradual improvement inparticipants'perceptionsof theprogram since itsinception.However,therearewidefluctuationsbetweencoursesandofferingsofeachcourse,andparticipant views are often dependent on the staff member teaching into each course. Thereappears tobea lackofpracticalapplicationanddirect relevance to thecurrent roleof individualparticipantsexcept inTCHE1034 ImplementingTertiaryTeachingandLearning.However,thathasnowbeenmadeoptional.

Theuniversityneeds tomake clearwhatpurpose theGCTTL ismeant to serve. If it ismeant toaddress all the teaching and learningpriorities set for20112015, itdoesnot; and conceivablywouldnotabletodoso in itscurrentstructure. Itwouldbedifficulttofitalloftheseaspects inatypicalmodel(includingthecurrent)ofaGraduateCertificate.

Toaddresstherangeofspecificprioritiesandtherangeofacademicrolesadifferentstructureforprogram delivery is required, whether that be as a modified Graduate Certificate model, aFoundations program or some other model that may include module offerings that addressindividualneedsaswellasUniversitypriorities.Someofthesearealreadyavailable.Atthepointofappointmentandbeforebeginningteaching,academicstaffmembersaremorelikelytoengagewithaprogramthatprovidesstrategiesforgettingthroughtheirinitialteachingratherthanthemoreindepthtopicsthattheywillencounterastheyprogressintheirteaching.

Recommendations:

1. Offera"FoundationsofUniversityTeaching"program that ismandatory forallnewacademicstaffwithapathwaytoaGraduateCertificateprogram;

2. Developarangeof"justintime"modulesonspecificteachingandlearningtopics;3. OfferanoptionalGraduateCertificateprogrammorealignedtoacademicpractice;4. Ensureaccesstoallprogramsforsessionalstaff;5. DevelopaprogramforstaffteachinginVietnamthatbetterreflectstheVietnamcontext;6. DevelopclearlearningoutcomesfortheVietnamtourandjustifyparticipation;and7. Account for mandatory participation in professional development activities in workload

allocations.

Someoftheserecommendations,particularlythoserelatingtoprogramofferings,alignwithOptionthreeoutlinedbytheSelfReviewTeam.

AllanGoody19September,2011

Appendix 5


Introduction

This external review of the RMITGraduate Certificate in Tertiary Teaching and Learning (GCTTL)offered through the School of Educationwas conducted at the request of ProfessorGill Palmer,Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic. The External Review aimed to provide an evaluation of theprogramanditscontextbothlocallyandnationally,andfrommultiplestakeholderperspectives.Theremitofthereviewwasto:

Consider the program in the RMIT Context and more broadly in the broader TertiaryEducationsector

SeekmultipleperspectivesoftheprogramfromstakeholdersacrosstheUniversity

ProvidekeyfindingsandadviceforfuturedirectionsandRMITUniversitystrategicplanning

Theexternal review considered informationprovidedby those involved in theprogram, includingboth students and the academic teaching team (seeReviewApproach for a listof all thosewhocontributed to the review). The external review complemented a SelfReview undertaken by theGCTTLTeachingTeam.ThefirstdraftofthisreportwaswrittenpriortothecompletionoftheSelfReview.Subsequenttothereportofthatreviewbecomingavailable,thereporthasbeenupdatedandfinalised.

The SelfReview report does indicate a greater openness on the part of the teaching team to areviewoftheprograminlightoftheirpersonalreflectionsaswellastheirreviewofthesurveydataandotherdata.There isanevidentshift in theperceptionsof the teaching team fromwhen theywere interviewed by me. At that time, while there was some willingness to engage in somecurriculumandstructuralreview,therewasasenseofdefensivenessoftheprogram,whichisquiteunderstandable. It iscommendablethattheteamhasofferedOptionThree intheirreport asthebasisforalogicalandpracticalwayforwardtohelpRMITmeetitsstrategicobjectiveswithrespectto the development of teaching and learning. As an external reviewer and at the time of theindividual interviews, Ididnotsense that thiswouldbeapositionwithwhich the teamwouldbepreparedtoengage.Thisoptionalignswiththeoutcomesofthisexternalreview.

In this report, anoverviewof theGraduateCertificate in TertiaryTeaching and Learning (GCTTL)Program isprovided,followedbyadescriptionoftheapproachtakenfortheexternalreview.ThereviewoutcomesisthenstructuredundertheBenchmarkDomainsdevelopedinthePATHEProject(Hicks et al, 20101) namely: 1) Strategy and policy governing the program; 2) Curriculum andcontent;3)Programstructure;and4)Qualityassurance.Thereportconcludeswithconclusionsandrecommendations.

Abouttheprogram

TheGraduateCertificate inTertiaryTeachingandLearning (GCTTL)Programwas initiatedatRMITUniversity inSemester12007.TheprimaryaimofGCTTL is to improve the learningand teachingpracticeoftertiaryteacherssothattheyareequippedtoteacheffectively intheHigherEducationsector.

TheGCTTLProgramisofferedbytheSchoolofEducationwithfundingprovidedcentrally.Eachyearapproximately3540newfulltimeongoingRMITstaffenrolintheprogram.

1PATHEReport2010Accessedfromhttp://www.altc.edu.au/resourcepreparingacademicsteachhighereducationunisa2010

Appendix 5

http://www.altc.edu.au/resource-preparing-academics-teach-higher-education-unisa-2010http://www.altc.edu.au/resource-preparing-academics-teach-higher-education-unisa-2010


TheProgramisdesignedtoprovideacohesiveformalpostgraduateprogramofstudy,ratherthanashortterminductiontoteachingatUniversity.

Theprogramcurrentlyconsistsoffourcorecoursesthatareplannedtobestudiedinthefollowingsequence:

TCHE1032TertiaryTeachingandLearninganintroductiontoTertiaryteachingandlearningwithintheRMITcontext.

TCHE1011TechnologicalImplicationsofTertiaryLearningandTeachingexaminetheroleofetechnologiesandelearningwithintheRMITcontextandthebroaderuniversitysector.

TCHE2051InternationalisingtheCurriculumexaminetheimpactofstudentdiversityforourteachingandimplicationsforcurriculumandpedagogy.

TCHE1034 ImplementingTertiaryTeachingandLearningexaminecurriculumdesignand,throughnegotiationwitheachparticipant, investigateanddevelopacurriculum innovationbasedinthecourseparticipantsacademicwork.

OR

TCHE2384SupervisionofHigherDegreesbyResearch(from2011).

Priorto2011studentsdidnothavetheoptionofchoosingtostudyTCHE1034ImplementingTertiaryTeachingandLearningorTCHE2384SupervisionofHigherDegreesbyResearchasthefourthcourse.

Eachcourseisdeliveredtwiceayeartoprovideaccessandflexibilityforparticipantstocompletetheprogram. Each course is the equivalent of a semester of study and delivered in intensivemode(TCHE1011;TCHE2051)or inasemesterbasedmode (TCHE1032;TCHE1034;TCHE2384),generallyasfacetofacedeliverywithsomeblendedonlinelearningenvironment.

ReviewApproach

Theapproachtakentothereviewinvolvedamixedmethodapproachwithanumberofsourcesofdata. In the first instance Imetwith Associate Professor Barbara de la Harpewho provided anoverviewoftheprogram,theimpetusforthereviewandaplanformeetingsandinterviewsduringatwo day visit to RMIT. Iwas providedwith a range of documents both during the site visit andsubsequent which provided detail on the curriculum and content of the program and programannualreviewsaswellasdocumentsrelatingtotheUniversity'sstrategicdirectionbothimmediatelypastandfuture.Facetofaceinterviews,phoneinterviewsandemailwereusedtoseekinputfromthosedirectlyinvolvedintheprogram.AsurveyofparticipantswasdraftedandadministeredbytheSelfReviewteamtowhichIhadinputtoinsuremyevaluationneedsweremet.Iwasprovidedwiththerawdatafromthissurvey.Aperiodaftermyreviewwascompleteandadraftreportsubmitted,IalsoreceivedtheSelfReviewReport.

Documents

1. VariousRMITUniversitydocumentsincluded:

StrategicPlan2015CourseOutlinesReportontheGCTTL20072010(CESAnalysisGroup)ProgramAnnualReviewsProgramSelfReview

Appendix 5


Meetingsand/oremailfeedback

2. Thereviewermetwithfivemembersoftheteachingteam,bothcurrentandpast,asfollows.

ProfessorAnnetteGough(current)DrJosephineLang(current)MsRuthMoeller(current)DrGaryAllan(current)AssociateProfessorRegineWagner(past)

Thesediscussionswereopenendedandusedanumberofpromptstoguidethediscussionandelicitindividualperceptions,including:

Theinterviewee'sroleintheprogram; Thecurrentstructure,focusandcurriculumcontentoftheprogram; Focusandcontentofspecificcoursesonwhichtheycouldcomment; Challengesandoutcomesoftheprogramandindividualcourses; Suggestionsforthefutureoftheprogram;and Anopportunitytoprovidegeneralcomments.

3. Members of the teaching team on the Vietnam campus and the Director of Teaching andLearning(3members)werealsoinvitedviaemailtorespondinanopenendedmannerwiththefollowingquestionsprovidedtopromptresponses:

What isyourperceptionof the impactof theGCTTLon teachingand learningatRMITandthestudentexperience?

In what ways is the current structure and content of the GCTTL appropriate orinappropriatefortheVietnamcontext?Providedetail.

Doyouhaveanyspecificcommentsonanyoftheindividualunitsintheprogram?Pleaseprovidebriefdetails.

Do you believe that there are alternativemodels thatmight bemore effective or aseffectiveinachievingtheaimsoftheprogramandmeetingthestrategicdirectionoftheUniversity?Pleaseprovidebriefdetails.

Othercomments.

Tworesponseswerereceived.

4. The threeCollegeDeputyProViceChancellorsLearningandTeachingwere invited toprovidecomment via email in an unstructured manner with two questions provided to promptresponses.

What isyourperceptionof the impactof theGCTTLon teachingand learningatRMITandthestudentexperience?

Do you believe that there are alternativemodels thatmight bemore effective or aseffectiveinachievingtheaimsoftheprogramandmeetingthestrategicdirectionoftheUniversity?Pleaseprovidebriefdetails.

Onlyoneresponsewasreceived.

5. Additionally,theevaluatormetwiththreestaff,bothformallyandinformally,asfollows.

ProfessorGillPalmer,DeputyViceChancellorAcademicAssociateProfessorBarbaradelaHarpe,DeputyPVC,LearningandTeaching,DSCJoshGoodrick,DeputyDirector,OrganisationalDevelopment

Appendix 5


Survey

6. Allparticipants,overthelifeoftheprogram,wereinvitedtocompleteanonlinesurveydesignedbytheTeachingTeamandwithinputfromthereviewer.Theinitialpoolofparticipantswas230,butduetoanumberoffactors(includingandmainlynocurrentemailcontactdetails)thesurveywassentto180participants.Fiftynineresponseswerereceived(32.7%).Participantsweregiventheopportunityofcontactingtheexternalreviewerindependentlyinconfidenceiftheydidnotwant to share their thoughts with the teaching team. No one took up this opportunity.ParticipantsintheVietnamprogramwerenotincludedinthesurvey.ThiswasadecisionoftheSelfReviewTeamwithnospecificreasongivenforthisexclusion.MyreadingofthesituationisthattheprogramofferinginVietnamis'different'despiteitbeingthesameprogramandthereappearedtobesometensionevidentwhentheVietnamprogramwasraisedindiscussions.

Thedata collected through this surveyare tobeanalysedby theProgramTeam in their selfreview.Inthisreport,studentcommentsareusedtohighlightwhatappeartobechallengesandopportunitiesfortheProgramTeamandtosupportthereviewersunderstandingofthecurrentstateoftheprogram.

ThereviewhasbeenguidedbytheBenchmarkDomainsdevelopedinthePATHEProject(Hicksetal,2010).While this project spoke broadly of formal programs that induct and develop universityteachers with the aim of fostering and supporting the quality of teaching and learning in theuniversity its focus was less on programs that provide formal qualifications. However thebenchmarkdomainsareappropriatetouseinthecontextofthisreview.

1. Strategyandpolicygoverningtheprogram2. Curriculumandcontent3. Programstructure4. Qualityassurance

WiderContext,StrategyandPolicyGoverningtheProgram

ManyAustralianuniversitiesofferaGraduateCertificate inTertiaryTeachingandLearning (undervariousnames).However,forthemajorityofAustralianuniversities,theprimaryprogramdesignedas an introduction to tertiary teaching iswhat is known across the sector as a Foundations ofUniversity Teaching program (or similar name) commonly referred to as Foundations programs.Foundationsprogramsaredefinedasformalprogramsthatinductanddevelopuniversityteacherswith the aim of fostering and supporting the quality of teaching and learning in the university(PATHE,2010).

Themostrecentdataonprogramsthatprepareacademicstoteachinhighereducationcomesfromthe review of Foundations programs (for some universities this includes Graduate Certificateprograms) conducted in 2007 as part of the PATHE project. This report indicated that of the 25Foundationsprogramsreportedupon inthesurvey,17werecompulsory.However,noneoftheseprogramswere formal certificate programs. The three Graduate Certificates thatwere reporteduponwerenotcompulsory.

ThecurrentALTCfundedprojectonIdentificationandImplementationofIndicatorsandMeasureofImpact of Teaching Preparation Programs in Higher Education2 (TPP) is conducting a survey ofprogramsthatprepareacademicstoteachinhighereducationandhopefullythisdatawillshedlighton the current status of the voluntary ormandatory nature of both Foundations programs andGraduateCertificateprograms.Whileonlytwothirdsofuniversitiesparticipatedinthe2007survey,

2Seehttp://www.altc.edu.au/projectidentificationandimplementationindicatorsandmeasuresimpactteachingpreparationprogra

Appendix 5

http://www.altc.edu.au/project-identification-and-implementation-indicators-and-measures-impact-teaching-preparation-prograhttp://www.altc.edu.au/project-identification-and-implementation-indicators-and-measures-impact-teaching-preparation-progra


throughmypersonalengagementacrossthesector,itwouldbereasonabletosaythatthemajorityofAustralian universities now have some form ofmandated program for the initial induction orpreparationtoteach inhighereducation;generallythiswouldbeaFoundationsprogram. Itwouldalsobereasonabletosaythatmandatingparticipationinaformalcertificateprogram(egGCTTL)isnotcommonpracticeacrossthesectoralthoughthereareanumberofuniversitieswhodomandatecompletionofaGraduateCertificate levelprogramasapartofprobationorare in theprocessoftaking thisstep.Foundationsprogramsoften form thebasisof the firstcourse/unit inaGraduateCertificateprogram.

Sectorwide(andinternationally)itisacknowledgedthatwedonotknowenoughabouttheimpactofprogramsthatprepareacademicstoteach.Theliteratureisveryclearthatthereislittleevidenceof the impactofhighereducation teachingpreparationprogramsonenhancing teachingpractice,student learning or the institutional climate that rewards and recognises teachingDevlin 20083;Gosling, 20084; Prebble et al, 20045; Trowler & Bamber, 20056) . The most common impactmeasuresarethosethatlookatprocessratherthanoutcomes,andifoutcomesaremeasured,itisoften intermsofperceptions.TheaimoftheALTCfundedTPPproject isto identify indicatorsandmeasuresofeffectivenessand impactoftheseprograms.Abroader issuehere isthe"mandatory"natureoftheseprograms.Mandatingparticipationmayinfactworktothedetrimentoftheprogramparticularly in light of comments made by RMIT staff in the GCTTL survey, about the lack ofacknowledgement of theGCTTL as part ofworkload and the generic nature of the program notaddressingtheirparticularneeds.

In the past few years there has been growth in the number ofGraduate Certificates in TertiaryTeaching being offered. Data on the number and the sustainability of these programs is notavailable. TheCrossInstitutional graduateCertificate in Tertiary Education7developed though anALTC Grant sought to address the sustainability issue where individual institutions faced lowenrolments in these voluntary programs. Some newGCTTL type programs are now focussing on'academicpractice' rather thanspecifically teachingand learning.This reflects thebroader roleoftheacademic.However,thestructureofsuchaprogrammakesitdifficulttoneitheraddressallthe

3Devlin,M.(2008).Researchchallengesinherentindeterminingimprovementinuniversityteaching.IssuesinEducationalResearch,18(1)Accessedfromhttp://www.iier.org.au/iier18/devlin.pdf.

4Gosling,D. (2008).Educationaldevelopment in theUnitedKingdom.Report for theheadsofeducationaldevelopment group. London: Heads of Educational Development Group (HEDG) UK. Accessed fromhttp://www.hedg.ac.uk/documents/HEDG_Report_final.pdf

5Prebble,T.,Margraves,H.,Leach,L,Naidoo,K.,Suddaby,G.,&Zepke,N.(2004). Impactofstudentsupportservices and academic development programmes on student outcomes in undergraduate tertiary study: abestevidencesynthesis.Wellington,NZ:ReporttotheMinistryofEducation.

6 Trowler, P. & Bamber, R. (2005). Compulsory higher education teacher training: Joinedup policies,institutionalarchitecturesandenhancementcultures. InternationalJournalforAcademicDevelopment,10:2,7993.

7Developingourstaff:Aneightuniversitycollaborationformappinganddeliveryofasharedprofessionaldevelopmentprogrammefortertiaryeducators.Accessedfromhttp://www.altc.edu.au/projectdevelopingourstaffeightune2007

Appendix 5


prioritiesthatauniversitymighthaveforteachingandlearningnorallthevariedacademicrolesandpractices.GCTTLtypeprogramsaredesignedtobegenericprogramsnotdisciplinespecificandanumberofrespondentstothesurveyraisedthisissue;iethat'howtoteach'intheirdisciplineisnotspecificallycoveredintheGCTTL.

Ananomalywith theaimof theGCTTL (to improve the learningand teachingpracticeof tertiaryteachersandequipthemtoteacheffectively intheHigherEducationsector) isthat itfocusesonlyonnewappointmentstoongoingpositions.Theredoesnotappeartobeanyexplicitprovisionforsessionalstaff,whoundertakeasignificantproportionoftheteaching,toparticipate intheGCTTL.ReferenceshouldbemadetotheREDReport8(anALTCfundedsectorwideproject)thathighlightedissues for sessional staff andmade a range of recommendations.While no current hard data isavailableonprogramsspecificallyaimedatsessionalstaff,personalexperiencewouldsuggestthatasaresultoftheREDReport,thisisanareathatmanyuniversitiesarenowaddressing.

RMITContextandProgram

In theRMITcontext, theprogramhasbeendesigned to support the implementationof theRMITAcademic Plan 2007 2010 and Learning and Teaching Strategy 2007 2010. The aim of theprogram is to improve the learningand teachingpracticeof tertiary teachersandequip them toteacheffectively intheHigherEducationsector.Twoofthecoursesaddressthebroaderprinciplesandpracticeofteachinginahighereducationcontext.Theseunitsare

TCHE1032TertiaryTeachingandLearning

TCHE1034ImplementingTertiaryTeachingandLearning

Theother two coursesaddress specific strategicprioritiesof theUniversityaimedatprovidingelearningopportunitiesforstudentsandinternationalisingthecurriculum.Theseunitsare

TCHE1011TechnologicalImplicationsofTertiaryLearningandTeaching

TCHE2051InternationalisingtheCurriculum

ItitscurrentformattheGCTTLcannotaddressalltheteachingandlearningprioritiessetfor20112015.Forexample,workintegratedlearning isatopicthatdoesnotappeartobeaddressedyet isonethatisimpliedinthenewpriorities.Tobeabletoaddressallprioritiesandthebroaderrangeofacademic roles, including leadership and research supervision, and more generic teaching andlearning issuessuchasassessmentof learningand feedback,aswellasdisciplinespecific teachingpractice,awiderrangeofcoursesinadifferentmodelwouldneedtobeoffered.Itwouldbedifficultto fit all of these aspects of academic practice in a typical (including the current) of aGraduateCertificatestructure.

CurriculumandContent

Thedesignandcontentofthefirstcourse intheGCTTL,TCHE1032TertiaryTeachingandLearning,alignswiththebroadphilosophyandprinciplesthatarecommonacrossFoundationsprograms(asreported in the PATHE report) such as theories of student learning and curriculum alignment incoursedesign.Thetopicscoveredprovideanintroductiontoteachingandlearningwiththeaimofextending participants "ability to design and create stimulating and effective learningenvironments".Thecoursehasevolvedovertimeandthisseemstohaveoccurredasdifferentstaff

8TheREDReportRecognition,Enhancement,DevelopmentThecontributionofsessionalteacherstohighereducation.Accessedfromhttp://www.altc.edu.au/projectsessionalteachersaustralianhigherunsw2006

Appendix 5


ing participants understand RMIT policy, provide

that thisproject type unit should

op these skills. This wascommenteduponbyoneparticipantasanadditionalimpositionontime.

annegativecommentsdirectedatthemanner inwhichthecoursewastaughtand/ortheteacher.

int raisedearlier, that is, in itscurrent format theGCTTLcannotadequatelyaddressallpriorities.

Structure

indication of a lack of integration orwholeofprogram approach to thedesignoftheprogram.

take responsibility for itsdelivery. In its currentoffering, the coursehas shifted froma reflectiveapproach to a more pragmatic approach helppracticalteachingskillsandidentifyresources.

ThecourseTCHE1034 ImplementingTertiaryTeachingandLearningextendsTCHE1032byputtinglearning from that course into practice. This course has the most practical relevance to theparticipants. The coursehas themost comprehensiveCourseOutline andprovides a large setofresources. It is the course respondents to the surveyvalued themost,mainlydue to itspracticalnature.In2011TCHE1034becameanoptionalunit.Thisrunscountertothedesireforparticipantstohavepracticaloutcomes from the program. It also suggestseitherbea partofTCHE1032orrunthroughtheentireprogram.

TCHE1011 Technological Implications of Tertiary Learning and Teaching specifically addresses aUniversity priority. The course received quite favourable comments from survey respondents,particularly thosewhoareusingeducationaltechnologies intheirteaching.Onecriticismwasthatfamiliarity with the various technologies by course participants varied greatly and this lead todissatisfaction. In the course description, the emphasis of the course is placed on designing andimplementinglearningactivitiesratherthanonpractical"howto"useofthetechnologies.Thisisanappropriate emphasis in a Graduate level course. However, participants not familiar with thetechnologies had to spend further time outside the course to devel

TCHE2051 Internationalising theCurriculum is the secondof the courses specifically addressing aUniversitypriority. It is also the coursemostheavily criticisedby the respondents to the survey.There isnoclearreasonforthecriticismotherth

InconsideringthecurriculumfortheGCTTL, it iscurioustonotethatoneaspectofthecurriculumshould receive theattentionofanentirecourse,eg internationalising thecurriculum,whileotheraspects that could be seen as equally important, eg assessment and feedback, form only onecomponentofacourse.Whileacknowledgingthat,inthisexample,internationalisingthecurriculumisavalidpriority(andthiscommentisnotmeanttobecriticaloftheinclusionofthiscourseintheGCTTL),itmaydistortanewteacher'sperceptionofwhattheuniversityregardsasmostimportant.In their daytoday teaching a beginning teachermay see assessment and providing feedback tostudentsasamoreimportantandpracticalpriority.Yetthisaspectofteachingreceivesconsiderablylessemphasis in theGCTTL. Imake thisobservationusing thisparticularcourseasanexample tobringmeback toapo

Theonecommentthatcamethroughfromtheteachingteamwasthatthereneededtobebetterintegration of the courses in the program. This was also commented upon by a number ofparticipants in their survey responsesalthough thiswasnota strong theme.Thereappears tobeconsiderable overlap in Course LearningOutcomes across the program, although this could be aresultofmyreadingofthecourseoutline.Ihavenotsortclarityonthisissuebutforexample,fromthedocuments Iwasprovidedwith itwouldappear thatTCHE1032andTCHE1034have thesamelearningoutcomes.Iftheybothareintendedtoachievethesamelearningoutcomes,whyaretheretwo courses? This is an

Ithasalreadybeennoted thatmakingTCHE1034optional runscounter toparticipants'desire formorepracticaloutcomesoftheprogram.ThisisnottosuggestthatTCHE2384SupervisionofHigherDegreesbyResearch shouldnotbeoffered.What itdoesdo ishighlight the fact that therearea

Appendix 5


need to be available as professional

it)normoreeffectiveteachingorimprovedstudentlearningasanoutcomeoftheprogram.

content of the RMIT Vietnam program differssubstantiallytotheRMITMelbourneprogram.

QualityAssurance

sreportreflectthewidevariationinthecommentsmade

number of priorities, not just specificallymentioned in the Strategic Plan but that fall under thegeneral heading of effective teaching and learning thatdevelopmentforallstafftomeetspecificandtimelyneeds.

Theprogram isoffered inavarietyofdeliverymode includingextendedseminarsoverasemester,intensivewholedayseminarsandinflexiblemode.Themodeofdeliveryforeachcourseappearstobe determined by the focus of the course and/or the particular preference of the teacher.Participantsdidcommentonthedeliveryofparticularcoursesandthenecessityoftraveltoanothercampus tobeable toattendclasses.Thisaddeda furtherburden to thealreadyunacknowledgedworkloadinvolvedincompletingthecourse.Further,themandatorynatureoftheprogramdoesnotguaranteeengagementwith theprogram (and likelyactivelyworksagainst

TheproblemwithaGraduateCertificate levelprogramthatcanbecompletedoveratwoorthreeyearperiod is thatbeginning teachersarenotgettingaccess to thepracticalstrategies (and lift inconfidence)thattheygenerallygetfromcompletingashortintensiveprogramimmediatelypriortostartingtoteach.ManyoftheissuesthattheywillfaceearlyintheirteachingmaynotbeaddressedintheGraduateCertificateuntilwellintotheirfirst,secondorthirdyearofteaching.Bythen,manywillhavesoughtassistanceandresourceselsewhere.Asonepersonsaid,thecurrentprogramtakesa"just incase"approachratherthana"just intime"approach.Thissuggestsadifferentmodelofdeliveryisneeded."Justintime"maybeaFoundationstypeprogramthatpreparesstaff(includingsessional staff) for the first day of teaching supplementedwith a range of other "just in time"programs thataddress the rangeof teaching scenariosandacademic roles thatariseas teachersprogressintheirearlyyearsofteachingandastheymoveincoursecoordinatorrolesandsoforth.

WhiletheVietnamparticipantswerenotincludedinthesurvey,membersofthestaffwhoteachtheGCTTLinVietnamdidprovideinput.TheirperceptionisthattheGCTTLdoeshaveapositiveimpacton teaching and learning at RMIT Vietnam. However there appears to be a serious disconnectbetweentheprogramofferedontheMelbournecampusesandtheVietnamcampus.Thisappearstobeasmuchabouttheteachersinvolvedasitistheprogramitself.ThereareobviousdifferencesbetweentheparticipantsintheRMITVietnamprogramandtheRMITMelbourneprogramincludingthestudentprofile,characteristicsoflecturers,culturalandpoliticalcontexts,alackofauthorityonthe part of RMIT Vietnam lecturers to contextualise and be involved in the broader curriculumdesign of courses including assessment. These differences do not appear to be reflected in thedesign of the courses. However the course

TheReportontheGraduateCertificateinTertiaryTeachingandLearningProgram20072010detailsand analyses the data collected through the Course Evaluation Survey (CES) and does not needrepeatinghere.However,thisdatadoesindicatethattherehasbeenwildfluctuationintheOverallSatisfaction Index for TCHE1032 and TCHE1034 with a steady increase in satisfaction in 2010.TCHE1011 has shown a slight but steady increase in satisfaction after a dramatic jump in 2007.Across all CES categories analysed the percentage agreement has been generally about 50%.TCHE2051,thecoursethatreceivedthewidestcriticismintheparticipantsurveywasnotincludedinthisreport.ThesummaryofCESdatainthibyrespondentstotheparticipantsurvey.

Whilediscussionswith the teaching staff indicated that theyweregenerallypositive towards theprogram,feedbackfromthesurveyofprogramparticipantswasquitemixedrangingfromextremelynegative and tomildly positive. However, the overall perception that I gained from participantcommentswasthatparticipantstendedtobenegativetowardstheprogramandtheoutcomesthey

Appendix 5


ture of how the GCTTL is perceived by participating staff that willcomplementtheCESreport.

the timewerenotedbysomeparticipants.

etinrealitywithguidanceandpolicyonimbeddingidentifiedprioritieswithinindividualprograms.

formalqualification in tertiary teachingandlearning.Butthisisnotreallyattheheartoftheissue.

model does not consider sessional staffwhoundertakeanincreasingpercentageoftheteaching.

achieved. Comments ranged from "Think the program is worthwhile. Lecturers were veryknowledgeable" to "Just close it down". One thing that is clear from the comments is that aconsiderableamountof thenegativity tended tobeassociatedwith theparticular individualwhotaughtaparticularcoursetowhichtheyreferred.Therewasapatternofresponsesthatwereverycriticaloftheteachinginaparticularcoursebeingcontradictedbyotherparticipantswhowereverypositivetowardsthatsamecourse.Someparticipantsgaineda lotfromthewholeprogram,othersgained fromonlyoneor twoof the coursesandothers indicated that they learnednothing. It isdifficulttoestablishthelinkbetweentheyearofstudyandeachparticularcoursewithoutdetailedanalysis (towhich Ididnothave access). Further indepth analysisof theparticipant surveymayprovide amore accurate pic

ThemostpositiveaspectsoftheprogramidentifiedinthesurveyofparticipantsweretheVietnamvisitand thenetworkingopportunities that theprogramoffered. It is important tonote that theVietnamtripisnotcompulsoryanddoesnotappeartohaveanyclearlearningoutcomes.Itisnotapartof anyof the courses in theprogram.Nooneparticular aspectof theGCTTL thatwas leastbeneficial as reported by the respondents to the survey can be identified althoughcommitmentandalackofbeneficialoutcomes

ConclusionandRecommendations

It isclearthatthecurrentmodelcannotdeliverontheaim"to improvethe learningandteachingpracticeof tertiary teachers and equip them to teach effectively in theHigher Education sector"given the rangeof strategicpriorities for teachingand learning that theUniversityhas identified.Further,commentsbycontributorstothisreviewsuggestthattherhetoricoftheGCTTLwithrespecttostrategicprioritiesisnotm

TherearearangeofcriticismsoftheGCTTLasevidencedbyparticipantcomments,inputfromstaffassociated with the delivery of the program (teaching and administratively), and a scan of therelevantdocumentsassociatedwiththedeliveryandannualreviewofeachcourseandtheprogram.Certainly the GCTTL needs a renewal, particularly with respect to a better wholeofprogramapproach to planning. As a standalone program it couldmeet a demand (demand needs to beidentifiedwhere theprogram isnotmandatory) fora

Myperspectivehavingundertaken thisreview is that theUniversityneeds tobeclearaboutwhattheGCTTL ismeant to achieve. If it is to improve the learning and teaching practice of tertiaryteachers and equip them to teach effectively in the Higher Education sector by specificallyaddressingpriorities intheStrategicPlan,then itwillfailtoachievethataim.ThemodelofusingaGraduateCertificatetoaddressallofthesepriorities issimplynotpracticable;firstbecauseofthescopeandrangeofteachingandlearningissuesthatwouldneedtobeincludedandsecondbythenecessarystructureofaCertificateprogram thatdoesnotsatisfy the"just in time"needsofnewacademic staff.Norwillmaking suchan intensiveandextendedprogrammandatoryengagenewteachingstaffwhoarelookingforassistancetohelpthemwiththeirimmediateteachingissuesandare jugglingtheiracademicroles includingestablishingaresearchagenda.Thisapproach isfurtherdoomed for failurewhen the amount ofwork associatedwith such an intensive and extendedprogram is not recognised in workload allocations and appropriate support is not provided toparticipants through their Schools. And finally, the

While this reviewmight come across as being highly critical of or negative towards aGraduateCertificate program, that is not the intention. Personally I fully support any effort to provide

Appendix 5


learningthroughtheGCTTLcannotachieveallthattheUniversityappearstobeexpectingofit.

yandequips themwithstrategiesand resources tosurvive those first

etwomodulesalreadydeveloped:TeachingandLearning

rred to in Recommendation 2 could be counted towards this formal

te program

yteachwhilestillencompassingthebroaderteachingandlearningprioritiesof

es for theVietnam tripandoffer itasoneof the rangeof

workloadallocationsandprovideappropriatesupporttoparticipantsthroughtheirSchools.

academic staff with opportunities for continuing development including improving bottom lineteaching and learning. Regardless of the lack of research, I believe that participation in teachingpreparationprogramsdoes add value to the student experience.However, in its current format,professionaldevelopmentforteachingand

Recommendations:

1. Offer a short intensivemandatoryprogram (Foundationsprogram)prior toor in the firstweeks of teaching that introduces new teachers to the fundamentals of teaching andlearningatuniversitweeksofteaching.

2. Develop a range ofm