This article was downloaded by: [Thammasat University Libraries]On: 09 October 2014, At: 04:39Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of EngineeringEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

The pedagogical academy: a wayto encourage and reward scholarlyteachingPernille Andersson a & Torgny Roxå ba Lund University, Lund Institute of Technology , Box 118, 22100,Lund, Swedenb Lund University, UCLU/Lund Institute of Technology , SwedenPublished online: 19 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Pernille Andersson & Torgny Roxå (2004) The pedagogical academy: a wayto encourage and reward scholarly teaching, European Journal of Engineering Education, 29:4,559-569, DOI: 10.1080/03043790410001711270

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790410001711270

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The pedagogical academy: a way to encourage and rewardscholarly teaching

PERNILLE ANDERSSON†� and TORGNY ROXA‡

In 2001 a large-scale project, the ‘Breakthrough project’, to develop teaching andlearning was started at Lund Institute of Technology (LTH), Lund University,Sweden. The project has had a duration of 3 years and the aims of the projectwere to change the paradigm from teaching to learning and implement a senseof scholarship of teaching in the organization. Since the beginning of 2004 theBreakthrough project has been a permanent activity at LTH linked to the HR-function. Developed in this project was the pedagogical academy. This is anovel approach to stimulate and reward scholarship of teaching. Every teacherat LTH may apply for admission to the pedagogical academy and receive anexcellent teaching practice award. If they qualify, they immediately receive anincreased salary and the teacher’s department receives additional funding.Six assessment criteria for the pedagogical academy have been developed fromthe area of scholarship of teaching. In a teaching portfolio the teacher should beable to show how well these criteria are fulfilled in practise and thinking.

1. IntroductionToday it is a necessity for higher education to change many traditional ways of

handling processes in their organizations as well as how teachers handle and lookupon students’ learning and their own teaching. In Sweden this development is drivenby changes in society, which have led to new groups of students entering the univer-sities with a much more diversified educational, social and ethnic background than 10or 15 years ago.

To meet this challenge in a professional way it is critical that the teachers’ com-petence concerning questions of teaching and learning increases as well as theirability in handling and understanding the students’ situation and learning processesin engineering education.

It is critical for the universities to develop new strategies to develop the teachingand learning within them and take advantage of the new possibilities they are bringing.It is not only the new groups of students that are recruited to the universities that havean impact on the development. The pedagogical research has increased our knowledgeabout teaching and student learning in higher education. This is also a factorthat should have an effect on the teaching and learning in higher education. Importantalso are the new demands on the students’ capabilities as employees whenthey enter the labour market after their education. This has the impact on highereducation that these capabilities have to be trained during the students’ time at

European Journal of Engineering EducationVol. 29, No. 4, December 2004, 559–569

†Lund University, Lund Institute of Technology, Box 118 22100, Lund, Sweden.‡Lund University, UCLU/Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden.� To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: pernille.andersson@genmbrottet.

lth.se

European Journal of Engineering EducationISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/03043790410001711270

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

university. The mass of knowledge is also growing, which means that the complexitiesof the subjects students are supposed to learn are increasing.

All these factors are well known to everyone working in higher education; still,they raise the demand to handle things differently when the traditional ways are notworking as well as one would wish anymore. It is necessary to start developingnew professional ways, in higher education, to handle the teaching of students andto handle the students’ learning (Bowden and Marton 1999).

To meet this situation, a decision was made in 2003 that every teacher at LundUniversity is obliged to go through 10 weeks’ education in teaching and learning.

2. Faculty development at Lund Institute of TechnologyTo meet these new challenges at LTH, a project was started in 2001 with a

duration of 3 years. The project was called the ‘Breakthrough project’, whichrefers to the metaphor that when a critical mass of teachers have reached a higherlevel of knowledge in teaching and learning the culture of the faculty shifts ateaching paradigm to a learning one and a breakthrough occurs. From thebeginning at 2004 this project was turned into a permanent activity linked to theHR-function.

The aims of the project were to raise the knowledge in teaching and learning atthe whole faculty and to create a culture of dialogue among the teachers abouttheir experiences and knowledge of student learning and also to support eachother as colleagues in their work with teaching. Those aims are still the same in thepermanent phase.

The main aim is to implement Scholarship of Teaching as a method to constantlydevelop the teaching and learning with a scientific holding (Boyer 1990, Healy 2000).The overall aim is to make LTH a faculty that consciously and systematically strives todevelop its teaching and learning culture.

The strategy in this work is to support the teacher and others who want todevelop new teaching and learning methods by offering the help of educationalconsultants. Extra funding is not offered to new projects since the main thought isthat the system should be able to bear the costs. The educational consultants arerecruited among the teachers within the faculty who are well-educated in teachingand learning. The rector of the faculty is the head of this development activity,which is crucial.

Many different activities were invented within the project to reach its aims. One ofthem was the pedagogical academy.

3. The pedagogical academy and its assumptionsThe pedagogical academy is a novel approach to stimulate and reward scholarly

teaching at a faculty of technology. It has been developed in accordance to widespreadviews of what a teacher’s role is at a university (Boyer 1990, Biggs 1999, Kreber 2000,Trigwell et al. 2000).

The main features of the pedagogical academy are that university lecturers at LTHmay apply for admission to the pedagogical academy. Their teaching skills areassessed and, if they are accepted into the academy, they receive a certificate declaringthat they have attained the grade, excellent teaching practice (ETP), and an immediaterise in salary. Moreover, the department to which they belong will receive an increasein their grant.

560 P. Andersson and T. Roxa

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Applicants apply by writing a teaching portfolio and having it assessed andscrutinized.

Lecturers who are admitted into the academy are those who can show that theyhave, over a period of time, and preferably consciously and systematically, endea-voured to develop themselves as teachers as well as their teaching activities, regardlessof the level at which they teach. They should also show that they base their pedago-gical work on a learning perspective; which mean that they are planning their teachingactivities with regard to the students’ learning process in the different subjects, thoughat LTH.

The pedagogical academy is about motivating the lecturers (PhD students are notallowed to apply) and the departments at LTH to take even more responsibility fordeveloping the knowledge in teaching and learning.

There are some conditions at LTH that make it possible to realize the Breakthroughproject and the pedagogical academy.

The first is that different pedagogical courses about teaching and learning inhigher education have been available at LTH for about 10 years. Many teachershave attended these courses. This has secured a well-established view withinthe faculty that pedagogy can help teachers improve their teaching and manylecturers now share the same experiences of pedagogical research, methods andterminology. This is the main reason why it is now possible to develop the teachingand learning strategies more systematically at the faculty. Another importantreason is that the board and management strongly support and encourage thisdevelopment.

Before the large-scale Breakthrough project started, smaller projects with edu-cational consultants working as support to the teacher worked with good results.This also strengthened the belief among the teacher that pedagogical knowledgecan improve their teaching.

The pedagogical academy has been developed by a group of five lecturers and pro-fessors representing different departments at LTH together with a pedagogical expert.This project group is responsible for the development of criteria, instructions and pro-cedures for the assessment of pedagogical competence according to the basic ideas ofthe pedagogical academy. This has been curial for the implementation of the system inthe organization.

Another important factor in getting approval and support for the pedagogical acad-emy at LTH has been that the heads of the departments were constantly informedduring the development process. The heads of the departments were also asked toselect the teacher to the first group applying to the pedagogical academy.

4. Aims of the pedagogical academyThe main aim of the pedagogical academy is to raise the status of pedagogical

development at LTH. Lecturers and students, present and future, should be givena clear signal that LTH is an institute of higher education that systematically strivesto improve the quality of its teaching. This will be achieved in the following ways.

. Good, ambitious, quality-conscious lecturers will be rewarded by a certificate ofcompetence and an increase in salary. These lecturers and other ambitious tea-chers will be a sign that LTH is investing in good teaching and that there aregoals to aim at.

The pedagogical academy 561

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

. The departments from which lecturers have been admitted to the academy willbe deemed to have better capacity to provide good teaching. Moreover, if thedepartment in question actively supports its lecturers in applying for and obtain-ing this certification, it is believed that, in the long run, they will find it easier torecruit and retain good teachers, and thus good students. For this reason, suchdepartments will receive an additional financial contribution for every employeewho achieves this certification. This system is based on what today is calleddocentur, i.e. achieving the grade of senior lecturer or reader.

. The aim of the system is to initiate positive development, where it is clear that itpays to invest in good, carefully prepared teaching. This in turn will lead to theprofessionalization of teaching, i.e. that good teaching is documented and scru-tinized, and thus acts as a springboard for further development.

. The certified lecturers are assumed to be able to contribute to pedagogicaldevelopment at LTH. This may be realized through active participation inLTH’s pedagogical debate and development, and by acting as mentors foryounger teachers.

This takes place in line with national and international development regarding the per-ception of a university lecturer (Boyer 1990, Healey 2000, Kreber 2000, Trigwell et al.2000, Abrahamsson 2001, Fransson and Wahlen 2001).

5. Criteria for assessmentThe most important part of The pedagogical academy is the criteria for assessing

the portfolios. The criteria are formulated to support the development from a paradigmof teaching to a paradigm of learning at LTH. The criteria also point out the directionof development towards implementing scholarship of teaching as an attitude for theteachers to deal with teaching and learning issues. Having formulated these criteriais very important for the whole process of faculty changing at LTH. It is now obviouswhat aims the whole changing process has.

Communication with students is still the heart of all teaching, but to this are addeda number of skills and qualities required for a university lecturer to obtain the grade ofETP. They are: the ability to co-operate with other lecturers; to have open discussionsabout one’s own and other’s experiences of teaching; the documentation of experi-ence; regarding teaching as a mean of providing students with the requisites for learn-ing instead of seeing it as a final product; and, above all, to have the driving power toscrutinize one’s own teaching and its effects with the aim of continuous improvementand thus the students’ opportunity to learn.

To assess these skills, six criteria have been formulated. They are supported by therapidly growing amount of literature on learning and teaching in the universityenvironment (Biggs and Collis 1982, Ramsden 1992, Barr and Tagg 1995, Ellstrom1996, Bowden and Marton 1999, Biggs 1999, McKeachie 1999, Prosser and Trigwell1999, Trigwell 2001).

The following criteria are to be made clear in the material submitted forassessment.

(1) that the applicant bases his/her work on a learning perspective;(2) that the personal philosophy of the applicant constitutes an integrated whole,

in which different aspects of teaching are described in such a way that the driv-ing force of the applicant is apparent;

562 P. Andersson and T. Roxa

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

(3) that a clear development over time is apparent—the applicant should, prefer-ably, consciously and systematically, have striven to develop personally and inpedagogical activities;

(4) that the applicant has shared his/her experience with others, with the intentionof vitalizing the pedagogical debate;

(5) that the applicant has co-operated with other lecturers in an effort to develophis/her teaching skills;

(6) that the applicant is looking to the future by discussing his/her future develop-ment, and the development of pedagogical activities.

The term learning perspective in the first criterion is essential to the pedagogicalacademy and the workshop the applicants go through is focused on this subject.Today, there is a great deal of literature available which describes the learning per-spective or paradigm and empirical research that confirms its advantages regardingthe generation of students’ learning (Ramsden 1992, Barr and Tagg 1995, Bowdenand Marton 1999). This means, briefly, that a lecturer, in the planning, executionand assessment of his or her teaching, focuses more on the students’ work in the sub-ject than on the teacher’s own work. The focus is on the students’ work and dealingwith the subject that is to be learnt. The opposite is usually described as the teachingperspective, where the focus is instead on the teaching, the teacher’s work, what he orshe does to present the subject to the students in order for the students to learnsomething.

The second criterion focuses on the teacher’s own pedagogical philosophy. Appli-cants have to include aspects of their teaching activities and associated problems.They also must describe the foundation of their pedagogical thinking and reasoning.

The philosophy described should be linked to examples from the teacher’s dailyeducational activity. These examples can be about examinations, motivation, com-munication, student responsibility, etc. As there are many possible aspects, the lecturermust choose a certain number. The aspects chosen and described from the underlyingphilosophy should be connected with each other to reflect an integrated whole. This isequivalent to the fourth level of the SOLO taxonomy, ‘relational’ (Biggs and Collis1982), and can thus constitute a description of the teacher’s understanding of whatis happening in the teaching situation. This means that the chosen aspects should beorganized relative to each other in such a way that it is clear which is of greatestimportance, and which is of less importance.

The third criterion perhaps corresponds most clearly to what Boyer (1990) and hisfollowers mean by ‘scholarship of teaching’, in meaning that the lecturer demonstratesthat he or she, over time, has worked on developing his or her technique as a teacher.This can be done in a number of ways, but the goal must always be that teaching sup-ports learning. The development of teaching thus means that students learn better.Documentation describing the effects on students’ learning should be enclosed.

The research community has demonstrated its ability to make results available forcolleagues to scrutinize and build on for a long time. This assumes documentation ofactivities, the production of data on students’ learning performance and a commonway of expressing these things. Results from research into ‘scholarship of teaching’show quite clearly that there is a demand from teachers for this kind of quality assur-ance in teaching (Kreber 2000), but it also shows that this practice is, today, the excep-tion rather than the rule (Bain 1999). Consequently, the fourth criterion is focused onhow the applicant can refer to reports, journals, seminars or conferences in which, or at

The pedagogical academy 563

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

which, he or she has made public his or her experiences, and become engaged in ascrutinizing dialogue.

Teaching at Lund University has been criticized by many for its lack of a connect-ing thought and context, from the point of view of the students (The Evaluation Office,Lund University 2000). Furthermore, lecturers maintain that they lack support in theirwork (The Evaluation Office, Lund University 1998). We can see nothing but positiveeffects arising from the co-operation of lecturers at LTH. This also includes experi-ence of managing pedagogic activities. What are especially required in the fifth cri-terion are examples of co-operation between lecturers in different subjects or givingdifferent courses. However, other activities in which work related to teaching is per-formed in collaboration with others may also be of importance.

Curriculum vitae often relate to what a person has done. However, experience is ofgreatest value as guidance in future achievements and it should be natural for a goodteacher to be contemplating ideas about what can be achieved in the future. The port-folio should thus, as described in the sixth criterion, include clear thoughts and ideason future development, both for the applicant’s own work and for the context in whichthe applicant is working. Another reason is the important role of The pedagogicalacademy in stimulating pedagogical development at LTH.

Finally, and also very importantly, what is being rewarded is not the use of anyparticular pedagogical method, a special form of teaching or a simple quantitative enu-meration of effort. Rather, reward is given to teachers who, in a reflective and openway, have worked to improve students’ learning.

6. Process of application and acceptanceUniversity lecturers (but not PhD students) may apply to the pedagogical academy.

There are no special demands on how many years the applicant should have lecturedor that he or she should use a special pedagogical method. However, the applicantshould have a broad experience in higher education and should be able to show thathe or she has worked, in a reflecting and open way, to improve the goal of teaching,namely the student’s learning.

Lecturers wishing to apply to the pedagogical academy should:

. attend the workshop ‘How to write a teaching portfolio’;

. submit a teaching portfolio together with a recommendation of their head ofdepartment;

. take part in an interview.

6.1. The workshopThe workshop ‘How to Write a Teaching Portfolio’ is organized regularly. Tea-

chers will be admitted to the workshop following a selection process by submittinga short outline of their teaching portfolio. Participation in the workshop is compulsorybut it does not guarantee that the teacher’s merits will be approved. The aim ofthe workshop is to ensure that the portfolio is presented in the required format andto present opportunities for the participants to communicate and share their experi-ences of teaching and learning.

Important during this workshop is that the teachers train themselves in describingtheir educational activity and the thoughts it is based on to each other with adequatepedagogical terms. They work in smaller groups and give each other feedback on their

564 P. Andersson and T. Roxa

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

portfolio outlines and at the same time also rethink their ideas of teaching and learningand learn from colleagues’ experiences and thinking.

Through this process they are able to get a clearer picture of their development asteachers, the context they work in and its impact on their on actions and thinking. Theyalso become more familiar with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Teaching skills are often what we can call hidden knowledge developed by trialand error and never really made conscious (Schon 1984). It is often also dependenton the context in which the teaching activities take place (Linden 1998). Writing ateaching portfolio starts a process of making the teaching skills conscious and turnsthe experience into professional knowledge not so dependent on the context. Theworkshop supports the teachers in this process, which can be rather difficult aftermany years of experience based on trail and error.

The workshop consists of three seminars including group discussions mixed withinformation about the process of application. Two individual consultations with a peda-gogical expert are also included.

After the workshop the applicant chooses either to hand in the portfolio for assess-ment or to wait and continue his/her work with it.

6.2. The teaching portfolioThe method of using portfolios to assess the quality of a teacher’s teaching skills

has a long tradition and has been found, through studies, to be very reliable. For furtherdetails, see Seldin (1997), Apelgren and Giertz (2001), Karolinska Institute (2001) andMagin (1998).

The portfolio, which is the most important component of the application, consistsof three main parts. The first is a curriculum vitae with a special section dedicated topedagogical activities. The second is a document of one to three pages in lengthdescribing the teacher’s personal reflections regarding teaching and learning. This isto be a personal document, focusing on the different aspects of the teaching role,and in this way forms what can be referred to as the lecturer’s personal teaching phil-osophy. The third part constitutes a description of what the lecturer has achieved. Theexamples (four to five in number) should be related to the second part of the portfolioin such a way that the portfolio constitutes an overview, from which it is evident thatthe lecturer has reflected on teaching over a period of time and has made the effort toimplement his or her ideas in practical teaching. The portfolio is to be related to the sixcriteria described in section 5. References, certificates and other documents supportingthe claims presented should be enclosed.

6.3. The recommendation from the head of departmentThe intention of this document is to show that the head of department is convinced

that the lecturer in question has no shortcomings in his or her relations with the stu-dents. Another intention is to provide the head of department with the opportunityto express an opinion on the pedagogical abilities of the applicant.

6.4. The interviewThe interview is a complement to the recommendation from the head of department

and the portfolio submitted by the applicant. The main aim of the interview is to gain anidea of the lecturer’s ability to communicate verbally the claims made in the portfolio. Itis especially important that the interview is consistent with the portfolio, so that the appli-

The pedagogical academy 565

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

cation is perceived as an integrated whole. The interview also provides an opportunity toclarify confusions that have arisen during the assessor’s reading of the portfolio.

6.5. Assessment and scrutinyThe qualifications of the applicant are assessed by a group of lecturers (the asses-

sors) working at LTH, and who have themselves been awarded the grade of ETP.These are appointed by the rector of LTH. This group of assessors also includes arepresentative appointed by the students’ union at LTH and a pedagogical expert.The assessors read the portfolios and lead the interviews.

The opinion of a scrutinizer will also be appended to the statement of the assessors.This person must also have the grade of ETP. The scrutinizer will have access to theapplicant’s portfolio and other material submitted, and his or her task is to check theclaims made therein. The scrutinizer writes a report that must be available to the asses-sors before the applicant is interviewed.

The assessors have the right to accept or reject the application. They can also referit back to the applicant for supplementation. The result of the assessment together withfeedback on the application are presented to the applicant at an individual meetingwith the pedagogical expert.

6.6. AcceptanceThose applicants whose qualifications have been approved will receive a certificate

of ETP, signed by the rector of LTH. The teacher will also receive an increase in sal-ary, equivalent to that received by those obtaining a senior lectureship or readership(docentur), at present 140 euros per month. The department at which the teacher isemployed will also receive additional funds.

Once awarded the grade of ETP, a teacher cannot lose it, but is expected to con-tinue to strive towards improved teaching practices. This places demands on thosewho have achieved this grade: apart from continuing to work on their own develop-ment, they should act as advisers for other teachers contemplating application to theacademy, and as pedagogical partners in dialogues with others within their depart-ment. They should contribute in other ways to vitalizing the pedagogical debate,and have the responsibility of spreading information about LTH’s pedagogical acad-emy. Furthermore, a lecturer who has been awarded the grade of ETP may be calledupon in the future to be an assessor or a scrutinizer.

If the teacher is not accepted it is possible to hand the portfolio in for assessmentagain. There is no limit to how many times the lecturer can try to be accepted. Hope-fully there will be a learning process in between where the applicant joins pedagogicalcourses and in other ways gains more understanding about teaching and learning inhigher education.

7. Experiences and further developmentThe pedagogical academy was implemented during the autumn term of 2001. Each

head of department nominated one lecturer from the department to be assessed inthe first trial round. In this way, we gained an idea of what a good teacher at LTHis in relation to the given criteria. Furthermore, it provided an opportunity to testthe criteria and the procedures. It also provided LTH with a group of ETP teachers.Up to now about 60 teachers have been through the workshop and now have a teachingportfolio. Fifty teachers have the competence grade ETP.

566 P. Andersson and T. Roxa

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Until 2003 no systematic and scientific studies had been made to determine whatimpact the pedagogical academy has on the development at LTH. During autumn 2003two research projects were started. One is investigating the assessment process in thepedagogical academy. The other is investigating how far the Breakthrough project hasreached its aims and what impact it and the pedagogical academy have had on LTH.

Certain experiences have been had within the pedagogical academy but these havenot yet been scientifically verified. So far a question has been raised on how difficult itis to assess teaching portfolios and what level it takes for a teacher to be excellent, andthe meaning of this. Hopefully some of those questions will come closer to an answerwhen the research projects are finished.

7.1. Experience of implementationTwo factors have been found to be critical in the process of implementation of the

pedagogical academy. Firstly, a sense of ownership by the academic system itselfmust be created. This has been secured through the involvement of all the heads ofdepartments and a widespread understanding that the assessment is done by col-leagues. It is also very important that lecturers representing different departments atthe faculty developed the academy. Secondly, a well-established view that pedagogycan help teachers improve their teaching must exist. This is secured through a longtradition of the extensive, much appreciated and well-attended pedagogical coursesdescribed above.

7.2. Experience of reading teaching portfoliosOne important finding from having teachers write teaching portfolios is that it

gives a much clearer picture of the culture of teaching and learning at the faculty.This information is very helpful when it comes to planning projects and contents incourses for the teachers in teaching and learning.

Some examples that have been noticed in the teaching portfolios so far are:

. The tradition of how a subject is taught seems to affect lecturers a great deal.Teaching at universities is traditionally an individual performance and traditionsalso affect co-operation and discussion where teaching is concerned.

. Many lecturers do not use educational terminology when they describe theirteaching. Their own descriptions indicate that they move between differentsocial contexts. Thinking and doing are connected to their research fields andeducational terminology is not linked to this. However, the differences betweenindividuals are significant.

. Documentation surrounding scholarly teaching is not systematic. Lecturers arenot used to documenting teaching activities, mainly due to a lack of motivationin the past.

The teaching conditions differ considerably between basic scientific subjects andcourses in comparison with applied engineering courses. The size of a course, thenumber of students attending a course and the position within the curriculum areother factors of major importance. It seems to be that in the more specialized, appliedsubjects it is more common that the tradition of teaching is learning focused.

7.3. Experience of writing teaching portfoliosThe work with the teaching portfolios, participation in the workshop and the dia-

logue of teaching and learning practise with colleagues and the assessment process to

The pedagogical academy 567

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

the pedagogical academy seem to have a positive impact of many teachers’ self-esteem. Maybe the process of seeing oneself as a professional teacher and havinggained knowledge of ones’ own strengths and weaknesses creates a feeling of sweet-ness. This also helps the teachers to go further with developing teaching practise.

Still there is a difficulty with some of the teachers who do not pass the assessmentat the first try in making them go further in their development. They see this as a hugefailure. One of the research projects will go deeper into this process.

The heads of the departments at LTH describe in a very brief investigation thatthey have noticed that the dialogue between the teachers about teaching and learningis increasing. They also describe that they feel more secure when they have to changethe way of teaching due to the factors mentioned in section 1.

7.4. Experience of having criteria for pedagogical developmentThe criteria seem to be an important aspect of engaging teachers in pedagogical

development. One professor expressed it as he now finally understood what he wassupposed to do to develop his teaching and learning practise and what that was sup-posed to mean for the development of the faculty. The criteria seem to be cleargoals for the whole work of faculty development at LTH.

Still, they are also evaluated in one of the research projects. What goal they reallypoint at and what impact they have on the teaching portfolios written are investigated.The question is also how they are understood by different actors in the process aroundthe pedagogical academy.

A question arising is what excellence in teaching really is and what it is supposedto be at LTH.

7.5. Research projectsDuring autumn 2003, two research projects were started. One investigated the

assessment process in the Pedagogical Academy and the other investigated howwell the Breakthrough Project has reached its aims and what impact it and the Peda-gogical Academy have had on LTH. With these projects, this system in the Pedago-gical Academy in 2004 is in a process of development. The difficulties of assessingthe competence of teaching and learning were obvious, and models are now devel-oped, based on the findings from the research project concerning the assessment ofthe portfolios. A renewed version of the Pedagogical Academy at LTH hopefullywill be running in 2005.

AcknowledgementI would like to thank all teachers and others at LTH constantly striving to develop

the young people choosing engineering education at LTH to make a better future for usall and to develop the educational practise at LTH.

ReferencesABRAHAMSSON, B., 2001, Careers Through Promotion and Recruiting (Stockholm: The National

Agency for Higher Education) (in Swedish).APELGREN, K. and GIERTZ, B., 2001, Teaching Portfolios (Uppsala: Uppsala University) (in

Swedish).BAIN, J. D., 1999, Introduction to HERD’s special issue concerning evaluation for learning. Higher

Education Research & Development, 18, No. 2.

568 P. Andersson and T. Roxa

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

BARR, R. B. and TAGG, J., 1995, From teaching to learning—a new paradigm for undergraduateeducation. Change, Nov./Dec., 13–25.

BIGGS, J., 1999, Teaching for Quality Learning at University (Milton Keynes: Society for Researchinto Higher Education and Open University Press).

BIGGS, J. B. and COLLIS, K. F., 1982, Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy(New York: Academic Press).

BOWDEN, J. and MARTON, F., 1999, The University of Learning (Kogan Page).BOYER, E. L., 1990, Scholarship Reconsidered. Priorities of the Professoriate (New Jersey:

The Carnegie Foundation).EGIDIUS, H., 1999, Pedagogik for 2000-talet, Natur och kultur, Stockholm (in Swedish).ELLSTROM, P.-E., 1996, In P.-E. ELLSTROM, B. GUSTAVSSON and S. LARSSON (eds), Routine and

Reflection. Prerequisites and Prevention of Learning in Daily Work, Life-long Learning(Lund: Studentlitteratur), pp. 142–179 (in Swedish).

FRANSSON, A. and WAHLEN, S., 2001, New Conditions for Learning in Higher Education (Stockholm:SOU 2001:1).

HEALEY, M., 2000, Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: a discipline-basedapproach. Higher Education Research & Development, 19, No. 2.

KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE, 2001, Teaching portfolios for lecturers at the Karolinska Institute,Stockholm.

KREBER, C., 2000, How university teaching award winners conceptualise academic work: somefurther thought on the meaning of scholarship. Teaching in Higher Education, 5, No. 1.

LINDEN, J., 1998, Handledning av doktorander. Nya Doxa, Nora (in Swedish).MAGIN, D. J., 1998, Rewarding good teaching: a matter of demonstrated proficiency or documented

achievement. International Journal for Academic Development, 3, No. 4.MCKEACHIE, W. J., 1999, Teaching Tips. Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and Univer-

sity Teachers (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).PROSSER, M. and TRIGWELL, K., 1999, Understanding Learning and Teaching. The Experience in

Higher Education (The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open UniversityPress).

RAMSDEN, P., 1992, Learning to Teach in Higher Education (Routledge).SCHON, A. D., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner (Basic Books).SELDIN, P., 1997, The Teaching Portfolio. A Practical Guide to Improved Performance and

Promotion/Tenure Decisions (Bolton, MA: Anker).THE EVALUATION OFFICE, LUND UNIVERSITY, 1998, The Teacher Barometer, Lund (in Swedish).THE EVALUATION OFFICE, LUND UNIVERSITY, 2000, The Student Barometer, Lund (in Swedish).TRIGWELL, K., 2001, Judging university teaching. International Journal for Academic Development,

6, No. 1.TRIGWELL, K., MARTIN, E. et al., 2000, Scholarship of teaching: a model. Higher Education

Research and Development, 19, No. 2.

The pedagogical academy 569

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

04:

39 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014