A SUBMISSION TO THE REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCING AND POLICY
by the
COMMITTEE FOR UNIVERSITY TEACHING AND STAFF
DEVELOPMENT
(CUTSD)
Professor Ingrid Moses
Chair, Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development
for the Committee
CUTSD welcomes the opportunity to contribute through this submission to the shaping of university education for the next few decades.
CUTSD was established in 1996 by the Hon Senator, Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs with the following brief:
"Against the background of the Government’s commitment to promote quality and excellence in teaching and to ensure that university staff are adequately prepared and assisted in carrying out their work responsibilities, the Committee’s objectives are to:
"identify and promote good teaching, learning and assessment practices in universities; encourage and foster innovation in higher education teaching; and provide staff development opportunities for academic and administrative staff."
The mission of CUTSD therefore cuts across two of the review themes, Regulatory and administrative frameworks, and Financing teaching and research training. But we also wish to comment on the role of higher education in society and the economy.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN SOCIETY AND THE ECONOMY
Over the past decades we have experienced in Australia a dramatic expansion of higher education. Within a short time we moved from elite higher education to mass higher education; new universities were founded and organised internally in new ways. The foundation of these new universities was complemented by a coherent strategy for an advanced education sector which encouraged enrolment of a more diverse student body in a large range of traditional and new vocational and professional courses.
In the ten years 1963 to 1973 the total student numbers in higher education had doubled, doubled again within two years, with a total increase from 1973 to 1993 of 432 %. (DEETYA, 1996:1) In terms of student participation rates, Australia had entered mass higher education well before issues of the transition from elite to mass higher education were debated in 1993. From 1993 to 1996 there was a further increase of 10 % in total student numbers.
With mass education, the role of higher education must change in its relation to society and the economy, just as society and the economy change through their close interaction with higher education and the large number of graduates as citizens and employees/employers.
The demands of our fast changing society and economy require an educated population and workforce, who are not only open to new developments, but who anticipate and adapt to change, and who are creative and confident in their ability to learn - to learn new skills, to learn appropriate ways for keeping up-to-date with fast changing knowledge bases in the professions, and learn how to see and seek opportunities.
Clearly, higher education institutions already play a crucial part in preparing graduates for roles which demand key skills and knowledge and the ability to engage in effective continuing education, and which also require an openness of mind to new social, economic and cultural challenges.
In a mass higher education system, universities have multiple roles. Some of these roles were easier to reconcile while there was plentiful funding. But in times of static or declining funding they are in conflict: teaching and student advising take place in a market environment where students are attracted by promises of innovative and relevant courses, by courses and teaching which meet their individual learning needs or those of accrediting professional bodies, by good employment prospects, and by caring staff. The use of the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and the Graduate Destination Survey (GDS) in the marketing of universities bears witness to this.
The CEQ and the GDS are themselves reflections of the ways in which universities have increasingly focused on the appropriateness of the curriculum in meeting student expectations and maximising graduate employability, while continuing to ensure that the curriculum embodies the highest standards of pedagogy and scholarship. These demands are not always directly compatible, and require universities to monitor closely the balance between the applied, professionally oriented content of the curriculum and the more broadly applicable academic content. The sharp distinction which is sometimes drawn between the academic and the applied, or between general education and skills acquisition, can obscure the reality that the university curriculum - regardless of the content area - must successfully combine both.
In addition to this move towards a mass higher education system which is responsive to an increasingly diverse group of students and other ‘clients’, Australian universities have had to adapt to rapid and pervasive changes within communication and information technology. While this provides greatly enhanced flexibility and responsiveness, it also increases the complexity and - at least in the initial stages - the cost of much academic work, including teaching.
To meet these demands Australian universities need staff who are highly competent, highly committed, and highly knowledgable - knowledgeable not only in the discipline or field of study but in pedagogy and the appropriate use of technology. This makes heavy demands on staff and on their institutions.
Similarly, research and research funding as well as technology transfer operate in a competitive environment. Competition is for resources, for contracts, for status and for reputation. And internally the research and teaching functions not only complement and enrich each other but also compete for resources and for status.
In addition to these core functions are auxiliary ones: service to the university, the community and to the profession; socio-political ones like access and equity emanating from the political process; and economic ones like the production of employable and flexible graduates.
Values have changed for at least parts of the institution from educational to instrumental. The quest for external funding underlines this - entrepreneurial outlook and ability have become values in themselves, instead of enabling the core business of universities.
REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORKS
Whatever type of education a university provides, there are some fundamental requirements. Universities whether new or old, large or small, are foremost centres of and for learning and scholarship and research, for learning as a process, an activity, and for learning as an outcome. Scholarship supports this process and is integral to the outcome. The University is also a community of members: of staff who have been trained in a discipline or profession and are able to engage in higher learning and engage others in higher learning; and of students who participate actively in the learning. It is central to the learning process through teaching and research that interaction take place between students, and between students and staff, ie scholars and professionals, professional scholars and scholarly professionals.
If the essential criterion for a ‘university’ - that it be primarily a place of learning - is accepted, then,
- even in a mass higher education system;
- even in a system where all higher education institutions are called ‘university’ as they are in ours;
- even in a system where some universities concentrate more on discipline-based research, research training and education, and others focus more on professional and vocational courses and continuing professional development through postgraduate courses;
- even in a system where many students are ill-prepared for rigorous academic study, and where many students have cultural and language difficulties, many students are not motivated, many students are unsure of their needs and goals -
there must be a culture of learning in each university, whatever its mission.
Regulatory mechanisms to support this might be:
Incentive funding
What are the incentives for universities, for departments/schools, for individual staff to improve courses and teaching, to create this culture of learning?
There is no financial incentive for universities to improve, now that the quality reviews with financial rewards are finished. Government funding of universities does not acknowledge in a positive or negative way the quality of courses and of teaching and learning, however it might be measured. There is no incentive funding for mainstream educational activities. Yet we know from universities’ responses to the quality review process and to incentive funding for particular programs, including for research, that universities on the whole seek new funds for whatever purpose they have been made available. Thus incentive funding can be used to change courses and teaching.
The evaluations of the programs conducted by the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching (CAUT) and of the Commonwealth Staff Development Fund have demonstrated clear benefits for individuals and institutions. The award of a grant afforded the recipient(s) incentive, status and collaborative working relationships. CUTSD commissioned a study of the 1994 CAUT grants (excluding those included in other studies). The evaluation report by Dr Elizabeth Sommerlad included the following comments (the Evaluation Summary is included as Appendix):
"Projects have produced an impressive range of educational materials as the tangible output of their teaching development. These include free-standing products, packages of educational materials, process methodologies, assessment frameworks and tools and software templates or tools for new ways or presenting content.
"With few exceptions, there has been wide take-up of the project materials and other outputs by the staff who developed them. The project leaders of twenty-six projects have now introduced the materials into their courses or have more fully embedded them into their teaching practices, some for up to three years. Around 7,000 students are currently benefiting from the introduction of the teaching development.
"Although an assessment of the pedagogic effectiveness of teaching development was beyond the scope of this study, we nonetheless observed that the project outputs were generally underpinned by good educational principles and that teaching staff adopted a variety of strategies to support their effective integration. Characteristics of projects that contributed to their effective take-up and use included: adaptability to different learning settings, flexibility in how they could be used, the integration of support materials (for both staff and students), the coherence with other parts of the curriculum such as assessment, assignments, lab sessions etc.
"Overall, the impact of the projects on student learning appeared to be very positive. Among the gains reported were: improved motivation to learn, increased satisfaction with the process of learning, improved skills in the use of IT which add value to student learning, the development of better conceptual development and the acquisition of generic skills. The results of some individual project evaluations showed differential results from different groups of students.
"Nearly all the academic staff involved in the CAUT teaching developments had found their experience of developing and implementing the project to be immensely rewarding and valuable in terms of their professional development. A significant proportion are continuing to further enhance and build on their project outputs and to engage in an ongoing process of innovation and change."
This independent evaluation clearly demonstrates the value of incentive funds distributed through a systems-wide competition in bringing about change.
CUTSD recommends that the Government continue to support the CUTSD programs and explore ways of using additional incentive funding [ie additional to the operating grant and the CUTSD allocation] to advance innovative, cost-effective and educationally sound teaching and learning activities across institutions.
Universities are, of course, affected by factors other than funding. They are affected by professional accreditation reviews, by media reports and public perception of their standing. The effect of these factors on student enrolment, however, has not yet been determined.
Quality reviews
The Quality reviews have had both positive and negative impacts on higher education institutions. The proposed quality review procedures need to capitalise on the positive effects and minimise the negatives ones. This means that institutional processes, institutional commitment to quality in teaching and learning, and outcomes of teaching and learning need to remain open for audit, if not for assessment. The enforced development of policies, and the follow up of their implementation, the development of databases on the student and graduate experience have contributed to increased awareness within the higher education institutions of their responsibility to students and to the community. Seeing students as consumers, and students seeing themselves as consumers, heightens responsiveness within the higher education sector without necessarily negating the traditional educative function and mission.
There are some well-intentioned excesses to be avoided:
- promotion of ‘best practice’ when we want to encourage diversity;
- promotion of policies and procedures where there is no proven link to improved outcome; and
- use of performance indicators in isolation and without a context.
Teaching credentials
University staff on the whole are highly trained in research and/or proficient in professional practice. Universities encourage their scholarly growth through a system of research study leave. In general, however, for they key task of teaching, staff, on the whole, are not well prepared. CUTSD supports the view expressed by the AVCC (Guidelines for Effective University Teaching) that teaching is a scholarly activity. This view is derived from Ernest Boyer’s reconceptualisation of academic work as scholarly activity in four different areas, including teaching. In order to conduct teaching in a scholarly manner, staff need to have the educational know-how to assess teaching-and-learning styles, how to formulate learning objectives and how to meet them best, to meet individual students where they are at, and, above all, how to motivate them.
CUTSD believes that academic staff should have opportunities for their professional growth as teachers as much as they have for their function as researchers. Most academics with their disciplinary or professionally-based knowledge have no research-based knowledge of how students learn or how to facilitate learning. Yet this is increasingly important when university curricula try to develop in students generic skills, not just subject competence.
Several Australian universities offer graduate certificates or graduate diplomas in higher education or in teaching and learning. They generally aim to provide the education know-how needed and to help staff to focus or re-focus on facilitating student learning. Evaluations of such programs have shown that (a) new staff find them helpful in establishing their teaching career with confidence and competence, and (b) experienced staff re-assess their teaching and become re-motivated.
CUTSD recommends that all Australian universities encourage their academic staff to participate in a program of systematic learning about teaching and learning by offering courses themselves or enabling staff to participate in courses offered elsewhere, including during periods of study leave.
Many of our research students will take up academic careers. But already during their degree studies many research students teach undergraduates. The impact of these teaching assistants on graduate students would be much enhanced if they had some training in tertiary teaching.
CUTSD recommends that incentive funding be made available to allow universities to develop programs for research students to acquire teaching skills, or to enable them to participate in other institutions’ programs.
FINANCING TEACHING AND RESEARCH TRAINING
Core funding
Australian universities have not only grown in size and number in the past decades, the diversity in teaching and learning arrangements, and the focus on student learning has been internationally acknowledged. Yet to remain at the forefront of education requires more resources. If we want to offer all potential and enrolled students throughout their lives real choices in when and how and where they study, then we need to invest more in infrastructure and in particular in information technology.
Information technology will enable students throughout Australia, indeed throughout the world to participate in on- and off-campus learning and research and strengthen Australia’s connections with other parts of the world.
The Committee strongly recommends that government in Australia should continue to fund the core functions of higher education institutions through a funding system that is both predictable and adequate.
Predictable means that institutions can plan for a (minimum) number of students in a range of disciplines; the onus would be on institutions to attract students of sufficient calibre to these courses. If institutions are to build up staff expertise, encourage a culture of learning, develop innovative teaching, assessment and learning practices, then a certain level of funding needs to be negotiated well in advance.
The Committee is well aware that research funds and research infrastructure are partly allocated on a competitive basis. It does not propose that funding for teaching occur in this way. However, it does advocate greater attention to outcomes. While the Committee does not advocate a clawback as occurred with the Research Quantum, additional funding could be made available and be allocated on the basis of agreed performance indicators, which take into account the background of students, and of progression and attrition rates.
Adequate funding means funding which allows institutions in a mass higher education system
- to add value by enabling and empowering students of less than optimal preparation to graduate through institutional provision of additional teaching, courses and learning resources;
- to build up an infrastructure which supports on- and off-campus teaching and learning;
- to offer salaries to academic and other staff which are competitive and can attract persons with the required levels of expertise and experience;
- to develop and implement staff development programs which enable staff to acquire and to enhance relevant teaching and assessment skills; and
- to contribute to the internationalisation and globalisation of higher education through, for example, scholarships for international students.
The Committee accepts that additional funding sources need to be found and that other sectors of the community as well as students can legitimately be asked to contribute to research and education.
Research training
The Committee is pleased to see ‘research training’ associated with ‘teaching’. Research training is crucial for the continuation of our scientific expertise, for the continuation of the academic profession, and indeed for many professional leaders who need to be able to evaluate research data. Research training often takes place in conjunction with research projects, funded from Commonwealth competitive grants or from contract research. While it is important for some of the research training to be carried out on practical problems, it is an undesirable trend to have such training funded through contract research.
Industry contributions are most welcome, but the integrity and completeness of research training is best guaranteed through adequate funding for universities. In all disciplines and fields of study research training requires intensive interaction with supervisor(s) and access to up-to-date equipment. While some such equipment may be funded via research funds, it is preferable to acknowledge the needs of research students directly.
Similarly, research students are not assisted in their career, whether in academia or private industry, if their thesis is commercial-in-confidence.
CUTSD recommends that appropriate levels of funding for teaching and research training be provided which will allow universities to train students in all research areas, including all areas of applied research areas without having to rely on private sector funding.
IN CONCLUSION
CUTSD sees the Government of Australia continuing to play a major role in the funding of higher education. It believes that it is in the country’s interest to have a diverse system with core funding provided by government.
CUTSD affirms the importance of all universities being funded for research and teaching, albeit on a competitive basis for research.
CUTSD stresses that teaching in higher education requires extensive preparation and continuing professional development by adequate staff; requires time for scholarship and research, and requires a physical and technological infrastructure to support it.
The Committee appends its Terms of Reference and the summary of a recent evaluation report, and refers to the AVCC Guidelines for Effective University Teaching, submitted separately.