Professional Development for University Teaching in Australia: A Discussion Paper

Executive Summary

Summary of findings

This document reports on an investigation into:

1. the current central provision of activities related to professional development for the teaching role of academics in Australian universities; and

2. the attitude of key university stakeholders towards the professionalisation of the teaching role of academics.

A survey of 32 universities shows that the provision of both preparation programs and ongoing support for academic staff for their teaching role is uneven and unsystematic. Almost one-quarter of universities do not conduct any initial teaching preparation programs for their staff. Although two-thirds of the universities responding to the survey offer a formal award in teaching in higher education, academic staff enrolment in these courses is low across the sector. The number of universities reporting any systematic training for sessional staff was very low. While these data cannot be interpreted as a comment on the quality of teaching in Australian universities, they reveal a variable level of formal and informal professional development of teaching within institutions and a reluctance among the majority of university staff, especially sessional staff, to engage in the many programs available in the practice and theory of higher education.

The attitudes of stakeholders in the sector to a more systematic approach to the professionalisation of teaching at the university level were explored through interviews with a representative of peak higher education bodies and with groups of sessional, inexperienced and experienced academic staff in six universities. Most peak body representatives perceived that at best the effectiveness of current forms of teaching education for academics in Australian universities was variable while most focus groups reported that it was ineffective. All focus groups and all but one peak body representative responded that universities should be required to provide some form of teaching education for their academic staff. The perceived ineffectiveness of the current provision was seen to be influenced primarily by heavy workloads and a lack of resources precluding staff from taking and being offered teaching education opportunities.

Based on the results of the survey on current practices in universities, the views of key stakeholders and academic staff, and current developments in university teaching, both in Australia and overseas, a series of recommendations concerning the professionalisation of university teaching is proposed. Some may object that to focus on the professionalisation of the teaching role of academics could lead to a breach of ‘the idea of the university’ as a place where research informs teaching and vice versa. However, it is widely agreed that while the research role of academic work is professionalised through doctoral study and active engagement in a scholarly community, there is no commensurate rigour in the preparation and ongoing support for the teaching role.

Recommendations

1. All staff new to university teaching should be required to complete either a formal preparation program in university teaching or a portfolio demonstrating their teaching competence as part of their probation requirements.

2. Given the requirements for (a) quality assurance, (b) the need for a form of recognition that is portable, and (c) the need to embed university teaching in a scholarly framework subject to peer review, teaching preparation programs and teaching portfolios should form part of formal award courses.

3. The minimum standard required for professional practice as a university teacher should be that represented by the Graduate Certificate level. Possession of a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education would act as a proxy for teaching expertise just as possession of a Masters/PhD reflects discipline expertise.

4. Graduate Certificates in Higher Education should incorporate assessment of learning outcomes related to both theoretical knowledge about student learning as well as practical skills in facilitating learning.

5. The structure of Graduate Certificate in Higher Education programs should be flexible enough to allow for the needs and characteristics of different institutions and disciplinary fields, both in terms of mode of delivery and of curriculum.

6. Institutions should be specifically funded as part of their operating grant to provide the necessary resources (mainly in the form of time release) to support new staff while they obtain appropriate qualifications in teaching as part of the overall quality assurance system for Australian higher education. This would entail the establishment of a national Teaching Quality Fund. Funding to institutions would be based on actual numbers of teaching staff at each institution, individual missions, discipline specialties and staffing profiles. Individual institutions would be responsible and accountable for the dispersal of funds for either formal programs of teaching offered in their own institution, or for enrolment of their staff in another institution’s programs.

7. Institutions should be specifically funded from the Teaching Quality Fund as part of their operating grant to provide the necessary resources (mainly in the form of time release) to support existing university teaching staff who do not possess higher education qualifications in teaching to undertake an award course as part of the overall quality assurance system for Australian higher education.

8. There should be an expectation that sessional staff undertake a minimal level of teaching preparation before being offered a contract for teaching. Institutions should be specifically funded from the Teaching Quality Fund as part of their operating grant to provide the necessary resources for this development, including payment of sessional staff for teaching development time.

9. Preparation programs for sessional teaching staff should, as a minimum, represent components of an accredited Graduate Certificate of Higher Education. This would enable staff wishing to complete a Graduate Certificate to do so.

10. Institutions should either provide, or provide access to, further qualifications in higher education building on the Graduate Certificate as part of their overall strategy of ongoing staff development and quality enhancement.

11. Institutions should be specifically funded from the Teaching Quality Fund through their operating grant to provide comprehensive ongoing professional development programs for their teaching staff as part of the overall quality assurance system for Australian higher education.

12. Schemes which recognise individuals who have demonstrated high quality teaching, such as the new Fellowship membership scheme of the Higher Education, Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), should be encouraged.

13. Consideration should be given to accrediting Graduate Certificate in Higher Education programs at a national level with a new body, the Australian University Teaching Quality Council, consisting of key stakeholders including practitioners, student representatives and industrial bodies in order to provide a mechanism for benchmarking, peer review and quality assurance.

14. Since professionalisation of university teaching is an incremental process, there should be a staged implementation of these recommendations beginning with the distribution of this Discussion Paper to all stakeholders and following the stages outlined in section 5.2 of this paper.

Full Report    (481.05 KB)