Higher education institutions are beginning to recognise the importance of ensuring the quality of teaching and learning across all their programs of study. This recognition is linked to the current emphasis on the need for accountability to stakeholders and especially to funding agencies, and to the growing competition between institutions for resources and students (Lally & Myhill, 1994). Staff need to gather data about teaching and learning as evidence of the quality of their teaching and their students' learning. However, as Ramsden et al (1995, p.97) note, "Academics are unskilled at presenting a case for their performance in teaching; members of promotions committees typically receive information which consists of a list of activities and responsibilities. It is impossible to judge a case reliably on such evidence". Therefore, it is important that staff and institutions develop appropriate, valid and reliable strategies for gathering information on teaching and on the quality of student learning.
We raise some issues related to documenting teaching and learning for both professional development and career advancement and discuss ways to ensure that both individual and institutional goals are addressed by the process. Our dilemma is: "How do we document the quality of our teaching and our students' learning in a way that is useful for both professional development and career advancement?"
Whether we like it or not, universities are becoming more corporate, and their senior staff more overtly managerial. Strategic plans proliferate, personnel departments have given way to offices of human resource management, and informal chats with the head of department have been supplemented - and in some cases replaced - by formal staff development planning interviews. Universities today talk about career planning and succession planning like most other large organisations, and the 'old' approaches to recruitment and promotion are making way for more tightly controlled, equity-orientated and carefully documented systems. (cited in Webb, 1994, p.9)The changing face of Australian universities is set against a background of shrinking resources, the massification of higher education, an increased diversity of the student body and increased competition between institutions for resources and students. In addition, these reforms have been occurring at a time when there are calls for the status and quality of teaching to be improved (Baker, 1992; Boyer, 1990; Dearing, 1997; Ramsden, Margetson, Martin, & Clark, 1995; West, 1998) and universities and academics are grappling with the development of mechanisms to evidence good teaching, and with balancing resources and rewards for both teaching and research.
For academic staff these changes have resulted in a need to:
Therefore, it is important that staff and institutions develop appropriate, valid and reliable strategies for gathering information on teaching and on the quality of student learning. For academic staff, many of whom are already expressing concerns regarding the increasing demands placed on them, there is a need to ensure that the information gathering process does not become yet another bureaucratic procedure to add to their ever increasing workload. Universities need to persuade academics that, "instead of feeling oppressed...academics can benefit from systematically reflecting on their careers, from methodically collecting information about their performance, and from being in a position to ask for specific help from the institution in pursuing their career and professional goals" (Candy cited in Webb, 1994, p.10). Brown (1995), also reminds us that teaching quality embraces a broad range of professional activities associated with academic work and goes beyond lecturing and tutoring. Clearly, there are a number of issues that relate to the documentation of quality teaching and learning, for both professional development and career advancement. The question is:
if academic staff genuinely want their students to be analytical and critical thinkers, and able to apply their learning to novel situations and transfer their learning to solve real problems (as professed as the main objectives in most course outlines) then their assessment methods should firstly, encourage the development of such abilities; and secondly, provide students with the opportunity to demonstrate that they have developed these higher order abilities. (Scouller, 1998, p.469)
Lecturers, therefore should be encouraged to familiarise themselves with the findings of current research on student learning, since an understanding of the advances in theoretical conceptions of learning should make a difference to the ways in which they think about the objectives of undergraduate learning and their own teaching. Lecturers often "carry out their roles routinely, without attention to the ways by which the students' skills can be developed and without conscious awareness that different strategies may be appropriate for different situations" (McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin, & Smith, 1986, p.1) and may be associated with different learning outcomes. It is important, therefore, for lecturers to understand how students' use of learning strategies, their motivational orientations and affective reactions, mediate their achievement. A better understanding of the relationship between student learning and academic performance should be of great assistance to lecturers as they attempt to document the quality of their teaching and their students' learning outcomes.
The development of mechanisms for evidencing teaching practice are by now quite well established in most universities. However, before the move to portfolio-based approaches, the focus was almost exclusively on student appraisal of teaching (Marsh & Roche, 1992; Seldin, 1998). Most universities now require a broader range of evidence of teaching quality, as indicated in guidelines for portfolio development (see for example the guidelines for academic staff developed by Griffith University). This evidence may be drawn from self, peers, students and others and should reflect the characteristics of good teaching outlined above. The evidence may therefore include such things as descriptions of:
...in many ways, this is the most difficult category to prepare. Many of the goals of teaching, and thus the 'products of good teaching' are qualitative and not easily documented through the more commonly used quantitative means of recording student achievement. For example, it is relatively easy to list the number of students whose theses you have supervised and their subsequent career outcomes, but more difficult to demonstrate the levels of critical thinking that your undergraduate students of varying abilities have achieved. (Wright & O'Neil, 1995, p.45)Nevertheless, evidence should demonstrate the characteristics of effective learning outlined above. Some suggestions for the kinds of evidence that could be used include:
We should perhaps heed Webb's (1994, p.10) advice that, while we may not like the need to be accountable and may see it as constraining our academic freedom,
...there are also many things we can do to ensure that our careers are not as random and serendipitous as perhaps they were in the past. It is also important for us as academics to understand and participate fully in processes directed towards professional review and our own professional development.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. Washington, DC: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behaviour and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
Brown, S., & Race, P. (1995). Assess your own teaching quality. London: Kogan Page.
Dearing, R. (1997). Higher Education in the learning society. National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education.
Lally, M., & Myhill, M. (1994). Teaching quality: The development of valid instruments of assessment (Evaluations and Investigations Program). Canberra: Department of Employment Education and Training.
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1992). The use of student evaluations of university teaching in different settings: The applicability paradigm. Australian Journal of Education, 36(3), 278-300.
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. A. F. (1986). Teaching and learning in the college classroom. A review of the research literature (Technical Report No. 86-B-001.0). National Centre for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan.
O'Neil, C., & Wright, A. (1995). Recording teaching accomplishment: A Dalhousie guide to the teaching dossier (5 ed.). Canada: Dalhousie University.
Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E., & Clark, S. (1995). Recognising and rewarding good teaching in Australian higher education (A report commissioned by the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching. Final Report). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essays. Higher Education, 35, 453-472.
Seldin, P. (1998). How colleges evaluate teaching. What's new (and not) since 1988. AAHE Bulletin, 50(7), 3-7.
Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411-436.
Webb, G. (1994). Making the most of appraisal: Career and professional development planning for lecturers. London: Kogan Page.
West, R. (1998). Review of higher education financing and policy, Learning for life. (DEETYA Final report, DEETYA Number: 6055HERE 98A). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
|Please cite as: de la Harpe, B., Kulski, M. and Radloff, A. (1999). How best to document the quality of our teaching and our students' learning? In K. Martin, N. Stanley and N. Davison (Eds), Teaching in the Disciplines/ Learning in Context, 108-113. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1999. Perth: UWA. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1999/delaharpe.html|