Teaching and Learning Forum 2006 Home Page

Category: Professional practice
Teaching and Learning Forum 2006 [ Refereed papers ]
Incentives for adopting teaching initiatives in science

Jo Pluske
Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences
The University of Western Australia

Trevor Holmes
Teaching Support Services
University of Guelph

Many academics who teach science related subjects at university level are also heavily involved in scientific research. While teaching for most of these people is done to the best of their ability, few indicators are used to assess achievements in teaching and hence teaching goes largely unrewarded. Conversely a scientist's success in research may be measured in publications, awards and invitations to speak at conferences. It is therefore not surprising that an academic will further their research career before their teaching career. The aim of this paper is to review two similar science faculties, one in Western Australia and the other in Ontario, Canada, in terms of incentives provided to adopt teaching and learning initiatives and then to make recommendations for science teaching awards at the university level.

The scan of our two environments is timely; we have found some striking similarities in challenges and pressures as well as in the will to recognise teaching and learning activities within our respective institutions and countries. We found that some awards have grown organically where others have been more intentional in relation to a focus on future recognitions, that there are useful standards for the creation of authentic and effective awards, and that an effective awards initiative can only be so in the context of an overall teaching reward and incentive program. Further research is recommended to measure accurately the impact of teaching and learning awards on those who win them and on those who do not.


Introduction

University academics are more likely to pursue a research career than a teaching career. This notion is often discussed within academia at all levels and expressed more specifically by academics such as Martin (1998) who wrote:
It is well recognised within academia that research is much more highly valued than teaching. Producing large amounts of research can help an academic to get ahead; doing no research can be a serious hindrance. Doing top quality teaching does little for an academic's career, and often it can be a hindrance if it takes too much time away from research; being a poor teacher seldom is a serious career disadvantage.
Such an attitude is perhaps not unexpected given that the Australian Department of Education, Science and Training acknowledge that:
Although teaching is recognised as a core activity of all higher education providers, current Australian Government funding, internal staff promotion practices and institutional prestige tend to reinforce the importance of research performance rather than teaching performance (DEST 2004).
The question is then, why should academics be encouraged to better their teaching and learning performance? The answer is perhaps simply that times are changing. In the late 1960s, 70s and early 80s there were large recruitments in Australian universities of young academic staff (Hugo 2005). At that same time universities were encouraged to monitor their own performance and, even following a review during the 1980s there was no way to check that institutions acted upon review recommendations (DEST 2005a). In addition, since the early 1990's there has been a rapid decline in recruitment of young staff in Australian universities combined with an increase in teaching loads of one third over the period 1996 to 2003 (Hugo 2005). As a consequence the majority of university academics, who quite possibly have a mindset that they can teach how they want to because their performance in the past was not assessed, now have to deal with more teaching. In addition, to introduce the concept of linking funding with teaching performance as explained by DEST (2004) is likely to produce additional challenges for all academics, but more specifically for those who have comprehensive research programs and therefore due to time constraints, a set way of coping with their teaching.

The next question then is how to encourage academics to better their teaching and learning performance? One suggestion is positive reinforcement, incentive through reward. Carusetta (2001) notes that there is limited literature on teaching awards and in many reviews of teaching and learning there appears to be little emphasis place on awards and a divided attitude as to the benefits that they generate to teaching and learning. It would also seem that following Levitt and Dubner's (2005) reasoning, rewards should be offered to provide incentives for improvement and not incentives for cheating and the process should be transparent enough to ensure that morality overrides corruptness. A review of the Australian Awards for University Teaching completed by Ballantyne et al. (2003) indicated that this Scheme helped raise the profile of teaching in universities and also had a positive impact on teaching quality. Even so, this same report acknowledged that the Scheme could be improved to further enhance the quality of teaching and learning in universities. To effectively achieve this ambition by addressing all of the recommendations suggested in the report, and perhaps others, in the short term, at a National level, is perhaps ambitious. To begin at the Faculty level to formulate teaching awards as incentives for adopting teaching and learning initiatives in science, is practical and instead a good place to start. Furthermore, drawing on Carusetta's (2001) review of the Stuart Award offered at the University of New Brunswick will provide valuable guidelines for an effective awards proposal.

One aim of this paper is to suggest new awards, at the Faculty level, with the hope of recognising dedication and excellence in teaching science as well as providing incentives for academics to adopt new innovations in teaching. As a case study, the paper will briefly review the reward systems currently in place for two similar science faculties, the Ontario Agricultural College (OAC), The University of Guelph, Canada and the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences (FNAS) at The University of Western Australia (UWA). From this overview, suggestions for an improved reward system for FNAS will be presented as an example of an award system for teaching and learning in science. The thinking behind these awards will incorporate the recommendations (reproduced in Appendix 1) suggested by Ballantyne et al. (2003). As to the effectiveness of these awards in inducing more academics to further their knowledge in teaching and learning issues is explored in the conclusion of this paper.

An overview of teaching and learning awards in two different science faculties

The Ontario Agricultural College

Guelph defines itself as a "research-intensive, learner-centred" University. In a Canadian context it is considered a "comprehensive" university and frequently scores highest in the country on independent measures of research intensiveness and overall quality. Measures of learner-centredness are more difficult to find and adjudicate, but there is a will to do so (UG 2005a). Just as in other countries, research tends to win the day in departmental hirings, promotion and tenure decisions, and general ethos.

The University of Guelph sets high standards for teaching excellence. The University's Faculty Policy provides the opportunity for an individual faculty member to seek promotion based on a distribution of effort that is more heavily weighted towards teaching, and may therefore be considered as one potential path in terms of career emphasis. Whether one's area of emphasis or part of a balanced overall distribution of effort, there is the expectation that teaching will include an element of scholarship. Teaching is therefore an important component of each academic's evaluation in the tenure and promotion process and a teaching dossier that includes their philosophy, teaching strategies and achievements is a mandatory part of each faculty member's biennial review.

At the College level, academics have the opportunity to nominate for the OAC Alumni sponsored Distinguished Teaching Award (TSS 2005a). Interestingly it is given alongside two others: the OAC Alumni Distinguished Extension Award and Distinguished Research Award. Faculty from across the OAC Departments win all three of the awards; that is, there is no particular Department that seems to win the Research, Teaching, or Extension Awards more than another Department (UG, 2005b).

Guelph has two University-wide teaching awards, the University of Guelph Faculty Association (UGFA) Teaching Awards and the John Bell Award. The first of these awards recognises teaching excellence in its broadest sense with up to six awards granted each year recognising excellence in one or more of the following areas: curriculum development; classroom instruction; research on university teaching; development of innovative teaching methods; and graduate student supervision. It is worth noting that an award is intended for one member of each College, but if no suitable candidate is nominated, one will not be granted for the sake of this tradition. The John Bell Award is a Senate award that recognises academics who make outstanding contributions to university education at the University. One faculty member is recognised annually, although there was no recipient in 1999 or 2002. The award recognises individual academics who have: made outstanding contributions in course and curriculum design, and who have shown educational leadership; and/or for whom there exists substantial evidence of contributions to the development of materials, procedures, and ideas concerning university education.

The newest award at the University-wide level militates against what Lee (2005) has decried as the "individual exceptionalism" of teaching awards by encouraging teams to be nominated. The idea for the Provost's Award for Innovation in Teaching and Learning with Technology grew from the 2003 Teaching and Learning Innovation Conference where participants made it clear that efforts to create teaching materials and/or learning activities needed to be recognised and valued formally to encourage innovation (TSS 2005b). In thinking about the creation of a new award, a working group identified many of the problems with teaching awards more explicitly described in a review of the literature by Carusetta (2001), including vague criteria, suspicion of the actual merit (versus cronyism or tokenism or other bias), erratic procedures, and so on, all of which can exist in any awards program. The result in the case of the Provost's Award is a clear set of criteria published on the website and adhered to by the selection committee. As a new University-wide award, it is germane to this paper to note that of the four total nominees, two of the nominees were from the OAC. The other two were from biological and veterinary sciences, respectively. It would appear then, that in this first iteration, the Awards speak directly to academics working on innovative teaching and learning projects.

The University is well aware that criteria for local awards can often be matched to those for external awards at the provincial level - the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) - and the national - 3M Teaching Fellowship (10 individuals per annum) or the Alan Blizzard (for collaborative projects that improve student learning).

The Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences

UWA is a leading Australian university (Go8 2005) and is dedicated to high quality teaching, research and community involvement. In terms of teaching, all academics will be required to have a portfolio, that includes teaching performance evidence, to be use in performance management reviews by 2006 (UWA 2005a). In addition, at the completion of a unit, students evaluate it using in a short questionnaire (SURF).

Academics in FNAS may be recognised at a University level for their teaching by two different awards: the Excellence in Teaching (and Supervision) Awards; and the Distinguished Teaching and Learning Award for Schools. Currently there aren't any awards for teaching at the Faculty level. At a national level it is also possible to nominate for the Australian Awards for University Teaching.

As documented on their website, UWA Guild (2005) explain that the Excellence in Teaching (and Supervision) Awards began in 1991 as a Guild initiative. Since then, the awards have developed as a joint initiative with the University. The six awards aim to recognise excellence in teaching and supervision at both the individual and team level and are governed by a joint Guild/University Committee. The awards are student nominated and students are also a part of the judging panels. For a description of the awards and criteria see UWA Guild (2005).

Since the University restructure in 2002 nobody from the newly created FNAS has won an Excellence in Teaching Award. It is interesting to note that there weren't any nominations received for teachers in FNAS for any award in 2004 and possibly 2003 and 2002 (this information is not easily accessible). In 2003 an 'Individual Teaching - first Year (Division 2 - includes the Faculties of Engineering, Computing and Maths, Life and Physical Sciences, Medicine and Dentistry and Natural and Agricultural Sciences)' award was not awarded (UWA 2005b). This was despite results from the 2004 SURF questionnaires indicating that generally the perception of teaching in FNAS was similar to that in other faculties on campus (UWA 2005c).

As described in the guidelines (UWA 2005d), the Teaching and Learning Committee introduced a Distinguished Departmental Teaching and Learning Award in 1998 as a biennial award to reward teaching excellence in the departments. In 2002, with the implementation of University-wide restructuring it was agreed that the focus of this Award should be with the school. The aim of the Award is to encourage, promote and reward excellence in teaching and learning at the school level, to complement the Excellence in Teaching Awards at the individual level, and the National Teaching Awards. The winning school receives funding to support the appointment of a Lecturer (0.5 FTE) who will support the School in its priorities in teaching and learning such as in outcomes based education, on-line learning, and the like. In 2004, as a special award, the School of Plant Biology within FNAS was given a high commendation and presented with $15,000.

The Australian awards for University teaching recognises outstanding university teaching programs and individual teachers. Each year UWA selects three nominees for this award (UWA 2005e). In 2004, there was one nominee from FNAS.

Conclusion

While the emphasis on research and teaching and learning at OAC and FNAS (and indeed the universities that they are positioned in) is similar and individuals and groups have been seen to excel, there is opportunity for academics in OAC to apply for awards at the faculty level. However, the question as to whether these awards provide enough incentive to enhance better teaching and learning and whether they capture factors such as dedication to teaching and learning could not be deduced from this brief overview. One could go further to ask if the lack of award nominations for academics in FNAS indicates that teachers in this Faculty do not meet the criteria for any award? If this is the case then possibly there are serious teaching concerns to consider. Alternatively, perhaps there is lack of incentive on behalf of the students and academics to participate in the process. If this is the case then maybe there are equity concerns with respect to lecturers receiving awards under this process?

New teaching and learning awards for FNAS

How do those engaged in teaching and learning support for academics encourage learning and reward those who engage in that learning? Following on from the previous discussion, perhaps a useful exercise would be to explore possible awards that focus on specific aspects of teaching and learning with FNAS used as an example Faculty. Furthermore, this proposed awards structure could also act as a catalyst for generating data so that the questions raised in the previous section can be better addressed at some future opportunity.

Before suggesting what new awards in FNAS should look like, it is perhaps wise to note the important attributes of awards that are alluded to by Carusetta (2001). The awards should be based on sound teaching principles with criteria that are clearly understood by nominees and those evaluating the applications. Although Carusetta (2001) suggests removing the Likert scale as a tool for evaluation and instead moving towards a more qualitative method of assessment, in science time is important and evaluators need a fast and transparent assessment method. The Likert scale is effective if the questions or in this case criteria, are clearly stated and implicit. Awards should also be representative so that all academics involved in teaching despite, their gender, race, age, field of study or appointment conditions, are eligible. Interestingly Carusetta (2001) found that at the University of New Brunswick not all fields were equally represented in the nominations for the Stuart Award and this was especially so due to the low number of nominations from the science field. There should also be enough awards to encourage nominations. If the chance of winning is poor, academics will use their time in more productive ways than applying for an award that they have little chance of winning. Furthermore, winning an award should not incur burden and hence reluctance for people to apply. The public perception of awards should be positive with the media happy to cover them. The award system should generate information so that everyone from students to policy makers have a better grasp of the quality of teaching being done, the workload on staff and the influence of external funding for teaching.

These suggested teaching and learning awards for FNAS academics would not be intended to replace or detract from the current awards offered but rather to further encourage and recognise innovative, dedicated and excellent teachers who have engaged in learning. To ensure the credibility of these awards it is recommended that they have a strong but not cumbersome nomination and assessment criteria, and that they should be recognised at the Faculty, University, State and National levels. This element is important for encouraging academics to further their teaching careers as well as providing them with meaningful recognition when applying for promotion within the University or employment in other universities or institutions. Having organisations sponsor these awards may help the community recognise that UWA is serious about teaching and learning and ensuring that students have a positive university experience.

The overarching aims of the following awards are therefore to: recognise people contributing to teaching in various ways; encourage teaching and learning portfolio development; support documentation of good and innovative teaching practices; promote reflection and sharing of teaching strategies especially among peers; identify efficient teachers with limited resources; and to acknowledge novel ways for dealing with increasing student numbers. Six awards are proposed as examples to capture one or more of these aspects in each award. Discussion as to specific award names and objectives would be required before implementation of any system. However, for the purpose of this paper the following general descriptions of each of the six awards are provided as:

  1. Development in undergraduate teaching and learning

    The UWA strategic plan (UWA 2004) states the education principles that all academics are obliged to be familiar with and to follow. To help students achieve the aims set within these principles, teachers are encouraged to adopt initiatives such as outcomes based education and flexible learning. The aim of this award is to recognise staff who have contributed significantly to developing teaching material in units by acknowledging: their effort to improving a unit/s; mechanisms developed to capture student interest in the unit and/or to improve learning; challenges encountered in teaching and methods developed to respond to these challenges; use of student, peer and/or other feedback to reflect on, and enhance unit development.

  2. Commitment to teaching and learning

    Units containing content relevant for students studying in different degrees are generally referred to as service units. Most often these units are compulsory. Therefore teaching in these units has to be innovative to capture the attention of a wide audience. Often there are also large numbers of students enrolled within each unit. The purpose of this award is to identify staff who have contributed significantly to teaching in service units by recognising: their effort to convey general and/or generic concepts to achieve outcomes; mechanisms developed to capture student interest in the unit and/or to improve learning; challenges encountered and methods developed to respond to these challenges; use of student, peer and/or other feedback to reflect on, and enhance unit development.

  3. Commitment to research project supervision teaching and learning

    As explained in DEST (2005b) students enrolled in research degrees in Australian Universities, at the doctorate and masters levels, after 1 September 2000 have one year less to complete their degrees. Furthermore, faculties receive the bulk of their funding for postgraduate students once they have completed their degrees and the more students the more funding faculties receive. This award is to recognise academics who have met these challenges and contributed significantly to developing research project supervision by realising: their effort to improve supervision of research students; their attempts to ensure the best outcomes for the student and/or to improve learning; management of group and/or individual progress; use of student, peer and/or other feedback to reflect on, and improve their supervision.

  4. Service to teaching and learning

    As stated in the introduction to this paper, teaching loads have increased in Australian universities with some academics having to balance research and community efforts with increased or difficult teaching commitments. The award is proposed to acknowledge academics in such a situation who have contributed significantly to undergraduate and postgraduate teaching by appreciating: their difficult teaching load and/or the nature of the units/supervision they are involved with; initiatives developed to manage their workload efficiently whilst maintaining quality; how they respond to challenges encountered; use of student, peer and/or other feedback to reflect on, and enhance their teaching.

  5. Innovation in teaching and learning

    Competition for students within universities and between them is likely to increase due to many drivers including funding. As a consequence, faculties will need to become more innovative in degrees that they offer and academics, more innovative in what they teach. The aim of this award is to acknowledge academics who have created new teaching material/s and/or who have been instigators in identifying avenues for change in teaching and learning by recognising: their contribution to the innovation; the integration of unit and/or graduate outcomes into their innovation; how they respond to challenges encountered; the integration of student and industry (where relevant) perspectives into developing the innovation.

  6. Advancement in teaching and learning

    The Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning at UWA provides programs and resources to help teachers improve the learning experience of students (CATL 2005). However, to take advantage of this service and others activities designed to enhance teaching and learning requires time and effort. To acknowledge academics who have attempted to improve the way they teach, this award recognises: attendance at teaching and learning development courses or equivalent; effort made to attend/undertake other relevant teaching and learning initiatives; use of student, peer and/or other feedback to reflect on, and enhance their teaching; evidence that shows how this development has been integrated into their teaching.

The award process

The award process should be the subject of debate before any scheme is implemented. The following is suggested to instigate this debate. Individual academics or teams could self-nominate or be nominated by other staff for these awards. One other staff member of the nominator's choice should be required to provide a brief supporting statement for the applicant/s. To encourage communication regarding teaching and learning within schools, the Head of School would be required to discuss the application with the applicant/s and either nominate to support or not support the application. Staff could still submit an application without approval from their Head of School provided that they write a statement supporting why they intend to go ahead with their application.

Applications should be due with sufficient time for judgement so that successful applicants could be announced at the Faculty prize giving (currently for students only) held at the beginning of each year. Prizes could include a certificate for each award recipient and inclusion of his/her name on an award honour board. These boards should be located in a prominent position within the Faculty so that they are visible to staff, students and visitors. Prizes should be equitable but contingent upon sponsorship and should not inspire cheating. The question of whether award winners should be eligible to submit another application in the following year needs to be debated.

The FNAS teaching and learning awards committee could include a representative from the UWA Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, and from FNAS, the Dean (or nominee), the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning, the CATLyst, one representative from each school, and from the student body. Should any of these people be nominated for an award they would need to step down from the selection committee for the category pertaining to this award. Under normal circumstances one award would be available for each award category. However, the committee may reserve the right of not giving an award in a category if the nominations were not worthy of the award.

In the examples provided in this paper each award has only four selection criteria (Appendix 2) and given the implementation of this award system, applicants would need to use these criteria to show how they have contributed to dedication and excellence in teaching and learning. It is suggested that the application for these awards would include a short document addressing the selection criteria with relevant attachments if desired. With regard to evaluation of teaching these attachments may include student surveys, focus group discussions, surveys that may have been developed by the teacher targeting specific issues, peer review, and/or other evidence of student or peer evaluation. Other attachments may include the unit outline/s, specific resources that have been used and/or developed for the unit and details of WebCT use or the provision of other on-line material. Each criterion would have equal weighting and could be assessed according to the marking criteria (Appendix 2). Providing that it is worthy of an award, the application achieving the highest score in a category would be granted the award. All nominees should receive feedback on their applications.

Conclusion

Teaching science related subjects at university level is usually done by academics who have significant scientific research programs. Even though it is expected that most of these professionals would try and teach to the best of their ability, few indicators are available to determine if this is actually the case. Unlike success in research that may be measured in publications, awards and invitations to speak at conferences, successful teaching, although perhaps evaluated by student and/or peer feedback, goes largely unrewarded in the public spectrum.

In sketching an outline of the teaching and learning awards available to academics in OAC and FNAS it was found that although the academic environments are similar, the awards are different. We found that some awards have grown organically where others have been more intentional in relation to a focus on future recognitions. The use of specific criteria in the formation of awards appears to be valuable but whether they are effective in inducing improved teaching and learning is a matter for further research and debate. However, it could be argued that an effective awards initiative is more likely to be so if various aspects of teaching and learning, including peer review, are considered as part of an overall teaching reward and incentive program. Unlike OAC, FNAS does not provide teaching and learning awards at the faculty level. By establishing such a system, not only might it be possible to provide incentives to further teaching and learning in the Faculty but over time, it could provide data to assess the effectiveness of these awards. As a consequence the structure and criteria for the awards should address the appropriate teaching and learning principles and initiatives if it is to generate valid data. With this data, it is anticipated that further research could be done to measure accurately the impact of teaching and learning awards on those who win them and on those who do not in terms of the increase in academics who successfully embrace the principles and initiatives suggested by internal and external parties.

Acknowledgments

This paper began as a report for FNAS. The notion of providing awards in FNAS was supported by the Dean, Professor Alistar Robertson who requested a brief document outlining suggestions for awards in teaching and learning. Comments on the original document, that formed the basis for this paper, were made by Associate Professor Jane Long, Professor Belinda Probert, Dr Phil Vercoe and Dr Ben White and are gratefully acknowledged. Constructive comments provided by two anonymous referees are also appreciated.

References

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Smeal, G. and Bain, J. (2003). Review of the Australian awards for university teaching. Report to the Australian Universities Teaching Committee. [viewed 17 Oct 2005] http://www.carrickinstitute.edu.au/carrick/go/pid/43

Carusetta, E. (2001). Evaluating teaching through teaching awards. In Fresh Approaches to the Evaluation of Teaching: New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 88, eds. C. Knapper (Editor) & P. Cranton John Wiley & Sons Inc. US, pp. 31-40.

CATL (2005). About CATL. The Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, The University of Western Australia. [viewed 12 Oct 2005] http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au/welcome/about

DEST (2002). Striving for quality: learning teaching and scholarship. A discussion paper, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra, Australia.

DEST (2004). Promoting excellence in learning and teaching. Fact Sheet, Department of Education, Science and Training, Australia. [viewed 12 Oct 2005] http://www.backingaustraliasfuture.gov.au/fact_sheets/8.htm

DEST (2005a). Improving quality in Australia's higher education - the last three decades. Department of Education, Science and Training, Australia. [viewed 13 Oct 2005] http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/policy_issues_reviews/key_issues/assuring_quality_in_higher_education/improving_quality_in_australias_higher_education_the_last_3.htm#

DEST (2005b). Research training scheme: Guidelines for 2005. Department of Education, Science and Training, Australia. [viewed 13 Oct 2005] http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/C0803C6B-8167-4248-9832-F7EA4C47CC6B/7729/Chapter8.pdf

Go8 (2005). The Go8 Universities. Australia's leading universities, The Group of Eight Limited. [viewed 25 Oct 2005] http://www.go8.edu.au/about/go8.htm

Hugo, G. (2005). The demography of Australia's academic workforce: The ATN Universities. Paper presented to Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN), Conference on Building Partnerships: Finding Solutions, 9-11 February, Melbourne.

Lee, A. (2005). Knowing our business: The role of education in the university. Australian Council of Deans of Education Discussion Paper.

Levitt, S.D. and Dubner, S.J. (2005). Freakonomics: A rogue economics explores the hidden side of everything. Harper Collins, New York. 242 p.

Martin, M (1998). Tied knowledge: power in higher education. [viewed 12 Oct 2005] http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98tk/

TSS (2005a). Teaching awards. Teaching Support Services, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. [viewed 13 Oct 2005] http://www.tss.uoguelph.ca/id/teachaward.html

TSS (2005b). Provost's award for innovation in teaching and learning with technology. Teaching Support Services, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. [viewed 13 Oct 2005] http://www.tss.uoguelph.ca/id/winners/provost.html

UG (2005a). U of G No. 1 comprehensive Research University. The University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. [viewed 27 Oct 2005] http://www.uoguelph.ca/mediarel/2005/10/u_of_g_no_1_com.html

UG (2005b). Alumni Overview. The University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. [viewed 27 Oct 2005] http://www.oac.uoguelph.ca/alumni/alumni_faculty.asp

UWA (2004). UWA strategic plan. The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. [viewed 12 Oct 2005] http://www.registrar.uwa.edu.au/university_planning/strategic_operational_plans/uwa_strategic_plan

UWA (2005a). Human Resources Annual Report 2004. The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. [viewed 25 Oct 2005] http://www.hr.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/7196/2004_HR_AR.pdf

UWA (2005b). Excellence in teaching awards: Recipients. The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. [viewed 13 Oct 2005] http://www.teachingandlearning.uwa.edu.au/tl/committee/awardsschemes/eta/recipients

UWA (2005c). Teaching and Learning- Student Surveys. The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. [viewed 25 Oct 2005] http://www.planserv.uwa.edu.au/planning_services1

UWA (2005d). Distinguished teaching and learning awards for schools 2006. The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. [viewed 13 Oct 2005] http://www.teachingandlearning.uwa.edu.au/tl4/for_uwa_staff/__data/page/19512/Dist_TL_Award_Schools_Guidelines_2006.pdf

UWA (2005e). Australian awards for university teaching. The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. [viewed 13 Oct 2005] http://www.teachingandlearning.uwa.edu.au/tl4/for_uwa_staff/prizes_and_awards/australian_awards_for_university_teaching

UWA Guild (2005). Excellence in teaching (and supervision) awards 2005. UWA Guild of Undergraduates, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. [viewed 13 Oct 2005] http://www.guild.uwa.edu.au/info/eta/

Appendix 1: Recommendations as suggested by Ballantyne et al. (2003)

Recommendation 1: Refine the selection criteria and processes
1.1Clarify the aims of the Award scheme and ensure these are reflected in the selection criteria.
1.2Incorporate a focus on the scholarship of teaching.
1.3Revise the criteria to facilitate applications from teams.
1.4Revise the process of student evaluation.
1.5Simplify the selection criteria.
1.6Provide guidelines on the amount and type of support that universities may provide to nominees in the preparation of applications.
1.7Review the composition of the selection committee and the process followed in selecting Award winners.
1.8Provide feedback in the form of ratings and comments to unsuccessful Individual and Institutional Award nominees.
Recommendation 2: Expand the Award categories
2.1Review or remove the discipline groupings.
2.2Expand the categories to allow nominations from different teaching contexts.
2.3Place greater emphasis on team and institutional Awards.
2.4Institute an Award category for excellent teaching programs.
2.5Institute an Award category for early career teachers.
2.6Institute an Award category for University Teaching Excellence.
Recommendation 3: Encourage linkages with internal schemes
3.1Ensure that AAUT selection criteria, selection processes, Award categories, and application dates are set for an appropriate period, and not changed significantly from year to year.
3.2Provide guidelines for university nomination processes.
3.3Encourage universities to integrate the Awards process with their professional development and staff performance review systems.
3.4Review the timing of the Awards to better fit into the cycle of the university teaching calendar.
Recommendation 4: Incorporate dissemination strategies into the Awards process
4.1Provide guidelines for universities on expectations for the involvement of Award winners and finalists in dissemination activities.
4.2Incorporate in the AUTC website video streamed profiles of the Award recipients, their teaching practices, and links to online resource materials or exemplars they have developed.
4.3Encourage universities to invite Award winners from other institutions to give presentations, workshops or longer-term assistance to relevant groups of staff.
4.4Obtain greater publicity for the Award scheme.

Appendix 2: Assessment Criteria and marking scales for the awards

Development to Undergraduate Teaching and Learning Very good
(21-25)
Good
(17-20)
Adequate
(13-16)
Could be better
(9-12)
Not good
(0-8)
Effort has been applied to improving a unit/s






Mechanisms have been developed to capture student interest in the unit and/or to improve learning




Methods have been developed to respond to challenges encountered




Student, peer and/or other feedback has been obtained to reflect on, and enhance on-going unit development




Total Assessment: ______________________

Commitment to Teaching and Learning Very good
(21-25)
Good
(17-20)
Adequate
(13-16)
Could be better
(9-12)
Not good
(0-8)
Effort has been made to convey general and/or generic concepts to achieve outcomes




Mechanisms have been developed to capture student interest in the unit and/or to improve learning




Methods have been developed to respond to challenges encountered




Student, peer and/or other feedback has been obtained to reflect on, and enhance on-going unit development




Total Assessment: ______________________

Commitment to Research Project Supervision (Honours and Postgraduate) Teaching and Learning Very good
(21-25)
Good
(17-20)
Adequate
(13-16)
Could be better
(9-12)
Not good
(0-8)
Effort has been made to improve supervision of research students




Attempts have been made to ensure the best outcomes for the student and/or to improve learning




Management of group and/or individual progress has been implemented




Student, peer and/or other feedback has been obtained to reflect on, and improve supervision




Total Assessment: ______________________

Service to Teaching and Learning Very good
(21-25)
Good
(17-20)
Adequate
(13-16)
Could be better
(9-12)
Not good
(0-8)
The teaching load and/or the nature of the units/supervision is difficult




Initiatives have been developed to manage the workload efficiently whilst maintaining quality




Challenges encountered have been responded to




Student, peer and/or other feedback has been obtained to reflect on, and enhance their teaching




Total Assessment: ______________________

Innovation in Teaching and Learning Very good
(21-25)
Good
(17-20)
Adequate
(13-16)
Could be better
(9-12)
Not good
(0-8)
Contribution have been made to the innovation




Unit and/or graduate outcomes have been integrated into their innovation




Challenges encountered have been responded to




Evidence has been presented showing how this development has been integrated into their teaching




Total Assessment: ______________________

Development in Teaching and Learning Very good
(21-25)
Good
(17-20)
Adequate
(13-16)
Could be better
(9-12)
Not good
(0-8)
The teacher has attempted to improve their teaching by attending staff development courses or equivalent




Effort has been made to attend/undertake other relevant teaching and learning initiatives




Student, peer and/or other feedback has been obtained to reflect on, and enhance their teaching




Evidence has been presented that shows how this development has been integrated into their teaching




Total Assessment: ______________________

Authors: Jo Pluske is a lecturer in the School of Agricultural and Resource Economics and a Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences' CATLyst (liaison between the Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning and the Faculty) at the University of Western Australia.
Jo Pluske, Agricultural and Resource Economics MO89, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009. Email: johanna.pluske@uwa.edu.au

Trevor Holmes is the Educational Development Associate with Teaching Support Services at the University of Guelph in Canada and an award-winning educator (York University, 1997). He sometimes lectures in Cultural Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario.

Please cite as: Pluske, J. and Holmes, T. (2006). Incentives for adopting teaching initiatives in science. In Experience of Learning. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 1-2 February 2006. Perth: The University of Western Australia. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2006/refereed/pluske.html

Copyright 2006 Jo Pluske and Trevor Holmes. The authors assign to the TL Forum and not for profit educational institutions a non-exclusive licence to reproduce this article for personal use or for institutional teaching and learning purposes, in any format (including website mirrors), provided that the article is used and cited in accordance with the usual academic conventions.


[ Refereed papers ] [ Contents - All Presentations ] [ Home Page ]
This URL: http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2006/refereed/pluske.html
Created 11 Jan 2006. Last revision: 23 Jan 2006.