Análisis de agravios

One of the influences on my rich picture and upon the attitudes of people that I spoke to, are the QAA et al Guidelines for HE Progress File (2001). At no point that I can recall at any of the CRA events I attended did anyone ever challenge or ask for evidence of the statements made regarding the value and benefit of PDP, we just accepted them as valid. For example (QAA et al 2001: 13),

“PDP is likely to be most effective when it is: • a mainstream academic activity …”

There is evidence that practice across the sector in reality, interprets these statements differently. For example, within a number of older Universities have set up separate awards such as, ‘the York Award’, which take PDP activities out of the curriculum and put them into a separate, optional course.

I interviewed teaching staff from the satellite groups I identified in Figure 3: 20 to help me construct my initial rich picture (Figure 19: 108). This complex set of formal and informal groups, from the mix of different discipline backgrounds, learning cultures and communities became the participant context for my project.

Figure 19 My shared rich picture

Within the structure of my rich picture I identified that sector-wide initiatives frequently enter the institution via the University Executive. These then are cascaded down either into the Academic Schools through the Deans’ group or if related to learning and teaching, into ILE. From ILE, then into the Academic Schools through the appropriate ILE co-ordinator and School Learning and Teaching Teams.

The development of this rich picture helped me to realise that some of the areas I was still considering were not appropriate for me to try to instigate change within. The first area that I rejected as impractical, as mentioned previously, looking at the assessment of PDP. All staff interviewed strongly believed that students would not do PDP unless it was an assessed activity. I did not think, at the stage of the implementation of PDP activities we were trying to embed, that a change of policy or strategic direction would help.

As a Central Department criticism is sometimes levelled at us is that we are not in touch with the student population as we do not regularly teach undergraduates. I understood this view as I had felt the same when I was a

divisional head and subject leader. I would have resented a change of strategic direction that challenged my knowledge of my student cohorts (Becher and Trowler 2001, Trowler, 1998). The view that PDP is better placed within the mainstream academic provision is also backed up by the QAA et al (2001: 47).

The second area that I considered not appropriate for change, related to staff engaging in their own continuing professional development (CPD). In some subject areas such as those relating to health and teacher education, there are annually reviewed professional body requirements to keep professional development portfolios. In the discipline or profession of being a ‘teacher in higher education’ there is no professional body, the closest entities to a professional body being the Higher Education Academy (HEA) or the Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA). The Higher Education Academy states that their mission is: to support the sector in providing the best possible learning experience for all students. Their strategic aims are to:

1. Identify, develop and disseminate evidence-informed approaches, 2. Broker and encourage the sharing of effective practice,

3. Support universities and colleges in bringing about strategic change, 4. Inform, influence and interpret policy,

5. Raise the status of teaching.

The HEA has three levels of membership Associate of the HEA (AHEA), Fellow of the HEA (FHEA) and Senior Fellow of the HEA (SFHEA). Membership can be warded by undertaking recognized training or by application. The application is by a reflective account of six main areas. Once membership has been granted there is no requirement for continuing professional development.

In February 2006 the HEA launched a Professional Standards framework (UK PSF) on behalf of Universities UK (UUK), GuildHE and the four UK higher education funding councils for England Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The UK PSF for Teaching and Supporting Learning (2006: 2), aims to act as,

“• an enabling mechanism to support the professional development of staff engaged in supporting learning

• a means by which professional approaches to supporting student learning can be fostered through creativity, innovation and

continuous development

• a means of demonstrating to students and other stakeholders the professionalism that staff bring to the support of the student learning experience

• a means to support consistency and quality of the student learning experience”.

It promotes itself as

“… a flexible framework which uses a descriptor-based approach to professional standards”.

The PSF is based on three descriptors HE institutions are supposed to then determine their own criteria when applying those descriptors. This assumes that an institution has a process and procedures that can operate in this way. So that the descriptors can be evidenced the PSF also offers six areas of activity, core knowledge and professional values that already exist and that form the basis for application to the HEA. Again there is an assumption that these would be applied to relevant activities within an institution’s own professional development programmes.

The three standard descriptors (2006: 3) are:

1. Demonstrates an understanding of the student learning experience through engagement with at least 2 of the 6 areas of activity, appropriate core knowledge and professional values; the ability to engage in practices related to those areas of activity; the ability to incorporate research, scholarship and/or professional practice into those activities

2. Demonstrates an understanding of the student learning experience through engagement with all areas of activity, core knowledge and professional values; the ability to engage in practices related to all areas of activity; the ability to incorporate research, scholarship and/or professional practice into those activities

3. Supports and promotes student learning in all areas of activity, core knowledge and professional values through mentoring and leading individuals and/or teams; incorporates research, scholarship and/or professional practice into those activities

The activities and core knowledge and values that are set out within the statement (2006: 4) are:

Areas of activity:

1. Design and planning of learning activities and/or programmes of study

2. Teaching and/or supporting student learning 3. Assessment and giving feedback to learners

4. Developing effective environments and student support and guidance

5. Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and supporting learning

6. Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development

Core knowledge: Knowledge and understanding of: 1. The subject material

2. Appropriate methods for teaching and learning in the subject area and at the level of the academic programme

3. How students learn, both generally and in the subject 4. The use of appropriate learning technologies

5. Methods for evaluating the effectiveness of teaching

6. The implications of quality assurance and enhancement for professional practice

Professional values:

1. Respect for individual learners

2. Commitment to incorporating the process and outcomes of relevant research, scholarship and/or professional practice

3. Commitment to development of learning communities

4. Commitment to encouraging participation in higher education, acknowledging diversity and promoting equality of opportunity 5. Commitment to continuing professional development and

These standards are, I think, quite impressive and well thought out. However I am unaware of any formal implementation of them in any way within the sector. That is not to say that many people working in HE do not already act in a professional manner described within this framework.

SEDA’s main aim is to promote innovation and good practice in higher education. It states it is committed to improving all aspects of learning, teaching and training in higher education through staff and educational development. One of its core mission objectives to do this is that: SEDA will help all its members, whether staff and educational developers, teachers or learning staff, to enhance, the quality of their capabilities in supporting learning. SEDA does have a professional development framework which includes 16 named awards (September 2008) however there is no national recognition of these being sector-wide standards or benchmarks. The named awards are institution based and not available directly for individuals.

Neither organisation offers any professional body recognition for staff CDP which staff expressed as desirable for motivating them to engage with P/CDP activities.

I did consider whether I could work with our personnel department to develop internal staff CPD and PDP. However, just after the start of my project the University started a full Higher Education Role Analysis HERA review of all posts as part of a major pay modernization scheme. This meant that the institutional climate was not the best to start working in an area that could be interpreted as being linked to what became quite a painful process for some.

Overall the area where it seemed that I could make the most difference was in building capability and therefore capacity in staff ability and confidence in engaging in PDP activities with their students.