COMPROBACION DEL DISEÑO

This section examines the trends which academic development in Australia has taken. In spite of some challenges, Australia appears to have made significant progress in the area of staff development (Deborah and Gilding, 2007; Goody and Ingram, 2001; Gosling, 2008; Reid, 2003; Volbrecht, 2003). Particular attention will be given to conditions, policies, institutional structures and academic cultures and traditions which support or constrain academic development in Australia.

Like elsewhere in the world, it was imperative for the Australian higher education sector to adopt ―academic development as a strategy to improve the

99

quality of teaching and learning experiences‖ (Spratt et al., 2001:1). Australian universities had to square up to the challenge of escalating pressure to demonstrate and develop quality in response to ―government agenda of quality and value for money‖ (Ramsden, 2003:233) and the ―use of information technology and communication and internationalization of higher education‖ (Reid, 2003:1).

From literature, history shows that academic development focused on the quality of student learning (Quinn, 2006 and Gosling, 2008). What is significant in the Australian higher education experience is the existence of both national and institutional structures which enabled APD to thrive. The proliferation of institutional policies and specialized units is evidence of the strength and importance given to the issue of APD.

According to Anderson (2000:28), the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia, the Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development and the Australian Learning and Teaching Council are examples of supporting organisations which promote academic staff development. Valuable lessons can be drawn from the contributions made by these organisations.

A distinctive feature of educational development in Australia is that there is evidence of ASD projects that promote the scholarship of teaching (Kreber, 2002:16) in contrast to other countries (case studies) where ASD is conceptualized as empowering academics with teaching skills (Quinn, 2006). The committee for University Teaching and Staff Development is mandated to drive projects on scholarship of teaching. At national level the CARRICK INSTITUTE provides the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund which promotes teaching in institutions (Gosling, 2008:23). Both HERDSA and CUTSD support activities of the CARRICK INSTITUTE by identifying lecturers who distinguish themselves in teaching.

The Australian Learning and Teaching Council is another structure which supports efforts which promote teaching through its projects. McDonald (2006)

100

in Knights (2009) cites the success and impact made by ALTC in training ―sessional teachers through national training by Directors of Academic Development and academic developers in their traditional roles‖ (2009:43). The ALTC supports the Council of Australian Directors of Academic Development by pulling scarce expertise and resources to support the development of sessional teachers through exploration of good practice. Academic developers are supported in preparing new academics to teach in their faculties. More importantly, academic developers contribute towards the professionalization of teaching roles of academics by offering a postgraduate certificate in education (Scott and Scott, 2005). The need for formal development is seen as an important strategy to the challenge posed by the internationalisation of higher education in Australia in order to enhance its competitiveness. Through the postgraduate certificate, academics articulate their professional development into formal qualification.

Although enabling conditions and structures exist which promote ASD in Australia, concerns for promoting teaching in universities have been expressed. DEST (2002) commissioned an investigation into professional development for University Teaching in Australia. It investigated the attitude of key university stakeholders towards the professionalization of the teaching role of academics. 32 universities were sampled for the study. Findings indicated that 8 (25%) universities did not conduct any initial teaching preparation programme. 21 universities offered formal awards for teaching in higher education. However, enrolment for the teaching courses were characterised by low uptake (DEST, 2002:136-141). The above trend is consistent with findings made by Holdsworth et al. (2008) in his study of websites of 36 Australian Universities. Holdsworth et al.‘s (2008) study of the websites showed that in attempts to professionalise teaching roles of academics through some in house institutional courses, some critical issues related to teaching received very low attention. For example, ―out of 36 universities, 3 offered in house courses on assessment, 4 offered courses on scholarship of teaching and reflective practice, 13 offered e- learning courses while 12 offered curriculum development and implementation courses‖ (Holdsworth et al., 2008:76).

101

The study demonstrates that while ASD is regarded as a solution to enhancing teaching quality, institutions place low attention to courses which promote it. Additionally, postgraduate programmes are characterised by ―low uptake to the extent that the programme is jointly offered by a group of universities‖ (McDonald, 2006 in Knight, 2009:52). The observation that in Australia it is not a prerequisite to have a formal qualification in tertiary teaching unlike in the UK is a contributory factor (Ibid). Clearly, this has contributed to the low status given to teaching and low enrolment in postgraduate courses Australian universities.

Some studies have revealed interesting reasons for low enrolment in professional development programmes. ―Heavy workload‖ has been cited as one of the reasons (Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999:9). McInnis confirmed this in his cross – sectional study of academic self-reported workload where he found that ―half of the group of academics felt that their workload had increased‖ (1996:41). Another significant change in pattern of workload which emerged in McInnis study was the increase in non-core work caused by external demands resulting from government policies of accountability and quality assurance (Ibid). These studies show that a combination of external demands and the burden of work overload have caused dissatisfaction among academics which has impacted negatively on the success of professional education in Australian universities. Reid (2003) acknowledges that academic perceptions of these external forces can exert huge pressure on individual and academic departments. The status of academic practitioners and their directors in Australian universities is a contested issue. In his survey, Gosling (2008) noted that the majority of the developers not only lacked research background but that they were not given any formal training, instead they prepared themselves ―informally through colleagues, conferences, reading and research, professional bodies and meetings‖ (Gosling, 2008:18) This may reinforce the perception that ―academic development is not a bona fide academic practice‖ (Grant 2007:36). Lack of training indicates lack of specialisation or cannon of knowledge which might contribute to lack of legitimacy in the eyes of mainstream academics. It is negative perceptions such as these which constrain the potential and development of academic practice in Australia.

102

Another related constraint is shortage of academic developers. The situation has arisen because of the unattractiveness of a career in academic development practice. In Australia, Gosling notes that mainstream academics ―do not pursue or take positions in Academic Development Centres because of a lack of clear path and status for academic developers‖ (2008:8). As a consequence, absence of staff in a project or innovation leads to unsuccessful implementation.

Another challenge referred to in the study is the ―unstable‖ nature of academic development centres as part of an institutional structure. According to Gosling (2008), these centres are easy targets when there is pressure to restructure in an institution. Gosling (2008) notes that:

Directors would be turned into political animals quick to respond to changes in structures and active in defending their turf thereby diverting energy on non core issues related to academic development (2008:2).

Clearly, consequences of restructuring are not that positive. Not only do they distract developers from their core business in an environment associated with stress and uncertainty but it will also lead to disruption of academic development programs through dislocation of resources and key staff to other units.

Finally, Gosling (2008) identifies the question of the ideal approach or model to adopt for successful ASD. Gosling highlights the failure by academic developers to ―get more buy-in from faculty schools on the preferred model‖ (2008:23). In the survey, the majority – 13 out of 18 Teaching and Learning Committees preferred faculty or school based academic staff development. This finding is consistent with recommendations made by Deborah and Gilding who recommended that academic development units had to adopt ―decentralised models which meet the needs of the academics‖ (2007:2). Similarly, Goody and Ingram (2001) confirm that such holistic and coherent approaches provided sustainable and durable professional development activities which could counter

103

challenges presented by internationalization of higher education and information, technology and communication (ICT).

Notwithstanding these challenges, academic development centres have had impact if contribution to institutional policy formulation is considered as a measure of performance. Gosling notes that:

A number of centres reported that they originated a teaching and learning policy, policies relating to student assessment, web-management and evaluation of teaching (2008:20).

The strategic significance of the contribution of Academic Development Centres to policy formulation is a paradigm shift which gives the centres importance over other institutional structures such as faculties or schools.

The influence of research on the value of teaching has been observed to have negative impact on sustaining ASD. Findings by Kolfoil (2012) show that research enjoys superior status in Australian universities compared to teaching. He notes that:

There is no commensurate rigour in preparation for teaching compared to research. There is strong PhD training interest which prepares lecturers for research (2012:36).

Their trend is reflective of the fact that most Australian universities are high research institutions. Dedicated funding for research has also contributed to the shift. Research scheme funds such as the Australian Research Council, Commonwealth Higher Education, Research Scheme Funds, Cooperative Research Centres and the Research Quantum Scheme, allocated on the basis of research output and publications, have contributed to the growth of research over teaching (Land, 2004; Rowland, 2006). By contrast, resources for teaching have been reduced on a per student basis (Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999:19). The Australian Government Policy on funding also favours the promotion of research. Through this policy, government expected universities to implement

104

―policies of selectivity and concentration in allocating resources for research‖ (Kemp 1999:10). The justification for the policy is for Australia to be competitive in a global knowledge economy and to achieve that it ―must be at world standard in every field‖ (Ibid). An analysis of government research funding policy shows that it drove a wedge between research and teaching rather than promote its integration as advocated by Ramsden (1998). The research counts discourse prevailed at the university of Buidlorat and RMT in Australia which had incorporated Boyer‘s scholarships into institutional policies because academics remained convinced that ―research record counted for promotion and recognition‖ (Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999). The argument is that research output is ―measurable through peer review while peer review of teaching remains patchy and left largely to the motivation of the individual‖ (Hughes and Moore, 2007:101).

Finally the Australian experience has shown that the future of academic professional development has a lot of potential. National and institutional conditions and structures exist which support the growth and sustainability of ASD. Although concern for the status of teaching is evident, conceptualisation of APD as SoTL is uncontested in Australia‘s Teaching and Learning Research Councils. Constraining factors have been identified as follows: credibility of developers, volatility of academic development centres, the question of models and the research and teaching nexus. Studies are being undertaken to address them as constraints which should be worked on to ensure the growth, sustainability and durability of APD in Australia. Literature review has examined trends of professional development in the UK, USA and Australia. However, these are developed countries. The study considered South Africa‘s experiences in ASD in higher education to have relevance as a SADC country experiencing similar challenges arising from democratization of higher education.

105

2.9.2 Southern African Development Community (SADC) academic professional development trends

2.9.2.1 South Africa’s experiences of academic professional development in higher