learning about university teaching: reflections on a research study investigating influences for...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 08 October 2014, At: 07:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teaching in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20
Learning about university teaching:reflections on a research studyinvestigating influences for changeAngela M. Pickering aa University of Brighton , UKPublished online: 24 Jan 2007.
To cite this article: Angela M. Pickering (2006) Learning about university teaching: reflections ona research study investigating influences for change, Teaching in Higher Education, 11:3, 319-335,DOI: 10.1080/13562510600680756
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680756
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Learning about university teaching:
reflections on a research study
investigating influences for change
Angela M. Pickering*University of Brighton, UK
This article reflects on findings from research involving case studies of four novice lecturers
enrolled on a one-year university teaching development programme. The study sought to
contribute to an understanding of the process of pedagogic change and the influences which affect
it. Findings suggest that key aspects of the lecturers’ experience ‘disturb’ core beliefs, producing
tensions between beliefs. As a result of this, the lecturers’ pedagogic perspective, that is their
sense of what is possible, plausible and desirable, is adjusted. In this way the dialogue between
an individual practitioner’s lived experience and their pedagogic perspective can be said to
play a significant role in the way in which the potential for change is individually defined. On the
basis of my findings, I identify implications for the design and delivery of university teaching
development.
Introduction
As a university lecturer involved in the field of teacher education I welcome the fact
that the UK political agenda has foregrounded the need for universities to examine
the quality of their teaching provision in response to the changing needs of the
‘learning society’ (DfEE, 1998a,b). While the focus on quality in teaching and
learning is not necessarily such a fundamental reorientation as political rhetoric
might imply (Trowler, 1998), the setting up of infrastructures in the UK to promote
best practice in university teaching development is a significant innovation. Bodies
such as the Staff and Educational Development Association and the Higher
Education Academy are active in this field, with the latter working to develop a
national framework for professional standards in continuing professional develop-
ment (Universities UK et al ., 2004).
A potentially positive consequence of formalization such as this is the expanding
number of university teaching development initiatives, a phenomenon which is
mirrored in the international education community (Gilbert & Gibbs, 1998). There
are currently over 150 such programmes accredited by the Higher Education
*School of Languages, University of Brighton, Falmer, East Sussex BN1 9PH, UK. Email:
ISSN 1356-2517 (print)/ISSN 1470-1294 (online)/06/030319-17
# 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13562510600680756
Teaching in Higher EducationVol. 11, No. 3, July 2006, pp. 319�335
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Academy in the UK. This proliferation of development opportunities has the
potential to impact on the practices of all teaching staff, but particularly
new lecturers, for whom such programmes are often mandatory (Bourner et al .,
2000) and are set to become so in the UK from 2006. My own experience as a
participant on a development programme for new lecturers led me to value much
that university teaching development interventions have to offer, but also to wonder
about the notions of best practice and the models of pedagogic change which inform
them.
Knowledge about teaching and learning in higher education is based on a rapidly
expanding body of research which has increased our understanding of learning (see a
review by Terenzini, 1998) and effective teaching (see Dunkin & Precians, 1992;
McLean & Blackwell, 1997). While much has been done to problematize profes-
sional development in universities (Rowland, 1998, 2001; Trowler, 1998; Wenger,
1998; Nicholls 2000, 2004; Knight, 2002), when I conceived of the research study
described here, it was a matter of concern that the plethora of development
programmes on offer were insufficiently informed by robust research into learning
about teaching in the university context (Gilbert & Gibbs, 1998; Gibbs & Coffey,
2000; Nicholls, 2000; Weimer & Lenze, 1997).
A body of research which has the potential to tell us a great deal about teacher
learning is based on the hypothesis that lecturers’ conceptions of teaching act as a
filter for the interpretation of experience and also inform the individual lecturer’s
preferred practices, both of which functions are highly relevant to attempts to
develop teaching (see Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; Trigwell et al ., 1994; Wood,
2000). One of the most significant findings of such research has been the degree to
which conceptions of teaching (either student/learning-focused orientations or
teacher/teaching-focused orientations) appear to impact on student learning (for
example, Kember & Gow, 1994), an insight which supports efforts to influence
conceptions of teaching through development programmes.
However, it has been noted that, in spite of having identified common conceptual
dimensions, studies exploring conceptions of university teaching reflect the following
uncertainties: the degree to which conceptual categories function independently or
hierarchically, and the degree to which conceptions can be seen as stable or subject to
change in relation to context (Akerlind, 2003). These uncertainties indicate that
attempts to theorize a logical relationship between causes and effects, or inputs and
outcomes might be challenging.
Focus on the outcome of development interventions (comprising changes in
teaching practices, conceptions of teaching and learning and impact on student
learning) represents a significant preoccupation of recent and current research into
university teaching development (see Ho, 2000; Hannon, 2001; Rust, 2000). An
important example of this is Gibbs and colleagues’ long-term project (see Gilbert &
Gibbs, 1998, for the proposal), which draws on extensive international samples and
utilizes a sophisticated evaluation toolkit of change indicators to measure lecturers’
behavioural change, conceptual change, reflective practice and the nature of
320 A. M. Pickering
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
students’ learning. Initial findings suggest that training programmes have the
potential to influence the novice lecturer in various ways, for example to prompt
them to adopt student rather than teacher-focused orientations and practices and so
affect student learning (Coffey & Gibbs, 2000; Gibbs & Coffey, 2000). However,
preliminary findings were limited by the difficulty of attributing teaching and
learning effects to the training programme.
I would suggest that the tendency of outcome-focused research to look for
measurable phenomena relating cause with effect, however large a sample and
however sophisticated measurement instruments are, is further limited in the degree
to which it can offer insights into the process of professional learning.
By focusing on outcome in relation to one particular influence for change (such as
the development programme) an important aspect of professional learning is
sidelined. If it is accepted that professional learning is ‘situated’ (Lave, 1993) and
that universities are culturally complex organizations (Sackman, 1997) with a variety
of departmental and institutional teaching cultures (Knight & Trowler, 2000) then
any attempt to understand the effect of a development programme must situate this
type of learning in relation to a complex array of influences for change. Encounters
with colleagues, students and university systems and day-to-day stresses and
pressures will all have a role to play. Driving metaphorical ‘wedges’ (Rowland,
2001) between elements of the lecturer’s world by focusing on specific influences for
change (for example a development intervention) does not reflect a context in which
experiences are inter-dependent, and in which teaching development interventions
are only part of the ‘puzzle’ of being a university lecturer.
A further point relates to the model of change which is implied in outcome-focused
research. Speculation on this can be illustrated by reference to a proposal which was
made to develop a framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of staff
development. The proposal aimed to develop ‘easy to use evaluation tools’ (Tait et
al ., 2002, website) and reference was also made to staff development ‘inputs’ and
‘outcomes’ (ibid.). Such a vocabulary makes one wonder about the degree to which
the following will be taken into account: variable contexts, the unpredictability of
change, or (if the importance of these are accepted) the inevitable fuzziness of the
relationship between input and outcome.
Research suggests that pedagogic beliefs and conceptions of teaching are strongly
held (Ho, 1998, 2000; Leuddeke, 2003) and resistant to influences for change within
a development programme (Bowden, 1989; Martin & Ramsden, 1992; Trigwell,
1995; Hannon, 2001), and also that the workplace is a complex and multi-
dimensional context for professional learning.
In the light of these issues, I aimed to examine lecturers’ learning about teaching
(in this case novice lecturers) and sought to explore the change process , specifically
internal influences for change (including beliefs and conceptions of teaching) and
external influences for change (workplace dimensions, including participation on a
development programme).
Learning about university teaching 321
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
The research study
The study, reported in detail in Pickering (2002), followed four novice university
lecturers (in either their first or second year of university teaching) through one
academic year. All were enrolled on an in-house development programme requiring
attendance at fortnightly seminars and ‘action learning’ sets1 between September and
the following June.
I decided to focus on novice lecturers partly because these are a primary target of
development initiatives. I also felt that they would be less ‘institutionalized’. Knight
and Trowler (2000) have described this state as follows (see also Boice, 1992; Perry
et al ., 1996):
New academics have more acute perceptions of the cultural environment they are
entering than those for whom sets of values, attitudes and recurrent practices have
become taken for granted and hence invisible. (Knight & Trowler, 2000, p. 70)
The informants
The four cases were purposefully selected from two separate cohorts with the aim of
achieving a mixture of disciplinary interests and gender, and are referred to (using
pseudonyms) as Tom, a lecturer in environmental science, Simon a lecturer in
physiology, Hannah, a lecturer in physiotherapy and Peter, a lecturer in civil
engineering.
Methods of data gathering
Data were gathered by means of interviews (semi-structured and loosely-structured)
and informed by observation of teaching and stimulated recall interviews based on
videoed teaching events. Data was gathered in three phases at the beginning, middle
and end of the academic year. Reflective commentaries written by the lecturers were
made available at the end of the year.
Data analysis
Data were analysed using an open coding framework in an inductive and iterative
process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data were first of all coded for topics: students,
teaching and assessment, learning, discipline and being a lecturer. These served as a
framework for further coding in relation to external influences and pedagogic beliefs,
specifically core beliefs (those which appeared to inform other beliefs) and external
influences affecting the interrogation of these beliefs. Progressive focusing through-
out the data gathering highlighted a number of influential encounters (specifically,
encounters with colleagues, students, university systems, the novice world in general
and the development programme) and internal influences (beliefs about learning,
teaching, students and their own discipline). These were the dimensions I judged to
322 A. M. Pickering
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
have had a role to play in the informants’ interrogation of options for change
throughout one academic year (September to July).
Findings
During the study, I attended lectures on such subjects as ‘vitamins’, ‘sewage’,
‘coastal erosion’ and ‘lung disease’ and watched the cases work with British and
international students, with groups of 80 and 10, in laboratories and lecture halls.
The lecturers’ front-stage activities (Goffman, 1969) as I was able to observe them,
did not appear to change to any significant extent throughout the course of the
academic year. I refer here to practices which come under the umbrella of university
teaching, such as the management of students in lectures and seminars, decisions
about the content of teaching, handling questions, the use of resources and
handouts, assessment of learning.
I found that the informants had a number of core beliefs and that these did not
appear to shift substantially during the study. However, aspects of day-to-day
experience appeared to disturb these beliefs, producing uncertainties (‘tensions’)
between beliefs, and as a result the lecturers’ pedagogic perspectives, that is their
sense of what was possible, plausible and desirable were adjusted. The term pedagogic
perspective (Becker et al ., 1961) was used to capture this dialogue between an
individual practitioner’s beliefs and their experiences. Within the term perspective I
assume, firstly, the notion of a conceptual bridge between the individual’s beliefs and
their actions, and secondly, the notion that beliefs are pragmatically bounded by the
individual’s sense of what is possible, plausible and desirable (see Shibutani, 1955;
Freeman, 1991). In this sense, an individual’s pedagogic perspective can be said to
have the potential to play a significant role in the degree to which the potential for
change is defined.
In order to illustrate this process I begin by outlining a beliefs dynamic (the
relationship between core beliefs and other pedagogic beliefs) common to the
informants. I follow this with examples of tensions within the belief systems of two
informants and summarize findings concerning external influences for change.
The beliefs dynamic
The beliefs dynamic common to the four lecturers concerned their expert fields/
disciplines (physiotherapy, ecology, physiology and engineering), which influenced
strongly-held beliefs about being a lecturer, teaching and learning (Figure 1). I use
the term discipline (rather than subject) to encompass the notion of disciplinary
communities of practice (Parker, 2000) which best represents how the expert identity
was conceptualized, as having epistemological givens, distinctive discourses and
norms of practice (Becher, 1994; Becher & Trowler, 2001). The informants
positioned themselves as powerful within these communities.
Learning about university teaching 323
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Being a lecturer
The informants saw the university lecturer as having responsibility to maintain their
‘currency’ in the discipline. Three informants felt their identity as a scholar and
expert took precedence over that as a teacher.
I enjoy teaching and am interested in developing my abilities and understanding of
teaching methods. However, I am at pains to emphasize that I am a research
scientist who also lectures, and not a teacher who dabbles in science. (Tom,
reflective diary, early in the study)
Expert worlds were seen to have immutable qualities and the body of specialists who
inhabited them were a distinctive ‘type’.
[We] look at things logically and scientifically and break it down step by step in an
orderly fashion and try and understand it in that way . . . rather than in an ad hoc
random confused not very clear vague simplistic or imprecise way. (Simon,
interview, late in the study)
Tom, Simon and Peter saw research as a way of discharging responsibilities to a
disciplinary community, the wider world and to their students. Reference to research
was felt by all to make teaching more relevant, interesting and to increase the
lecturer’s credibility.
PEDAGOGIC PERSPECTIVE
EXPERT FIELD
SELF AS LECTURER TEACHING LEARNING
Figure 1. The dynamic of core beliefs
324 A. M. Pickering
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Teaching and learning
There was also a sense of higher education as an environment in which students were
inducted into field-specific practices, which the lecturer modeled to their students,
and in which knowledge transfer played a significant role in teaching and learning.
The informants saw higher education as a place for specialists who were to a
significant degree self-motivated. The nature of the support which the informants felt
should be provided to students for their learning was a site of struggle, and each
identified different solutions to the ‘problem’, but a shared belief was that students
must be actively committed to learning and to want to learn about something, not
only because it was useful, but because it was of interest.
Beliefs about the expert field were important points of reference for the
informants’ approach to teaching and teaching preferences. This ‘world’ was seen
to operate on the basis of a hierarchy of knowledge in which concepts were more or
less fundamental, relevant or complex, and in which modes of delivery were to an
extent circumscribed by epistemologies, by associated academic and professional
skills (for example, solving design problems, memorizing mathematical formulae,
looking holistically at a patient, being able to judge the adequacy of scientific proof)
and the norms of the expert world (for example, written genres). The informants saw
pedagogy as being discipline-led and non-generic, and the nature and qualities of the
discipline as relevant, for example, to such decisions as whether to use lectures or
seminars, decisions about lecture content, allowing student-initiated activity, the
degree to which the knowledge-transfer model was appropriate, and the degree to
which students should be given opportunities to apply their knowledge.
Tensions in the belief system and the interrogation of core beliefs
Core beliefs were, while relatively stable, a site for individual struggle. The study
supports an understanding of change as being influenced by the disturbance of
beliefs as a result of external influences. The interrogation of beliefs which is a
characteristic of this disturbance indicates a type of problematization, represented in
Figure 2 as the point at which options for action emerge. This is envisaged as a
complex, cyclical process in which understandings and experience interact in a non-
predictable way (Ho, 1998; Richardson, 1994).
The process of interrogation is illustrated by two accounts: firstly, Tom’s
interrogation of his belief in the need for self-motivated learning; secondly, Peter’s
interrogation of pedagogic versus professional knowledge.
The tension between supported and self-motivated learning (Tom)
Tom saw higher education as a place for motivated specialists who were committed
to study and who enjoyed engaging with their subject.
The students I enjoy having in groups are the ones which are fundamentallyinterested in the subject. . . . The students that I have the least time for . . . are those
Learning about university teaching 325
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
which simply want a qualification and have very little commitment to the particular
field of study. (Tom, interview, mid-way through the study)
He was reluctant to ‘flog’ his subject to those who were not interested.
Later in the year, Tom appeared to be engaging more directly with the needs of the
less committed or less able student, while at the same time persisting with his belief
in the ultimate importance of self-motivation.
The good students are here because they are interested anyway and they’re not a
problem. It’s the students who are here because they weren’t sure what to do after
finishing their A levels and they didn’t actually do very well in their A levels and
they’re not committed to the subject. . . . And it’s trying to get them interested so
that they then become receptive to the ideas and concepts that you’re trying to put
across. And so there has to be some interaction so that you can gauge where their
interests are. And it varies. . . . And you have to keep probing to see what makes
them tick. (Tom, interview, late in the study)
He had, in effect, engaged with notions of what was possible (recognizing
his potential to influence student learning) and plausible (reassessing the degree
to which he could and should engage with non-specialist students with diverse
interests and often low motivation). Tom’s reflections at the end of the year revealed
that he remained uncertain, however, about the desirability of tutor ‘interference’,
which he tended to equate with ‘dumbing down’, but options for action (in Tom’s
case attempts to make study more overtly relevant to future employment) were
defined.
Pedagogic perspective
External influences
Interrogation of beliefs
Options Options
Figure 2. The interrogation of beliefs
326 A. M. Pickering
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Tension between expert knowledge and pedagogic understanding (Peter)
Peter’s experience of his first year of teaching appeared to reinforce his belief in
discipline-led pedagogy. He began to wonder, however, about the difference between
his own professional knowledge base of engineering and the kind of knowledge
needed in his teaching.
Throughout the year, Peter maintained a strong belief in the importance of his role
as a knower and expert, both as an engineer and an engineering lecturer, but came
later to sense a distinction between these two personae. This was related to his
changing understanding of the knowledge he required as a lecturer. ‘There are many
things which have been a surprise to me. . . . I’ve realized that there is quite a lot
about my subject that I don’t understand’ (Peter, interview, late in the study).
Peter began to consider that, in trying to explain the fundamentals of the subject to
students, his own understanding of those fundamentals might be deficient and that,
although it might be sufficient to apply formulaic knowledge, for example, in relation
to design problems, it was not easy or advisable to do this in teaching.
Because I’ve had to simplify it to explain it, because again coming back to the idea
that there’s a formula for everything, that there’s a prescribed way of doing a design
exercise, you don’t necessarily need to understand the fundamentals for
that. . . . But if you’re teaching it you can’t say that. . . . You should go back to the
fundamentals and make sure the students are with you on it. (Peter, interview, late
in the study)
Peter had found that, even as an expert (or possibly because he was an expert), he
was finding it very challenging to understand and explain fundamental aspects of his
field. His previous knowledge base was no longer entirely plausible in the pedagogic
context.
The world of the novice lecturer
The world of the novice lecturer was the setting for the interrogations described
above. This was a world which has been characterized by the following: a sense of
isolation, uncertainty, conflict between multiple roles, dependency on management,
having to deal with expanding administrative loads and juggle work and home
responsibilities (Knight & Trowler, 2000). The informants described a similarly
fragmented and stressful context. Hannah described the year as a ‘rollercoaster’,
Peter as ‘firefighting’ and having to wear too many ‘hats’, Simon as ‘just keeping your
head above water’, while Tom found the need to ‘play two games’ of teaching and
research very stressful. It could be argued that such characteristics are typical of the
life of any lecturer, whether novice or experienced, but I would argue that the degree
to which these new lecturers were positioned as novices exacerbated the stresses and
led to a qualitative difference in their experience, in which being positioned as
novices (in the sense of non-experts) defined them in terms of lacks. As Hannah
noted: ‘I have found the jump from confident clinician to unconfident lecturer
difficult’ (Hannah, reflective diary, early in the study).
Learning about university teaching 327
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Workplace influences
In addition to the above, there was also a sense that expectations about the nature of
the job had not been fulfilled. ‘Eighty or ninety per cent of my job is administration.
Nothing to do with science . . . I applied to do one job and I’ve ended up doing
something different’ (Peter, interview, late in the study).
Colleagues, a source of both pleasure and stress, were encountered in teaching
teams, subject teams, as managers and in the development programme (impressions
of which are discussed later). Positive effects included high levels of support from
teams, which was said to encourage risk-taking, and the opportunity within teams to
give support to others, which seemed to build confidence. Working together in a
mutually supportive subject team was something which all of the informants
highlighted as helpful. Negative experiences included a lack of opportunities for
team work, or ineffective teams which left individuals to ‘get on with it’, and those
colleagues who ‘dumped on’ novices by off-loading unpleasant or onerous tasks.
Managers who required the informants to teach outside of their perceived expertise
or who failed to give sufficient information about systems and norms produced
feelings of vulnerability and resentment.
Encounters with students were powerfully influential. I refer here to the effect of
student feedback and student response within teaching contexts. Student feedback
was actively sought by all lecturers and seemed to serve the purpose of endorsing
teaching approaches and materials, such as the use of handouts, or confirming
whether teaching was ‘pitched’ correctly. Student response in lectures and seminars
was interpreted as indicating the appropriacy of teaching. This was gauged by eye
contact, facial expression and most crucially by the degree to which students were
available outside of class time, or whether they talked in lectures, arrived late, or
failed to attend.
This ‘dialogue’ between lecturer and students was symbiotic, and as Simon
indicated seemed to impact on the degree to which the informants felt they could
affect student learning (or desired to).
I just ask the question what am I doing this for when a lot of these people are not
interested? Why am I bothering? You know especially when you put a lot of effortinto it it’s frustrating. No it doesn’t sit comfortably with me that I’m doing this and
half the people are sat there and they just look bored. (Simon, interview, late in thestudy)
In spite of the fact that the informants’ interrogation of beliefs revealed a complex
and cyclical relationship between external influences and core beliefs, in all cases
there was a sense of a conceptual moving on. The relationship between beliefs,
influences for change and pedagogic perspective was found, however, to be
unpredictable and ‘fuzzy’ and to suggest that changes in practice might be best
seen as a long-term rather than a short-term effect.
To sum up, my study suggests that degrees of change are affected by the
individual’s core beliefs. Core beliefs influence other pedagogic beliefs and in turn
have the potential, when interrogated, to bring about change in the individual’s
328 A. M. Pickering
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
pedagogic perspective*/that is their sense of what is possible, plausible and desirable.
Professional learning is, however, situated and options for change are perceived as
pragmatically bounded, suggesting the need to take account of complex contexts
which reflect lived experience.
Findings also suggest a number of factors relevant to the theorization of the change
process. Firstly, beliefs about the lecturer’s discipline and disciplinary identity
appeared to be significant in the sense that they informed other beliefs about learning
and teaching. Secondly, although there were individual degrees of difference in the
power of experiences, encounters with students, perhaps because they were the point
of intersection between disciplinary expertise and core pedagogic beliefs, seemed to
generate the most disturbance.
Reflections on the novice’s lecturer’s developmental needs
These reflections are informed by two basic questions.
1. What does it mean to be a novice university lecturer currently?
2. What is it that novice university lecturers actually need to learn?
In a sense the answer to the first question might be very similar to the question
‘What does it mean to be any university lecturer currently?’ I have argued, however,
that the novice lecturer’s positioning as non-expert leads to a qualitative difference in
experience. When addressing the second question, therefore, it is relevant to consider
the degree to which the informants felt that they were positioned (for example by
their lack of information or autonomy) or positioned themselves (for example when
teaching outside of their expertise) as novices. When teaching within what they
perceived as their expertise, the informants felt that, in spite of the fact that
improvement was always possible, they compared well to their more experienced
colleagues. While they all showed an interest in the pedagogic norms of their
colleagues and development opportunities, all rejected the notion that there was a
‘right’ way to teach across disciplines.
In the light of this, any attempt to answer the above questions must be balanced by
consideration of an equally important question, ‘What is it that the novice lecturer
already knows?’ The informants engaged critically (although not easily) with their
own beliefs and assumptions. My findings support the notion that any attempt to
facilitate learning about teaching must engage with this facility, since what a lecturer
‘knows’ comprises implicitly held core beliefs and perspectives and is influenced by
experiences.
During the study, the informants were participants on a teaching development
programme. It is relevant at this point to consider the degree to which this experience
was considered to be significant. Two found the experience largely irrelevant to
perceived needs. The others felt they had learned teaching ‘tips’ and had benefited
from the support network of the action learning sets. The informants felt negative
about the following aspects of the experience: the workload, which was felt to be
Learning about university teaching 329
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
excessive and to take time from research and scholarly activities; the reflective diary
requirement, which was seen by three lecturers as a ‘chore’; and the programme
ethos, which was perceived as promoting generic pedagogy. Three informants felt
that workshops, in particular, had been ‘talking shops’ which were too general,
‘vague and floating in the air’, not personally relevant and tended to position
participants as novices.
In the light of these reflections, and my findings, I present a number of thoughts
about university teaching development.
Acknowledging the expert identity
The subject world of the informants represented an alternative reality through which
teaching and learning imperatives were defined, and in terms of which they defined
their own identity as a lecturer. This disciplinary identity appears to be particularly
strong in the case of the novice lecturer, who comes to university teaching with a high
level of expertise in his or her discipline. Teaching and learning orthodoxies which
decontextualize teaching methods, or which seek to over-generalize the needs of
lecturers and students may fail to engage with the needs and beliefs of individuals.
Equally, the degree to which this disciplinary identity is recognized and engaged with
could lead to the kinds of affective and pragmatic developments which might help the
novice lecturer to relate discipline-specific needs to general frameworks. Also, a
recognition that the positioning of the novice lecturer as either novice or expert could
have an effect on the realization of options for change, would imply the advisability of
an approach which attempted to do the latter.
Acknowledging expertise
Novice lecturers begin their career in university teaching as experts of sorts. The
informants spoke at length of their identity and expertise as specialists where
teaching development ‘orthodoxies’ foreground the need for innovation, and
implicitly operating according to a deficit view of teaching development,
could be said to devalue the strengths of individuals. It is often the case that teacher
developers learn from novices and novices learn from each other. In the light of
this, it is interesting that the informants felt most comfortable when given the
opportunity to contribute to teaching development workshops as ‘knowers’ and to
feel part of a new practice-focused community (Nicholls, 2004; Trigwell & Shale,
2004). This also suggests the power and importance of democratizing knowledge
(Skelton, 2000).
Engaging with beliefs
My findings support the notion that the beliefs that a novice brings with them to
university teaching inform change. However, beliefs are implicitly held and can be
330 A. M. Pickering
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
internally contested (Pajares, 1992), meaning that reflection on beliefs does not
always come easily. In the light of this, development programmes should consider
how they address the needs of the non-reflective practitioner, and how they facilitate
and enable reflection on beliefs about practice when the lecturer is an inexperienced
teacher. I suggest that in doing this there should be consideration of the way in which
professional learning is situated within contexts and settings and is related to
disciplinary allegiances (Knight & Trowler, 2000).
Recognizing the world of the novice lecturer
The experience of the novice lecturer is certainly stressful, made worse by some
development activities which for vulnerable novice lecturers can (however unwit-
tingly) emphasize deficits and lacks. There should perhaps be an equal emphasis on
the examination and legitimization of existing practice through peer observation
within discipline-related communities of practice. Engagement with the limitations
on innovation would also be helpful, as a sense of what is possible could help to build
confidence, leaving the individual more willing to take risks.
A holistic approach
The novice lecturer has a variety of new responsibilities. The majority of their time as
with most lecturers currently, is spent with non-front stage activities (Goffman,
1969). Of course, teaching development initiatives aim to address the issue of quality
of teaching and learning, but it is doubtful that teaching and learning can be
separated out from the context of the lecturer’s experience. Teaching development,
therefore, should ensure that it casts its net widely, to include those areas of the
lecturer’s life which impact on the front-stage roles.
Legitimizing the power of experiences
My interpretations indicated that experience was a powerful teacher, but that some
experiences were more powerful than others (see Hannon, 2001), such as encounters
with students. Participation in a teaching development programme did not appear
(and I must hedge this claim) to be equally powerful. Trigwell and Shale (2004), in
their reflections on the degree to which the notion of scholarship of teaching
encompasses the student/teacher engagement (a state which is termed ‘pedagogic
resonance’), suggest that teaching practices can help to bind communities of
practitioners, and that teaching and learning inevitably involves collaboration
between teachers and students ‘as partners’. Their model of a ‘practice-based’
scholarship of teaching is an interesting emphasis given the degree to which the
informants’ encounters with students appeared central to their interrogation of
existing beliefs (see also Lueddeke, 2003).
Learning about university teaching 331
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Encouraging membership of communities
I highlight here the importance of professional grouping (whether formal or
informal) which provides support, information and a sense of what is possible and
plausible within specific contexts, and within which the individual can contribute to
the creation of standards and systems. One of the positive aspects of the teaching
development programme was the opportunity to get to know lecturers from a range
of disciplines who offered an emotional and practical support. However, particularly
in the short-term, the informants derived most support from their immediate
colleagues within subject-related teams. Such a community could become system-
atically involved in the development of new lecturers, particularly given the
‘inhospitable’ higher education environment (Knight & Trowler, 2000). The notion
of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) is raised by Lueddeke (2003) as
encouraging a focus on teaching and learning in higher education, since this will
help to generate collaborative development and an exchange of views on issues ‘that
really do matter to staff and students’ (Lueddeke, 2003, p 224; see also Brown, 2000;
Hutchings, 2000). My findings suggest that the home for this would be within the
discipline group. The significance of the informants’ teaching encounters would also
supports the centrality of teaching practice to development and the inclusion of
students in the notion of communities of practice (Trigwell & Shale, 2004).
A consideration of method
I conclude with a consideration of method. My thoughts on this relate particularly to
the fact that three of the informants found written reflection on their teaching
problematic, but warmed to the notion of collaborative development. Peter spoke of
‘blitzing’ the diary because he didn’t find it useful and likened it to a box-ticking
exercise.
When considering the effect of my research study the informants commented on
the usefulness of the process of watching a video of themselves teaching their own
classes, and of reflecting on the video with a colleague (in this case myself). They
found such collaborative reflection to be more authentic (and collegial) than the
experience of writing a reflective diary, and that they could be more critical of
themselves than others (for example, peer observers). The informants felt that they
could learn more from watching themselves on video than being peer observed, and
were forced (through collaborative reflection) to notice (Mason, 2002).
My impression was that the experience of collaborative reflection based around the
videoing of a real teaching event addresses the problem facing teachers without a
body of teaching experience to reflect on, by giving them a concrete example of their
own practice to use for discussion. It also addresses the preference for teaching
development processes which are targeted to specific needs and contexts. And finally,
the process of collaborative reflection, based on specific pedagogic context, to some
extent mirrors the theorization of change potential as residing partly in the
332 A. M. Pickering
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
individual’s dialogue with events, and addresses the need to consider options for
change in relation to what is possible, plausible and desirable in real settings.
End word
It seemed clear from my own experience of a development programme built around
opportunities for private and shared reflection that teaching development pro-
grammes had the potential to influence pedagogic practices and student learning. I
would suggest, however, that there is a need to systematize alternative sites for
change (outside of the formal development programme) and to embrace the notion
that change in pedagogic practices should not be seen as the defining factor of
pedagogic progress. Both suggestions are relevant not only to the development of the
novice lecturer, but also to the management of continuing professional development.
Note
1. Action learning sets were small groups of participants with a set advisor. The sets provided
support and guidance for professional development and peer assessment. Fortnightly
meetings allowed participants opportunities to share concerns and use problem-solving
approaches to develop confidence and provide feedback to aid others’ development.
References
Akerlind, G. S. (2003) Growing and developing as a university teacher: variation in meaning,
Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 375�390.
Becher, T. (1994) The significance of disciplinary differences, Studies in Higher Education, 19,
151�161.
Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (2001) Academic tribes and territories (Buckingham, SRHE).
Becker, H., Geer, E., Highes, E. & Strauss, A. (1961) The boys in white: student culture in medical
school (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).
Boice, R. (1992) The new faculty member (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
Bourner, T., France, L. & Atkinson, A. (2000) Preparing and developing university teachers: an
empirical study, University of Brighton Education Research Centre, Occasional Paper,
December.
Bowden, J. A. (1989) Curriculum development for conceptual change learning: a phenomeno-
graphic pedagogy, paper presented to the Sixth Annual (International) Conference of the Hong
Kong Educational Research Association , Hong Kong.
Brown, S. (2000) Influences on the effectiveness of teaching and learning innovations in higher
education, keynote address to the Society for Research into Higher Education Conference,
Creativity in Teaching and Learning , University of Sterling.
Coffey, M. & Gibbs, G. (2000) Can academics benefit from training? Some preliminary evidence,
Teaching in Higher Education, 5(3), 385�389.
DfEE (1998a) The learning age: a renaissance for Britain (London, HMSO).
DfEE (1998b) Higher education for the 21st century: a response to the Dearing Report (London,
HMSO).
Dunkin, M. J. & Precians, R. P. (1992) Award-winning university teachers’ conceptions of
teaching, Higher Education, 24, 483�502.
Learning about university teaching 333
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Freeman, D. (1991) The same things done differently: a study of the development of four foreign language
teachers’ conceptions of practice through an in-service teacher education programme . Unpublished
Ed.D. thesis, Harvard University.
Gibbs, G. & Coffey, M. (2000) What is training of university teachers attempting to achieve, and
how could we tell if it makes any difference?, paper presented at the International Consortium
for Educational development Conference , University of Bielefeld.
Gilbert, A. & Gibbs, G. (1998) A proposal for a collaborative international research programme
to identify the impact of initial training on university teaching. Available online at:
www2.auckland.ac.nz/cpd/HERDSA/HTML/StaffDev/gilbert.htm (accessed January 2005).
Goffman, E. (1969) The presentation of self in everyday life (Harmondsworth, Penguin).
Hannon, A. (2001) Changing higher education: teaching, learning and institutional cultures, paper
for the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association , University of Leeds,
September.
Ho, A. S. P. (1998) A conceptual change staff development programme: effects as perceived by
participants, International Journal for Academic Development, 2(1), 24�38.
Ho, A. S. P. (2000) A conceptual change staff development programme: assessment of resultant
conceptual changes in participants, paper presented at the 3rd Conference of the International
Consortium for Educational Development , Bielefeld, Germany, 22�26 July.
Hutchings, P. (Ed.) (2000) Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning (Menlo Park, CA,
Carnegie Publications).
Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1994) Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student
learning, Journal of Higher Education, 65, 58�74.
Knight, P. T. (2002) Being a teacher in higher education (Buckingham, SRHE).
Knight, P. T. & Trowler, P. (2000) Department-level cultures and the improvement of learning and
teaching, Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 69�83.
Lave, J. (1993) The practice of learning, in: S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds) Understanding practice
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry (Beverly Hills, CA, Sage).
Lueddeke, G. R. (2003) Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: a study of
disciplinary variation and ‘teaching-scholarship’, Studies in Higher Education, 28(2),
213�228.
Martin, E. & Ramsden, P. (1998) An expanding awareness: how lecturers change their
understanding of teaching, in: M. S. Parer (Ed.) Academics under pressure: theory and practice
for the 21st century (Churchill, VC: HERDSA).
Mason, J. (2002) Researching your own practice: the discipline of noticing (London, RoutledgeFalmer).
McLean, M. & Blackwell, R. (1997) Opportunity knocks? Professionalism and excellence in
university teaching, Teachers & Teaching: theory and practice, 3(1), 85�99.
Nicholls, G. (2000) Professional development in higher education (London, Kogan Page).
Nicholls, G. (2004) Scholarship in teaching as a core professional value, Teaching in Higher
Education, 9(1), 29�42.
Pajares, M. F. (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct,
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307�332.
Parker, J. (2000) A new disciplinarity: communities of knowledge, learning and practice, Teaching
in Higher Education, 7(4), 373�386.
Perry, R. P., Menec, V. H., Struthers, C. W., Hechter, F. J., Schonwetter, D. J. & Menges, R. J.
(1996) Faculty in transition: the adjustment of new hires to postsecondary institutions (Winnipeg,
MB, Centre for Higher Education Research and Development).
Pickering, A. M. (2002) Becoming a university lecturer: an exploration of the pedagogic beliefs and
practices of four novice university lecturers enrolled on an in-service teaching development
programme . Unpublished Ed.D. thesis, King’s College, University of London.
Richardson, V. (1994) The consideration of teachers’ beliefs, in: V. Richardson (Ed.) Teacher change
and the staff development process (New York, Teachers College Press, Columbia University).
334 A. M. Pickering
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4
Rowland, S. (1998) Turning academics into teachers?, Teaching in Higher Education, 3(2),
133�141.
Rowland, S. (2000) The enquiring university teacher (London, SRHE).
Rowland, S. (2001) Higher education: purposes and roles, paper presented at the British
Educational Research Association Annual Conference , University of Leeds, September.
Available online at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001915.htm (accessed June
2003).
Rust, C. (2000) Do initial training courses have an impact on university teaching? The Evidence
from two evaluative studies of one course, Innovations in Education & Training International,
37(3), 254�262.
Sackman, S. (1997) Cultural Complexity in Organizations (London, Sage).
Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J. D. (1992) Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers, Higher
Education, 24, 93�111.
Shibutani, T. (1955) Reference groups as perspectives, American Journal of Sociology, 60, 562�569.
Skelton, A. (2000) Towards inclusive learning environments in higher education? Reflections on a
professional development course for university lecturers, Teaching in Higher Education, 7(2),
193�214.
Tait, J., Cox, G., Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2002) Evaluation of the effectiveness of staff development
for ALs: a project brief . Available online at: www2.open.ac.uk/cehep/ssrg/projects/staff_dev/
documents/plan (accessed January 2005).
Terenzini, P. T. (1998) Research and practice in undergraduate education, paper presented at
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Trigwell, K. (1995) Increasing faculty understanding of teaching, in: A. A. Wright & Associates
(Ed.) Teaching improvement practices (Bolton, MA, Anker).
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Taylor, P. (1994) Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first
year science, Higher Education, 27, 75�84.
Trigwell, K. & Shale, S. (2004) Student learning and the scholarship of university teaching, Studies
in Higher Education, 29(4), 523�536.
Trowler, P. (1998) Academics responding to change: new higher education frameworks and academic
cultures (Buckingham, SRHE).
Universities UK, SCOP, HEFCE & HEA Consultation (2004) Towards a framework of professional
teaching standards (London, Universities UK).
Weimer, M. & Lenze, L. F. (1997) Instructional interventions: a review of the literature on efforts
to improve instruction, in: R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds) Effective Teaching in Higher
Education: research and practice (New York, Agathon Press).
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press).
Wood, K. (2000) The experience of learning to teach: changing student teachers’ ways of
understanding teaching, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 75�93.
Learning about university teaching 335
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
onne
ctic
ut]
at 0
7:17
08
Oct
ober
201
4