You know I found the PGCLTHE particularly helpful, and it’s interesting that the idea of University ‘teacher training’ still causes so much debate (and a certain lack of enthusiasm amongst staff):
Academics are often critical about systems of teacher training and the evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Why is this? Clearly it is not because academics think that teaching is unimportant; most say teaching is important and wish that it were given greater importance in personnel decisions.
Probably most professionals – not just teachers – are critical of the systems used to evaluate them. Academics are highly trained to be critical of research and they use these skills to critique teacher evaluation and training programmes. There are also heated debates on how to evaluate research track records and related peer-review processes. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon the higher education system to implement – and to be seen to implement – professional development programmes at all stages, as well as frameworks to guide their construction and evaluation, and systems for the continuing evaluation of university teachers.
Interesting, having recently completed my PGCLTHE (which I found helpful)… the general gist of the story is that there is support for the idea that all who teach in HE should be appropriately qualified, but there’s a debate as to how this should be done, and whether this should aim for ‘one size fits all’…
It said at the time that it “strongly recommended” that all new academic staff “be required” to complete an HEA-accredited teaching programme, such as the postgraduate certificate in higher education.
It also said that all postgraduates who teach should undertake training, that existing staff should be “offered opportunities” to do a PGCHE or the equivalent, and that classroom observation should become part of any teaching qualification.
But the HEA’s report on the consultation, published this week, reveals that more than 70 per cent of respondents oppose compulsory discipline-based teaching qualifications.
Is ‘teacher training’ at Higher Education level worthwhile? Well, as someone who’s in the Learning & Teaching Development Unit, clearly I think so! I completed my PGCLTHE earlier this year, and found it great to challenge my thinking on the way that I teach, and it’s changed my practice hugely. There’s plenty of comments on this story in the Times Higher Education:
Where academics were instructed on how to teach better, Dr Robson said, peer review of their lectures could be used, although this would only be right for staff that had received “long-term training”.
Dr Robson added that self-evaluation could be useful, with lecturers asked to provide examples of how their training did or did not improve their teaching.
They could also use National Student Survey scores to show improvements, she argued.
Other areas could be assessed more simply (whether staff had absorbed basic health and safety training could be ascertained using a simple questionnaire, for example). But leadership and development coaching needed something “more detailed”, Dr Robson said, such as appraisals by line managers three to sixth months after completion.
Where staff took on much more “intensive” training, scores could be given on performance, which could then be used to calculate the return on investment.
But Dr Hill’s time in Iraq was not just about serving Queen and country. Working with a completely different set of students made her a better teacher, she believes.
“We were there doing post-war reconstruction and helping to get their infrastructure back on track,” she said. “I was in charge of a group educating and training local artisans, who were learning under a system with no formal framework of qualifications.
“These electricians and carpenters had a certain level of technical knowledge, but they could not apply it beyond their basic training.”
Saddam’s regime, she said, “had completely squashed their ability to think for themselves and problem-solve.
“We encouraged them to reflect on their strengths and weaknesses – to make their own decisions and think more creatively.
“It made me think about how I taught my students in Bristol, and consider whether I spent too much time thinking about the cognitive and academic demands of a course, rather than how students were interacting with each other or approaching materials.”
Also a great advocate for PGCLTHE:
Dr Hill is an unapologetic advocate for compulsory teacher training for young academics. She took a postgraduate certificate in teaching and learning at her own university seven years ago and highly recommends the experience.
“The course validated many of my teaching activities, clarified the theoretical foundations on which they were based and prompted me to consider how I could improve my practice, especially how to engage students more actively in their learning.”
Increased use of podcasts, video clips and other new-media materials is another way that teaching can be improved, she said.
“I teach a lot of bio-geography about forests and deserts, and it’s often difficult to convey what a place is actually like.
“I film a lot of stuff on location and students love it, but you have to make sure it’s engaging with them in a useful way. When I first did it, students were not coming together or learning from each other.”
She also cautioned against allowing students to think that their lecturers will spoon-feed them with all the materials they need.
“You need to anchor them in the subject and challenge them to find out more. I now set quizzes about the materials and generally help to move them in the right direction.”
She finishes:
“Every university should encourage and support teaching to the same extent that it does research.”
The first draft had a lot more quotes/background material in it, but I was asked to pull it back to allow more of my own reflections to shine through (and it was too long anyway!). Let’s see what happens, eh? Taking it into work on Thursday, and assuming it passes (50% +), then I will become a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.
