Brown, C.

Dean, B.A.

Harden-Thew, K.

Lawson, R.

Thomas, L.

English

Research Repository

124Abstracts Thursday 29 October 2015emergent skill needs for leadership learning. In addition,opportunities for students to gain practical skills through work-integrated learning and hearing practitioner present casestudies of their experience, have been designed to developstudents soft skills. However, as the speed of change increases,practitioners, are looking more to academics to identify newapproaches to broaden student skills. In this situation thetraditional boundary between academics and practitioners isbecoming more porous, requiring a new framework uponwhich to build living learning partnerships.The idea of a learning organisation, first mooted by Senge) hassince been expanded to incorporate the possibility for changein learning approaches to be tested in a safe laboratoryenvironment through initiatives such as ULab that use MOOCsas a hybrid learning platform. In addition the concept of aliving laboratory is being developed, especially in theenvironmental sciences, to explore real-life testing andexperimentation where users and producers co-createinnovations. While less expansive, other examples of livinglearning laboratory partnerships, are being trialled as effectivechange within current curriculum offerings.The Round Table will engage participants in an authenticlearning opportunity of a Living Learning Laboratorypartnership. The four element flexible framework for the LivingLearning Laboratory was designed based upon the experienceof an Innovative Management Practice Trial undertaken by theauthors in 2013.The outcome will be two-fold. Reflection on the flexibleframework for the Living Learning Laboratory (and potentialmodification) based on participant feedback and secondly,dissemination of the Living Learning Laboratory to underpincurriculum design more broadly.The Round Table contributes to the conference theme ofLeading learning and the scholarship of change in severalways. First, it explores the issue of a potential new form ofcollaborative partnership inside and outside the academy.Second, it highlights a more authentic learning approach forstudents beyond placing students in a situated learning (work-integrated) environment.Session E6PaperAN ADAPTABLE TOOL FOR INSTITUTIONS ANDINDIVIDUALS TO DEVELOP AND APPLY TEACHINGCRITERIA AND STANDARDSDenise Chalmers1, Rick Cummings2, Beatrice Tucker3, SueStoney4, Sofia Elliot5, Rachel Wicking1, Trina Jorre de St Jorre11 The University of Western Australia2 Murdoch University3 Curtin University 4 Edith Cowan University 5 University of Notre DameThe Australian University Teaching Criteria and Standards(AUTCAS) framework* was developed in response tosignificant changes in the Australian higher educationenvironment which include an increasingly diverse student andstaff population, a new regulatory and accreditationframework and the growing imperative to demonstrate qualityin teaching in the local and international higher educationmarketplace. The Framework has been developed through anextensive review of the literature and current practices ininternational and Australian universities and wide consultationacross the higher education sector. The framework isunderpinned by carefully researched definitions and principlesof quality teaching that are expressed through seven criteria.The organising principle is alignment with academicappointment and promotional levels. For each criterion theframework suggests standards of achievement that might beapplied to each promotional level, cross-referenced toexamples of indicative evidence that could be used todemonstrate achievement. The framework was developed withthe intention that these criteria, standards and indicativeevidence be adapted by individual universities to suit their owncontext and values. The framework also supports individualteachers in building evidence of their impact in an increasinglycomplex work environment including traditional research-teaching academics to teaching focussed academics andprofessional staff. The increasing diversity in academic andteaching roles requires institutions to provide greater clarityabout how they determine, facilitate and reward teachingquality in their policies and practices.The framework has been widely disseminated and trialled inAustralia, contributing as a timely catalyst for discussion andinterest in utilising the framework within institutions. Inresponse to this interest, an extension project wasimplemented to support institutions to develop their ownteaching criteria and standards, embed criteria in institutionalprocesses such as recruitment, probation, staffreview/development and promotion.Over 24 Australian universities utilised the Framework inreviewing and developing their own teaching criteria.Successful strategies for embedding teaching criteria andstandards into institutional policy and processes were identifiedand written as case studies. The Framework, resources, casestudies and good practice recommendations for use andimplementation are available on the project website(www.uniteachingcriteria.edu.au).We will briefly describe the framework and how it has beenused by institutions and individual academic staff, illustratingits flexibility by the different ways the framework has beenused to support, develop, promote and embed qualityteaching criteria and standards. We will conclude with an opendiscussion on how it can be used by teachers to demonstrateand document their diverse contributions related to teachingand learning.*The AUTCAS project was funded by the Office of Learningand Teaching (OLT).Session E6PaperDISCOVER, CONNECT, INSPIRE: TRANSITIONINGINTO A WHOLE OF INSTITUTION, CONTINUINGPROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKBonnie Amelia Dean1, Kathryn Harden-Thew1, Romy Lawson1,Christine Brown1, Lisa Thomas11 University of WollongongThe higher education landscape is changing with growingdiversity of learners, technologies, teaching spaces, andindustry expectations. In this multilayered complexity ofchange, new strategic directions are envisaged in order totransform curriculum and support academic staff at thecoalface of teaching and learning. These developments havebeen the impetus for change in the way professionaldevelopment for teaching is offered at the University ofWollongong (UOW).Until 2015, UOW has facilitated a University Learning andTeaching (ULT) course for new academic staff as well as arange of face-to-face and online professional developmentopportunities for sessional teachers. These offerings whileattending to core teaching and learning principles around125diversity, inclusivity and best assessment practices, weresegmented with little opportunity for engagement inprofessional development beyond the course.In this context of change, the University’s Learning, Teachingand Curriculum Unit is undergoing a significant process toreview the professional development and support of allteaching staff across the institution. This effort aims to addressthe changes occurring in the broader higher education contextand, more locally, as courses undergo renewal. Throughengaging with faculty representatives and stakeholders acrossthe university, a Continuing Professional Development (CPD)framework was conceptualised with seven learning criteria,benchmarked against international teaching standards (HigherEducational Academy), national standards (Australian Criteriaof Teaching Standards) and internal expectations andperformance framework (Academic Performance Framework,UOW). CPD has been constructed to cover five levels thatincrease in complexity in line with career stages. Staff can seekrecognition of their teaching at a nominated level by aligningtheir teaching activity with the specified learning outcomesand demonstrating this through constructing a teachingportfolio of evidence. CPD also comprises open and integratedonline modules and face-to-face workshops, just in timeresources and special interest groups available to all UOWteaching staff.In the first semester of implementation, several online moduleshave been made available and ten face-to-face workshopshave been run, covering teaching and learning topics and waysto evidence professional practice for CPD portfolio support. Inaddition, following individual consultations, the first rounds ofCPD portfolios have been peer reviewed by a panel ofexperienced teaching staff. In 2015, we continue to teach-outULT while piloting CPD with full implementation planned for2016.Participant feedback, to date, has been positive, includingteaching staff from across the university and representingseveral stages in career development. Though in its infancy, thefeedback gained indicates that this new framework addressestwo felt needs: firstly, that staff engage with CPD in order toenhance knowledge, sharpen skills and take opportunities tobroaden networks across the university. Secondly, that staff areinterested in the activity and language of teaching andlearning for purposes of portfolio building.This presentation will reflect on and outline the processes oftransition for re-envisaging professional development at UOW.We will invite reflections on how we might evidence andevaluate new course impact, as well as the perceived, ongoingbenefits and challenges of a university-wide, continuingprofessional development framework.Session E7PaperCOORDINATION AND TEACHING IN A LARGE-SCALE FIRST-YEAR SUBJECT: A CASE FORDISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIPAnthony Baker11 Faculty of Science, University of Technology SydneyThe enrolment in first-year chemistry at the University ofTechnology Sydney is close to 1000 students. Whilst subjectsare usually coordinated by a single staff member, that situationis unrealistic for such a subject. In reorganizing Chemistry 1, adistributed model of leadership was put in place. In terms ofthe university requirements one person had to be designatedas coordinator but several tasks were delegated to other staff,such as the organization of the laboratory teaching and thefielding of student inquiries about one-off changes of labsession.The commitment to distributed leadership went far beyond thedelegation of administrative tasks. Teaching in the laboratorywas carried out by postgraduate students and there was astrong intention to make them leaders in the laboratorysessions. There was also a concern to draw the demonstratorsinto the academic community as junior colleagues rather thanas a convenient source of casual labour. To this end a start-of-semester induction session was held at which senior staff ofthe School made clear the expectations that the School had ofthe demonstrators and taking account of a substantialliterature on the induction of teaching assistants (as examples:Herrington and Nakhleh (2003), Bond-Robinson and Bernard-Rodriques (2006)). There were also break-out sessions in whichexperienced demonstrators shared their experiences oflaboratory teaching. The demonstrators appreciated the effortto assist their professional development as academics. Insubsequent semesters, feedback collected from the previousinduction session was used to improve the experience.During semester contact with the demonstrators was informal,but extensive seeing the demonstrators were research studentsin the School, and it was clearly communicated at everyopportunity that there was strong interest in achieving qualitylearning and teaching in the laboratory. A major event was anend-of-semester debrief where demonstrators had fullopportunity to comment on the laboratory learning andteaching. Many demonstrators mentioned that they reallyenjoyed the chance to suggest improvements in the laboratoryteaching program and recognised that they were beingacknowledged as valuable colleagues.This focus on the demonstrators as a key element in ourteaching and learning team was one element of majorchanges wrought in Chemistry 1, so it was not the sole reasonfor the passrate jumping from ca 70% to 84%. Clearlyindicating student recognition for the important role thedemonstrators played in their learning was that the studentfeedback on the experience in the laboratory, which we havespecifically collected, is quite remarkable: in 2014, 28 out of38 demonstrators achieved a rating of 4.5 or above on a 5-point Likert scale for the question “Overall, I am satisfied withthe teaching of this staff member”.Bond-Robinson, J. & Bernard-Rodriques, R.A. (2006).Catalyzing Graduate Teaching Assistants Laboratory Teachingthrough Design Research. Journal of Chemical Education,83(2), 313-323.Herrington, D.G. & Nakhleh, M.B. (2003). What DefinesEffective Chemistry Laboratory Instruction? Teaching Assistantand Student Perspectives. Journal of Chemical Education,80(10), 1197-1205.Session E7PaperTHE PEER ASSISTED TEACHING SCHEME: ENABLINGDISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP IN LEARNING ANDTEACHINGAngela Carbone1, J Evans11 Monash UniversitySince 2005, the potential of distributed leadership foradvancing teaching quality in Australian higher education hasbeen explored through a series of projects that have primarilyfocused on improving leadership capacity through changes toinstitutional structures and leaders in formal functional roles.For the purposes of this paper, two projects (Jones et al. 2012,2014) have been selected to explore the potential of

Discover, connect, inspire: Transitioning into a whole of institution, continuing professional development framework

https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/33278/1/discover.pdf

Discover, connect, inspire: Transitioning into a whole of institution, continuing professional development framework

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Repository