‘But we don’t want to teach ‘em,’ replied the Badger.

‘We want to learn ’em--learn

’em, learn ’em! And what’s more, we’re going to do it, too!’

As said by the Badger to the Toad in The Wind in the Willows, by Grahame Greene,
1908.
This book is dedicated to my wonderful family who have inspired and encouraged
me in my work: my husband, Bill Menzo, a Canadian Prime Minister’s Teaching
Award-Winner for his work inspiring students in Geography and Environmental
Studies, and my daughters, Christie and Lauren, who are following family tradi-
tions in their endeavours to engage with the next generation to continue to ‘learn
’em vs. teach ’em.’
Arshad Ahmad, Concordia University, Canada
Kenneth Bartlett, University of Toronto, Canada
Spencer Benson, University of Maryland, USA
Grant Campbell, University of Manchester, UK
Gregor Campbell, University College London, UK
L. C. Chan, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Carol-Ann Courneya, University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada
Elliott Currie, University of Guelph, Canada
Iain Doherty, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
David Dunne, University of Toronto, Canada & Simon Fraser University, Canada
Cath Ellis, University of Huddersfield, UK
Peter Felten, Elon University, USA
Harry Hubball, University of British Columbia, Canada
Lynne Hunt, University of Southern Queensland, Australia & University
of Western Australia, Australia
Gray Kochhar-Lindgren, University of Washington, USA
Geraldine Lefoe, University of Wollongong, Australia
Lin Norton, Liverpool Hope University, UK
Ron Oliver, Edith Cowan University, Australia
Mike Prosser, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong & University of
Sydney, Australia
Bruce M. Shore, McGill University, Canada
When I read the case studies of quality teaching collected in this book, three key
features stood out for me as at the heart of the collection. It struck me that bringing
these considerations together in reflective cases is the book’s distinctive contribu-
tion to our literature on exemplary teaching and learning in higher education. I
offer my reflections here as a guide to readers about the value you can discover in
these cases, and as my thanks for the labour of love they represent by the authors
and by Diane Salter as their editor.
The first feature that struck me was the remarkable range of disciplines, con-
texts, and countries represented; this breadth caused me to think more deeply about
what was common across the quality teaching described and what might be more
rooted in the strengths of these particular teachers, the challenges of their subject
areas, and the needs of their learners and their local circumstances. For the Cana-
dian case studies, where I understood something about the local context, why did
I find myself equally inspired by examples from subjects I had taught—such as
David Dunne’s (ch 11) description of teaching design-based thinking to students in
management courses—and those areas that were new to me, like visual literacy to
students in medicine by Carol-Ann Courneya (ch 4) or Elliot Currie’s technology
use in accounting for resource-based learning and flipped classrooms (ch 8)? What
adjustments would I have to make to the methods and approaches in other cases
from different types of institutions and other countries (UK, USA, Australia, New
Zealand, and Hong Kong)?
The second feature—or question—that caught my attention was the variety of
definitions of “quality teaching” that the case studies presented. While all of the
cases emphasized high quality outcomes for our students, some considered quality
teaching to also touch on high quality outcomes for us as educators, and for institu-
tions and communities. Lin Norton and Tessa Owens (UK, ch 13), for example,
present a case study of a community of practice in pedagogical action research as
a way to “influence policy and practice within their departments, their institutions,
and ultimately, across the sector.” Further impacts by Spencer Benson (US, ch 15)
across an entire institution, and by Geraldine Lefoe and Dominique Parrish (Aus-
tralia, ch 22) extending across institutions. Gray Kochhar-Lindgren (Hong Kong
and US, ch 22) explores interdisciplinary capabilities as a critical outcome of the
“global university” and describes teaching methods to foster their development.
Another aspect of quality teaching that I noted was the extent to which it is
exemplary teaching: some high quality teaching can serve more readily as a model
for other teachers and contexts. In some cases, the exemplary teaching becomes
shareable through resources for teachers and learners that can be adapted, re-used,
and extended by others. For example, Gregor Campbell (UK, ch 5) describes a set
of reusable resources and adaptable learning design methods for histology instruc-
tion. Many of these exemplary approaches are of course generalizable to other
disciplines, and some chapter authors explicitly explore what this might entail.
Ron Oliver (Australia, ch 6) describes how “to use technology in ways that enhance
[rather than mimic] conventional practices…with a view to offering readers a sense
of how they might adapt such approaches to their own teaching.”
In addition, thinking of quality teaching as “exemplary” leads to another aspect
of quality: teaching that demonstrates the practices of knowing and doing we want
to foster in our students. Sometimes this exemplary quality is implicit in the teaching
practices: Tanya Chichekian et al. (Canada, ch 10) talk about their own inquiry-
based learning as teachers as part of their description of ways to develop student
capability for inquiry, and Cath Ellis (UK, ch 14) uses her own personal learning
as an exemplar for encouraging student use of self-paced on-demand resources in
English literature.
In other chapters, the exemplary nature of the teaching practices is made explicit
for learners by sharing the teacher’s example as part of the process: L. C. Chan
(Hong Kong, ch 3) explores the practice of mindfulness to enhanced learning and
teaching, and Lynne Hunt (Australia, ch 12) describes quality teaching in the social
sciences emphasizing “students’ active engagement in learning-by-doing” through
the teacher’s active engagement in learning-by-doing, with specific role shifts in her
priorities such as “less time spent [by the teacher] being a custodial risk minimiser
and more time spent being an experimenter and risk-taker.”
As a third key feature for me, there are numerous case studies exploring how
quality teaching can be fostered as an organizational goal. Here again, the ap-
proaches reflect differing institutional contexts and cultures, and I found the whole
was greater than the sum of the parts. The range of examples was both informative
and challenging, on conceptual and practical levels. As just a few examples of the
variety of approaches, Hunt and Sankey (Australia, ch 23) take an organizational
development perspective on for quality teaching, Harry Hubball et al. (Canada, ch
20) focus on quality approaches to peer-review of teaching, Peter Felton and Ashley
Finley (US, ch 21) look at the relative contribution of traditional teaching awards to
fostering quality teaching hint: not much!, Grant Campbell (UK, ch 16) describes
approaches to teaching new faculty about quality assessment of their students, and
Iain Doherty (New Zealand, ch 23) discusses appropriate resources and supports
to help teachers to achieve high quality in teaching.
You will find that Diane Salter’s introductory chapter put these issues into context
via data from an international survey of award-winning teachers. I suspect each of
you as readers will find your own way to connect the dots between the cases and be
encouraged and challenged by them; to help with making those links, do include
in your reading chapter 2 by Mike Prosser: a concise summary for decades of his
research with Keith Trigwell and other colleagues about the value chain connecting
improvements in student learning outcomes to faculty teaching and our institutional
efforts to enhance it.
I trust this gives you a glimpse of what a reader can glean from these case stud-
ies and the important issues they raise. Whatever your institutional context, these
are important issues for efforts to enhance the quality of learning and teaching,
whether you are blessed to be in a place where quality teaching is already held
in high regard or challenged by a context where competing institutional priorities
might easily hold you back—perhaps especially in the latter! These are changing
times for higher education, and the cases provided by our authors demonstrate how
a renewed commitment and fresh thinking can energize continuing advances in
quality teaching and learning.

Thomas Carey
San Diego State University, USA & Athabasca University, Canada

Tomas Carey leads strategic faculty collaborations for exemplary teaching in higher education in-
stitutions and systems across North America. In the US, he is a Research Professor in the Center for
Research in Mathematics and Science Education at San Diego State University, and recently served
as Senior Partner at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Visiting Scholar
in the California State University Office of the Chancellor. In Canada, he is a visiting scholar in the
Technology Enhanced Knowledge Research Institute at Athabasca University, and recently served as
Senior Research Director for the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario and Associate Vice
President for Learning Resources and Innovation at the University of Waterloo.
‘But we don’t want to teach ‘em,’ replied the Badger. ‘We want to learn ’em—learn
’em, learn ’em! And what’s more, we’re going to do it, too!’

As said by the Badger in The Wind in the Willows, by Grahame Greene, 1908.

During my time as an Associate Professor at the University of Hong Kong

(2007-2012), I conducted a research study to explore the practices and perceptions
of university teachers internationally who had been recognized with awards for
exemplary teaching. Those I interviewed taught at research-intensive universities,
including institutions in Hong Kong, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, USA, and
the UK. During our extended discussions, their stories inspired me, and I felt that
their examples should be shared with a wider audience. The goal of this collection
is to share some of these examples of learning-centred teaching from international
award-winning teachers. The book is not intended to be a series of teaching tips or
a guidebook on how to become an award-winner. Rather, it is intended to provide
concrete examples from award-winners on their approaches, with a goal of helping
others to enhance best practice in teaching and learning, both at the individual and
at the institutional level. The book provides case study examples of individual ap-
proaches to teaching and the use of technology in teaching as well as institutional
examples that describe how teaching award-winners may contribute to furthering
good teaching within their institutions. The variety of discipline-diverse examples
that can be shared across disciplines is a strength of this book.
Historically, teachers at research-intensive universities have had little need to pay
attention to how they teach or to think about how students learn; career advancement,
through promotion and tenure, was based almost entirely on research productivity.
Academics in research-intensive universities are often required to teach without formal
training, with teaching regarded in secondary importance to research activities. In
the research project that was the catalyst for the creation of this book (see chapter
1), 65% of the participants stated that they had no formal teacher training prior to
starting to teach at the university level. Academics quickly learn the importance of
the phrase “publish or perish,” and in fact, some say that to focus on teaching is the
kiss of death. However, consistent with a global shift in rethinking the importance
of high quality university teaching, the introduction of teaching award schemes
internationally has been widely implemented, ostensibly with several goals. These
include the recognition of excellent teaching as well as development of leadership
capacity for learning and teaching initiatives. In addition, the criteria for teaching
awards may afford guidelines for the components of “good teaching.”
The issues in this book include best practices in teaching and learning, peda-
gogically sound use of technology, and implications around the research/teaching
nexus—issues that universities are grappling with internationally. It is my hope
that this book will be a valuable resource for those teaching further education and
teacher training courses, as well as university professorial staff, faculty developers,
and education students. It is suitable for use in both undergraduate and graduate
level courses in education related to best practices in pedagogy, innovation in use
of technology, and future directions of universities in the advancement of best
practices in learning and teaching. The goal of the collection is not to provide a
“one size fits all” approach to teaching and learning, but rather to share examples
of approaches that exemplify a variety of methodologies consistent with student-
centred learning and learning-centred teaching. Inclusion of authors was based on
the decision to extract a range of international examples that showed both reflec-
tive, student-focused teaching as well as evidence of the evaluation of the impact
through scholarly research.

The 33 contributors for this book include representatives from six countries: the
USA, Canada, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia.
The 22 chapters are compiled in three sections to include:

Section 1: Introduction and Background (Chapters 1 and 2);

Section 2: Case Studies from Award-Winning Teachers (Chapters 3-10);
Section 3: Institutional Case Studies that Support Excellence in Teaching (Chapters
11-22).

Diane J. Salter
Consultant, Canada
It is a great pleasure to express my thanks to the many people who contributed to
making the writing of this book possible. Firstly, I would like to thank the Univer-
sity of Hong Kong for providing the research grant that enabled my research on the
approaches and perceptions of award-winning teachers. Without this funding, I
would not have been able to hear the stories that were the catalyst for this collection.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of my Research Assistant Ms. Joy Lam,
Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning (CETL) at The University
of Hong Kong, for the support that she provided and her dedicated work during the
research process. I would also like to express my appreciation for the support of Dr.
Fred Lockwood, Emeritus Professor of Learning and Teaching, Manchester Met-
ropolitan University, UK, for his advice and encouragement as I developed my
vision for this book and for his help as I developed my proposal for the publication.
I would also like to acknowledge the support and encouragement of my husband,
Bill Menzo, who has been an inspiration from the conception to the completion of
this book both though our lively discussions on quality teaching and learning and
his editorial support.

Most importantly, I would like to thank and express my gratitude to the 32 con-
tributing authors who wrote chapters for this collection. Without their wisdom and
willingness to share their insights this edition would not be possible.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge and thank the hundreds of award-winning

teachers who shared their ideas and experiences with me over several years of data
collection for the research project described in Chapter 1 of this book. These busy
academics willingly gave their time to answer my questions and share their stories
about teaching in research-intensive universities. I would especially like to thank
those who completed in-depth interviews during the project for generously giving
of their time for the interview process.

Diane J. Salter
Consultant, Canada
 Diane J. Salter
Consultant, Canada

This chapter provides an overview of a research project conducted with award-winning

teachers at research-intensive universities to investigate a number of areas including
approaches to teaching and learning and the use of technology in teaching, as well
as views on staff development to enhance teaching quality and the recognition of
teaching in promotion and tenure. In an analysis of data, the predominant approach
taken by the award-winning teachers in this study was an approach that has been
described as a conceptual change/student-focused approach to teaching versus an
information transmission/teacher-focused approach. The former approach is con-
sistent with students taking a deeper approach to learning. It was also found that
the use of technology in teaching in this group of award-winning teachers extended
beyond content delivery to provide opportunities for active pre, post, and in class
learning. Examples of how technology affordances were used is provided. In addi-
tion, their views and suggestions on staff development programs and the research/
teaching nexus are discussed.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch001

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Many studies have explored how teachers’ practice is influenced by their beliefs
about teaching. Dunkin and Precians conducted one of the earliest studies about
the beliefs of award-winning teachers (Dunkin & Precians, 1992) at the University
of Sydney. In this study, award-winning teachers were interviewed to tap into their
conceptual repertoires regarding teaching effectiveness and evaluation of teaching.
Other studies related to examining good teaching practice have explored issues such
as teachers’ experiences of academic leadership and their approaches to teaching
(Ramsden, et al., 2007) and academics’ conceptions of science learning and teaching
(Prosser, et al., 1994). A review of 13 articles about the conceptions of teaching of
university academics argued that conceptions of teaching and teaching approaches
are strongly influenced by the teacher’s underlying beliefs, and that these beliefs
must be taken into account if measures to enhance the quality of teaching are to
be effective (Kember, 1998). Award-winning teachers’ beliefs about teaching and
their strategies for teaching were investigated further through eighteen interviews
with award-winning teachers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong that explored
beliefs about excellent teaching as well as the rationales given by award-winning
teachers for their choice of instructional strategies (Kember, et al., 2006).
The current study built upon existing literature to explore cross-disciplinary
and international differences in beliefs and approaches to teaching in general as
well as to specifically investigate how technology was used in the learning envi-
ronment. In previous studies of approaches to teaching, two qualitatively different
approaches have been identified that may be categorized as being either ‘student
focused’ (focused on changing students conceptions of the material being studied
or ‘teacher-focused’ (focused on the content of the material to be learned and sub-
sequent transmission of information) (Trigwell et al., 1994). Adoption of a more
student-focused approach to teaching has been linked to the improvement of students’
learning outcomes (Hanbury et al., 2008). The student-centred approach has been
described as one that fosters meaningful learning rather than learning for replica-
tion of information. However, the nature of some disciplines may lend themselves
to more of a ‘transmission of information/content focused’ approach and yet still
result in success in attaining learning outcomes. The model of teaching and learning
developed by Michael Prosser and Keith Trigwell, and consistent with the student-
centred/conceptual change model, is described in chapter 2.
It seems that the use of technology is here to stay and discourse on the value of
online learning continues to be an active topic of conversation in higher education
(Cicco, 2009). Well thought out online learning opportunities can provide students
with ways to engage with the course concepts and resources both in and out of
class, leading to enhanced learning and in-class engagement (Salter et al., 2009).
However, there is widespread variation in the use of technology across disciplines
and institutions and faculty consistently identify key challenges in the use of tech-
nology in teaching practice (Laurilard, 1993; West, 1999; Salter et al., 2004; Brill
& Galloway, 2007; Salter et al., 2009).
With the introduction of technology in the form of course management systems
and in-class data projectors, the early use of technology tended to be limited to an
information transmission approach such as putting content online within a course
management system (such as webCT, Blackboard, Moodle, and others), and/or us-
ing a course web site to post lecture notes and course related content, and/or using
power point slides in class as a way to organize content into bullet points of infor-
mation. This trend to use technology for the delivery of content based information
may have been exacerbated by the common practice within institutions of separating
staff development in pedagogy (ran by the academic development centres) from the
‘technology how-to’ programs to teach faculty how to use a course management
system conducted by the technology centres.

The purpose of the research study described in this chapter was to explore the fol-
lowing research questions:

1. How do award-winning teachers approach teaching in terms of the approaches

identified by Trigwell and Prosser as either Information Transmission/Teacher
Focused (ITTF) or a Conceptual Change/Student Focused (CCSF)?
2. How do award-winning teachers use technology?
3. What motivates teachers to use technology to enhance learning and teaching/
what type of staff-development do they participate in?
4. How might institutions support faculty professional development, including
the use of technology to enhance learning and teaching?
The sample was made up of award-winning teachers from international research-
intensive universities in Hong Kong, Canada and Australia. There were two phases
to the study. In phase 1 the teachers were identified through a pool of teachers who
had won university teaching fellowships during the past 5 year period (2005-2009).
A five year window was chosen to provide cross disciplinary representation with a
goal of including teachers from each of the following four disciplinary areas: Hu-
manities and Social Sciences (H&SS), Science and Technology (S&T), Business and
Law (B&L), and Health Sciences (HS), across three countries, Hong Kong (HK),
Canada (CAN), and Australia (AUS) so that a sample of 36 teachers was included.
Since it was expected that award distribution may be unequal across disciplines,
it was believed that a 5 year window would allow subjects to be identified across
disciplines to participate as subjects in this study. In phase 2, a further 62 award-
winning teachers completed an online survey for a total sample of 98 participants.
Distribution of participants is shown in Table 1.
The data collection included two components: (1) the administration of an online
survey that included the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) and the Use of
Technology Inventory (TI) and (2) the administration of a semi-structured interview

Table 1. Distribution of phase 1 and phase 2 participants

Phase 1 Participants (Surveyed and Interviewed)

Discipline Areas: Humanities and Social Sciences (H&SS),
Science and Technology (S&T), Business and Law (B&L),
Country Health Sciences (HS) Total

H&SS S&T B&L HS

Canada 3 3 3 3 12
Australia 3 5 4 3 15
Hong Kong 2 2 3 2 9
Total 8 10 10 8 36
Phase 2 Participants (Surveyed)
Discipline Areas: Humanities and Social Sciences (H&SS),
Science and Technology (S&T), Business and Law (B&L),
Country Health Sciences (HS) Total

H&SS S&T B&L HS

Canada 3 3 3 3 12
Australia 4 3 4 3 14
Hong Kong 2 5 3 3 13
The United Kingdom 6 5 7 5 23
Total 15 16 17 14 62
protocol. The ATI was developed and used by Prosser and Trigwell (1999) to in-
vestigate teacher approaches to teaching. The scales of the ATI are: Information
Transmission/Teacher Focused (ITTF) and Conceptual Change/Student Focused
(CCSF) (Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Trigwell et al., 1999).
The Technology Inventory (TI) was developed for this study and piloted internally.
The technology inventory included 60 questions to explore teachers’ beliefs about
how using technology impacted student learning and the type of technology sup-
ported activities they used as well as their motivation for using technology and the
type of staff development they received or recommended. The inventories were
administered electronically prior to the face-to-face interviews. The data from the
inventories was analyzed to identify how the award-winning teachers tended to ap-
proach teaching within the categories of information transmission and conceptual
change and their approaches to, and use of, technology. Phase 1 participants com-
pleted the online surveys and face-to-face interviews; Phase 2 participants com-
pleted the online surveys but were not interviewed.
The semi-structured interview protocol was developed for this study to further
explore (through a qualitative approach) the conceptions and beliefs of the award-
winning teachers about teaching excellence as well as to further probe their personal
narratives about their journey to becoming an award-winning teacher. The qualitative
interview allowed award-winning teachers to expand upon their beliefs and to provide
their views regarding approaches to staff development programs that might help
teachers become better practitioners. Specific questions within the semi-structured
interview asked the teachers about the role that technology plays in their subject,
including the teaching, communication and feedback aspects of technology use.
Following responses, additional probes explored their beliefs on the importance of
technology, their strategies for using technology and factors that facilitated the use
of technology at their institution.
Interviews were audiotaped and later transcribed. Following transcription, a quali-
tative analysis was performed to look for similarities and differences in approaches.
The phenomenographic analysis (Bowden, 1994; Marton & Booth, 1997) aimed
to identify broad variations in experiences. This approach allowed for a range of
perspectives (in this case from the award-winning teachers in different disciplines)
relative to specific phenomenon (in this case learning, teaching, staff development
and use of technology) to be examined. This type of qualitative, phenomenographic
research allows for an investigation into the qualitatively different ways in which
people make sense out of their experience (Bowden, 1994). In a phenomenographic
approach, the preferred method of data collection is the semi-structured interview
(Martin & Booth, 1997). The aim of this type of qualitative research is to attempt
to gain insight into an individual’s subjective interpretive patterns, experiences and
positions (Uelzhoffer & Ascheberg, 1999). The sample size of 36 is considered ap-
propriate for a phenomenographic approach; Trigwell (2000) proposed that a sample
of between 15 and 20 is sufficiently large to reveal most possible viewpoints and
allow a defensible interpretation.

In an analysis of the quantitative data collected in the inventories, it was found that
most of the participants responded in a way that showed a Conceptual Change/
Student Focused approach to teaching. The total scores were computed for the Ap-
proaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) as recommended by Prosser and Trigwell
(1999). The paired-sample t-test demonstrated that respondents were more likely
to adopt a Conceptual Change/Student Focused approach (CCSF) rather than an
Information Transmission/Teacher Focused Approach (p<.001) (Table 2). There
were no significant differences between countries (Table 3) or by discipline area
(Table 4). The tables show the results from those teaching in Humanities and Social
Sciences (H&SS), Science and Technology (S& T), Business and Law (B&L), and
Health Sciences (HS). Regardless of country or discipline the tendency to take to
adopt CCSF approach was the most prevalent.
The two scales of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ITTF and CCSF) were
found to be reliable as shown in Table 5 with the values of Cronbach α larger than
the acceptable value of 0.7 (Nunnaly, 1978).
Hendry et al (2007) described that a teacher’s approach to teaching could be
classified as a ‘balanced approach’ if the difference between their CCSF and ITTF
scores was less than 5. A difference of 5 or greater between the CCSF and ITTF

Table 2. Approaches to teaching score overall

Overall Paired Sample t-test

Score
Information Transmission/Teacher Focused (ITTF) 34.42 T = -3.63, p<0.001
Conceptual Change/ Student Focused (CCSF) 41.50

Table 3. Approaches to teaching score by country

Australia Hong Kong Canada

Information Transmission/Teacher Focused (ITTF) 35.60 36.78 31.17
Conceptual Change/ Student Focused (CCSF) 40.67 45.67 39.42
Table 4. Approaches to teaching score by discipline

H&SS S&T B&L HS

Information Transmission/Teacher Focused (ITTF) 32.88 36.20 32.90 35.63
Conceptual Change/ Student Focused (CCSF) 44.38 36.40 42.80 43.38

Table 5. Reliability of approaches to teaching

Cronbach α
Information Transmission/Teacher Focused (ITTF) 0.831
Conceptual Change/ Student Focused (CCSF) 0.848

scores indicated that their approach could be classified as either CCSF or ITTF,
depending on which score was greater. In performing this analysis, results showed
that the majority of award-winning teachers in this study could be classified as
having a CCSF approach (59%, with only 19% adopting an ITTF approach and 22%
adopting a balanced approach). This trend was evident in a cross-country and cross-
discipline comparison.

To analyze differences in responses for the questions posed in the technology inven-
tory, a Chi-square test was used. The test compared the frequency of the various
categories of responses across variables of country and discipline. For a number of
items in the technology inventory there was a general agreement in the responses
across countries and disciplines. While there were no statistically significant depen-
dencies noted across countries or disciplines, there were some interesting variations
across disciplines in how technology was used as shown in Table 6. If over 50% of
respondents in the discipline reported they always or sometimes used the activity,
it was rated as Frequent Use; under 50% was rated as Low Use.
Respondents were also asked to report of their beliefs about how technology
impacted learning by responding to specific statements. Responses by discipline
are shown in Table 7.
When asked about their motivation to use technology, most teachers reported
that they were comfortable using technology, were self-taught users of technology
and early adopters of technology. Those in the Health Sciences were more likely to
Table 6. Report of discipline specific uses of technology

Activity Frequent Use Low Use

Online tasks to prepare for class B&L (78%); H&SS (65%); HS S&T (46%)
(50%)
Online tasks following a class All: H&SS (61%); B&L (59%);
HS (59%); S&T (58%)
Online discussion areas H&SS (57%), S&T (69%), B&L HS (46%)
(67%)
Online assignments S&T (58%); HS (50%) H&SS (35%); B&L (44%)
Use Blogs All: S&T (8%); B&L (15%);
HS (23%); H&SS (26%)
Use Wikis All: S&T (4%); HS (9%);
B&L (11%); H&SS (13%)
Student use of their personal laptops All: B&L (74%); HS (73%);
during class S&T (62%); H&SS (52%)
Student use of in class computers S&T (58%); H&SS (52%); HS B&L (44%)
(50%)
Student use of mobile devices (such as All: H&SS (4%); S&T (4%);
mobile phones) for in class quizzing B&L (11%); HS (14%)
Student use of online journals for reflec- HS (55%); B&L (52%) H&SS (30%); S&T (35%)
tion
Use of course web site All: HS (100%); B&L (93%);
S&T (92%); H&SS (91%)
Develop their own online Portfolio All: S&T (12%); B&L
(26%); HS (27%); H&SS
(30%)
Send questions to the teacher via the All: B&L (70%); S&T (65%);
course web site HS (64%); H&SS (57%)
Send questions to the teacher via per- All: H&SS (100%), HS (100%),
sonal email S&T (92%), B&L (89%)
Provide peer feedback to other students All: S&T (42%); H&SS
online (44%); HS (46%); B&L
(48%)
Provide power points of the class on line All: B&L (96%); HS (85%);
S&T (85%); H&SS (61%)
Provide lecture notes online All: S&T (85%); HS (82%);
B&L (74%); H&SS (57%)
Provide digital versions of the class to B&L (56%); HS (55%); S&T H&SS (30%)
students in some form such as via course (54%)
web site, or podcast
(H&SS: Humanities & Social Sciences, S&T: Science & Technology, B&L: Business & Law, HS: Health
Sciences)
Table 7. Report of the perception of impact using technology in a course by discipline

More Likely to Believe Less Likely to Believe

Enhances student learning All: H&SS (100%); B&L
(100%); HS (100%); S&T (96%);
Results in students neglecting important All: S&T (81%); B&L (78%); HS
traditional learning resources (e.g. (77%); H&SS (74%)
library books).
Is effective because I believe I can All: H&SS (100%); B&L
implement it successfully. (100%); S&T (96%); HS (91%)
Promotes student collaboration. All: S&T (92%); HS (91%); B&L
(82%); H&SS (78%)
Makes classroom management more All: S&T (23%); HS (27%);
difficult. B&L (33%); H&SS (35%)
Promotes the development of com- All: HS (73%); S&T (73%);
munication skills (e.g., writing and H&SS (70%); B&L (59%)
presentation skills).
Is a valuable instructional tool. All: H&SS (100%); S&T (100%);
HS (100%); B&L (96%)
Is too costly in terms of resources, time HS (68%); H&SS (65%); B&L S&T (42%)
and effort. (52%)
Is successful only if there is adequate All: H&SS (96%); HS (91%);
teacher training in the uses of technol- B&L (85%); S&T (85%)
ogy for learning.
Gives teachers the opportunity to be All: HS (96%); H&SS (87%);
learning facilitators instead of informa- S&T (85%); B&L (82%)
tion providers.
Demands that too much time be spent All: H&SS (87%); HS (77%);
on technical problems. B&L (74%); S&T (54%)
Is an effective tool for students of all All: H&SS (100%); HS (96%);
abilities. S&T (92%); B&L (89%)
Motivates students to get more involved All: H&SS (96%); HS (96%);
in learning activities. S&T (92%); B&L (89%)
Requires software-skills training that is H&SS (65%); HS (64%); S&T B&L (48%)
too time consuming. (58%)
Promotes the development of students’ All: H&SS (78%); S&T (65%);
interpersonal skills (e.g., ability to HS (59%); B&L (56%)
relate or work with others)
Will increase the amount of stress and H&SS (61%); B&L (56%) S&T (39%); HS (46%)
anxiety students experience.
Is difficult because some students HS (55%) B&L (33%); S&T (46%);
know more about computers than many H&SS (48%)
teachers do.
Requires extra time to plan learning All: H&SS (96%); S&T (92%);
activities. HS (86%); B&L (82%)
Improves student learning of critical All: HS (96%); S&T (92%); B&L
concepts and ideas. (89%); H&SS (83%)
(H&SS: Humanities & Social Sciences, S&T: Science & Technology, B&L: Business & Law, HS: Health
Sciences)
report that they had been motivated to use technology by participating in a profes-
sional development workshop. There was high agreement with the belief that pro-
fessional academic development related to using technology in teaching should be
integrated with teaching and learning workshops, rather than separated into ‘tech-
nology’ workshops and ‘teaching’ workshops. Those teaching in Science and
Technology were more likely to report that they published in the area of teaching
and learning with technology (See Table 8).
Open comments made on the online survey were reviewed along with the more
detailed elaborations drawn from the semi-structured interview protocols to look
for themes and common issues or challenges around the use of technology. Re-
sponses showed that the teachers in this study used technology in a variety of ways
to incorporate delivery and organization of content as well as using technology af-
fordances to engage students in learning both in and out of class. Most teachers
(60%) reported that they often used online discussion areas in their courses; 40%
indicated that they only rarely used online discussion areas with students. Figure 1
shows the use of online pre-class tasks for active learning; Figure 2 shows use of
online discussion areas.
Technology use was coded into categories that could be described as either a
didactic approach (presenting content such as notes or power points online) or a
learning-centred approach (using technology to actively involve students). Online
lecture notes in some form were used by 75% of the respondents and use of online
power points was high with 82% of respondents posting power points (these could
be considered didactic approaches as mainly used a way to provide content informa-
tion). However, in addition to the use as a content repository, use of these online
resources, to engage the students with the content, was also provided in a way that
could be considered learning centred. For example, 60% of the respondents indi-
cated that students were required to do online tasks to prepare for class and/or
participate in online discussion about the course content. Some reported that the
teacher provided digital versions of the class to students in some form such as via
course web site or podcast and that use of technology promoted the development
of students’ interpersonal skills (e.g., ability to relate or work with others). In a
medical class, students were encouraged to work with simulations, described in the
following quotes, along with other representative comments regarding active use
of technology:

In my area there are a lot of text books with CDs of all the images and lots of graph-
ics ... and some fascinating simulations – these can be shown in class and appeal to
multiple senses of the students, rather than just giving a presentation – for example,
in anatomy and physiology there is a digital body and students can just slice it up
in almost any direction, and look at the various layers (Physiology, HK).
Table 8. Motivation for and experience with using technology by discipline

Chi-square
Test (χ2) with
More Likely Agree Less Likely to Agree Sig. Result
I am not really comfortable with us- All: B&L (15%); S&T
ing the new technologies and prefer (23%); H&SS (30%);
to teach without technology HS (36%)
I started to use technology because All: S&T (96%); H&SS
I was interested and you might (83%); B&L (78%); HS
call me an ‘early adopter’ of new (68%)
technologies
I am reluctant to start using technol- All: S&T (12%); HS
ogy in my teaching. (14%); B&L (15%);
H&SS (17%)
I started to use technology because All: S&T (4%); H&SS
my students were telling me about (9%); B&L (15%); HS
how technology was used in other (18%)
classes
I started to use technology because HS (59%) H&SS (22%); B&L χ2= 9.2, ρ =
of staff development programs that (26%); S&T (27%) 0.027
motivated me to try using technol-
ogy in teaching and learning.
I started to use technology when I HS(77%); S&T(50%) H&SS(35%); χ2= 9.0, ρ =
saw what other teachers were doing. B&L(44%) 0.030
I publish in the area of teaching and S&T (54%) HS (32%); H&SS
learning using technology (39%); B&L (41%)
I have participated in staff develop- All: H&SS (74%); HS
ment to help my use of technology (68%); S&T (65%);
for teaching and learning B&L (59%)
I am mainly ‘self-taught’ when it All: S&T (100%); B&L
comes to using technology for teach- (96%); H&SS (91%);
ing and learning HS (91%)
I feel that staff development around All: S&T (100%);
the use of technology for teaching H&SS (91%); HS (91%);
and learning should be integrated B&L (82%)
with pedagogy;
I feel that staff development training All: S&T (15%); HS
in how to use technology should be (23%); H&SS (30%);
separated from teaching workshops. B&L (37%)
(H&SS: Humanities & Social Sciences, S&T: Science & Technology, B&L: Business & Law, HS: Health
Sciences)

Simulations were used pre or post class to help students prepare for class or to
help process the information from the class following the face-to-face class time.
Pre-class blogs were also used, as described by a professor of a microbiology course
at the University of Hong Kong, who uses online blogs to enhance the dialogue
around the content between students themselves and between students and teacher.
Figure 1. Online tasks to prepare for class

Figure 2. Use of discussion areas by discipline

We design our own pre-class blog tool. On the web site, we have basics such as a
chatroom where PDF files and text can be posted ...I teach courses in microbiology
which are highly computerized. I am trying to give {students} exposure to databases,
search engines that are specific for utilizing in DNA, RNA, sequences...the students
interact on the web site and they start talking to each other (Microbiology, HK).

Many teachers also used technology affordances during class to engage the
students with learning. The following comments from some of the respondents
exemplify the different types of technology use identified.

In class, or on the web site, we use YouTube... Google figures, Google maps, I can
show how a virus is actually spread from one place to another, shown in real time
to demonstrate how to incorporate data and show how the virus actually moves...
when students view the video, in 30 seconds they have more of an understanding
than I could explain in five minutes...the visual connection, reaches different parts
of the brain (Biological Sciences, HK. Class size 100-250).

Many respondents indicated that the use of visuals afforded through technology
was important so that the students were able to engage with the learning. The fol-
lowing representative comment exemplifies this view:

Students need to do something where they are physically manipulating, the more
they can actually do for themselves, the more they actually understand, if they are
doing the simulation, rather than just watching or listening, they are learning the
concepts (Physiology, HK).

Other representative comments on the use of visuals both in and out of class
include:

I don’t put all the illustrative material up on the web, some I use only in the lecture.
My lectures are highly supported in terms of the material I make available, my lec-
tures include audio recordings integrated with slide show, or whatever I am showing
on the central screen or the main screen (Earth Sciences, AUS).

All of my lectures now are on the class websites which provides 24/7 assess. I like
a website that enables the students to be interactive, with suggested links to take
them to other programmes and areas (Physiology, HK).

Innovative in-class use of technology was provided in many examples, including

the following comments:

I use three data projectors simultaneously in my lectures...they are not necessarily

all functioning simultaneously, ... the central one is a Keynote. I use the power points
to provide a framework and structure...it’ s the raw essence of what they need...
they have access to this on the website before class, but I don’ t talk to the power
points- I mean they guides the discussion and are shown on one of the screens,
but I do not read from them. On another screen, I have lots of illustrative material
and photographs I have taken in the field. On the third screen, I often have Google
Earth...it is the most spectacular teaching too. I encourage them to contact others
in other parts of the world; if they ask a question, we can do that in class. I am a
geologist and my particular branch of science is an intensely visual subject...I am a
visual learner and I depend heavily on that in my lectures...My whole style is really
centred around bringing the field into the classroom, ... taking them into the field
in the classroom (Earth Sciences, AUS. Class size 125-450).

I have started using PowerPoint to show images (rather than words) and to reinforce
the concepts...it’s a great tool for assisting me to tell the story (History, AUS).

In the 19th century and critical theory area...film clips and audio clips always help
(English, HK).

I generally have one major topic or issue that we are going to discuss in each class.
I then choose three or four related internet sites and I encourage students to bring
their computer to the classroom...in class we go online and find information and
determine what information we is dependable and what is not. The computer is a
learning tool, not only for making notes. My class becomes very much interactive
and we share information back and forth within the online environment (Hospitality
and Tourism, CAN).

Teachers described the following specific ways that student involvement with
course content pre or post class were encouraged:

I post hypothetical questions on the course website ...a day or a week later, I will then
go online and provide what could be considered, as a model answer or a guideline
as to what should be covered in the advice given regarding a legal issue and students
can measure their work against the model answer (Law, HK).

In speech pathology we present clinical cases in the online platform...the students

move between theories and clinical cases...the main thing is that the students interact
with the cases...the other use of the platform is to provide resource information... I
may use a video, or speech samples, or some data or an interview. The task always
involves theory, [students have to] solve the problem with the case and refer to the
relevant theory (Speech Pathology, AUS. Class size 80-90).

In one of my courses, Bioethics, I run a discussion forum in the class, so students

are engaged into the discussion topic throughout the whole semester...it is marked...
based on their participation and also how deep their discussion actually delves into
the topic...It’s a way of keeping the conversation going after classes and it provides
continuous motivation for involvement and assessment until the end of the semester
(Biological Sciences, HK).
My courses have blogs ...students are required to participate on the blog...Sometime
I add something to the blog. I use a lot of videos because I have developed our own
videos for the course...students are not allowed technology in the class - no phone,
laptop, mobile device, because I want them to think...out of class, I find Blogs, very
useful for discussions, especially things that require thinking. It’s very easy because
you just post one or two articles and you say, “Discuss”...let it go and you stay out
of the way (Accounting, HK).

Most of our materials are now online, and we have webpages that we use as a course
homepage so we can communicate with students both before their class starts and
in terms of the materials they should be reading before handing in assignments...
also ongoing throughout the semester you can have discussion pages online and
compose questions (Law, HK).

I started taping lectures and putting them on the WebCT site...the students who came
to lecture tended to also access lecture later ... I have my suggested readings up
there, course outline, up there, and archive PowerPoints and images each week...
it makes a kind of one-stop shop for students...If they have access to this, they can
pretty much get everything they need for the course (History, AUS).

We have started using a discussion forum and I think that’s been quite helpful for the
students...Discussion forums have definitely been something that students have taken
a liking to...I think that we can use more of those technologies to try to communi-
cate more effectively with students (Mechanical Engineering, Class size 200, AUS).

We have a modified version of WebCT... I put up documents, lecture notes, other

materials that students’ needs. I use the discussion forum if they difficulties with
assignments, but students tend to send e-mails. When there is group work in the
subject, I set up a group space where they have a place to upload documents and
students can use this to discuss topics amongst their groups (Information Systems
and Technology, AUS).

Participants were asked about the type of staff development that they had partici-
pated in, the types of institutional support that was useful as well as their beliefs
about why faculty do not participate in staff development activities. The majority
(65%) reported that they had no teaching training prior to starting to teach at the
university level. A large number (87%) reported that they had taken teaching and
learning workshops at their university but they also reported that a large part of
their personal development on teaching had come through observing others (74%)
and through giving teaching and learning workshops (74%) (Figure 3). Views on
why faculty do not participate in staff development activities are shown in Figure 4.
Lack of time is reported as the main reason inhibiting faculty from participating in
academic staff development activities (86%) followed closely by the lack of recogni-
tion for teaching in promotion and tenure (72%). Participants were asked whether
their institutions provided staff development in teaching. Interestingly, formal staff
development seems to be on the increase as inferred from noting that 61% reported
that their institutions now offer a formal academic staff development program in
contrast with only 30% of the participants reporting that their institutions provided
teaching and learning courses for new appointees when they started their careers.

From the responses of the 36 participants in phase 1 interviews, statements about

teaching and research were drawn from their comments. The following statements
were selected to pose to a wider group of academics:

Figure 3. Types of staff development

Figure 4. Reasons for non-participation in staff development

I am in favour of including both teaching and research in consideration for promo-

tion, tenure and continual appointment decisions.

Research is more important than teaching for promotion, tenure, and continual
appointment decisions.

The primary job of the university is to provide an educational opportunity for the
undergraduates and postgraduates, therefore it is a teaching environment first. So
we must do a good job in teaching.

My university is expressing fairly strongly that they want to move teaching up the
hierarchy to give teaching equal ranking with research.

In phase 2 these statements from the phase 1 interviews were given to 92 par-
ticipants in an online format and respondents were asked to rate their level of agree-
ment with each statement. In response to the statement “I’m in favour of including
both teaching and research in consideration for promotion, tenure and continual
appointment decisions” an overwhelming 97% of the subjects agreed. However,
only 54% indicated that their university was expressing a desire to move teaching
up the hierarchy and give teaching equal rank with research and 83% indicated that
at their university research was more important than teaching for promotion, tenure
and continual appointment decisions. The results are shown in Figure 5.

The participants in this study were chosen because they were recipients of teaching
awards at research-intensive universities. Although representation from a variety of
disciplines was investigated, their approaches to teaching and learning were consistent
with a conceptual change/student focused approach, an approach that is consistent
with students taking a deeper approach to learning. Most participants reported that
while they were self-described ‘early adopters’ of technology, many were motivated
to use technology in teaching by participating in professional development work-
shops. Often institutions separate technology training from course development or
teaching and learning workshops; however, most of the participants felt that pro-
fessional academic development related to using technology in teaching should be
integrated with teaching and learning workshops. Participants reported that most
academics do not attend workshop because of lack of time and also because there
is limited academic reward for spending time on enhancing teaching, with research
productivity the primary route for gaining recognition and tenure.

Figure 5. Views on the research/teaching nexus

 A review of the history of the granting of teaching awards at the universities
involved in the phase one sample of the study (Hong Kong, Canada, and Australia)
showed that teaching awards at the universities in the project sample have a history
of over two decades. The first teaching awards in this group were given in 1988 at the
University of Sydney; between 1993 and 2001, all of the universities in Hong Kong
introduced teaching awards to recognize outstanding teaching. This is consistent
with a global shift in rethinking the importance of high quality university teaching
and the introduction of teaching award schemes internationally.
Award schemes have a much longer history in the USA than in Asia, with the first
awards granted in 1959 at the University of California (Sorcinelli & Davis, 1996).
Although literature on the prevalence of awards is limited, research indicates that
in the United States 96% of research intensive universities surveyed have awards or
programs honoring exemplary teaching (Crawley, 1995; Menges, 1996; Zahorski,
1996). However, whether the introduction of awards will be effective in creating
behavioural change in other academics, with a goal of improving student learning, is
still not determined (McNaught and Anwyl, 1992). Limited research has been done
on the impact of teaching awards on institutional culture (Olsson & Roxa, 2008), or
of the affect of the award on the professional lives and status of the award winners
(Olson & Roxa, 2008; Brawer, et al., 2006; Dinham & Scott, 2002; Skelton, 2004;
Frame et al., 2006). Within the small body of studies that has addressed the impact
of awards, some conclude that the affirmation of the winners, rather than provision
of inspiration to others, has been the main effect (Chism & Szabo; Francis, 1976;
McNaught & Anwyl, 1992). While there has been a proliferation in the implementa-
tion of widespread award schemes internationally, there is no substantial evidence
generated about the nature and value of such awards (Jackson, 2006).
The available literature suggests that outstanding, publicly recognized teachers
have the potential to be influential in sharing ideas on practice within or outside
their own university (Skelton, 2005; Dinham & Scott, 2002). This implies that a
leadership role would benefit the institutions and may serve the goal of enhanc-
ing student-learning experiences. A limited amount of the literature provides any
description of how award winners fill the leadership role (Jackson, 2006; Skelton,
2004; Warren & Plumb, 1999). Most of the existing literature on award-winning
teachers is focused on the attributes of the award winner, rather than on impact of the
awards. There is limited evidence on how award winners are involved institutionally
to improve teaching practice on a wider scale, or how institutions are changing in
recognition and reward of teaching in promotion and tenure decisions.
The current study contributes to our understanding of the perceptions, attitudes
and practices of award-winning teachers internationally, and provides concrete ex-
amples of best practice; however, further research is needed to enhance our concep-
tual understanding of how the introduction of teaching awards at research intensive
universities has impacted the university culture in changing attitudes towards the
importance of teaching and how those recognized for scholarly teaching may be
contribute to curriculum reform. The role of award-winning teachers following the
award is ambiguous. Although teaching awards schemes have a history of over 50
years, the literature reviewed for this project identified a gap in the research con-
ducted on these issues and consequently little documentation regarding the impact
of teaching awards in promoting improvements in teaching that may lead to an
enhanced student learning environment. As described by Peter Felton in Chapter 14
of this book, “The time is ripe for U.S. institutions to reimagine teaching awards so
that they align with what we know about what really contributes to the larger goals
of teaching excellence” (Felton, et al., 2013).
Suggested questions to be addressed in future research on leadership and the
impact of teaching awards include the following:

• Has there been any change or perceptions of changes in attitudes towards rec-
ognition of the importance of teaching since the implementation of awards at
research-intensive institutions?
• What measurable indicators of change have been noted, such as changes that
have been made in institutional criteria for promotion and tenure (current or
planned)?
• What programs are in place to promote excellent teaching (at the national
level/university level/departmental level)?
• What programs are in place to provide support to faculty who apply for na-
tional or regional awards?
• What recognition is given to faculty following receipt of a teaching award
(local, regional, national)?
• Are there leadership activities/institutional expectations of award-winning
teachers post receipt of an award?

Significant and ongoing challenges face institutions in higher education regard-

ing building leadership for learning and teaching within institutions (Kotter, 1990;
Ramsden, 1998) and there is a lack of consensus on the meaning of leadership in
learning and teaching (Marshall et al, 2000; Anderson and Johnson, 2006). There is
also a lack of consensus about what constitutes best practice in learning and teach-
ing. According to some, the ability of award-winning teachers to be representatives
within the university culture and their ability to encourage teaching effectiveness
among faculty, are important measures of the effectiveness of teaching awards (Ca-
rusetta, 2001). Award winners may be well suited to contribute to leadership roles
in educational reform at their institutions. Such involvement may include mentoring
others who engage in scholarly activity, forming a community of award alumnus,
engaging in committee work and contributing to distributed leadership model of
best practice in learning and teaching (see examples in Section 3 of this book).
With changes in student demographics and quality assurance demands from
external as well as internal stakeholders, the need for good teaching has come to the
forefront of many academic conversations. Quality assurance councils and teach-
ing and learning committees are in place at most universities with a goal of paying
serious attention to student evaluations of their learning experiences and develop-
ing action plans with concrete actions to improve the student learning experience.
Although promotion and tenure in higher education is still mainly tied to research
and publication, the emergence of local and national teaching awards and the grow-
ing importance of student evaluations of teaching as a component of performance
review have raised the stakes and prestige for academics to give consideration to
their teaching skills. These changes internationally have put new emphasis on the
importance of teaching, as well as research, with faculty teaching fellowships pro-
viding a ‘value added’ for reward and recognition among peers.
One way forward may be to further efforts to involve award winners in insti-
tutional leadership and culture change by promoting communities of practice to
enhance teaching and learning. The capture of cross-disciplinary examples from
award-winning teachers in this project may provide an opportunity to generate
discussion within and across institutions around the issues raised in the examples.
While there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution for enhancing the quality of student
learning - course requirements and institutions vary in needs and practicalities - lo-
cal discussions around exemplary international practices may generate ideas that
can be implemented for wider institutional reform.

This research was funded by a grant from the University of Hong Kong and the
support was greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Ms. Joy Lam, Research
Assistant, for her dedication to the project and for her support and efforts. In ad-
dition, I would like to express gratitude to all of the award-winning teachers who
participated; without their stories and dedication to higher learning, this work would
not have been possible. I would especially like to thank those who completed in
depth interviews for generously giving of their time for the interview process and
to acknowledge their valuable contributions.
Anderson, D., & Johnson, R. (2006). Ideas of leadership underpinning proposals
to the Carrick institute: A review of proposal from the ‘leadership for excellence
in teaching and learning progra. Strawberry Hills, UK: The Carrick Institute for
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Ltd.
Bowden, J. (1994). The nature of phenomenographic research. In Bowden, J. A., &
Walsh, E. (Eds.), Phenomenographic Research: Variations in Method (pp. 1–16).
Melbourne, Australia: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
Bowden, J., & Walsh, E. (2000). Phenomenography. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT
University Press.
Brawer, J., Steinert, Y., St-Cyr, J., Watters, K., & Wood-Dauphinee, S. (2006).
The significance and impact of a faculty teaching award: disparate perceptions
of department chairs and award recipients. Medical Teacher, 28(7), 614–617.
doi:10.1080/01421590600878051
Brill, J. M., & Galloway, C. (2007). Perils and promises: University instructors’
integration of technology in classroom-based practices. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 38(1), 95–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00601.x
Carusetta, E. (2001). Evaluating teaching through teaching awards. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 88, 31–40. doi:10.1002/tl.35
Chism, N. V. N., & Szabo, B. (1997). Teaching awards: The problem of assess-
ing their impact. In DeZure, D. (Ed.), To Improve the Academy: Yearbook of the
Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (pp.
181–199). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Cicco, G. (2009). Online versus in-class courses: Learning-style assessment as an
advisement tool. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(2), 161–173.
Crawley, A. L. (1995). Faculty development programs at research universities:
Implications for senior faculty renewal. In E. Neal (Ed.), To Improve the Academy.
Retrieved from http://www.podnetwork.org
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2002). Awards for teaching excellence: intentions and
realities. Paper presented in 2002 Annual Conference of Australian Association for
Research in Education. Brisbane, Australia.
Dunkin, M. J., & Precians, R. P. (1992). Award-winning university teachers’ concepts
of teaching. Higher Education, 24, 483–502. doi:10.1007/BF00137244
Felton, P., & Finley, A. (2013). Motivating teaching excellence: Lessons from U.S.
teaching awards. In Salter, D. J. (Ed.), Cases in Quality Teaching Practices in Higher
Education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Frame, P., Margaret, J., & Anthony, R. (2006). Reward or award? Reflections on the
initial experiences of winners of a national teaching fellowship. Innovations in Educa-
tion and Teaching International, 43(4), 409–419. doi:10.1080/14703290600974016
Francis, J. B. (1976). An evaluation of programs to recognize and reward teaching
excellence. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo.
Hanbury, A., Prosser, M., & Rickinson, M. (2008). The differential impact of UK
accredited teaching development programmes on academics’ approaches to teaching.
Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 469–483. doi:10.1080/03075070802211844
Hendry, G. D., Lyon, P. M., & Smart, C. H. (2007). Teachers’ approaches to teaching
and responses to student evaluation in problem-based medical program. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 143–157. doi:10.1080/02602930600801894
Jackson, M. (2006). Great classroom teaching and more: Awards for outstanding
teaching evaluated. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(4),
261–278. doi:10.1108/09513540610665388
Kember, D. (1998). Teaching beliefs and their impact on students’ approach to
learning. In Dart, B., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education (pp. 1–25). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational
Research.
Kember, D., Ma, R., & McNaught, C. (2006). Excellent university teaching. Hong
Kong, China: Chinese University Press.
Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective
use of educational technology. London, UK: Routledge.
Marshall, S. J., Adams, M. J., Cameron, A., & Sillivan, G. (2000). Academics’ per-
ceptions of their professional development needs related to leadership and manage-
ment: What can we learn? The International Journal for Academic Development,
5(1), 42–53. doi:10.1080/136014400410097
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Hoboken, NJ: Lawerence
Erlbaum Associates.
McNaught, C., & Anwyl, J. (1992). Awards for teaching excellence at Australian
universities. Higher Educational Review, 25, 31–44.
Menges, R. J. (1996). Awards to Individuals. In Svinicki, M. D., & Menges, R. J.
(Eds.), Honoring Exemplary Teaching: New Directions for Teaching and Learning.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Olson, T., & Roxå, T. (2008). Evaluating rewards for excellent teaching – A cultural
approach. Paper presented in 2008 International Conference of Higher Education
Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA). Rotorua, New Zealand.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The
experience in higher education. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of aca-
demics’ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction,
4, 217–231. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90024-8
Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. London, UK: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203278116
Ramsden, P., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2007). University teachers’
experiences of academic leadership and their approaches to teaching. Learning and
Instruction, 17(2), 140–155. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.004
Salter, D., Pang, M. Y. C., & Sharma, P. (2009). Active tasks to change the use of
class time within an outcomes based approach to curriculum design. Journal of
University Teaching & Learning Practice, 6(1). Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.
au/jutlp/vol6/iss1/4
Salter, D., Richards, L., & Carey, T. (2004). The ‘T5’ design model: An instructional
design model to support the integration of online and campus based learning. Edu-
cational Media International, 41(3), 207–218. doi:10.1080/09523980410001680824
Skelton, A. (2004). Understanding “teaching excellence” in higher education: A
critical evaluation of the national teaching fellowships scheme. Studies in Higher
Education, 29(4), 451–468. doi:10.1080/0307507042000236362
Skelton, A. (2005). Understanding teaching excellence in higher education: Towards
a critical approach. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203412947
Sorcinelli, M. D., & Davis, B. G. (1996). Honoring exemplary teaching in research
universities. In Svinicki, M. D., & Menges, R. J. (Eds.), Honoring Exemplary
Teaching: New Directions for Teaching and Learning (pp. 71–76). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Trigwell, K. (2000). A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In
Bowden, J., & Walsh, E. (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 47–61). Melbourne, Aus-
tralia: RMIT University Press.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating learning approaches, perceptions of
context and learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251–266. doi:10.1007/
BF00132290
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches
to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75–84. doi:10.1007/
BF01383761
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’
approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education,
37, 57–70. doi:10.1023/A:1003548313194
Uelzhoffer, J., & Ascheberg, C. (1999). Transnational consumer cultures and social
milieus. Journal of the Market Research Society. Market Research Society, 41(1),
245–268.
Warren, R., & Plumb, E. (1999). Survey of distinguished teacher award schemes
in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23(2), 245–255.
doi:10.1080/0309877990230208
West, G. B. (1999). Teaching and technology in higher education: Changes and
challenges. Adult Learning, 10.
Zahorski, K. J. (1996). Honoring exemplary teaching in the liberal arts institution.
In Svinicki, M. D., & Menges, R. J. (Eds.), Honoring Exemplary Teaching: New
Directions for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/
tl.37219966515
 Michael Prosser
University of Sydney, Australia & University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

The aim of this chapter is to outline the results of over 20 years’ research into univer-
sity teaching from a student-learning perspective, how teaching from this perspective
relates to student learning (its processes and outcomes), and the implications of
this research for supporting quality assurance of, quality enhancement of, and the
recognition and reward of teaching and learning in higher education. These results
have important implications for how we develop and implement quality assurance
and enhancement processes in teaching and learning and how we recognise and
reward quality teaching in higher education. If the outcomes of good teaching are
quality student learning, then quality assurance, quality enhancement, and the
recognition and reward for good teaching needs to focus on the students and their
learning. This is a student-focused view of quality teaching. Some of these implica-
tions are described by examining some recent developments in quality assurance,
enhancement, and recognition and reward at the University of Hong Kong.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch002

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
We often talk about quality teaching in higher education. We talk about quality as-
surance of teaching. We talk about how to evaluate quality teaching. We talk about
how to support and develop quality teaching. We talk about how we can recognize
and reward quality teaching. But we rarely talk about what we mean by quality
teaching. Is teaching an end in itself, and can we define, talk about, judge and sup-
port quality teaching by talking just about teaching?
In this chapter, I wish to argue that quality teaching in higher education is teach-
ing which affords high quality student learning. But what is high quality student
learning in higher education and how can that be afforded? From the perspective
with which I wish to argue, teaching is not an end in itself, rather, teaching should
be seen as an aspect of the process of ensuring high quality student learning. So,
in the first section of this chapter I will outline a model of teaching and learning
developed by my colleague, Keith Trigwell, and myself over the last 20 years. The
model is in two related parts—one summarising the research into student learning
and the other research into teaching. In the second section, I will draw upon part of
the model and outline some of the research into the variation in the ways teachers
approach their teaching in higher education, and in the third section, I will show
how this variation is related to the ways in which students approach their learning.
Finally, in the fourth section I would look briefly at the implications of all this for
the recognition and reward of quality teaching.

Figure 1 shows a model of teaching and learning which summarizes much of the
research into teaching and learning from a student learning perspective. The model
is in two parts. The top part summarizes research into student learning. The bot-
tom part summarizes research into teaching. The model suggests that high quality
student learning outcomes are associated with the way in which students approach
their studies. Their approach is, in turn, associated with how they see, perceive, and
understand the teaching and learning context. Their perceptions are conditioned
by their previous experiences of teaching and learning on the one hand and on the
design of the context on the other. It also suggests, and most importantly for this
chapter, that student approaches to learning are associated with their teacher’s ap-
proaches to teaching. Similar to student learning, teachers’ approaches to teaching
are associated with their perceptions of the teaching and learning context which,
in turn, are conditioned by the context itself and their own previous experiences of
teaching and learning.
Figure 1. A model of teaching and learning

Thus from this model of teaching and learning, the focus of high quality teach-
ing is on the way in which the teacher approaches his/her teaching, and its influence
on the way in which students approach their learning.

In the early 1990s, research on teaching and learning from a student learning per-
spective started to focus on the variation in the way university teachers approached
their teaching (Martin and Balla, 1991; Samuelowicz and Bain, 1992, 2001; Prosser
and Trigwell, 1996; Kember, 1997). A fundamental distinction is exemplified in
the following quotations:

Teacher A: I’ll write my notes in such a way so that students don’t have to decide
when to take notes. I’ll tell them to. I’ll dictate to them. I have handouts pre-
pared. I have gaps in them that they fill in and I take that decision away from
the students about when and how to take note, … [first year chemistry lecturer]
Teacher E: I think, more explicitly what I want to achieve with buzz sessions and
questions and stuff is confronting students with their pre-conceived ideas
about the subject matter which quite often conflict with what we are talking
about … Understanding is developed by arguing about things, and trying to
apply ideas, and being again confronted by differences between what you
 think and what actually happens … What we are trying to achieve in learning
physics, is for people to shift from the laypersons view to what we would call
a scientific/physics view of the world [first year physics lecturer] (Prosser &
Trigwell, 1999, pp. 138-141).

These extracts highlight a fundamental distinction in approaches to teaching in

that the first is focusing on transmitting to students the correct knowledge in the
discipline (intention of teaching). It is very teacher focused in that the teacher is in
control of the learning (act of teaching). The second, on the other hand, is focusing
on changing and developing student understand of key concepts and ideas—a con-
ceptual change perspective (intention of teaching). It is student focused in that it is
what the student does in relation to the teaching that is important to their learning
(act of teaching).
The full range of approaches identified in this and subsequent studies, empirically
derived from interviews with over one hundred academic staff from a full range
of disciplines (Business, Law, Health Sciences, Humanities, Social Sciences, and
Science and Technology), is:

Approach A: The act of teaching is teacher-focussed with the intention of transfer-

ring information to the students.
Approach B: The act is teacher-focussed, student activity with the intention of
transferring information to students.
Approach C: The act is teacher-focussed, student activity with the intention of
students acquiring the concepts of the discipline.
Approach D: The act is student-focussed, student activity with the intention of
students developing their conceptions.
Approach E: The act is student-focussed, student activity with the intention of
students changing their conceptions.

The first three approaches are teacher focused—it is what the teacher does that
is important. In the first approach there is no activity on the part of the student—
students are passive receivers of information. In the second approach, students are
active, with the activity focused on students receiving information—see Teacher
A. In the third approach, the teacher’s focus is more on the acquisition of struc-
tured concepts. A major shift in approach occurs between the third and the fourth
approach. In the fourth, the approach changes to developing students’ conceptions
and understanding. That is, student activities are aimed at changing and developing
their understanding rather than just helping then acquire key concepts and ideas.
In the final approach the teacher recognizes that students come to class with prior
conceptions and understandings—and it is the aim or intention of teaching to help
students confront and if need be to change their understandings (Teacher E above).
While it can be argued that teaching is somewhat more complex than described
in these approaches, they are not meant to represent full descriptions of approaches
but key variations in approaches. They are also meant to represent a somewhat
hierarchically inclusive set of categories in that approaches further down the list
may include aspects of approaches further up the list. That is, D and E may include
aspects of A, B and C, but A, B, and C do not include aspects of D and E. There is
an increasing complexity in the approaches ranging from A to E. As will be shown
in the next section, there is empirical evidence supporting the idea that the less com-
plex approaches maybe associated with more surface and reproducing approaches
to learning by students and the more complex approaches may be associated with
deeper and more meaningful approaches to learning.
In order to investigate further these approaches to teaching and their relation-
ships to teaching and learning contexts and to student learning, Prosser and Trigwell
(1996, 2006) have developed an Approaches to Teaching Inventory and a Percep-
tions of Teaching Environment Inventory (Prosser and Trigwell, 1997). Using these
inventories, it has been shown that:

• A CCSF approach is associated with perceptions that teacher workload is

manageable, that class sizes are appropriate, that the teacher feels in control
of his/her teaching and that students are capable of meaningful learning.
• An ITTF approach was associated with perceptions that the teacher was not
in control of his/her teaching and that the department in which they were
teaching was not committed to student learning.

That is, teachers who adopted CCSF approaches perceived or experienced the
teaching and learning context positively and supportive of teaching, while those
engaged in ITTF approaches perceived or experienced the context negatively and
not supporting teaching.
Interestingly, Stes, Gilbels and Van Petegem (2008) have evidence that these
approaches are not related to the context itself. That is, they are not related to class
size, student characteristics, discipline etc. This indicates that it is the way in which
teachers experience or perceive the teaching and learning context that is important,
not the context itself. It is not objective measures of class size that is important but
the teachers’ experience of class size. Teachers adopting a CCSF approach seem to
be able to transcend context factors such as class size.
 Recently, Trigwell has shown that teachers’ emotions are also associated with
these approaches to teaching (Trigwell, 2011). Using the ATI and an Emotions in
Teaching Inventory, Trigwell has shown that positive emotional experiences to
teaching are associated with a CCSF approach to teaching while negative emotional
experiences of teaching are associated with an ITTF approach.
In summary, teachers in higher education adopt varying approaches to teach-
ing. These approaches can be described in a hierarchical way, ranging from a less
complex transmission approach to a much more complex conceptual change and
development approach. These approaches are related to the teachers’ perceptions
of the teaching and learning context with a conceptual change approach associated
with perceptions of supporting teaching and learning context and a transmission
approach associated with perceptions of a teaching and learning context which is
not conducive to good teaching.
These descriptions are all very fine, but how is all this related to student learn-
ing? If good teaching is about affording high quality student learning, how do
these approaches relate to high quality student learning. Can a CCSF approach to
teaching be classified as a higher quality teaching, and an ITTF approach a lower
quality teaching? From the perspective adopted in this chapter, it all depends on
their relationships to student learning.

Studies on student learning in higher education have identified two fundamentally

different approaches to learning leading to qualitatively different learning outcomes
as shown in Figure 1. These approaches have been termed a surface approach and
a deep approach (Marton and Saljo, 1976; Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983; Biggs,
1987). A surface approach is one in which the student engage in activities aimed
at short term reproduction, while a deep approach is one in which the activities are
aimed at long term understanding. For example, in study of first year university
mathematics at the research intensive university, two different students stated:

I liked calculus because I could remember formulas, which is how I used to study.
I would rote learn all the formulas…

Read the relevant theory and try to get on the same “wavelength” as the person
who actually discovered it. Before I attempt any problems I try to think where you
can use the concept: i.e. what the concept was invented for. Then I attempt problem
(on my own) (Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas, & Prosser, 1994).
 The first quote exemplifies a surface approach to the study of mathematics and
the second a deep approach. A subsequent study, using John Biggs’ Study Process
Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987) and showed that, among other things, compared to stu-
dents who reported adopting a surface approach to study, those reporting the adoption
of a deep approach perceived the teaching was better, the goals of the course and
standards of assessment were clearer, that the workload was more manageable and
that the assessment assessed understanding rather than short term reproduction. But
most importantly, it also showed that the former students outperformed the latter
students substantially and significantly in end-of-course marks (Crawford, Gordon,
Nicholas and Prosser, 1998).
While the above studies have been conducted in Western Universities, a recent
study in a research intensive teaching and learning environment in Hong Kong
showed similar results (Prosser, 2012).
These and a large range of other studies using a range of assessment techniques
have shown that a deep approach to study is associated with student perceptions of
higher quality teaching and higher quality learning outcomes, as shown in Figure 1.
Given these various strands of research, the question is, is there a relationship
between the way university teachers approach their teaching and the way university
students approach their learning, as suggested in the link between the upper and
lower sections of the model shown in Figure 1. If a more CCSF approach to teaching
can be considered to be a higher quality approach, then such an approach should be
associated with students adopting deeper and more meaningful approaches to study.
This question was raised in the early 1990s and responded to in a series of studies
in Hong Kong and Australia.
In Hong Kong Kember and Gow (1994) used their Teaching Orientation Ques-
tionnaire (TOQ) and John Biggs’ Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) to study the
relationship between approaches to teaching and approaches to learning at the de-
partmental level. In Australia, in a further analysis of the data reported in Prosser et
al. (2003), drawing on earlier work by Trigwell and Prosser (1999), used Trigwell
and Prosser’s Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) and Biggs’ SPQ to study
the relationship at the course level. A summary of the results of these two studies
is shown in Table 1.
Taken overall the results show that a more ITTF approach to teaching is associ-
ated with more surface approaches and less deep approaches to student learning and
a CCSF approach to teaching is associated with more deep and less surface ap-
proaches to learning. That is, when teachers report that their focus is on what they
do in their teaching—on their teaching activities—and that their intention is to
provide student with information and knowledge then their students are more
Table 1. Relationships between approaches to learning and approaches to teaching

Approach Course Teaching Approach – Australia Department Teaching Approach – Hong Kong
to Learning Prosser and Trigwell ATI Kember and Gow TOQ
Biggs SPQ (n=55 first year courses) (n=15 departments)
Teacher- focused Student- focused Teacher focused Student focused
Surface Ap- .37 **
-.46 **
.09 -.61*
proach
Deep Ap- -.14 .34 * -.74 * .39
proach

likely to focus their learning on short term reproduction, with lower quality learning
outcomes. For example, when the teachers’ focus is on how well they explain their
learning outcomes, not on how well their students have understood the learning
outcomes. On the other hand, when teachers report a focus on their students and
their activities with an intention to help student develop and change their under-
standing of the subject matter, their student are more likely to be focusing on longer-
term understanding and application than on short-term reproduction for the ex-
aminations. Here the example is of teachers interested in how well the students have
understood the goals for the course and not just on how well they can explain the
goals.
These and other similar results show that, from a student learning perspective,
high quality teaching is teaching in which the teacher aims to afford a teaching and
learning environment and to adopt approaches to teaching which focus on their
students and their students learning activities, their developing understanding of the
subject matter and on their perceptions of the teaching and learning context. High
quality teaching is teaching that affords high quality student learning processes and
outcomes.
In summary, referring again to the model shown in Figure 1, students approach
their learning, with resultant learning outcomes, in terms of how they perceive and
understand their teaching and learning context—not just on the context itself. Teachers
approach their teaching in terms of how they perceive and understand the teaching
and learning context—not just on the context itself (remember it is perceptions of
class size, not class size itself that relates to approaches to teaching). In departments,
courses and classrooms in which the teaching focuses more on students and their
learning rather than on teachers and their teaching, their students adopt approaches
to learning focusing on understanding and not just on short term reproduction, with
higher quality learning outcomes.
So what does this mean for high quality teaching in higher education? It means that
high quality teaching maintains an awareness of students and their perceptions and
understandings.

It means that not only does good teaching imply careful preparation and explica-
tion, but also requires continual monitoring and responding to student perceptions
and understanding.

A good example of this is the recent concern about the quality of feedback to
students. Student survey results internationally show that students do not believe
they are receiving sufficient and/or sufficient quality feedback to improve their
learning. One of the initial responses to this situation by senior managers in higher
education has been to mandate the timing and quality of feedback. But just provid-
ing more and more frequent feedback is unlikely to be the solution. The issue is
how do students perceive, understand, and value the feedback they are receiving.
Anecdotal evidence from conscientious teaching staff is that students take little or
no notice of feedback when received. In these cases, teaching staff conscientiously
provide feedback on assignments etc, but their students either do not recognize this
as feedback or do not value it. The question is not producing more feedback but
better understanding how students perceive, understand, and use the feedback they
are receiving and how can we better provide feedback that is of value to students.
An example of how this perspective on high quality teaching is being used in
the recognition and rewarding of excellence in teaching is provided in the approach
adopted in the University of Hong Kong (HKU). At HKU, the Teaching Excellence
Awards have three criteria. They are:

• Excellence in teaching and engagement with students and their learning.

• Excellence in curriculum design, renewal and innovation.
• Excellence in Leadership and Scholarship of Learning and teaching.

Here I wish to focus on the first of these criteria.

The focus of this criterion is on practices and activities that are recognized to
enhance students’ learning experiences and learning outcomes. So among the prac-
tices listed to inform and support staff are:

• Sets clear goals and learning outcomes and supports students in understand-
ing the outcomes.
• Uses a variety of teaching methods to enhance learning for understanding and
not just learning for reproduction.
• Uses a variety of assessment methods to monitor students’ learning processes
and to promote learning.
• Reflects on own knowledge of students and their learning and on how to im-
prove teaching to support students and their learning.
• Goes beyond Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning scores to improve
teaching and draws on a wide variety of evidence regarding success in help-
ing students learn.

It is clear from these exemplars that the focus of the awards is on an approach to
teaching that focuses on students and developing and changing their understanding—a
CCSF approach. Earlier in this chapter, I provided a quote from two teachers inter-
viewed about how they approached their teaching. The first quote—an example of
a quote from a teacher adopting an ITTF approach—was given by a teacher who
had been a teaching award winner in the 1990s. It is clear from the new practices
listed for an award in the second decade of the 21st century that such an approach
would not receive an excellence in teaching award.
In support of this perspective, Trigwell (2010) has argued a case that there is
a “what” and a “how well” in judging high quality teaching. It is not sufficient to
argue that the teacher has implemented his/her approach excellently without mak-
ing a judgement about the focus and probable outcomes of the approach. The key
question to ask about excellence in teaching from this perspective is “What is the
evidence that the excellence in implementation leads to, or is likely to lead to, high
quality learning outcomes?”
In conclusion, I have tried to argue a case for considering high quality teaching
as that that affords and facilitates high quality student learning. I have described
some key variations in the ways in which university teachers approach their teaching
and shown how these approaches related to high quality student learning. Teaching
is not an end in itself—teaching is part of the process, which leads to high quality
student learning. Student learning needs to be at the heart of all discussions about
quality teaching.

Biggs, J. B. (1987b). The study process questionnaire (SPQ) users’ manual. Haw-
thorne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1994). Conceptions of
mathematics and how it is learned: The perspective of students entering university.
Learning and Instruction, 4, 331–345. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90005-1
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively differ-
ent experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction,
8, 455–468. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00005-X
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London,
UK: Croom Helm.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research in academic’s concep-
tions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255–275. doi:10.1016/S0959-
4752(96)00028-X
Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of
student learning. The Journal of Higher Education, 65, 59–74. doi:10.2307/2943877
Martin, E., & Balla, M. (1991). Conceptions of teaching and implications for student
learning. Research and Development in Higher Education, 13, 298–304.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: Out-
come and process. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
Prosser, M. (2012). The four year degree in HK: An opportunity for quality enhance-
ment. In Gordon, G., & Land, R. (Eds.), Quality Enhancement in Higher Education:
International Perspectives. London, UK: Routledge International.
Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2003). Dissonance in experi-
ence of teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher
Education, 28, 37–48. doi:10.1080/03075070309299
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Relations between perceptions of the teaching
environment and approaches to teaching. The British Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 67, 25–35. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01224.x
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The
experience in higher education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches
to teaching inventory. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 405–419.
doi:10.1348/000709905X43571
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by teachers.
Higher Education, 24, 93–112. doi:10.1007/BF00138620
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academic beliefs about teaching
and learning. Higher Education, 41, 299–325. doi:10.1023/A:1004130031247
Stes, A., Gijbels, D., & van Petegem, P. (2008). Primary title: Student-focused
approaches to teaching in relation to context and teacher characteristics. Higher
Education, 55, 255–267. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9053-9
Trigwell, K. (2010). Judging university teaching. The International Journal for
Academic Development, 6, 65–73. doi:10.1080/13601440110033698
Trigwell, K. (2012). Primary title: Relations between teachers’ emotions in teaching
and their approaches to teaching in higher education. Instructional Science, 40(3),
607–621. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9192-3
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in
university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77–87.
doi:10.1007/BF00139219
 Lynne Hunt
University of Southern Queensland, Australia & University of
Western Australia, Australia

This chapter is about discipline-based teaching and students’ active engagement

in learning-by-doing. It notes threshold concepts in sociology, highlighting the
development of critical thinking and academic study and research skills. It shows
how student-centred, authentic learning pedagogy and a student learning journey
perspective was applied to social science teaching, in particular, sociology, and offers
practical examples of teaching strategies revealing the importance of curriculum
alignment, planning, and reflective practice for university teachers and students.

This case study tells the story of quality social science teaching in a suite of three
sociology subjects—one in each year of a three-year degree program—in the ap-
plied field of health studies. These subjects (also known as units or modules) were
focused on researching and understanding the social context of health, including
topics such as ethnicity and health, Indigenous health issues, social class, and rural
health. The case study is based on a national, Australian award winning teaching
portfolio, which is adapted here as a case study in order to share good, discipline-
based teaching practice and to explore the nature and meaning of quality university

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch003

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
teaching and learning (see Salter Chapter 1). The aim is to inspire, rather than to
impose a quality road for sociology teaching in universities, for, as Arendt (1968, p.
105) famously observed, ‘Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error
of defining it’. The chapter explores what and how to teach and assess, highlighting
core social science skills including critical thinking, academic study skills, and re-
search skills. It carries a number of messages: that it is important to know why you
are doing what you are doing (pedagogy); that students should be engaged actively
in learning; and that university teachers are ‘meddlers in the middle’, which means
actively sharing with students in their learning processes:

Specifically it means: (1) less time giving instructions and more time spent being
a usefully ignorant co-worker in the thick of the action; (2) less time spent being a
custodial risk minimiser and more time spent being an experimenter and risktaker;
(3) less time spent being a forensic classroom auditor and more time spent being
a designer, editor and assembler; (4) less time spent being a counsellor and ‘best
buddy’ and more time spent being a collaborative critic and authentic evaluator
(McWilliams, 2008, p. 263).

McWilliams’ meddlers’ approach has much in common with Cousin’s (2009,

p. 270) ‘transactional curriculum inquiry,’ an approach ‘which becomes neither
student-centred nor teacher-centred but something more active, dynamic and in-
between … [the] pursuit of shared understandings of difficulties and shared ways of
mastering them’. In this case study university teachers and their students are active
in the mutual process of enhancing learning.

The elements of quality university teaching have been clearly identified through
the scholarship of learning and teaching (See Prosser Chapter 2; Trigwell, 2012).
Angelo (2012), for example, advocates careful curriculum design. Others focus on
university teachers and teaching (Hunt, Chalmers & Macdonald, 2012). For example,
studies of outstanding university teachers (Bain, 2004; Kember and McNaught,
2007) reveal that they treat teaching as a serious intellectual endeavour through
which they engage students in critical thinking and authentic learning tasks. It is
a process that Barnett describes as unsettling: ‘The student is perforce required to
venture into new places, strange places, anxiety-provoking places. This is part of the
point of higher education. If there was no anxiety, it is difficult to believe that we
could be in the presence of a higher education’ (Barnett 2007, p. 147). Already, this
discussion has slipped from quality university teaching to quality student learning,
for, as Ramsden (2003, p. 7) observed, ‘The aim of teaching is simple: it is to make
student learning possible’. Angelo (2012, p. 99) extends the argument, noting that
quality student learning is about deep rather than surface learning. He suggests the
application of the parrot test: Could a parrot,

Enrol in and somehow amass enough points to pass your subject? More realisti-
cally, is there any way that a student could pass your subject simply through rote
memorisation … without demonstrating deep learning? If the answer is yes, then
the subject fails the parrot test and is probably not well designed to promote deep
learning. If, on the other hand, there is no way students can pass your subject without
demonstrating an appropriate depth of learning, then your subject passes the parrot
test: Bad news for parrots, but good news for you, your subject and your students.

The transition from traditional approaches, focused on teaching, to pedagogies

focused on student learning has been characterized as a shift in the role of university
teachers. Once the ‘sages on the stage’, they became the facilitating ‘guides at the
side’ of their students. In this, Northedge saw an emergent risk: ‘To be “student
oriented” is absolutely necessary, but this is not sufficient in itself. The teacher’s
capabilities as subject expert are a resource vital to their students’ progress. Failure
to recognise this leads to weak, unfocused teaching’ (Northedge, 2005, p. 104).
Hunt Chalmers and Macdonald (2012, p. 22) built on Northedge’s observation to
assert that there is ‘still an act of teaching,’ indeed, many of them, summarised as:

Effective university teaching is a holistic endeavour that embraces not only the
practice of teaching but an understanding of how students learn (Stewart 2012) in
an inclusive and supportive learning environment (Broughan & Hunt 2012; Barker
2012; Christie & Asmar 2012), curriculum development (Angelo 2012); assessment
and feedback to students (Brown & Race 2012); scholarship and reflective practice
(Trigwell 2012); and continuous quality improvement (Krause 2012). University
teaching may occur online (Reeves & Reeves 2012), in one-to-one supervision,
lectures, workshops, tutorials, practicum or fieldwork settings, and in laboratories
and studios.

Are these generic qualities of teaching enough, or is there something special about
teaching specific disciplines? It seems there is. The argument for discipline-based
teaching and learning was espoused by Shulman (2005), who spoke of ‘signature
pedagogies’ and Land (2012, p. 55) concluded that,
The idea of discipline-based teaching, with its emphasis on disciplinary context,
signature ways of thinking and practicing, recognised conceptual structures and
boundaries, and strongly formative norms and values within its community of prac-
tice, offers an important lens through which you might analyse the concepts, topics
and skills that, in the long term, will really matter to your students.

For this reason, this chapter focuses on quality teaching in the social science
discipline of sociology. It addresses issues associated with what students should
learn, student-centred pedagogy, and the student learning journey with special ref-
erence to the development of generic skills such as critical thinking and research
skills. It also describes an aligned curriculum design process in which a student
centred, authentic learning pedagogy is sustained through learning, teaching and
assessment processes.

The UK Quality Assurance Agency provides consensus-based, benchmarking state-

ments which indicate that student learning in sociology programs should include
an understanding of:

• Key sociological concepts and theoretical approaches;

• Social context, social processes, and of social diversity and inequality;
• Comparative analysis;
• The relationship between individuals, groups and social institutions;
• The role of culture in social life;
• The social processes underpinning social change;
• A range of qualitative and quantitative research strategies and methods;
• The relationship between sociological argument and evidence; and
• The distinctive character of sociology in relation to other forms of under-
standing, such as its relation to other disciplines and to everyday explanations.

These might be referred to as the threshold concepts of sociology, which means:

A threshold concept may be seen as a crossing of boundaries into new conceptual

space where things formerly not within view are perceived, much like a portal
opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something …
without which the learner would find it difficult to progress within a particular field
of study. As a consequence of comprehending a threshold concept there may thus
be a transformed internal view of subject matter, subject landscape or even world
view (Land, 2012, p. 42).

However, in this case study, it mattered that the sociology subjects were being
offered in the applied field of health because it forced a distillation of ideas about
what and how to teach. No student in these units of study was ever going to be a
sociologist. So what was the purpose of teaching them sociology? The answer came
from the core elements of the discipline: social and political awareness, social re-
search, critical thinking; and written and oral communication skills which are also
graduate attributes required of all university students:

They encompass discipline specific knowledge and skills, broader professional and
attitudinal dispositions related to the discipline, and the academic skills that under-
pin effective learning and inquiry. There is a remarkable consistency in the types
of graduate attributes that each university wishes its students to develop including
effective written and oral communication and numeracy skills, critical analysis,
independent learning skills, and the ability to solve complex problems. There are
also expectations that students will have developed behaviours and attitudes—
specifically, these refer to ethical decision-making and citizenship skills—which
they are able to apply in light of evidence and the global context in which they live
(Chalmers & Partridge, 2012, p. 57).

This is a useful definition because it highlights why the science students in this
case study were taking sociology classes: It was precisely so that they could de-
velop academic and citizenship skills, critical thinking, and social awareness. The
sociology subjects also provided more fertile soil for the development of attributes
such as written and oral communications skills than might be the case in science
subjects. This chapter will show how these skills were interwoven with discipline-
based teaching in the social sciences.

The pedagogical approach in these sociology subjects drew on constructivist learn-

ing theories, which, according to Stewart (2012, p. 11) ‘emphasise student-centred,
active learning and the role of the teacher as facilitator.’ They include:
• An emphasis on students being active in constructing their understanding of
knowledge;
• A focus on discovery, exploration, experimentation and developing and test-
ing hypotheses;
• Project-work, research-based learning, problem- and enquiry-based learning
methods (see Brodie, 2012; Jenkins & Healey, 2012);
• Awareness of the learning process through use of reflective learning activi-
ties, self assessment and evaluation; and
• The role of the teacher as a guide, providing ‘scaffolding’ to learning—that
is, to ensure the student has the requisite knowledge, skills and support to
negotiate a new piece of learning—and prompting the student through ques-
tioning or modeling.

The approach to learning and teaching was also informed by a student learning
journey framework. This addresses the transition to university, with the attendant
need to embed academic skills, and also subsequent graduation to the workforce
or postgraduate study, which sharpens the focus on teaching graduate attributes
(Chalmers & Partridge, 2012). The case study illustrates how these approaches to
teaching and learning were brought to fruition in a suite of three sociology subjects
embedded in health studies degree programs.
The constructivist pedagogical approach was underpinned by curriculum alignment
(Angelo, 2012; Biggs, 1996), which means that the specified learning objectives, or
outcomes, are aligned with learning tasks, content and assessment. Active student
engagement for on-campus students was secured through a three-hour workshop
structured (scaffolded) by student workbooks. This strategy released teachers from
their customary roles in lectures and tutorials creating opportunities for them to
‘meddle in the middle’. Learning activities were varied over the three-hour period
and engaged students actively in learning processes. For example, these might
include discussion of the reading for the topic, small group analysis of statistical
tables to provide an evidence-base for an appraisal of the issues, perhaps a video
with set questions for the students to answer and subsequently debate, or an exercise
in which students might formulate interpretations of the evidence. This framework
of three-hour workshops structured by a workbook containing interactive, student-
centred learning activities applied to all three sociology subjects under discussion
in this case study.
One of the unintended outcomes of the modularized curricula that prevail in
contemporary universities is that student learning can become staccato, each subject
(module or unit) a potentially disjointed element of each student’s learning journey.
Tick the box, one subject down 23 more to go! Even sustaining continuity from one
week to the next within one subject can be difficult for students with commitments
to other subjects, paid employment and their personal lives. To sustain continuity,
student workbooks were developed and organized in a way that signaled to students
the importance of taking responsibility for their own learning. They could see quickly
what lay ahead and reflection on what had gone before was supported by their own
notes in the workbook and by reflective exercises at the beginning of each workshop.
All essential material was included at the beginning of the workbook:

• A subject outline;
• A weekly schedule of teaching and learning activities;
• A reference list including books, journals, audio-visual resources and appro-
priate Web sites; and
• A detailed assignment sheet with choices.

In addition to essential information, the workbooks included material useful in

the development of time management and study skills – for example, a ‘quick-fix’
handout on expected writing standards. The rest of the workbook was organized
into ‘modules’ (weeks) containing sequenced, learning activities for each three-hour
workshop. Week 1 activities, for each of the three sociology subjects under discus-
sion, took students through the essential introductory material, leading students into
independent learning skills by facilitating their own study plans for the semester
through a one-page semester plan for students to note when assignments were due
in all their subjects. Students also identified regular employment or family com-
mitments. This provided a ‘semester-at-a-glance’ plan for their studies revealing
bottle-necks of assignments and commitments for which they had to plan.
The workbook offered ample space for students to write so that, by the end of
semester, they had effectively written their own textbook. The framework for stu-
dents’ weekly notes included:

• The basic concepts introduced in class;

• Questions to guide note taking on audio-visual material;
• Learning activities;
• Weekly reading; and
• Assessment choices.

For students unfamiliar with the discursive nature of the social sciences, the
workbook provided an anchor. They had a concrete set of notes about what they had
learned each week. From a teaching perspective, the structure of the workbook pro-
vided a framework for the varied learning activities each week. These were designed
in terms of constructivist learning theory and might include, for example, simulation
games, critical thinking exercises, small and large group discussion and opportuni-
ties for students to interpret and analyze data. This framework translated directly
to Learning Managements Systems (LMS) for use by distance education students,
or, in a truly blended learning environment (Reeves & Reeves, 2012), on-campus
and off-campus students could work together sharing the same learning resources.

As well as constructivist learning theories, the pedagogical approach incorporated

a student learning journey perspective, which is a holistic approach designed to get
the context right for student learning. It is also a plural concept—students’ learn-
ing journeys—which gives rise to flexible and diverse responses rather than a ‘one
size fits all’ strategy. It means that students’ social and academic induction to the
university and the development of their graduate attributes in preparation for work
or postgraduate study is everyone’s responsibility and should form part of curricu-
lum planning and teaching, as Kift outlined in her ‘Transition Pedagogy,’ which
indicated, inter alia, that the first year curriculum design should enable active and
collaborative learning and teacher-student interaction.
Yorke et al. (1999) found that students’ early integration into university culture
significantly reduced risk of failure and non-completion of degree programs. So,
from day one in these health sociology subjects, students were engaged in learning
how to learn. For example, they were asked to discuss in small groups things they
had not liked in previous learning experiences, including the behaviour of other
students in class. In subsequent discussion these negatives were switched to posi-
tives to establish a group contract about how the group intended to work together.
This was consolidated by personal contracts in their workbooks in which students
noted the amount of time they intended to commit to reading and assignments. At
the end of semester, they were invited to review their commitments and to reflect
on their personal performance.
Academic study skills were also introduced in the workbook and subsequently
integrated with learning activities throughout the semester. For example, jigsaw
groups offered low-risk opportunities for the development of oral communication
skills. Students were resourced with different, short pieces to read and invited to
share what they had read with other members of their small group. Not only does
this provide students with something to say, it is also a way to share a wide range
of information quickly and for students to get to know each other in ways that fa-
cilitated social integration.
A particular problem for students is that academic skills acquisition, for example,
writing, often occurs in circumstances in which they are being assessed. An alterna-
tive, used in these sociology subjects, is to engage students in low-risk learning: If
you want students to write, get them writing as much as possible through low-risk
writing exercises. This is not for assessment but to help them to develop a personal
style, formulate their ideas, and compare their work to that of other students. For
example, when teaching ‘Abstract’ writing in a social research subject, students
were asked to draft an Abstract anonymously and stick their draft on the wall (or
discussion board online). They then walked around and read the abstracts in order
to identify the best three, saying why they are the best. This process encouraged
students to be reflective about the writing process and also showed them, in concrete
terms, what ‘good’ writing might mean.
A Regular Reading Scheme was deployed in the first-year health sociology sub-
ject to encourage students to read each week. Students were given a card on which
to summarise each week’s prescribed reading. The following week, the notes were
discussed in class—this provided the basic information about that week’s topic.
Further, the small size of the card forces distillation of key points and targeted
note taking—important academic skills for students. Following class discussion,
students submitted their cards to their lecturer for storage. The card may be handed
in only in the week following the prescribed reading. On the day of the exam, the
collated cards are returned to their owners for use during the exam. The increase in
regular reading was spectacular! This was a voluntary incentive scheme. At first,
students apologised for non-submission of notes, but they learned quickly that the
responsibility is theirs. If they read regularly, they benefited. If they did not, that
was their choice and their problem. Students were enthusiastic about the system and
reported working harder in spite of the fact that the number of assignments in the
subject had been reduced. The aim was continuous, independent learning, rather
than continuous assessment.

Encouraging students to see the world differently—through the lens of the Social
Sciences – is a complex process, in part because it challenges students’ unquestioned
assumptions: ‘Many come to academic discourse expecting it to complement the
knowledge produced in their other life-worlds, but instead find it discordant and
unsettling’ (Northedge, 2005, p. 20). To address this, Northedge makes academic
discourse transparent. For example, in a subject that he taught ‘Understanding
Health and Social Care’, he encouraged students to distinguish between every day,
professional, and academic discourses (See Table 1; Northedge 2005, p. 20) to offer
an understanding of the nature of academic debate in universities.
In the first-year health subject in this case study, simulation games were used to
push the boundaries of the everyday and normal. For example, a Norm-Breaking
Exercise was used to demonstrate how we learn to become members of society.
Table 1. How to make social science discourse transparent

Everyday discourses Discourses of care practice Academic discourses on care

Source Tabloid headline Hospital spokesperson Journal article
Issue: ‘Is baby Julie’s life Achieving maximum good Debate on alternative models
Scarcity of worth $50,000 with limited resources of care financing
resources for Priorities, difficult decisions Debate on shifting of
care resources from cure to
prevention

Students were required to break a norm, without doing harm to others, and to study
reactions to their behaviour. One student, for example, boarded a half-empty bus
and attempted to secure an occupied seat for herself on the grounds that “I always
sit there”! This gave rise to discussion about social norms in public and private
settings, because, in many households, family members may well have a favourite
chair they call their own. Another simulation exercise concerned gender stereotypes:
Students asked for advice in a toy shop about a gift suitable for a ten year old boy
and girl. The advice of the shop assistants is subsequently discussed in class as an
introduction to social expectations of females and males.
The challenges inherent in social scientific debate are most evident in the extreme
case of teaching controversial issues, particularly where these touch on cultural or
spiritual value systems. Three such issues taught in the third-year health sociology
subject were female genital mutilation, abortion, and reproductive technology.
Values clarification exercises were used. These state extreme or contradictory
opinions through which students can explore the nuances of their own opinions.
The Stand and Deliver strategy was sometimes used to force a public stance and
engender debate. One side of the room signified agreement with a statement, the
other disagreement and the middle was neutral territory. When students moved to
their positions they spoke with like-minded classmates to develop their arguments
before joining in debate with those taking a different stance. This is a useful strategy
to empower quieter students with something to say and it provides opportunities to
enhance oral communication skills.
Some students feel threatened, rather than challenged, by values clarification ex-
ercises, so the study materials explored the difference between substantive (personal)
and procedural (professional or work-related) values – namely those agreed upon
by consensus or the law of the land (see Fenton, 1967). For example, it may be part
of one’s personal and cultural value system to support Female Genital Mutilation
(FGM), but it is illegal in most countries. Students need opportunities to learn how
to walk the line between cultural sensitivity, professional ethics, and the law. In the
final analysis, one of the most significant contributions that can be made by the
social sciences is to position students in terms of the evidence and for them to learn
to distinguish between fact and opinion. One way to do this is to prepare learning
resources that juxtapose a series of questions with statistical evidence. In all three
of these subjects, sometimes small groups of students addressed all the questions.
On other occasions, each small-group tackled one question and reported back to
the whole group. This exercise facilitated the development of skills in reading, oral
communication, and the analysis and interpretation of statistical tables.
Oftentimes, students do not understand what critical thinking means. To help
them, in these health sociology units, we started with developing the ability to ques-
tion using the 5WH questions (Who? Why? What? Where? When? How?). These
questioning words lie at the heart of social analysis and provide a useful framework
to encourage students to analyze health sociology issues such as work-related stress:
Who gets stressed? Why do they get stressed? What are the symptoms of stress?
Where is work-related stress most prevalent? When do people get stressed? How
can work-related stress be diminished?
Exposure to new situations also facilitates question development and students
studying these sociology subjects were taken on field trips and introduced to visiting
speakers to broaden their horizons. Guest speakers were often recorded to facilitate
students’ private study and to share the wisdom with students studying online.
Students were also asked to explore different levels of questions using exercises
developed by Hogan (1999) who, in turn, adapted the work of Beers (1986) who
built on Bloom’s (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives (See Table 2). Table
2 may be used in a number of ways, when adapting this strategy to your own teach-
ing. Ask students to develop questions about the same topic using key words that
lead to increasingly higher levels of analysis. Or, ask students to each develop one
question about a topic, collate the questions and then invite students to categorize
the level at which each question might sit in accordance with Table 2. Students can
also be invited to rewrite some of the lower-order questions at a higher level. It is
important to avoid implied value judgments about types of questions because lower-
order, factual-recall (knowledge) questions have an important place in establishing
an evidence-base for any academic discussion.

Table 2. Key words associated with Bloom’s taxonomy (Hogan, 1999; Beers, 1986)

Question Level Key Words

Knowledge State, list
Comprehension Explain, identify
Application Apply, demonstrate
Analysis Compare, differentiate
Synthesis Create, hypothesise
In the second-year, health research subject, learning activities, based on constructiv-
ist learning theory, positioned students to construct knowledge through their own
research projects. The starting point engaged students in visualizing an authentic
setting—a future work situation in which they must draft a research design, without
notice, for members of a Board of Management considering expenditure of research
funds. Students then work in small groups to design a research project on a set topic
‘sight unseen’—so far they have had no instruction on social research design. It is
amazing how well they do. In follow-up class discussion, the university teacher’s
task is simply to structure scattered thoughts into coherent research designs. This is
an empowering process because students sense they have control of the knowledge
and they are informed that by the end of this subject they should be able to speak
cogently about research design because they will have completed one through highly
interconnected learning and assessment processes.
Selecting research topics and developing associated research questions is often
a challenge for students starting the health research subject. The whole of one,
three-hour workshop was devoted to class discussion to assist students to turn their
chosen topics into researchable questions. The modeling and repetition helped
students to help each other. One of these workshops was videotaped and edited to a
thirty-minute production for use by online students. Mind-maps were used to help
students to narrow their topic for a research design. They illustrated possible angles
on a chosen topic so that students might make a conscious decision about which
aspect to choose. This is a particularly good activity for students who are visual
learners. Sometimes postgraduate students’ work was introduced to undergraduates
as a means of sharing research ideas and approaches. This also helped postgraduate
students to crystallize their thoughts or to rehearse a conference paper.
To initiate qualitative research skills, a workbook activity invited students to
formulate open-ended questions and to interview each other on the topic of their
first ‘date’. The sensitive topic of a first romantic encounter was chosen deliberately
to encourage students to think through the values implicit in their questions. For
example, many students assumed heterosexuality and the topic itself assumed that
they had, in fact, had a first date. This introduction to interviewing was consolidated
through a formal assignment based on structured interviews with friends and rela-
tives on health topics selected by the students.
Although teachers are normally cautioned to avoid negative or poor examples,
in these health sociology subjects students were asked to answer a poorly structured
questionnaire in their workbooks (See Table 3).
 The aim was to teach skills in developing questionnaire questions. Discussion
of the nature of good questions arose from the students’ experiences of answering
such transparently poor questions. The discovery learning in this valuable object
lesson was fun and it produced memorable learning.
Community-engaged research was a significant feature of students’ learning in
these health sociology subjects. Students were directly engaged in their university
teacher’s research projects, for example, an oral history of the University’s women
graduates. Students volunteered to participate in a one-day workshop on inter-
viewing techniques, together with members of the community. Subsequently, they
interviewed graduates. This resulted in over 50 taped interviews which gave rise to
a six-part radio series, and a book: Claremont Cameos (Hunt & Trotman, 2002).
This contributed to the development of students’ curricula vitae (e-portfolios) and
their ultimate transition from university and into the workforce because it provided
concrete evidence of their research skills. Undergraduate students were also taught
how to engage with the dissemination of research outcomes by participating in a
low-key, community-based conference, ‘Women’s Health: Women’s Lives”. Students
and community members shared in a one day conference, organized by their health
sociology lecturer, in which students presented short papers based on their assign-
ments. This encouraged a number of students to progress to postgraduate study.

To ensure active student involvement in their own learning, they had choices either
of topic or of type of assignment in all health sociology subjects. The range of as-
signments from which students chose included: qualitative research report; quantita-
tive research design; health agency profile; poster presentation; community-based
health workshop design; health promotion brochure; journal; essay and exams. The
majority of these types of assignment is informed by authentic (real-world) learning
pedagogy because students were engaged actively in the construction of knowledge
and in producing, for example, their own questionnaires or health promotion re-
sources. The more traditional essay and examinations were used where there was a
need to cover basic concepts and theory before moving-on to application of these
in authentic learning assignments.

Table 3. Questionnaire wording

Do you not agree that double negatives disimprove questionnaires? Yes No

Do you think double questions are effective because they reduce the overall number of Yes No
questions or do they oblige respondents to think more deeply?
 The approach, in all three of the sociology subjects in this case study, was that
everything is a learning opportunity, be these weekly learning activities, formative
assessment (Brown & Race, 2012) or the feedback provided to students on their as-
signments. In regard to learning from feedback in marked assignments, the snowball
strategy was deployed. On receipt of their marked assignments students at first works
alone, then in pairs and finally in groups of four (the snowball – group size – gets
bigger as it rolls along). Their task, at each stage of the snowball process, is to pri-
oritize five major points for improvement, based on the written feedback provided
by their tutor. This means that students are consolidating ‘points for improvement’
several times. In the subsequent assignment, marks were allocated to an Appendix
that required students to reflect on how they used feedback from Assignment One
to enhance the quality of their analysis and writing in Assignment Two.

Quality teaching in sociology is not a fixed or unchanging phenomenon. It responds

to changes in the discipline and in higher education research. It is also contingent on
local circumstances, especially the nature of student cohorts. What students expect
and what they think about learning in the social sciences also influences the defini-
tion of quality teaching. In addition to the customary university evaluation processes,
students in these health sociology subjects were invited to offer ongoing feedback
on the quality of their learning experience. This included mid-semester, ‘negative’
evaluations to determine what was going wrong that could be fixed immediately.
Periodically, they offered ‘Half-page Responses’ to monitor specific aspects of a
subject, such as assignments. A particular concern among students is that, normally,
they never see the outcomes of their evaluations. To solve this problem, the outcomes
of mid-semester evaluations were collated, distributed and discussed with students
to explore ways to address their needs in the remaining weeks of study.

This case study has shown how a series of health sociology subjects deployed
learning-centred pedagogy to engage students actively in learning about the social
context of health and graduate attributes such as social research, evidence-based
analysis, social awareness, and written and oral communication skills. The ultimate
goal was to provide opportunities for students to construct their own knowledge in
an evidence-based manner and to feel that they had power over their own learning.
For example, in one early workshop, students were asked to visualize a future work
situation in which they must draft a research design, without notice, for a Board of
Management. At the end of semester one student said, “I’m wrapped. I want to do
social research now. Remember what you said about the boardroom? Well, I reckon
I could do that now!” – What better outcome could there be from quality teaching
in the social sciences?

Angelo, T. (2012). Designing subjects for learning: practical, research-based

guidelines. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A
Learning-Centred Approach (pp. 93–111). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Arendt, H. (1968). Men in dark times. New York, NY: Harvest Books.
Australian Council for Educational Research. (2012). How parents and partners
can support student engagement. Retrieved 18 January 2012 from http://www.acer.
edu.au/documents/aussereports/AUSSE_EG_Parents_Partners.pdf
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Barker, M. (2012). Teaching international students. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D.
(Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach (pp. 199–213).
Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Barnett, R. (2007). A will to learn: Being a student in an age of uncertainty. Maid-
enhead, UK: SRHE/Open University Press.
Beers, S. E. (1986). Questioning and peer collaboration as techniques for thinking
and writing about personality. Teaching of Psychology, 13(2), 75–77. doi:10.1207/
s15328023top1302_6
Biggs, J. B. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher
Education, 32(3), 347–364. doi:10.1007/BF00138871
Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:
The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university
examiners. In Handbook, I. (Ed.), Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: Longmans.
Brodie, L. (2012). Problem-based learning. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.),
University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach (pp. 145–163). Mel-
bourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Broughan, C., & Hunt, L. (2012). Inclusive teaching. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D.
(Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach (pp. 182–198).
Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Brown, S., & Race, P. (2012). Using effective assessment to promote learning. In
Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred
Approach (pp. 74–91). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Chalmers, D., & Partridge, L. (2012). Teaching graduate attributes and academic
skills. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-
Centred Approach (pp. 56–73). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Christie, M., & Asmar, C. (2012). Indigenous knowers and knowledge in univer-
sity teaching. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A
Learning-Centred Approach (pp. 214–232). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Cousin, G. (2009). Researching learning in higher education: An introduction to
contemporary methods and approaches. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fenton, E. (1967). The new social studies. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston Inc.
Hogan, C. (1999). Facilitating learning: Practical strategies for college and uni-
versity. Melbourne, Australia: Eruditions Publications.
Hunt, L. (2011). There’s still an act of teaching – Many of them. In Proceedings of
the Enhancing Learning Conference. Sarawak, Malaysia: Miri.
Hunt, L., Chalmers, D., & Macdonald, R. (2012). Effective classroom teaching. In
Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred
Approach (pp. 21–37). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Hunt, L., Hammer, S., & Sankey, M. (2012). Getting the context right for good
assessment practice. In Clouder, D. L., Broughan, C., Jewell, S., & Steventon, G.
J. (Eds.), Improving Student Engagement and Development through Assessment.
London, UK: Routledge.
Hunt, L., & Trotman, J. (2002). Claremont cameos. Perth, Australia: Edith Cowan
University.
Hunt. (2012). Audiovisual productions. Retrieved 19 January 2012, from https://
sites.google.com/site/lynnehuntsite/audio-visual-productions
Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2012). Research-led undergraduate curricula. In Hunt,
L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Ap-
proach (pp. 128–144). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Kember, D., & McNaught, C. (2007). Enhancing university teaching: Lessons from
research into award-winning teachers. London, UK: Routledge.
Kift, S. (2012). First year in higher education centre. Retrieved 7 October 2012,
from http://www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/
Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston,
TX: Gulf Publishing.
Krause, K. (2012). A quality approach to university teaching. In Hunt, L., & Chalm-
ers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach (pp.
235–252). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Land, R. (2012). Discipline-based teaching. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.),
University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach (pp. 38–55). Mel-
bourne, Australia: ACER Press.
McWilliam, E. (2008). Unlearning how to teach. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 45(3), 263–269. doi:10.1080/14703290802176147
Northedge, A. (2005). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity: Supporting
social participation in a knowledge community. In Shaw, G. (Ed.), Tertiary Teach-
ing and Learning: Dealing with Diversity. Casuarina, Australia: Charles Darwin
University Press.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2012). Subject benchmarking statements: Sociology.
Retrieved 7.10.2012 from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuid-
ance/Pages/Subject-benchmark-statement-Sociology.aspx
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London, UK:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2012). Designing online and blended learning. In
Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred
Approach (pp. 112–127). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3),
52–59. doi:10.1162/0011526054622015
Stewart, M. (2012). Understanding learning: Theories and critique. In Hunt, L., &
Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach
(pp. 3–20). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Trigwell, K. (2012). Scholarship of teaching and learning. In Hunt, L., & Chalm-
ers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach (pp.
253–267). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Yorke, M. (1999). Leaving early: Undergraduate non-completion in higher educa-
tion. London, UK: Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203209479
 David Dunne
Simon Fraser University, Canada

In this chapter, the authors show how research in design methods can be integrated
with research in learning to teach students to cope with challenging, ill-defined
problems. They provide examples of courses in which students are encouraged to
see problems from different perspectives and reflect on the process of problem solv-
ing itself. This type of reflection has been woven into the authors’ own teaching of
Management in four ways: by engaging in reflective problem solving, by approaching
problems as researchers would, by confronting theory with practice and building
new theories, and by turning process into subject matter. The authors describe these
approaches and provide examples of their application in practice.

Faculty in research-based universities often decry the impact of teaching on their

research. In many minds, teaching and research productivity are negatively corre-
lated: it stands to reason, in this worldview, that the more one teaches the less time
one has to publish. Others, however, contend that research benefits teaching, on the

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch004

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
basis that those who generate research are more knowledgeable and therefore best
positioned to impart its results. However, Hattie and Marsh (1996), in a meta-analysis
of 58 studies, find that the relationship is zero. They comment that:

… institutions need to reward creativity, commitment, investigativeness, and critical

analysis in teaching and research and particularly value these attributes when they
occur in both teaching and research. Only when these attributes are recognized
is it likely that the relationship between teaching and research will be increased.
We advocate that a desirable aim of a university would be to devise strategies to
enhance the relationship between teaching and research, and all should be pleased
when they increase the relationship positively beyond zero.

Hattie and Marsh argue for integration of teaching and research by promoting
essential qualities that are common to both. In this, they echo Boyer’s (1990) land-
mark study for the Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching, in which
he advocated a broader definition of scholarship to encompass the scholarship of
discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application and the schol-
arship of teaching. O’Meara and Rice (2005) conducted a further study to assess the
degree to which universities had implemented Boyer’s recommendations, and found
that there still remained much scope to recognize alternative forms of scholarship.
While institutions move slowly, some individual faculty members have taken the
initiative and have shown how research and teaching can be integrated. Christensen
and Carlile (2009), for example, argue that, when properly applied, case studies can
turn teaching into research and provide a model of theory development in which
students and faculty can learn together:

We have come to believe that instead of compartmentalizing research and teaching

into separate realms, it might be more productive to think of teachers and students
as partners in a collective enterprise of building, improving and using management
theory (p. 250).

Research and teaching thus can be seen as related activities that complement each
other, not just by deepening of the teacher’s subject-matter knowledge, but through
engaging students themselves in various aspects of research.
By working on a real-world project, students can learn to abstract from the spe-
cific problem they are faced with, to develop an understanding of themselves and
how they can learn through their future lives. To accomplish this, teachers can work
with them to address a specific problem, a process in which students are involved
in the following activities:
1. Engage in reflective problem solving;
2. Approach problems as researchers would, by developing and testing hypotheses;
3. Build theory by confronting it with practice;
4. Reflect on the learning process itself.

In Figure 1, these approaches are depicted as phases in a problem-solving process

and associated with learning goals.
In the discussion that follows, I explore how these approaches have been woven
into my own teaching of Management, through the integration of thought pro-
cesses and tools associated with the field of design. Because an important first step
is to appreciate the value of design, I begin by discussing “wicked problems” (Rit-
tel and Weber, 1973) and their pervasiveness in design, management, and other
disciplines. From this foundation, I discuss how designers approach such problems
and why their approach is value to other professions; I then show how the approach
has been used to accomplish each of these four educational strategies and provide
some concluding thoughts.

In their landmark 1973 paper, Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber described social
policy problems as wicked problems that cannot be definitively described:

… in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the undisputable public good; there
is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot
be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about ‘optimal solu-

Figure 1. Four problem-solving phases and associated learning goals

tions’ to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse,
there are no ‘solutions’ in the sense of definitive and objective answers (Rittel and
Webber, 1973: Abstract).

Rittel and Weber were responding to the linear method proposed by many design
theorists such as Simon (1960). While their intent was to describe the challenges
faced by policymakers, however, wicked problems are not confined to matters of
public policy: they apply in any situation where there are multiple stakeholders
facing ill-defined challenges.
In other contexts, Conklin and Weil (1998) related wickedness to the “pain” in
organizations that results from the frustration of not achieving results in the face of
wicked problems. Camillus (2008) studied wicked problems in strategy development
across 22 companies in North America, Europe, and Asia and identified processes to
address such wicked strategy problems. Coyne (2004) argued that wicked problems
are not exceptions, but the norm, in an irrational world.
The essence of wicked problems is that they do not lend themselves to the tra-
ditional “formulate, then solve” approach because each attempt at a solution may
have the effect of re-defining the problem itself. What is needed is a more fluid,
nonlinear process that emphasizes the importance of framing the problem as much
as solving it: such a process is found in the field of user-centred design.

Since Herbert Simon (1996) called for new management curriculum based on
design, several authors have argued that managers can learn a great deal from the
approach taken by designers (e.g. Senge, 1994; Boland and Collopy, 2004; Dunne
and Martin, 2006). Positive design (Avital, et al., 2006) is an approach to design
that emphasizes the pursuit of the possible as opposed to the known, according to
a human-centered, iterative process that emphasizes appreciative thinking (focus
on building strong systems) over deficit thinking (focus on correcting the weakest
links in the system).
Thus Kelley (2001), describing the process at design firm IDEO, emphasizes
deep understanding of users, group brainstorming, and prototyping. In his clas-
sic work The Reflective Practitioner (1983) Donald Schon describes design as “a
reflective conversation with the situation”, a fluid, iterative, active and thoughtful
process whose sequence and shape can vary according to need. The “situation” is
not merely the physical context, but insight into users’ lives, attitudes, and behavior
(Dunne, 2011).
 The process of design therefore is one of understanding reality in all its messi-
ness, confronting it with innovative ideas, failing and trying again. There are several
teachable ways of thinking in this process that have broad applications in problem
solving across a range of professional fields:

• Hypothesis and model development: the ability to see the possibilities indi-
cated by research and reflection on a particular problem;
• Self-understanding: the recognition of one’s own strengths and limitations;
• Synthesis: the ability to bring information together and visualize the system
as a whole;
• Abstraction: the ability to see how a specific problem, or parts of it, can be
related to problems in other domains;
• The impermanence of models: the recognition that every characterization of
a problem is subject to rethinking and revision. (Sterman 2002).

The four teaching strategies that follow are designed not merely to impart knowl-
edge or apply skills to students, but to push them to confront their own limitations
and those of others in the context of real-world projects, while working cooperatively
to take advantage of each other’s strengths.

By working to solve a real-world problem, students can be shown the value of re-
flection. In Schon’s process of “reflection-in-action” professionals try, fail, reflect
on why they have failed and try something else, thereby exploring the scope of the
problem and the solution space. This is not possible without reflection on oneself.
In a design project, reflection is forced on the designer by the realization that she
or he is wrong, through discussions with colleagues or clients, or most importantly
through understanding users. The User-Centred Design movement (Dunne, 2011)
places users at the core of the design process; a user-centred designer’s approach is
to develop an intimate understanding of users’ context and reshape her or his ideas
accordingly.
The deep understanding that is the essence of user-centred design is typically
sought through ethnography and observational research. With qualitative data of
this kind, the analyst needs to take extra measures to reduce bias. In particular,
he or she needs to be aware of the frame through which events are observed. The
interaction between a nurse and a patient will look very different to an observer
who has been seriously ill, as opposed to an observer who has been a nurse: one
type of observer will naturally identify with the patient, the other with the nurse.
A competent researcher needs to be aware of, and declare, his or her own biases:

[Researchers] ‘go native’, so to speak. Yet, to do justice to our participants and give
them a proper ‘voice’, we must be able to stand back and examine the data at least
somewhat objectively. We emphasize that it is not possible to be completely free
of bias. However, there are certain gross indicators that bias might be intruding
into the analysis, and when certain situations arise, we must stand back and ask
ourselves, ‘what is going on?’ (Strauss and Corbin 1998).

To develop this understanding, students need to become self-aware and to learn

to acknowledge the prejudices they bring to the process, including those of which
they are not immediately aware. By working in teams, they begin to see that not
everybody thinks as they do. As they undertake the research, they see that users
may view the situation differently, and thus become conscious of the contrast with
their own understanding of the situation.
There are two levels of learning here: (1) project-specific learning about the
phenomenon, and (2) the realization that they bring biases to the situation and that
their perspective is incorrect or incomplete.

Beyond reflection on, and engagement with, a problem, students can develop curi-
osity and the willingness to dig beneath the surface. Designers regularly reinterpret
the brief they are given by clients to define a problem within its context. The design
firm IDEO, for example, asked to design the railcars for the new Acela train for
Amtrak, positioned the design within the broader context of the passenger’s jour-
ney from origin to destination: looked at as a broader “travel experience.” Through
this process, the brief took on new meaning and the designers’ role expanded to
consider the online booking experience, interactions with staff, etc., in addition to
the physical design of the railcar1.
In addition, students need to develop the ability to generate hypotheses. In busi-
ness schools, undergraduate and master’s students learn a great deal about testing
hypotheses, but little about developing them. Through lectures and discussions, they
learn to apply general theories to specific situations by deductive reasoning (define)
and, through case studies, to develop general lessons from specific situations by
inductive reasoning (define); however, they learn little about abductive reasoning, the
reasoning needed to generate hypotheses (Peirce, 1903; Dunne and Martin, 2006).
 Designers constantly develop hypotheses as they work on projects. Dorst and Cross
(2001), for example, found that designers who were asked to design waste baskets
for a Dutch railway alternately developed and tested hypotheses as they worked on
the project. The process of physical actualization through “rapid prototyping” gives
designers constant feedback on their ideas (Kelley 2001).
A variety of design methods and thought tools can be brought to bear to help
students rethink the problems they are faced with. A commonly used example in a
business context is Michael Porter’s Industry Attractiveness model, whereby students
are pushed to think beyond proximate industry rivals to other sources of competi-
tion; the POEMS (People, Objects, Environments, Messages and Services) model
encourages them to take a broad look at the context surrounding an experience as
it affects the user (Paradis and McGaw, 2007).

Students can go beyond the immediate problem they are working on to build gen-
eral theories of their own. In a classic paper, David Kolb (1981) introduces what
has become known as the “Kolb Cycle” of experiential learning, by which students
engage in a concrete experience, reflect on its meaning, develop general hypotheses
about the phenomenon, and test them (See Figure 2).
A noted earlier, the theory/practice encounter is a particular feature of the design
process and, while it often appears seamless in practice, conscious stage-by-stage
implementation of Kolb’s cycle helps students see more readily the applicability
of, and need for, good theories and to develop the skills to generate them.

Figure 2. Kolb’s experiential learning model (the Kolb cycle)

 This approach is readily applicable to business case discussions: by assigning a
theoretical article along with a case, an instructor can encourage students to think
beyond the immediate boundaries of the case. In class, the first stage would consist
of a question such as, “how does the article shed light on the situation in the case?”;
with further probing, the students will rarely find that the theory maps perfectly onto
the situation and can be encouraged to develop their own ideas about the limitations
of, and possible improvements to, the theory. These ideas can then be tested on the
case under discussion and on other real-world problems.
Christensen and Carlile (2009) take this further, arguing that casework in the
classroom work can be structured as theory-building activity; to this end, research,
course development, and teaching can be woven together. Students can build theory
either inductively, by developing hypotheses based on specific instances, or deduc-
tively, to test well-established theories in the hopes that anomalies will be found.

Students can be encouraged to think beyond absorbing information and applying

theories to considering the learning process itself and its meaning in their lives.
Self-regulation of learning refers to learners’ beliefs about their own ability to
engage in appropriate actions, thoughts, and feelings to achieve academic goals,
while monitoring and reflecting on their performance (Bembenutty, 2011). It is
not seen as a fixed characteristic, but a context-specific set of processes that are
selectively applied by students (Zimmerman, 1998).
Self-regulation has been found to be a major determinant of academic success
(Schunk and Zimmerman, 2008), and is linked to students’ motivation, their belief
in their own ability to work towards their goals, their expectation of outcomes (Ban-
dura, 1977) and their ability to delay gratification (Bembenutty, 2009).
To be a self-regulated learner, students need to develop discipline and the ability
to set goals, consciously perform actions, and reflect on their performance. This last
stage, performance evaluation, can be challenging because it means acknowledging
errors and seeking help where needed (Karabenick and Dembo, 2011).
Similarly, in discussing organizational learning, Argyris (1994) argues that man-
agers need to push their employees to consider not just the immediate implications
of their actions, but what can be learned from them at a deeper level. Managers
can be pushed to engage in a continuous process of learning, in which every event
represents an opportunity to improve (“double-loop” learning); however, the process
is difficult, not least because of the need to confront the fact that one was wrong
and correct the erroneous assumptions.
 Zuber-Skerritt (1992) argues that meta-learning—focus on the learning process
itself in addition to course content—helps establish a positive learning environment.
This idea has been applied at the Hasso Plattner d.school at Stanford University
(http://dschool.stanford.edu/), where students assemble from a variety of disciplines
to work on collaborative design projects. The students are encouraged to reflect on
the design process as it unfolds, and to develop their own personal process:

We welcome our students with a methodology for innovation that combines creative
and analytical approaches, and requires collaboration across disciplines. This
process—which has been called design thinking—draws on methods from engineer-
ing and design, and combines them with ideas from the arts, tools from the social
sciences, and insights from the business world. Our students learn this process
together, and then personalize it, internalize it, and apply it to their own challenges.

In the following section, I will discuss how I have applied these principles in
three specific instances.

I first discuss a course in Strategic Innovation, in which students designed solutions

to business problems; a course in Problem Framing for healthcare administrators;
and a practicum in Advertising in which Business and Design students collaborated
in teams.

In May 2007, I offered a course at Johannes Kepler Universität in Linz, Austria.

12 students took the course: all undergraduate business students in their final year,
although they came from a variety of national backgrounds. The syllabus descrip-
tion was as follows:

This course is a reflective practicum in the process of innovation. Students will be

introduced to a user-centred design process and, in teams, will apply this process
to develop either a new product/service idea or a business strategy for an existing
product/service. Lectures and discussions will highlight the key stages in the process,
and students will reflect regularly on their own individual approach to strategic
innovation. By the end of the course, students will have developed a generalized,
individual framework for strategic innovations they will face in the future.
 Student teams selected a problem from a list, conducted user research and ap-
plied creative techniques to understanding, redefining it and proposing solutions.
Throughout the process, they were expected to reflect on their own problem-solving
process and write journals on their reflections.
There were five plenary sessions over the course of a month, interspersed with
work in small groups. Following an initial session introducing them to the process,
students proceeded to develop an initial Statement of Intent (an overview of what
they were trying to accomplish), conduct user research, develop insights and design
principles, develop a reframed Statement of Intent and present initial concepts. The
focus throughout was on designing a customer experience; the students were divided
into three groups, each of which selected a project: a zoo, a financial service, and
a retail art store.
Students were assessed in groups according to the quality of their final presenta-
tion and individually on a reflective journal that discussed their learning about the
innovation process. Data on the course were collected from student journals and from
depth interviews conducted by a graduate student who participated in the course.
In the initial phase, students identified problems to work on and developed a
preliminary Statement of Intent, encapsulating their overall goals for the process
and what they hoped to design. The financial services group, for example, was
interested in providing low-cost loans to students.
Students collected secondary data and observed and interviewed potential users
for their experience. This led them to rethink their original problem statement: the
finance group, for example, saw that there was little demand for student loans, but
a great deal of interest in making sense of financial information, and revised their
Statement of Intent accordingly.
For students accustomed to a linear “formulate-then-solve” approach, reframing
the problem in this way was a new experience. Several students commented on this
in interviews:

We actually uncovered a totally different problem from what we actually believed.

The discovery that they had misidentified the problem came quite late in the
course for some students, after several phases of research. At the time, it appeared as
a setback but students eventually came to appreciate the nonlinearity of the process.
One student wrote as follows:

The redefinition of our research question helped us to focus the problem. So I learned
the right question can help me to [understand] the problem and to focus on [users’]
pain points … each redefinition made us get two steps ahead.
 The students were also introduced to brainstorming and developed conceptual
prototypes of their proposals, in the form of collages, as a means of refining and
communicating the idea. The idea of developing physical representations of ideas
as part of the problem-solving process was a new and intriguing technique for the
student groups. Physical representation brought out ideas that could not be expressed
verbally and helped the team members understand each other:

It is important to be able to express the thoughts and emotions not only with words,
but even with pictures and other creative techniques because not every feeling can
be expressed only with words. Only if there is something … your colleagues can
touch, can they start to understand the meaning of the idea.

While the overall experience of the course was positive for the students, there
were nevertheless limitations. The limited time available for the course restricted
the students’ ability to absorb and fully implement the new process: more time
would have allowed for richer, deeper user research and more thoroughly elaborated
implementation plans. In addition, students had difficulty with the ambiguity of the
final assignment and sought clearer direction.
In spite of the limitations, several students found the approach transformative,
as exemplified by the following quote:

Having a look on my everyday life, I often find myself looking out for possible solu-
tions when I recognize a problem. I cannot stop that, it is crazy! But I like it. Next
week, I start an internship in the international human resources management at
an Austrian production concern. In my mind, I already have so many approaches
to innovate the existing tools and habits that I would like to go there and change
everything.

In an Executive MBA course, healthcare administrators were taught to look con-

sciously at problems through different lenses by the use of a variety of thought tools.
The course description was as follows:

Problems in health care are often complex, involve many stakeholders, can be seen
as symptoms of other problems and evade easy answers. They are difficult to define,
let alone solve; such problems have been defined as “wicked problems” and it is
critical to spend upfront time in developing a rich understanding before jumping
to solutions. Yet our models of such problems are necessarily imperfect because we
bring our own biases to every situation. In this course, we focus on how we frame
problems and learn techniques for understanding the underlying issues before mov-
ing ahead to develop solutions.

Students were asked to come prepared with a problem they were facing at work;
working with a comprehensive set of briefing notes, they conducted observational
research on the user’s experience around the problem. In the initial session, students
were introduced to the wicked problems and the issue of problem framing through
the discussion of a case study on Webvan, a grocery retailer that had spectacularly
failed at the height of the dot-com boom. The case described a complex knot of
interwoven problems; students were provided with thought tools to help them work
through the various aspects of the case and learn to frame issues.
With the guidance of their instructor, each team selected a problem to work on
from those its members had brought, the key criterion being how much scope there
was for reframing the problem. Over the weekend, students were provided with
thought tools to examine their own assumptions about these problems, and in the
process to re-think the nature of the problem. The goal of these tools was to shift
the students’ perspective, and in particular to adopt the point of view of those most
directly affected by the problem.
Students worked in teams in a three-phase process:

1. Define the project space;

2. Develop a user-based point of view; and
3. Expand the solution space.

In the first phase, teams worked to develop an initial statement of the problem
(Statement of Intent 1.0) and to move from this to successive revisions: Statement
of Intent 2.0, Statement of Intent 3.0 and so on, through the application of thought
tools such as the “Five Why’s” questioning framework (Serrat, 2009). Once the
problem had been satisfactorily framed, participants were instructed in analyzing the
observational data they had collected, and, in working with the data, developed an
understanding of the user’s experience—as close to first-hand as possible. Through
structured brainstorming and further application of thought tools, teams then strove
to think more broadly about the problem.
In the final session of the course, each team presented its new perspective to other
teams, along with a roadmap of how the team’s thinking had changed in the course
of the weekend. The performance of the participants was evaluated on the basis of
their team presentation (50%) and on an individual reflective journal, completed
after the course (50%). The key evaluation criteria were that students demonstrate
fundamental rethinking of problems, empathize with users, and expand the set of
possible solutions.
To varying degrees, students were successful in achieving these goals. One group,
for example, wanted to increase the frequency of hand washing among hospital staff;
as they worked on the project and began to look at it from the user’s perspective—
in this case, that of the staff—they found that the nature of the problem changed:
what appeared to be a problem of communication (i.e. persuading “other people”
to do something) became a problem of human social behavior (a collective issue
we face together).
More importantly, the students were confronted with the prospect that their initial
assumptions about the problem were erroneous, a realization that had a profound
impact. This was evident in their journals, and the following quote from one student
was typical:

It is human nature to seek solutions before clearly identifying, defining and redefin-
ing the problem. Because all models are wrong, all temporary solutions are flawed.
Further to this, we get so outcome-focused, coupled with time pressures, that more
often than not, we lose the value of reflection and time. The understanding that all
models are flawed brings us to the insight that we have permission to be wrong, as
long as we are dedicated to the process and learnings from this process.

In an advertising practicum, students from business and design schools formed

mock advertising agencies to work on advertising projects for not-for-profit agen-
cies. Based on briefs from their clients (e.g. The Salvation Army, a youth shelter
and an immigrant services organization), the students conducted audience research,
developed creative briefs and wrote and illustrated advertising campaigns.
To accomplish this, they had to collaborate across the very different disciplines of
management and design, define the communication issue, develop communication
strategies, and manage the process of creative development. The final assignment
was a fully completed advertising campaign, which they presented to the client
organizations.
The project was jointly developed in collaboration between business and design
faculty in response to complementary needs on the part of business (MBA) students
and design students: the former needed to understand the contribution of creativ-
ity to advertising, while the latter needed to develop an appreciation of the role of
strategy in advertising development. Both groups needed to learn how to collaborate
with individuals who saw the world from a different perspective.
Specifically, the goals of the project were as follows:

1. To provide business and design students with experience in business/ creative

collaboration;
2. To enhance students’ understanding of theoretical concepts through practical
application;
3. To develop students’ appreciation of how strategy and creativity interact in
advertising development;
4. To expose students to the advertising industry and to advertising as a career
choice.

Enrolment in the course was split roughly 50/50 between business and design
students. From the total of 56 students, six teams, or “agencies,” were formed,
resulting in teams of 9-10 students, each with roughly equal representation from
the field of business and design. The teams were provided with descriptions of the
roles to be assigned to individual members: Art Director, Account Executive, and
so on, mirroring actual positions in the advertising world. However, because it was
anticipated that each team would work in its own way, these roles were positioned
as recommendations rather than requirements.
Each team was assigned a nonprofit client, such as the following:

• The Alzheimer Society

• The Canadian Psychiatric Research Foundation
• Costi Immigrant Services
• The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
• The Salvation Army
• Touchstone Youth Shelter

Since one of the goals was to provide students with a real-world experience, one
of the selection criteria for these organizations was that the final projects should have
a chance of being implemented by the organization; in addition, the organization
had to be willing and able to work with the students. If the organization was already
working with an advertising agency, that agency’s agreement had to be obtained
before embarking on the project2.
In weekly plenary sessions, students learned theories with direct relevance to
their projects, and discussed their progress and challenges they were facing; their
professors also met individually with each “agency” on a weekly basis. Each team
was assigned an advertising agency as a mentor to help them with the project and
provide the students with exposure to the advertising industry. Senior executives met
with the teams on a regular basis and provided them with guidance on their projects.
Clients were also available during the term to answer the students’ questions.
The project consisted of the development of an advertising campaign from initial
client briefing to presentation of final creative work. There were several stages to
this process:

1. Client brief;
2. Research;
3. Strategy development;
4. Creative development; and
5. Presentation of creative work.

About halfway through the course, the students were required to submit a creative
strategy along with supporting research; this was graded by their professors and
feedback provided. Creative development proceeded on the basis of the finalized
strategy and students presented rough campaigns to the two professors, receiving
feedback before presenting them to clients at the end of the course.
The students from both schools were encouraged to be collectively responsible for
all stages in the development of the campaigns, and were therefore graded on both
their strategies and their creative work. However, the weighting differed between
business and design students. For business students, the assessment was weighted
more heavily to the research and strategy components, while assessment of design
students was weighted towards the team’s creative work.
In addition to student grades, evaluations of the outcomes of the projects were
available from client comments on the creative work submitted at the end of the
course. Quantitative surveys were conducted at the mid-point and at the end of
the course; comments made by students in their reflective papers provided a rich
source of insight about the structure and dynamics of the agency teams. All students
were required to submit a reflective paper at the end of the course, describing their
experience with the process and what they learned from it. These papers provided
valuable information on how each group approached the project.
Inherent in the process was a high degree of unpredictability. Since the client
organizations had little money to spend on their own research, their assumptions
were often erroneous, and students were often forced to challenge them, rather than
accept them as given. New facts such as cost or media constraints emerged late in
the process of development; and some of the students encountered communication
problems of their own, within their groups.
Everyone in our team was little lost during creative process. … Everyone in our
group came to an agreement on one solid concept. Then everyone found their roles
automatically, and divided the work. After our struggle and anxiety for ideas, our
team members reached the level where everyone could stop worrying and enjoy this
big project (Design student).

As the students confronted uncertainties in the process, they developed theories

to explain them, and also to confront differences in their approaches to problems. A
particular issue was the difference in approach between Business and Design stu-
dents, and this caused a degree of tension at times. The students needed to confront
and overcome these different ways of dealing with problems.

We learned first hand of the challenges between balancing the artistic side with the
strategic business elements of the project. Despite previous experience and many
first hand illustrations in class, this conflict in the end proved to be not only less
challenging than expected, but it also played a critical role in the actual success of
the creative concepts developed (Business student).

The three cases in the foregoing section had a number of features in common:

1. They were all based on real-world projects;

2. The students conducted their own research;
3. The research pushed students (with my encouragement) to rethink the problem
they were facing;
4. The process of rethinking forced students (again, with my encouragement) to
be explicit about their own biases as they approached the problem;
5. The process of collaboration made students aware that their own mental mod-
els were only part of the picture and that alternative perspectives were to be
welcomed;
6. Students’ assessment was based on the outcome of the project itself and on
their individual reflections on the process;
7. The process was often accompanied by a degree of emotional pain as students
were forced to self-assess. Close support from the instructor(s) was therefore
essential;
8. The class sizes were small, ranging from 12 to 60 students; in the latter case,
the course was co-taught by three instructors.
 Because learning at the research-teaching nexus is emotionally and intellectu-
ally challenging for students, it requires—at least in this model—close support and
facilitation. It is not for everyone: it takes a great investment of time and emotional
energy on the instructor’s part, while some students find the process very challenging.
While the investment is great, the rewards are also high. The students gain a
learning experience unlike any other, and the instructor can implant a love of learn-
ing, while exploiting the students’ natural curiosity about interesting research topics.
At the research-teaching nexus, everyone can win.

Argyris, C. (1994, July-August). Good communication that blocks learning. Har-

vard Business Review, 77–85.
Avital, M., Kalle, J., Lyytinen, K. L., Boland, R. Jr, Butler, B., & Dougherty, D.
(2006). Design with a positive lens: An affirmative approach to designing infor-
mation and organizations. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 18, 519–545.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall.
Bembenutty, H. (2009). Academic delay of gratification, self-regulation of learning,
gender differences, and expectancy-value. Personality and Individual Differences,
46, 347–352. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.028
Bembenutty, H. (2011). Self-regulation of learning in postsecondary education.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 3–8. doi:10.1002/tl.439
Boland, R., & Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Princeton,
NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Camillus, J. (2008, May). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review.
Christensen, C., & Carlile, P. (2009). Course research: Using the case method to
build and teach management theory. Academy of Management Learning & Educa-
tion, 8(2), 240–251. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2009.41788846
Conklin & Weil. (1998). Wicked problems: Naming the pain in organizations. Re-
trieved from http://www.accelinnova.com/docs/wickedproblems.pdf
Coyne, R. (2004). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26, 5–17. doi:10.1016/j.
destud.2004.06.005
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of prob-
lem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
Dunne, D. (2011). User-centred design and design-centred business schools. In
Cooper, R., Junginger, S., Lockwood, T., Boland, T., & Chung, K. (Eds.), The
Handbook of Design Management. London, UK: Berg Publishers.
Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change manage-
ment education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning
& Education, 5(4), 512–523. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2006.23473212
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.
Karabenick, S., & Dembo, M. (2011). Understanding and facilitating self-regulated
help seeking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 33–43. doi:10.1002/
tl.442
Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from Ideo, America’s
leading design firm. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Kolb, D. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In Chickering, (Eds.),
The Modern American College: Responding to the New Realities of Diverse Students
and a Changing Society. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. (Eds.). (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Encourag-
ing multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Paradis, Z., & McGaw, D. (2007). Naked innovation. Retrieved from http://trex.
id.iit.edu/~zacharyp/Naked_Innovation.html
Peirce, C. (1903). Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking. In Tur-
risi, P. A. (Ed.), The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Rittel, H., & Weber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4, 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.
London, UK: Temple Smith.
Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning:
Theory, research, and applications. Hoboken, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organiza-
tion. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.
Serrat, O. (2009). The five whys technique knowledge solutions. Asian Development
Bank. Retrieved from http://www.adb.org/knowledgesolutions
Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decision. New York, NY:
Harper and Row. doi:10.1037/13978-000
Sterman, J. (2002). All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems sci-
entist. System Dynamics Review, 18(4), 501–531. doi:10.1002/sdr.261
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zimmerman, B. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill:
A self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 73–86.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in higher education: Examples and
reflections. London, UK: Kogan Page.

1
This broader interpretation of the problem applies in education too: in student
focus groups conducted at my institution, an independent researcher surprised
the faculty by find that courses constituted only a small part of the overall
MBA student experience, with networking, job search, and external speakers
taking on greater importance. While this may not be what faculty want to hear,
it stresses the importance of constantly questioning one’s own assumptions -
even for accomplished researchers.
2
Since most professional agencies work with such organizations on a pro bono
basis, agreement was readily obtained.
 Ron Oliver
Edith Cowan University, Australia

This chapter describes approaches to using technology in teaching that have facili-
tated engaging and challenging learning settings across a range of discipline areas.
The framework of the discussion offers readers the opportunity to consider and plan
their own use of learning technologies. Fundamental to the strategies described
in this chapter is the use of technology to provide opportunities for learning and
teaching that solve problems and provide solutions to identified needs. The chapter
describes uses of technologies that are able to deliver high student satisfaction and
deep learning. The chapter discusses approaches that can be implemented with a
variety of technologies and encourages readers to plan and implement the ideas
within their own settings.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch005

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Technology is often implemented in learning settings in ways that replicate and
mimic conventional teaching practices (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007). This chapter
argues the need to take advantage of the opportunities and affordances rather than
simply using expensive tools in limited ways (Jonassen, 2000). In my teaching career,
I have sought to use technology in ways that enhance conventional practices because
if institutions and students spend money on learning technologies, it is important to
ensure that there is a real value-add.
It is common today for users of technology to discuss their projects in terms
of the technologies they are using. Descriptions of learning settings abound with
discussion of teachers using mobile technologies, whiteboards, iPads and the like
(e.g. Bonk, 2009) but it is not the technology that influences learning—it is the way
in which the technology is used that makes the difference (Clark, 1983; Laurillard,
2001). This chapter explores the opportunities and advantages of technology that
have driven my teaching activities with a view to offering readers a sense of how
they might adapt such approaches to their own teaching.

This chapter describes approaches to learning and teaching with technology I have
undertaken in university settings across a period of 25 years from the mid-eighties
to the present. During this period, my colleagues and I pioneered and trialed a wide
number of technology-enabled applications and gained recognition for the quality
of these learning and teaching activities at institutional and national levels. The aim
of the chapter is to showcase some of these strategies.
When I first started using technology in my university teaching in 1984, there
was no Internet, and there were no laptops. The applications were based on desk-
top computers (and terminals) organized in laboratories. Early applications of the
technology in my teaching, therefore, involved using computers as a complement
to existing activities. The students were introduced to the laboratory computers
and encouraged to use them with the specialized tutorial programs we developed
to support particular parts of our courses and programs. At this time, we were also
exploring the use of productivity tools like word processors as writing aids and
spreadsheets and databases as tools for inquiry and analysis. Many of the applica-
tions of the technology at this time provided interesting enhancements and additions
to our learning programs (e.g. Oliver, 1989; Oliver & Kerr, 1993). An important
component of the use of computers was to ensure all students were developing levels
of IT literacy, an area of keen interest at the time (Oliver, 1993).
 In the early nineties we gained access to developmental technologies and with
the emergence of multimedia, I developed a number of interactive multimedia
programs to support my students that included text, audio and video components.
Many of these were in tutorial formats and they proved to be successful and popular
learning tools (Perzylo & Oliver, 1994; Oliver, 1995a). By this time, some students
were beginning to own their own personal desktops enabling learning resources to
be distributed on CD-ROMSs which were rapidly becoming standard features of
the contemporary computer (Oliver, 1995b, 1996a; Oliver & Herington, 1995).
Later in the nineties, networking and connectivity became available and a number
of the applications I developed at this time involved communications facilities and
interactivity. The World Wide Web (Web) opened up many new possibilities and
by the mid-nineties, all the computers on campus had Web access and were able to
provide on-campus students with access to teaching materials through the early Web
browsers (Oliver, Herrington & Omari, 1996; Oliver & Omari, 1996). This was a
really interesting period of time as we discovered more and more ways to engage
our students. Activities with technology that we explored included using the Web as
a learning platform through a university-wide intranet, creating Web-based interac-
tive pages to bring some life to conventional resources and providing opportunities
for students to annotate and share resources. Student ownership of computers was
increasing rapidly and our teaching technologies included interactive CD-ROMs,
Web-based resources, and multimedia digital resources.
Across the nineties we saw the emergence of the first commercial course man-
agement systems such as Web CT. These tended to be bigger versions of resources
we had already built for ourselves. The early uses of the Web involved accessible
course materials and the inclusion of interactive elements to enhance students’
learning experiences. At this time, we were very conscious in all our applications
of the need to ensure the technologies did more than simply replicate the tradi-
tional resources. There was a tendency for the technologies to be used to provide
access to existing resources in an electronic format without any change to the way
students may have been using them. The term ‘shovelware’ was coined to describe
this phenomenon of shoveling content (Fraser, 1999) and we sought to avoid the
mere provision of additional content by providing opportunities to enhance learning
experiences through the application of engaging and interactive learning activities
(Oliver, Omari & Kinibb, 1997; Oliver, Omari & Herrington, 1997). Our applica-
tions included Web-based tools that enabled students to share files, to provide
peer-reviews of colleagues’ work, to discuss topical issues through online debates
and similar forms of online interactivity.
The emergence of technologies with capabilities for independent learning gave
rise to projects exploring technology supports for student-centered learning set-
tings. Emerging forms of learning designs, such as problem-based learning and
authentic learning were explored in settings where technology provided the means
to organize and coordinate the necessary teaching and learning processes (e.g.
Oliver & Omari, 1999, 2001). We undertook a raft of projects and investigations to
explore the opportunities provided for flexible delivery and completed a number
of successful classroom-based projects that guided and informed our subsequent
approaches (Oliver, 2001). These studies revealed the opportune ways to use the
technology to support learning through tasks and problems. We learned how best
to support these forms of learning and the scaffolds needed to support the diversity
of student needs. For example, we found that learners benefit considerably from
scaffolds that reduce the cognitive load associated with task-based approaches, we
discovered ways to support learners with just-in-time resources, and we discovered
the value of negotiating with students when we were asking them to undertake roles
and responsibilities beyond their zones of comfort (Herrington & Oliver, 2000).
Across the new century, communications technologies rapidly developed and
the technologies became tools we could use to create powerful networks and com-
munities supporting myriad forms of learning activity (Brook & Oliver, 2003).
There was serious attention paid to seeking ways to share and reuse resources and
plentiful development work undertaken to explore how learning objects might best
be developed, stored and accessed (Brownfield & Oliver, 2003; Oliver, 2007a). This
work with learning objects explored how digital resources could be designed to sup-
port sharing and reuse. The concept of Web 2.0 emerged during this time and there
were numerous projects undertaken to explore opportunities and outcomes (Oliver,
2006). Contemporary mobile technologies are now providing new opportunities for
enhanced connectivity and innovation. The important point is that whilst the various
technologies have changed dramatically, the underpinning theories and principles
informing and describing effective learning have remained quite stable.

One of the important lessons I have learned from my explorations with learning
technologies is that the best outcomes come from projects and ideas that seek to solve
a problem or to gain an opportunity. To illustrate and describe such applications,
I have organised the chapter into a discussion of the opportunities that technology
has provided to support my teaching. The Learning Technologies Opportunity
Framework (Figure 1) organizes the opportunities of learning technologies across
four principal outcomes: better learning, better learners, more learning, and better
teaching. These outcomes are not, totally nor mutually, exclusive but they do pro-
vide a sound basis for reflecting on the areas where I have used technology in my
teaching and the advantage and outcomes I have achieved from this.
Figure 1. Learning technologies opportunity framework

University teaching has been criticized for a tendency at times to encourage surface
learning (Trigwell, Prosser & Waterhouse, 1999), rather than develop deep learn-
ing patterns, because students are positioned to deal with information in ways that
reward mastery of content instead of showing in-depth understanding. Often the
infrastructure and organization of institutions encourage this form of curriculum
(Biggs, 1999). For example, the use of lectures to deliver content, having learning
objectives that focus on knowledge acquisition and assessment through examination
that tests surface learning. In contrast, learning settings that promote deep learning
engage students in the application of the knowledge, by providing activities that
encourage students to explore and inquire and to reflect on learning and outcomes.
Such settings can be difficult to deliver in the context of conventional lecture rooms,
timetables and curriculum designs (Ramsden, 1992), but the use of well designed
technology applications can facilitate the design and delivery of learning settings
that promote deep learning.
Technology provides the means for the teacher to guide and encourage learning
activities that involve exploration, inquiry, sharing and collaboration and the means
to organize and present outcomes (Jonassen, 2000). A prime characteristic of deep
learning settings is their learner-centredness. Such settings provide learners with
opportunities to make choices, to explore, and investigate and to have these activities
organized to deliver some form of artifact or product that has value or use beyond
the classroom. Some examples of my activities in this area are discussed below.
A first year foundation course in a communications degree (Oliver, 2007b) aimed to
develop students’ skills and abilities in visual design, particularly in regard to their
use of ICT-based productivity tools. Previously the course was delivered through
lectures and workshops with course content presented and practiced through class-
room-based activities. This form of delivery ensured all students received similar
forms and levels of instruction and practice but failed to provide adequately for the
needs of either students with prior experience or those with limited experience. The
approach was too rigid and too fixed to be able to successfully support all students
in the learning process.
In order to promote learner engagement and motivation, an inquiry-based learn-
ing approach was developed with the course content and information contextualized
through a series of weekly tasks/problems which students were required to complete.
With its visual design focus, the course lent itself to a teaching approach where the
knowledge and skills could be learned through application and practice in meaning-
ful tasks and problems. This approach provided the use of pre-class tasks to engage
learners and offered a number of opportunities to engage learners in the learning
tasks (Salter, Pang & Sharma, 2009).
The revised course was delivered in a blended mode (Bonk & Graham, 2005;
Salter, Pang & Sharma, 2009) where weekly problems were presented in a seminar
session as contexts for learning. Following workshops and lectures, students spent
time on their own developing a solution to a weekly problem with their responses
submitted through the Web-based system for marking and feedback. The problem was
typically a task requiring design and development activities based on the principles
and concepts being taught. The course was aided by tutors who supported student
learning in the workshops and in the marking of the submissions.
In the unit, technology played a very important part in the learning process serving
as a cognitive tool supporting learning outcomes. Without this support the setting
and activity could not have been completed. The learning environment turned from
one where learning was based on knowledge acquisition through lectures and read-
ings led by the teacher, to one where knowledge acquisition and skills development
were driven by learner activity. The students were required to address the various
tasks, to research and explore and to demonstrate their learning though practical
activities. The focus led to learners directing their own learning by the development
of products that were shared with peers to demonstrate the scope of their learning
in practical forms. Student responses were very positive to the learning design and
the support provided by the technology application.
 The following learning example illustrates the opportunities that were brought
through this change to the teaching approach. In the previous course, students learned
about the forms of visual representation through a lecture and class presentation.
Students would be led through the principles and theories and be shown examples
and cases. The lecture would be followed by a practical workshop where students
would learn to manipulate a software package so that they could design and develop
various forms of graphical imagery. At the end of the session, students would have
been exposed to the theory and would have developed some practical skills in the
development of computer graphics. In the revised approach, learning was cast in
the context of a problem to be solved. Students would be exposed to a problem
(task), in this case, the design of a logo for a fictitious company. In the design stage,
students would need to delve into the course notes to explore the theory and ideas
and to investigate previous examples and cases. In the development stage, students
needed to develop the skills to use the software package to be able to develop their
solution to the problem at hand. The role of the teacher in this process was to guide
the students and to provide the context for the problem solving and solution find-
ing. Rather than being the person disseminating knowledge, the teacher became the
guide and facilitator of students working independently on personal projects with
clearly defined outputs and requirements.

Authentic learning describes a form of problem-based learning that uses relevant

tasks to lead the development of a useful product or artifact (Herrington & Oliver,
2000). In authentic learning settings, learning is contextualized in active learning
where learners explore and inquire and develop a product as part of their learning
experience. Authentic learning provides opportunities for learning within relevant
and real-life contexts. Technology provides a number of opportunities for support-
ing the real-life elements of the learning through links to industry and workplace
documents, resources and information. Technology can be used to access resources
and planning tools, facilities for communication and sharing, just-in-time supports
for learners, access to real-world resources and tools to facilitate the development
of the products.
An example of the use of authentic learning was created in the teaching of an
education unit for tertiary teachers (Oliver & Omari, 2001). In this unit, the technol-
ogy was used to create a virtual learning space which replicated a university setting.
The virtual space provided students with access to resources through a virtual library,
a virtual meeting hall, and virtual classrooms. The students were provided with an
authentic task for which the virtual site provided resource access and support. The
technology enabled learners a high degree of independence and interconnectivity
as they undertook the authentic task. Whilst it represented a virtual setting, students
were happy to treat the setting with the fidelity of a real life application. It facilitated
the support students needed to be able to undertake the difficult problem solving
process with some form of confidence. It provided useful forms of communication
and interaction for learners and facilitated the sharing and exchange of ideas and
knowledge that this form of learning requires.
To illustrate learning in this setting, consider the first activity, which required
students to design an online learning setting. As part of the process, students were
required to investigate the learning potential of a particular element of their own
courseware. Students had to plan the process of their evaluation. They needed to
discover approaches/strategies that could validly and reliably be applied to assess
learning potential. They needed to explore the virtual site to discover resources
which could be used for this purpose, in the Virtual Library. They needed to apply
the chosen strategy in the evaluation process and then to share their findings with
other students. They were able to share their findings with other students by visiting
the Common Room where other students would be hanging out. This component of
the virtual setting included a range of communication tools to support sharing and
collaboration. They could post their ideas on the Common Room walls (Discus-
sion Boards) for informal feedback from others. The teacher was able to view the
various activities and communications of the students as well as the various post-
ings and work samples. Through these means, students were able to be guided and
supported in their learning while physically working on their own and distant from
the campus. The authentic nature of the tasks and the supports enabled students to
work intuitively in ways that motivated their involvement, encouraged their learn-
ing, and challenged their thinking.

There are many instances in university settings where learners are viewed as consumers
of knowledge with content being delivered by academics who present information
in passive and didactic ways (Biggs, 2001). This form of learning, whilst appealing
to some students, has shortfalls associated with the passive nature of the learning.
More effective learning settings are those described below where learners assume
some responsibility for learning, are active in the learning process, are empowered
to make their own decisions and to follow their own leads (e.g. Challis, Holt & Rice,
2005) and have opportunities for reflection (Weimer, 2002).
Strong technology support provides learners with opportunities for self-direction
and independence and makes such activities achievable with both small and large
size cohorts using peer-assisted learning, resource sharing, collaborative learning,
and online discussions.
An example of technology supporting peer-assisted learning was in the teach-
ing of a multimedia course which sought to develop students’ programming skills.
We developed a tool that would enable students who, when challenged by a coding
problem and needing help, were able to upload their code and a request for help, to
a bulletin board. Advanced students in the class could then respond to the requests
for help and provide the necessary assistance. In this way, the novice students had
access to a number of willing and able tutors (at all times of the day and night) and
the willing and able tutors were able to use these activities to demonstrate (and
practice) their capabilities and to receive course credit. Students provided strong
positive feedback particularly about the mentoring and peer-support.
An example of how this approach supported learning is evident in the following
case. Student A, relatively new to the field of multimedia programming, and devel-
oping a software product one night in the computer laboratory, found himself stuck
and unable to go further. His problem lay in not knowing how he might be able to
carry some data forward in the tool he was building. He asked other students in the
laboratory if they could help but this problem was beyond them all. The problem
occurred when there were no staff around so the problem virtually stopped his prog-
ress. He immediately posted the problem to the Help Board where it was displayed
for others in the course to view. He posted the query along with the code on which
he was working. As it turns out, in this case and many others, an advanced student
saw the post and downloaded the code to see if he could assist. With the code, the
advanced student quickly saw where the problem lay and what feature the student
had not properly used. He was able to repost the code with suggested revisions and
the first student was able to get his help within a matter of hours.
The opportunities provided by this use of the technology led to many positive
learning experiences for students. The novice students were able to benefit from the
assistance of their more-experienced peers. The more-experienced students were
given credit for the help they provided and were not required to undertake some of
the more procedural tasks set for others. The setting provided the means to cater for
diversity in the class in ways that encouraged and motivated students’ participation.
When learners take time to reflect on their learning to determine what needs further
action and activity, they benefit in a number of ways. In the first instance, the stu-
dents are giving thought to their own learning and assuming some responsibility in
the process. Secondly, they are assessing their learning development and thinking
about what is needed and how this might be achieved (Schon, 1983). I have used a
number of tools to support learner reflection in different courses. Elementary tools
for such purposes include bulletin boards, online diaries and blogs, where students
can post reflective comments in both private and public spaces.
The posting of personal comments in itself does not necessarily promote learn-
ing. The critical factor is the context of the reflection and the depth of thought and
inquiry that it encourages. I have designed a number of activities and contexts to
encourage and support reflection that goes beyond surface level comments. Such
activities have included: having students assess their own work prior to submission;
describing the process used to find solutions to problems and sharing these with
peers for feedback; and finding relevant documents and resources for tasks and
sharing these with peers. In all these instances, the reflections have provided the
learners with cognitive challenges and high levels of cognitive engagement which
have helped to focus their thinking and activity. Student responses frequently reveal
strong recognition of the benefits from such reflective activities.
One example of technology promoting reflection involves a tool we developed
to provide opportunities for online asynchronous discussions. In this application
students participate in an online debate presented through a form of online discussion
board. This discussion board uses parallel windows to show students’ responses in
the form of supporting and dissenting views. As students contribute to the debate
they can see what others have already contributed and then add their viewpoints to
the positive or negative side. Students who find themselves with no new comments
to add can still contribute through an alternative argument or by refuting a statement
that has been previously made. As the debate continues, the two sides of the argu-
ment grow with the various comments supporting and refuting the issue. The final
act in the debate is to have each student review all the comments and then, based
on the arguments, to post some statement as to which side has won, by having the
more compelling and convincing arguments. This is a very simple activity to run
with technology support and one which provides ample opportunities for reflection
and cognitive engagement.
Technology provides options to increase student access to learning in a variety of
forms (Bonk & Graham, 2005). In the first instance, it provides the prospect for
learning anywhere and anytime, and also provides opportunities for access to in-
creased resource sets and increased opportunities to interact with these sets. These
are valuable opportunities and able to be accessed by teachers and students with
accessible technologies and minimal technology skills. The least requirement is
typically access to a Web-enabled device and skill to access and use a Web browser.
Such resources and capabilities are usually well within most tertiary students’ grasp.
Whereas in traditional classrooms, the teacher sets the pace and scope of the learn-
ing, in technology-supported learning settings, the need for a teacher to establish
routines and procedures is diminished.
In technology-supported learning settings, teachers are typically freed away from
the more traditional roles of delivering information and content to more supportive
roles of designing learning activities. Instead of spending time discussing the content
of the discipline, the teacher is able to spend time creating ways to engage the students
with the content. Time can be spent imagining ways to engage students, designing
activities for students to undertake and planning strategies to enable students to
work on their own or in groups. With students working independently, the teacher
is able to spend time reviewing the work of students, engaging them in discussions
and generally supporting rather than leading student activity. A number of research-
ers have formulated approaches to guide teachers looking to design settings which
reflect these principles. For example Salter, Richards, and Carey (2004) describe
the T5 model based around tasks, tools, tutorials, topics and teamwork, as a means
to focus learning design on activities other than the content delivery. These actions
provide more flexible delivery and create opportunities for more learning. Forms
of technology use that I have used for this are discussed below.

My classes are typically designed on the assumption that few learners are best served
by access to identical resources and learning tasks and activities. With technology,
it is possible to provide variations, such as extra guidance and support for some
students and reduced direction and interference for others. I use technologies to
enable students to choose from options and to employ personal learning pathways.
In some settings, I have been able to provide enhanced support and guidance for
needy students through the provision of extra resourcing, the development of learn-
ing communities and Web access to tutorials and interactive learning resources on
a needs basis. All of these opportunities can be made accessible to students who
seek them, rather than on a pre-determined basis. At the other end of the spectrum,
provision can be made for students seeking to go beyond normal requirements.
An example of this is the technology-enabled learning setting I developed in
a unit seeking to develop students’ capabilities to design and develop multimedia
resources. Recognizing that there was diversity in the cohort, learning was organized
around students completing authentic development tasks. The tasks described the
products that students were required to develop and a technology-supported setting
was established with a raft of resources to assist students in their endeavors. For
students with strong backgrounds in the development process, the path to develop-
ing and demonstrating their skills and capabilities was brief. The students were
free to move onto the development and to develop those few skills that they found
to be needed. For others whose skills and capabilities were less well developed,
the setting provided access to tutorials, examples, case studies, interactive learning
activities, and strong scaffolds. These students had a far longer pathway to the suc-
cessful completion of the product, but were guided and led at all times through the
technology-enabled setting.

Technologies that I have used to provide opportunities for flexible delivery include
online resources, videoconferencing, podcasting, RSS feeds, email, discussion boards,
and cloud computing. I have used such technologies in various ways to create flexible
learning settings and have reported on these in a number of papers (e.g. Oliver &
Luca, 2007). I have found that learners respond best to flexible settings when their
roles and responsibilities are negotiated beforehand. In instances when learning
settings are too unfamiliar and uncomfortable, the advantages and opportunities of
the technologies to provide access to more learning can be weakened. Much of our
work has explored how to gain the maximum opportunities for students through
these means (e.g. Oliver, 2007b).

The way teachers work contributes significantly to their capacity to sustain effective
practices (Weimer, 2002). Successful teachers plan engaging learning activities,
provide appropriate resources and activities, cater for the diversity in the group
they are teaching, provide scaffolding and support, interact and respond to learn-
ers, and administer the students efficiently and effectively. All of these actions are
time consuming and often difficult to provide due to large numbers of students, the
large workloads, and the sheer lack of time available. Teachers rarely have the time
and space they would like to be able to cater for the needs of individuals. In large
classes, teachers will often not have the time to respond to the individual questions
learners pose. When marking large numbers of assessments, teachers can spend
considerable time on the management of the assessment process, collecting papers,
marking papers, recording marks, writing comments with restricted time to attend
to the feedback they want to give. Technologies can provide for education plentiful
opportunities to create efficiencies and economies, to enable teachers to have more
time for other elements.
As well as providing for administrative efficiency, technologies also provide
strategies, encouragement and opportunities to lead teachers to implement approaches
that promote student-centred learning and other opportunities for learning. Some
uses of technology enable teachers to plan and design implementations that lead to
active, more than passive, learning. Technology can provide opportunities for teachers
to move from the conventional “sage on the stage” approach to the more effective
“guide on the side” role (King, 1993). The following describe some of the ways in
which technologies have contributed to my efficiency and effectiveness as a teacher.

In classroom settings, students often wait for the teacher to give them directions and
follow the lead of the teacher at a pace he or she sets. When teachers use technol-
ogy effectively, the role of the teacher can change quickly. I have been able to use
technology to create democratic learning settings as a matter of course. In instances
where all learning materials are accessible by the students, they can make choices
as to the scope and form of their participation in planned teaching activities. The
students are able to recognize their own important roles and responsibilities in the
learning process and to make personal decisions about these.
I do not require students to attend my classes. I use technology to provide them
with access to all the resources so that their roles and responsibilities are clear. I use
formal class settings such as lectures and workshops to provide contexts, encourage-
ment, and assistance to learners that will facilitate their knowledge acquisition and
understanding. Students typically come to classes because they appreciate that they
will benefit but in instances where they are unable to attend, they can use other means
to make up for the lost opportunity. Using technology this way helps students learn
how to learn. In a future where students will be expected and required to continue
their own learning, such experiences within the university environment provide safe
settings for students to develop personal learning skills and capabilities.
Students frequently mention my accessibility and availability as favourable ele-
ments of my teaching approach. When students are required to make choices and
plan their own pathways, they will frequently need and seek feedback from their
teacher. Being able to quickly communicate and interact with the teacher is an im-
portant requirement for a successful student-centred environment. Through such
tools as email and discussion boards, teachers can ensure there are few holdups and
delays to communication permitting students to proceed at the pace they choose.
This capability comes from technologies which provide seamless connectivity and
direct communication. To facilitate interactions and feedback from students, I use
a number of strategies. These include publishing and updating lists of frequently
asked questions to which students can refer. I answer individual questions in class
posts in case others might be needing the same information. I provide copious ex-
amples and cases and I use the work of students in previous classes as examples in
subsequent classes. All of these strategies are facilitated by technology and provide
students with the support they need to learn effectively.
Interactivity and communication are critical elements of many technology-
supported learning settings. Computers are easily programmed to respond in auto-
matic ways to students’ actions and inputs and often this capability of computers
can be put to good use in tertiary classes. Such elementary tools as multiple choice
questions and interactive programs can be used to engage learners and provide
tutorial-type learning experiences. In large classes where one-to-one interactivity
can be difficult to achieve, these technologies provide flexible and efficient learning
opportunities. Examples of applications I have used that facilitate these opportuni-
ties include tutorials and learning objects available from digital repositories, Flash
objects, elementary games, and simulation programs.

When a teacher is confronted with large classes, large numbers of teaching assis-
tants and other variables, it can become quite overwhelming with the burdensome
administration and management. Technology provides the means to create systems
and processes that can streamline some of these problems. I take every opportunity
to streamline as many administrative processes as possible using electronic systems
and tools. Over the years, I have learned to use a raft of tools to streamline such
processes as assessment, moderation, coordination of tutors, student contact and so
on. The majority of time-consuming tasks can be streamlined and made efficient
through technology solutions.
 One of the more useful suite of tools that I use, Ronline (http://ronline.com.
au), was developed to enable me to develop, reuse and share facilities that provide
administrative efficiencies for my teaching. These tools are openly available to edu-
cational users and since 2005, there have been over 1,000 users who have developed
over 3,000 applications for their own use. Within this suite of tools are facilities
for developing multiple choice questions, problem-based learning, online response
systems, role-plays, online debates, questionnaires, and resource sharing. All the
automated tools and systems can be reused and repurposed, a feature that allows
flexible and efficient use and my ability to concentrate on the more important things
in learning and teaching where I really can value-add (Oliver, 2006).
Teachers can spend large amounts of their time developing resources for learning
and teaching. Technology provides opportunities that significantly reduce the time
spent on such tasks. The capacity to share and reuse resources means that much of
the time I may have spent previously developing resources can now be reclaimed.
Access to such reusable resources as learning objects, libraries and templates,
generates considerable timesavings, time which can be spent on more productive
teaching pursuits like designing innovative learning experiences for students (e.g.
Rehak & Mason, 2003).
Technology has enabled me to provide my learners with continual support through
online resources and communications channels. I have undertaken online surveys to
gain feedback from my students and to respond in real time to problems and issues
that have confronted them. As a manager of student learning, I have been able to
monitor the progress of my learners and to anticipate problems before they become
too difficult to handle. Technology has provided the means to develop tools and
supports to assist learners in ways that do not place undue pressures on my time and
availability. When I have been away from the university attending conferences or
other forms of university business, technology has kept me in touch with my students
through virtual means, assisting me to maintain contact and to monitor progress.

There are so many possibilities open to teachers who have access to learning tech-
nologies and are seeking to create effective learning settings for their students.
The descriptions above provide some limited insights into these opportunities. The
Learning Technologies Opportunity Framework highlights 4 principal outcomes
from technology use in classrooms: better learning, more learning, better learners
and better teaching. This chapter has shown it to be a useful organizer for teachers
planning to use learning technologies to help them understand the opportunities.
Experience has shown that it is important to apply learning technologies using planned
outcomes and deliberate strategies. There is a tendency for technology use to be
led and influenced by devices themselves, with the result that the technology itself
takes on prominence in the project rather than the learning outcomes being sought.
A useful test to apply to any technology application in education is to examine
how the project is described. If the description uses the technology as a principal
component, for example, using iPads in Science, using podcasts for lecture record-
ings, using online resources, it is possible, and likely, that the application is not suf-
ficiently targeting specific learning opportunities and advantages. In such instances,
the application can be (and will likely be) less effective than it might be because a
learning design might not be leading the application. Learning technologies are often
quite alluring to the uninitiated and many classroom applications I have observed
have underachieved through a lack of clear planning for learning.

This chapter has discussed the ways in which learning technologies have aided in
the design, development, and delivery of effective learning settings for tertiary stu-
dents, in ways that have led to the recognition of exemplary teaching performance.
The use of technologies in all instances has been directed towards specific ends.
The technology has been used to provide opportunities and advantages and the ap-
plication has been deliberate with appropriate design and follow-up. Accompany-
ing research has been used to assess the scope and nature of the applications and
to assess their impact on students and student learning. Through these means, the
technology has been shown to contribute positively to learning with high levels of
student satisfaction. In looking back, the telling factor in the experiences seems to
have been the deliberate design, seeking planned outcomes. It is clear that this is a
sound approach to using learning technologies and a strategy that had led, and will
lead, many more tertiary teachers to deliver successful learning programs which
are recognized and appreciated by the students.

Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Design-
ing and delivering e-learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.
Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teach-
ing and learning. Higher Education, 41, 221–238. doi:10.1023/A:1004181331049
Bonk, C. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing educa-
tion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Bonk, C., & Graham, C. (Eds.). (2005). The handbook of blended learning: Global
perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Brook, C., & Oliver, R. (2003). Online learning communities: Investigating a design
framework. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2), 139–160.
Brownfield, G., & Oliver, R. (2003). Factors influencing the discovery and reusability
of digital resources for teaching and learning. In G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten,
S. Barker, & J. Baron (Eds.), Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings of the 20th
Annual Conference of ASCILITE, (pp. 74-83). Adelaide, Australia: ASCILITE.
Challis, D., Holt, D., & Rice, M. (2005). Staff perceptions of the role of technol-
ogy in experiential learning: A case study from an Australia university. Australian
Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 19–39.
Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
Fraser, A. B. (1999). Colleges should tap the pedagogical potential of the world-
wide-web. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(48), B8.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic
learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3),
23–48. doi:10.1007/BF02319856
Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. doi:10.1007/BF02300500
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching,
41(1), 30–35. doi:10.1080/87567555.1993.9926781
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework
for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge/
Falmer. doi:10.4324/9780203304846
Oliver, R. (1989). The impact of computers on the training needs of teachers. Aus-
tralian Educational Computing, 3(2), 25–31.
Oliver, R. (1995a). Interactive information systems: Information access and retrieval.
The Electronic Library, 13(3), 187–194. doi:10.1108/eb045360
Oliver, R. (1995b). An investigation of skills transfer between hypermedia systems.
Journal of Microcomputers for Information Management, 12(3), 201–214.
Oliver, R. (1996a). Measuring user performance with interactive informa-
tion systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12(2), 89–102.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.1996.tb00041.x
Oliver, R. (2001). Seeking best practice in online learning: Flexible learning tool-
boxes in the Australian VET sector. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
17(2), 204–222.
Oliver, R. (2006). Ronline: Mediating artefacts to support technology-facilitated
learning. In A. Bunker & I. Vardi (Eds.), Critical Visions: Thinking, Learning
and Researching in Higher Education, (pp. 259-267). Milperra, Australia: NSW,
HERDSA.
Oliver, R. (2007a). Using mobile technologies to support learning in large on cam-
pus university classes. In Proceedings of ASCILITE Singapore 2007. ASCILITE.
Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/oliver.pdf
Oliver, R. (2007b). Engaging first year students using a web-supported inquiry-based
learning setting. Higher Education, 55(3), 285–301. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9055-7
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (1995). Developing effective hypermedia instructional
materials. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 8–22.
Oliver, R., Herrington, J., & Omari, A. (1996). Creating effective instructional
materials for the world wide web. In R. Debreceny & A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings
of AusWeb 96: The Second Australian World Wide Web Conference, (pp 485-492).
Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.
Oliver, R., & Kerr, T. (1993). The impact of word processing on assignment grades
in tertiary studies. Higher Education, 26(1), 103–110.
Oliver, R., & Luca, J. (2007). Using mobile technologies and podcasts to enhance
learning experiences in lecture-based university course delivery. In C. Montgom-
erie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of Ed-Media World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, (pp. 3385-3394). Ed-Media.
Oliver, R., & Oliver, H. (1996). Information access and retrieval with hypermedia
information systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 33–44.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1996.tb00141.x
Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (1996). Teaching and learning with the WWW in the
undergraduate multimedia program at ECU. In R. Debreceny & A. Ellis (Eds.),
Proceedings of AusWeb 96: The Second Australian World Wide Web Conference,
(pp 293-297). Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.
Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (1999). Using on-line technologies to support problem-based
learning: Learners’ responses and perceptions. Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 15(1), 58–79.
Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (2001). Exploring student responses to collaborating and
learning in a web-based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
17(1), 34–47. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2001.00157.x
Oliver, R., Omari, A., & Herrington, J. (1997). Exploring student interactions in
collaborative world wide web learning environments. In Muldner, T., & Reeves, T.
(Eds.), Educational Multimedia/Hypermedia and Telecommunications 1997 (pp.
812–817). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
Oliver, R., Omari, A., & Knibb, K. (1997). Creating collaborative computer-based
learning environments with the world wide web. In R. Kevill, R. Oliver, & R. Phil-
lips (Eds.), What Works and Why: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of
the Australian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education, (pp. 444-449). Perth,
Australia: Academic Computing Services.
Perzylo, L., & Oliver, R. (1994). An investigation of children’s use of CD-ROM
multimedia. Australian Library Review, 11(2), 145–156.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London, UK: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203413937
Rehak, D., & Mason, R. (2003). Keeping the learning in learning objects. In Little-
john, A. (Ed.), Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to eLearning
(pp. 20–34). London, UK: Kogan Page.
Salter, D., Pang, M., & Sharma, P. (2009). Active tasks to change the use of class
time within an outcomes based approach to curriculum design. Journal of University
Teaching & Learning Practice, 6(1), 4.
Salter, D., Richards, L., & Carey, T. (2004). The ‘T5’ design model: An instructional
design model to support the integration of online and campus based learning. Edu-
cational Media International, 41(3), 207–218. doi:10.1080/09523980410001680824
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’
approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education,
37(2), 57–70. doi:10.1023/A:1003548313194
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centred teaching: Five key changes to practice. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
 Elliott Currie
University of Guelph, Canada

This chapter explores the use of Lecture Capture Technology in accounting courses
that are taught using a five-stage learning model based on aviation training. The
implementation of the technology in large classes exceeding 250 students is compli-
cated by lack of attendance; this is addressed through technology by implementing
an electronic Classroom Response System. Both systems have been further improved
to effectively and efficiently provide readily accessible lecture videos and increase
the rigour of the graded response system. Additional research is warranted to sub-
stantiate the anecdotal findings and research conducted in other arenas of education.

This author has been teaching accounting for more than 14 years. Introductory
courses are most frequently populated by students motivated by the need “to have to
take” the course. Intermediate and advanced courses in taxation and management or
financial accounting are primarily populated by students embarking on a career in
the financial industry. In classes ranging in size from 26 to 564 students, the chal-
lenges of engagement, getting to know students and monitor progress daily as well

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch006

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
as ensuring appropriate or at least effective teaching procedures can be daunting
in the least. Prior to teaching accounting, this author taught primarily by the case
method in the areas of business policy and organizational behaviour. These classes
were traditionally smaller, rarely exceeding 50 students and student engagement
was easily monitored and encouraged. Attendance was reviewed regularly and each
student was evaluated on their participation and involvement in the class discussions
and their contribution to said discussions.
Historically, accounting class sizes at my current university rarely exceeded
45 in number but recently, with government restraint and increasing demand for
professional courses, class sizes are now rarely below 100 students. Introductory
courses are frequently taught in classes of 400 to 600 students. Compounding the
complexity of the teaching environment is an increase in the number of students with
English as their second language while English is the language of instruction, and
an increasing percentage of students in the classes that are not commerce students,
so student background knowledge is diverse.
This chapter explores the introduction of lecture capture technology to assist
students with linguistic issues and the more recent adoption of electronic response
systems to increase the engagement of the students in a large lecture environment.

Accounting, whether it is financial or managerial, is based on procedures and rules,

many of which are internationally mandated and based on centuries old established
practices. Taxation is even more rule based and the adherence to such rules is critical
to success in the field of financial management. Compounding the subject matter
are the various rules and theories that can grant differing perspectives and potential
application of said rules to the recording and hence communication of financial
position, transactions and future impacts. Taxation is even more complex as these
rules and interpretations are complicated by political endeavours and encouragement,
economic environments and legal interpretations. When this author was tasked with
instructing accounting, he reached back into his past career as a flying instructor on
which to base his instructional method and theory.
This method of aviation instruction is made of five phases:

1. Explaining the theory.

2. Demonstrating the exercise.
3. Permitting the students to attempt the procedure.
4. Correcting errors and confirming success.
5. The student repeating the exercise correctly.

Aviation is a precise practice with little room for error; the belief in transferring
this strategy to teaching is that the strategy should carry over to a less risky environ-
ment such as accounting and an even less risky environment, the classroom. The
benefit of the approach is the feedback to learning and the opportunity for students
to attempt the task in a ‘safe’ environment with an opportunity to make errors and
receive guidance.
Adopting the above method is an easy process with 45 students in a class
where interaction is readily possible, but virtually impossible in class sizes of 400
to 600 students. All the issues of clarification of terminology and procedure are
compounded by the ever increasing number of students that are using their second
language (English) to learn and apply the material taught in accounting. Of the 11
million people in Ontario, over 29% are foreign born, with expected immigration
equaling 0.9% of the population each year for the next two to three decades. In the
same courses there are 5% international students primarily from East Asia and the
Middle East plus a handful of exchange students usually from continental Europe.
Another complication is that the introductory course is a required course in the
Business Program but only a career choice for approximately 30 to 40 per cent of
the students attending the class.

The primary issue encountered was dealing with any linguistic barriers. Even
those with the English as their first language miss comments made by professors
or classmates; “what did he say?” How does one clarify all the misunderstandings
that occur in class of 500? A professor just does not have time to repeat each missed
comment or fully clarify any misunderstandings to a reasonable level of acceptability
to both student and professor. Anyone taking their first or second accounting class
will likely attest to the fact that accountants have their own language and it only
gets more complicated as one progress into areas such as taxation. Compounding
the issue is the infrequent feedback from students in a timely manner and potential
reluctance on the part of the students to even approach the instructor with such is-
sues, in or outside class.
The secondary issue deals with how to provide prompt, effective, and frequent
feedback on student performance? The correct application and analysis of a procedure
is more critical than the knowledge or comprehension of the process. This is exactly
the standard to which the accounting and finance societies and associations measure
candidates for professional designations. The traditional reliance on two or three
examinations and evaluations during a term is at best a mediocre feedback method.
And with the increased class sizes an almost unfeasible task to administer a greater
number of written quizzes and return the students results promptly. All too often the
performance response was after the course had progressed to later material leaving
little if any opportunity to address any weaknesses on the part of the students, the
examination material or the methods used in teaching the topic that was examined.
On top of these issues, the students, when they did come to class, could easily hide
and not be involved or engaged in the class activities.

This author was introduced to software called Camtasia Studio from Tech Smith
Corporation of Okemos, Michigan, USA by a colleague who also teaches account-
ing in a multicultural setting. This lecture capture system used the screen capture
software, resident on the instructors tablet computer. The software captures all the
screen activities of the computer and may also capture the video of the operator of
the computer and their voice. A significant offering was the matching of this soft-
ware to a tablet computer that would permit the instructor to handwrite solutions to
numeric questions while verbally explaining the process in manipulating the num-
bers and the rationale for the method applied in the accounting or taxation problem
or case. Camtasia screen capture software would record everything the computer
was displaying during the recording session and record the audio explanations or
anything else the instructor said during class.
This recording would then be edited to break into various segments of the re-
corded video to denote the various problems or concepts ‘discussed’ in the class.
These segmented recordings would then be placed on the course website for the
registered students to access at their convenience during the remainder of the term.
Problems that were not understood in class can now be accessed repeatedly and as
the problems are both flowing in time, visually and auditory, the students are more
broadly exposed to the procedures of the material or problem.
This author, with the financial support of the Society of Management Accountants
of Ontario, introduced such a process in introductory and intermediate management
accounting and taxation courses (Table 1).
The response from students was overwhelmingly positive. Course evaluations
and course surveys confirmed broad approval of the technology. There was no effort
made to identify English as a second language students but anecdotal evidence
supported the belief these students were pleased with opportunity to repeat the class
and solutions dynamically, rather than through accessing a static solution that a
printed page would offer.
Table 1. Introduction of video capture to courses: dates of introduction, class size,
exam grades

Course Semester Students in Each Class Exam Grade

Introductory Management
Fall 2009 381 61.3
Accounting 2nd Year
Winter 2010 389 66.4
Fall 2010 524 66.1
Winter 2011 307 64.0
Fall 2011 454 67.0
Winter 2012 356 67.1

The first two phases (explaining the theory and demonstrating the exercise)
available, but by using Camtasia software the learner is able to take an active role
in determining when they view the class recording and are able to decide when they
need to return to an issue if they have difficulties comprehending the topic. This
recording option has been expanded to permit distance learners access to a virtual
lecture with auditory and visual components covering problem solutions. Other
professors have started recording and posting their lectures before class to explain
and describe the technical and procedural rules and application of accounting. These
recordings are assigned as required work before classes. Class time is then focused
strictly on reviewing and correcting the procedural undertakings of the students.
Some challenges occurred including attendance and feedback to students. The
option of viewing the class on line, at a time the students preferred, led to another
issue, attendance. Students, especially in the introductory class, started to not attend
class as they felt that they could gain the same benefit from watching the video at
a time of their own choosing. At the same time, there was no perceived value in
attending every class and feedback was limited except from the online quizzing
methods or the in class pen and paper quizzes and midterms. The use of clickers, a
hand held multiple choice response device, had been attempted before but there were
frequent times when one student would bring to class a number of clickers and those
students not in attendance would receive grades for their clicker being activated.
Another issue was the additional cost of the equipment to both the students and
the university in installing and maintaining the wireless equipment. The students
in the clicker environment are required to use an additional piece of equipment that
they would have to purchase at my university. I would require a radio receiver that
would be brought to each class, attached to the notebook, the classroom wired for
radio transceivers and have the software loaded on my computer to be able to record
student responses to the questions posed. The students would have to register the
clicker for each course and pay for each course as well as purchasing the clicker.
Frequently the students would forget or lose their clicker or the batteries would run
out. With the clickers the cost to the student was based on a per course basis.
When I started teaching introductory Management Accounting in 2006, the
classes were 200 plus students. The university was examining a Classroom Response
System, the iClicker technology that I used it in my class. The questions posed
were multiple-choice and hence limiting in scope when it comes to complicated
calculations. This was especially true as many management accounting issues have
multiple approaches and depending upon the accuracy, (2, 3 or 4 decimal accuracy)
the answer can vary considerably. Students were still graded on their responses but
they frequently were frustrated, as I was, when the answers the students had derived
were close but still marked wrong or not even a choice offered. I needed a method
to allow some variation but still be sure that the students were using appropriate
procedures, obtaining reasonable answers and hence still receive a positive response
even if the number was not exactly the same. For example, if one tries to estimate
the volume of gasoline to be sold in a future month, as long as the process of cal-
culation is correct, one may wind up with a number 1-2% different but still have a
number that is reasonable and acceptable and the process is correct.
In the spring of 2010, another opportunity arrived in the form of MonocleCAT
software from Top Hat Monocle Inc. of Waterloo, Ontario. This software uses
smart phones, iPads, tablets and notebook computers for students to submit alpha-
numeric responses to questions posed their instructor, in class. I was required to
have internet access in class and have posted questions to the website for the course
that are activated during class at the appropriate time. This software was introduced
in the fall of 2010 in Introductory Management Accounting, a program consisting
of 524 students. The response by the students to not using a clicker was actually
applauded in class. The university had no additional costs as the classrooms were
already Wi-Fi ready and the classrooms were within cell range.
The class was posed stand-alone questions or portions of assigned problems from
the textbook to complete before or in class and I was able to monitor results in real
time. Students respond using a text message or an email to a particular telephone
number or URL after registering their paid subscription. Cost was still a consideration,
but the rate per term for MonocleCAT was comparable to a clicker rate; however,
the new system was available for the same charge for one whole term, regardless of
the number of courses using MonocleCAT. Students are very reluctant to lend their
smart phones to another person, let alone let the phone out of their sight or reach;
as well, they do not tend to lend their computers or email. The risk of one student
responding for another student was virtually eliminated. Attendance returned to
the former levels prior to the Camtasia software implementation. It is of note that
there are now participation marks for both responding and responding correctly to
the MonocleCAT questions.
A common concern for students is the lack of timely feedback to their learn-
ing. Does MonocleCAT grant the prompt feedback so desperately desired to more
closely guide the students’ learning? The students believe so. Course evaluations and
interviews with students and teaching assistants revealed that most appreciated the
ability to do something in class other than being passive learners and receive some
reward for being active in class. In the winter of 2011, I implemented the Camtasia
and MonocleCAT model in an Intermediate Management Accounting Class of 145
students. In one particulate instance, the class had been walked through a complex
costing calculation taking approximately 20 minutes to complete. The third part of
the question was posted to MonocleCAT for a class response. After the cost was
calculated, the students were required to calculate the price with a 25% margin.
When this question was posed in 2011, 85% of the students in my course answered
incorrectly. In 2012, another professor posed the identical problem teaching the
same course and 79% of the students responded incorrectly. The students’ incorrect
calculations happened because most students just took the cost and multiplied by
1.25. In the business world this method is used to calculate the price with a 25%
mark up. The correct method for the problem posed however, is to divide the cost
by 1-0.25 and gross up the cost to the price. The purpose of the question was to stop
the students as soon as they made the error so that they could see where they had
gone wrong and correct it. The software enabled virtually immediate response to
professors and the ability to virtually instantly correct errors. The third, fourth and
fifth stages of the teaching and learning process were now possible in a large class
setting after the students had realized their error in thinking.
The engagement of the students increased as they were required to contribute
in class an answer to the posed questions posted by me to the screen above. Those
students who were inattentive in class and using the computer for other purposes
such as conversations with class mates, surfing the net or texting, would have to
stop what they were doing and pay attention, at least for part of the time. Now
students were required to be active, rather than passive participants in the class by
the requirement of completing a task that was an integral part of the material being
covered and were required to do so within a time limit. Through this engagement
and activity, student learning took place. Students had to apply what was being
covered and submit an answer using a technology that was very familiar to them
(such as texting or email). Should the students not be able to answer the question,
there was an opportunity to ask the professor for clarification usually done the usual
way by raising their hands. Alternatively, many students would work with their
neighbour on solving the problem. Frequently the students were seen pointing at the
screen and at their calculator or pad of paper with their calculations while talking
to a classmate. They would explain their answer to their classmate and potentially
debate the method of their solution. In this manner they are teaching one another,
thereby increasing their own comprehension of the material through explaining the
process using their own language.

Top Hat Monocle claims on their website that in one course, students using their
software, experienced a 6% increase in their final grade and attendance was doubled.
I can only confirm that my attendance has increased by 50% in the introductory
courses and anecdotally in my advanced classes. I have attempted to duplicate this
result but have seen no effect in the class averages year over year. To further explore
this potential for improved results, I have been using the identical final exam for
each of the past three fall semesters and the past two winter semesters. I repeated
the winter semester exam most recently in the winter semester of 2012. To date,
there have been no significant difference in the students’ performance on the final
exam when comparing fall to fall semesters and winter to winter semesters. More
analysis is required of the results. It is of note that students with different majors
take management accounting in the fall than in the winter. Accounting and Finance
students tend to take the accounting course in the fall and Marketing and other majors
attend the class in the winter semester. In the intermediate management account-
ing class and in the Taxation classes the students are generally making Finance or
Accounting their major and profession. As there does not appear to any significant
improvement in examination results, I am pleased that the students appear to have an
increased level of numeracy due to their frequent use of calculators and application
of the material in class. Students are still eager to obtain the marks available and
frequently will strive for ensuring they are correct on all questions. This endeavor of
the students is a result of my revising the grading of this component of their grade
from initially granting a full 10% for attempting 50% of the in class MonocleCAT
questions to 5% for attempting 60% of the in class questions and 5% for correctly
answering 60% of the in class questions.
The next phase of evaluation is to determine if truly this is an improvement in
student performance. Anecdotally, many professors in the same program as this
writer do n1ot perceive that current students are performing as well as only a few
years ago. If the grades in the classes where MonocleCAT and Camtasia have been
introduced actually maintain performance levels this could in reality be a real im-
provement in performance.
 An evaluation of the students responses in a number of classes to the use of said
technology is currently being undertaken by two other colleagues and this author,.
Students new to the technology and those experienced with screen capture technology,
clickers and online response systems will be surveyed. Concurrently the assessment
of performance of students with and without the technology will be compared.

Screen capture technology may prove to be an excellent tool for providing good
review methods for students that may have challenges with the language of instruc-
tion or difficulties comprehending concepts and processes expressed in a technical
or jargon rich language. In Bollmeier (2010) the initial findings support such a
conclusion. Much of the research found is strongly based in the technology sector
and the health sector but likely this arena in teaching will encounter much further
study. The screen capture software may be of benefit to enhance student engage-
ment in face-to-face classes and also enable richer course environments for distance
learners by allowing material to be viewed repeatedly and, at the same time, have
the problem solving process explained orally.
In-class engagement is increased using Classroom Response Systems, interactive
software, internet access and telephony technology that requires students in large
classes to be involved and participate in problem solutions. Actual improvement
in performance is still to be established but anecdotal evidence does support such
activities.
Overall, the five-step process of teaching with the learner at the center of the
process is supported through the use of Lecture Capture and the application of a
flexible classroom response system based on question and answer technology. A
caution: it is very difficult to record these lessons while sitting alone in an office
and make it sound exciting, not that tax is not exciting enough on its own.

Bollmeier, G., Wenger, P. J., & Forinash, A. B. (2010). Impact of online lecture-
capture on student outcomes in a therapeutics course. American Journal of Phar-
maceutical Education, 74(7), 1–6. doi:10.5688/aj7407127
Copley, J. (2007). Audio and video podcasts of lectures for campus-based students:
Production and evaluation of student use. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 44(4), 387–399. doi:10.1080/14703290701602805
Deal, A. (2007). Teaching with technology white paper: Podcasting. Educause
CONNECT. Retrieved from http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/technology/whitepapers/
Podcasting_Jun07.pdf
Embi, P. J., Biddinger, P. W., Goldenhar, L. M., Schick, L. C., Kaya, B., & Held, J.
D. (2006). Preferences regarding the computerized delivery of lecture content: A
survey of medical students. In Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium, (pp.
916). AMIA.
Heppner, F. (2007). Teaching the large college class. San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
McGarr, O. (2009). A review of podcasting in higher education: Its influence on the
traditional lecture. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 309–321.
Scutter, S., Stupans, I., Sawyer, T., & King, S. (2010). How do students use podcasts to
support learning? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 180–191.
Taylor, M. Z. (2009). Podcast lectures as a primary teaching technology: Re-
sults of a one-year trial. Journal of Political Science Education, 5(2), 119–137.
doi:10.1080/15512160902816249
Vajoczki, S., Watt, S., Marquis, N., & Holshausen, K. (2010). Podcasts: Are they
an effective tool to enhance student learning? A case study from McMaster Uni-
versity, Hamilton, Canada. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
19(3), 349–362.
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don‘t students like school. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey – Bass.
 Carol Ann Courneya
Health Sciences, Canada

In this chapter, the authors explore the concept of excellence in teaching by con-
sidering both what has been published in the literature as well as case examples
of learner-centered, art-based approaches to medical education. Five issues that
relate to using art in medical education discussed include: (1) Learning to Look:
visual literacy and its role in developing diagnostic abilities; (2) Building Bridges:
the role of art in encouraging inter-disciplinarity; (3) To Cope or Not to Cope: the
role of art as a stress-reduction strategy;(4) Death by PowerPoint: transmediation
for learning the science of medicine; and (5) Doctor as Artist: the role of art and
art-making during professional (medical) identity formation. The authors utilize
three case studies to demonstrate 2, 4, and 5.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive review of the literature; rather, I highlight

four studies illustrating the potential benefits (observational skills and empathy) of
exposing medical trainees to art-based experiences. In the first study, Bardes, Gill-
ers, and Herman (2001) invited medical students to examine portraits painted by

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch007

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
major artists of the 16th to 19th centuries and had them precisely describe what they
observed, a process first described by Joshua Taylor (1981) as “learning to look.”
Medical students then took their new skills and applied them to the examination
of photographs of patients’ faces. Medical faculty members were able to observe
an improvement in the students’ descriptive and interpretational skills as well as
an enhanced awareness of emotion as seen in the faces of the patients. Building on
this concept, Shapiro et al. (2006) explored the utility of combining clinically based
teaching with arts-based teaching and found students who took part in the combined
experience were able to “read gesture and expression, interpret context, determine
symbolic and literal importance and to perceive emotional dimensions and narra-
tive.” Shapiro related their observations to the development of empathetic skills in
the medical students: “Over half of the students specifically commented that the
sessions increased empathy by helping them to reconnect with their own feelings,
improving their ability to consider others’ points of view, avoid preconceived notions,
teaching them to go beyond first impressions and look deeper.” Finally, students
who engaged in arts based teaching learned to question assumptions and allow for
multiple interpretations, a way of helping students to learn to deal with uncertainties
when they come across a patient that does not fit any diagnostic criteria.
More recently, Naghshineh et al. (2008) described the exposure of medical stu-
dents to an 8-week elective module called “Training the Eye: Improving the Art of
Clinical Diagnosis”. In this module students participated in observation exercises
held in an art gallery, paired with didactic sessions that integrated physical diagnosis,
art topics and life drawing. Finding meaning in imagery, termed “Visual Literacy”
by Flood, Heath, and Lapp (1997) was found by Naghshineh to have increased the
sophistication of the descriptions of artistic and clinical imagery; also, the medical
students were able to make more accurate observations of physical findings when
compared with their pre art class observations. The evidence therefore points to
a role for arts-based courses as a way of improving observational and empathetic
skills of medical trainees.
Despite this, the vast majority of arts-based programs in medical school or
residency programs (when they exist at all) are elective and are often included at
the end of the “structured” science-based and clinical programs. One program at
the University of Bristol in the UK, stands out for its attempt to foster increased
“emotional intelligence” (Goleman 1998) within its graduates as a compulsory part
of the medical undergraduate program (Thompson, Lamont-Robsinson, and Younie,
2010). The program at Bristol embeds three opportunities for the medical trainees to
work creatively throughout their training. The experiences are a mixture of drama,
free writing and submission of a creative work (any media). The authenticity of
the work is assessed by faculty members, and written feedback is provided to the
students. Faculty members measure the student’s engagement with the project, their
use of senses in picking up on emotional content and how that is reflected in the
technical aspects of the work. Thompson et al. coined this “compulsory creativity”
and while the “compulsory” part may make some readers uncomfortable, this pro-
gram along with a variety of arts-based electives at Bristol, fosters an educational
climate that supports the medical students’ exploration of the more humanistic side
of medical practice.

Over a decade ago, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada devised
a framework, called Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists (CAN-
MEDS) that named “communicator” as one of seven integral competencies needed
for medical education and practice (Maudsley et al. 2000). Throughout medical
training, many courses are dedicated towards teaching communication skills and
preparing graduates to be exemplary communicators with their peers and patients.
While teaching about communication is critical, actively engaging in communica-
tion strategies through art-making provides fertile ground for “talking the talk.”

For the most part medical students and art students travel separate roads from very
early phases of their training. They make curricular choices in secondary school
(“I hate science classes” or “I’m no good in Art class”) and once in University it
would be safe to say that art students and medical students could well exist in perfect
isolation throughout their training. Conversations with medical students suggested
an enthusiasm to engage with art students. That prompted a collaboration between
myself (Cardiovascular Physiologist) and Sandra Semchuck (Visual Art Instructor)
at a neighboring University of Art and Design. We brought art students together with
medical and dental students and invited them to co-create photographic art around
the topic of “the heart.” We placed no boundaries on their interpretations (literal,
abstract, emotional, spiritual, etc.) and asked only that they be truly collaborative in
the generation of their art. The medical/dental art students formed small groups and
their collaboration took a variety of forms. In some cases, they storyboarded their
ideas and then one person shot the pictures while another worked on post-production/
printing. In another case, a group of five students took black and white portraits of
each other and incorporated images or text into the photographs in order to elaborate
on the cardiac theme. In another diad, the medical student supplied chest X-rays and
together with the art student they photo-shopped pictures of stained-glass windows
into the finished image. In order to make the experience authentic, Sandra and I also
co-created a photograph and shared our journey of collaboration (ups and downs)
with the students on a password protected student discussion wall.
Going into the project, art students saw the medical students as “more left brained
and knowledgeable about the structure and function of the body” while medical
students thought art students “had more open minds and were more free flowing
with their creativity.” Working together to create art demanded that they find a com-
mon language. One medical student wrote “It struck me how different our diction
was, and the types of things we choose to talk about”. The students worked together
over a 3 month period that culminated in a public art exhibit called “Concerning
the Heart.” When asked to write about the collaborative experience, students said:

I have learned that science and art come together in very unique ways to create
amazing pieces. There is more knowledge about anatomy mixed in with more emo-
tional aspects.

I could have never imagined the collaboration being as successful as it was. I was
pleasantly surprised how well our two train-of thought brains worked so well to-
gether in the end.

It was a very special class that concentrated on us as human beings. It made us

better people.

It was safe to say that the lens through which the students (and faculty!) saw
each other was altered through this collaborative communication. Anxiety was
overcome, barriers were broken down, and stereotypes were explored and ultimately
set aside. For the medical students, the communication muscles they flexed in this
project will be critical for future discussions with patients, while the art students
found out that their future doctors (in training) are creative people with lives and
interests outside of science.

Various stages of training present significant emotional challenges to medical students,

some of which include: cadaveric dissection, first patient encounters, breaking bad
news, and sleep deprivation. Art-making, music and narrative opportunities offer
an outlet that can counteract the various stressors. Shapiro et al. (2006) used an arts
and writing project hoping to address students’ specific anxieties around cadaver
dissection including concerns about the donor prior to death, general death anxiety,
and issues around the sanctity of human remains. Students in the class that elected
to participate in the arts/writing projects reported a reduction in stress but perhaps
more importantly, Shapiro et al. noted that the creative projects allowed students
to grapple with associated issues “doctor patient relationships, physician identity,
mortality and immortality, suffering and healing”.
Dunn, Iglewicz, and Moutier (2008) described students in professional school as
having a “coping reservoir.” In her elegant model, the reservoir itself was described
as encompassing the students’ internal traits (temperament, personality, and coping
style) and was decreased by stress, internal conflict, time, and energy demands. In
contrast, the well was increased by psychosocial support, mentorship, intellectual
stimulation, and social/health activities.
I suggest that art-making can provide a virtual long cool drink that fills up the
reservoir for students that find spiritual or emotional refreshment from engaging
in creative pursuits. Medical students* have described their first year curricula as
“drowning in a sea of information” and referred to art–making as a life line that kept
them afloat. Others talked about how art-making was nourishing and energy-giving
in the midst of what they described as stressful and energy-sapping professional
training and practice.
On the surface it would seem logical that students with an artistic bent would
search out and protect time for art-making as a way of dealing with the stress of
medical school. Lee and Graham (2001) found, however, that for some students
along with the stress brought on by the crushing demands of the curriculum comes
guilt associated with finding opportunities for relaxation (by any means); the self-
imposed “relaxation guilt” added to their stress rather than taking away from it. I
suspect that the guilt comes from the perception that they are doing something that
they shouldn’t; either they shouldn’t need the release (not tough enough), or if they
have any spare time they should be studying more and not taking time for relaxation.
The fact that medical curricular offerings involving arts and humanities, if present
at all, are elective, sends a message to the students that they are a “nice to do” rather
than a “need to do” activity.
*From: artist statements along with submissions to a Medical Art Exhibit dis-
cussed later in the chapter.
In every medical class there are students with a variety of learning styles (visual,
auditory, kinesthetic and reading/writing). The vast majority of the basic science
lectures in medical school, however, are delivered as computer generated slide
shows. Despite attempts to dissuade teachers from inflicting “death by PowerPoint”
on the learners (http://www.slideshare.net/sheldonict/stop-killing-students-with-
powerpoint-presentation) the majority of the information included in the slides is:

• Text-based
• Arranged as bullet points (irony intended)

So I dug up 10 random lectures from the first two years of med school and counted
the number of “text-only” slides and found an average of 18 per lecture. We gener-
ally had 3 lectures per day, 5 days per week, and all four semesters were roughly
17 weeks (not including exams), giving a total of 18,360 text-only slides in the basic
science classes in our first two years of med school. Wow!

-Quote from a medical resident

A study of University students in the UK found 60% of the respondents rated

some or half of their lecture time as boring (Mann and Robinson 2009). When Lujan
and DiCarlo (2006) surveyed first year medical students at Wayne State School of
Medicine (in the USA) well over half the respondents expressed a strong preference
for multiple modes of information delivery including visual, auditory and kinesthetic.
Liaw (2004) suggests that pictures, when paired with verbal explanation, are easier
to remember than hearing words alone.
Beyond being over-loaded with textual material (on the delivery end), when it
is time to prepare for exams medical students re-read this material. We get them
coming and going. With all this emphasis on text in/text out we have ignored the
potential for mechanisms that promote the formation of new meanings. Marjorie
Siegel (1995) described the process of transmediation, “the process of translating
meanings from one sign system (language) into another (e.g. pictorial representa-
tion),” as having the potential to allow students to invent new meaning. Take for
example the situation where a learner draws their interpretation of a story; Seigel
describes them as “arriving at some understanding [of the text], then crossing
boundaries between language and art such that it is represented pictorially,” thus
invoking both reflective and generative thinking.
 Kindergarten and primary schools have used transmediation in their teaching
strategies for many years yet it has not made its way into post secondary (let alone
professional education) likely because it is not seen as “serious” enough (Semali
and Fueyo, 2001).

For the past 12 years first year medical/dental students at the University of British
Columbia in Vancouver Canada, through a program called Heartfelt Images, have
been given the opportunity to “move amongst sign systems” while learning about the
heart and circulatory system during the five week Cardio Block (Courneya 2009).
Students are encouraged to use transmediation to conceptualize cardiac physiology,
anatomy and pathophysiology using whatever medium they choose, and have created
photographs, paintings, sculptures, installations, textiles, and most recently digital
art and music videos. A repository of these images over the last 11 years are on a
website (http://heartfelt.med.ubc.ca).
One example is entitled “Heart Murmur” by Julia Lin, and is shown in Figure
1. In this image, she expressed the cardiac pathophysiological concept of a heart
murmur. Textually a cardiac murmur is described as:

Occurring when blood flows through a hole (that shouldn’t be there) between two
heart chambers and the ensuing turbulent blood flow produces a sound, called a
murmur, that can be heard through a stethoscope placed on the patient’s chest.

Figure 1. “Heart Murmur” by Julia Lin submitted to Heartfelt Images 2011

 In this piece of digital art (Figure 1) Julia Lin conceptualized a mythical fig-
ure conjured from blood rushing across the heart defect as “murmuring” into the
stethoscope. In other words she went from one sign system (text description of heart
murmur) to another (digital painting of heart murmur)”.
A second example is shown in Figure 2 by Brad Ashman is a photographic
interpretation of a cardiac electrical emergency called “polymorphic ventricular
tachycardia”; a situation where the electrocardiogram (or ECG: a printout of the
electrical activity of the heart) shows an extremely fast and irregularly shaped
rhythm. The faster the heart rate the closer together the ECG spikes are, and they
appear in all different sizes and shapes. In this instance, Brad translated the textbook
definition of an arrhythmia into an image of boats at a marina. The image literally
took on a new meaning for him (and everyone else that saw it).
In Figure 3, “Spirit of the Heart” by Michiko Maruyama, an anatomically perfect
heart was formed by four distinct animals winding around one another, something
she described seeing in her imagination during a lecture on heart anatomy. Details
such as the distinction between oxygenated and deoxygenated blood, correct num-
ber of valve leaflets, and inclusion of the cardiac electrical system in this image
illustrate the artist’s solid understanding of the anatomy.
These and hundreds of others submitted to “Heartfelt Images” over the years
illustrate the students’ accurate and in-depth understanding of scientific concepts
translated into artistic interpretations using visual or musical media.
Does engaging in transmediation enhance learning? According to Seigel (1995),
when describing Charles Suhor’s paper on transmediation: “transmediation may
foster development of a wide range of cognitive, aesthetic, and psychomotor skills
which remain untapped in most traditional classrooms.” Bull and Wittrock (1973)
showed forty years ago that students that read, wrote, and drew an image, thus
generating new meaning, had significantly greater recall then those that merely
read about the concept.

Figure 2. “Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia” by Brad Ashman submitted to

Heartfelt Images 2008
Figure 3. “Spirit of the Heart” by Michiko Maruyama submitted to Heartfelt Im-
ages 2011

One student that submitted to Heartfelt Images expressed it this way: “I have
found in medical school that if I express what I’m learning in an artistic medium,
I learn it more thoroughly, and remember it for much longer.”
Another positive spin off of providing opportunities for artistic and generative
thinking is that students begin to look for imagery (consciously or unconsciously) in
their day-to-day lives. Years after they have graduated from medicine, students send
me emails with photographs or drawings that conceptualize the heart artistically. It
is as if, having had the opportunity once, they continue to see the world through a
slightly different “heartfelt” lens.

Medical schools have been increasingly likely to admit more broadly educated ap-
plicants, with interests outside of science, in part by putting more emphasis on non-
academic variables in the selection process (Powis 2008). As a result, the applicants
are celebrated for their artistic, musical, and performance accomplishments as well
as their academic achievements. Prior to medical school, it is not unusual for students
in graduate medical programs to have achieved significant accomplishments in the
arts (concert level musicians, visual artists, actors, etc.) and have strong identities
as “artists.” Once in medical school, however, the sheer weight and volume of the
academic curriculum can overwhelm their pre-medicine artistic inclinations.
Since 2010, in association with an annual Medical Education meeting in Canada, a
national art exhibit, called White Coat Warm heART, has been hosted to highlight
art created by medical (and other health sciences) students, residents, and faculty
(Sibbald 2010; Courneya 2011). The submissions have included paintings, sketches,
sculptures, collages and photography. Accompanying the submissions were artist
statements that described the role art has played in their professional lives as health
care professional trainees and practitioners.
Medical trainees that submitted art to the exhibit said that art-making kept them
grounded and allowed them to see their professional work with a different (kinder?)
perspective. One of the medical artists said of her medical training “my greatest fear
has been to lose what makes me human”. Making art was this person’s opportunity
to reconnect with her ability to feel beauty and tragedy.
Little has been written about the complex process, by which medical students
formulate their identity as a doctor. In contrast, much is known about the process
of personal identity formation, which starts in early childhood and results in several
primary, embodied identifications: gender, ethnicity and social class (Jenkins 2008).
Monrouxe (2010) suggests that a medical students’ unique mix of primary identities
may facilitate or constrain the development of their newly developed professional
identity as doctor. She argues that integration of one’s personal identities into the
newly acquired professional identity can either be a smooth or a rocky process. If
a person’s personal identity is consistent with their professional identity the two
blend and compliment each other. In contrast, if professional and personal identities
clash, it could lead to emotional trauma and negative coping mechanisms within
their chosen profession (Costello 2005). I argue that art-making opportunities (for
some students) during this time of transition can have a role in helping trainees
make this transition.
One medical student put it like this:

I use art as a way to process what’s going on in my life. During my first year of
medical training, I ignored this fact about myself and ended up with unpleasant
consequences for my psyche. I have since made an effort to keep creativity in my
life and I feel much more centered, genuine, and alive.

Using the analogy of the heart nourishing itself another medical trainee said:

At the end of my second year of medical school, I found myself facing an identity crisis.
…What brought me back to a level of acceptance was focusing more on skills that
I possess beyond being a good student. I decided to dedicate a weekend to creating
a work of art inspired by a quote in a lecture—The heart must first pump blood to
itself. The heart supplies the entire body with nourishment, but first, it goes through
the coronary circulation to fuel the heart muscle. Similarly, physicians dedicate their
lives to helping others, but to do that effectively, each physician must first take care
of him or herself. Indulging my creative side reminded me that I have unique talents
and something to offer the world beyond academic achievement—reconnecting with
art allowed me to regain my identity in a time of crisis.

In both instances indulging in artistic pursuits contributed to restoring the stu-

dent’s sense of self.

There has never been a better time for teachers to bring arts and humanities into
medical education. Faculties of Medicine across the world are opening their hearts
(and in some cases, curricula) to art and art-making opportunities. You might
ask, why now? Perhaps it reflects a shift in gender (more women in medicine) or
the difference in the generations that are populating medical school and entering
practice; Boomers making room for entering Gen Xers and soon Millenials. The
literature supports that both women and Gen X medical grads place more empha-
sis on work-life balance. Gen Xers are identified as placing a higher emphasis on
personal growth and expressing creativity (Washburn, 2000; Shields and Shields
2003; Jovic 2006). It is possible that medical schools are simply responding to a
push from the students to address the role of art and humanities in their training
and ultimately their practice.
Regardless of the reasons, major academic journals allocate entire sections to
this topic, national medical education conferences take “Arts and Humanities” on as
a theme for discussion, professional societies dedicated entirely to arts and humani-
ties in health care are over-subscribed and across the globe research underscores the
importance of arts and humanities in fostering empathy and communication skills
in their graduates. For medical teachers interested in this topic you may be only a
Google search away from a society or journal dedicated to this topic. It can be as
easy as taking a walk across campus to the Faculty of Arts or English, or Social
Sciences to propose a joint course. Once you crack that door open the possibilities
are endless.
Bardes, C., Gillers, D., & Herman, A. (2001). Learning to look: Developing
clinical observational skills at an art museum. Medical Education, 35, 1157–1161.
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.01088.x
Bull, B., & Wittrock, M. (1973). Imagery in the learning of verbal definitions. The Brit-
ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 289–293. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1973.
tb02269.x
Costello, C. (2005). Professional identity crisis: Race, class gender and success at
professional schools. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Courneya, C. A. (2009). Heartfelt images. University of Alberta Health Sciences
Journal, 5, 13–17.
Courneya, C. A. (2011). White coat warm art. Ars Medici, 8, 81–85.
Dunn, L., Iglewicz, A., & Moutier, C. (2008). A conceptual model of medical student
well being: Promoting resilience and preventing burnout. Academic Psychiatry, 32,
44–53. doi:10.1176/appi.ap.32.1.44
Flood, J., Heath, S. B., & Lapp, D. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of research on teach-
ing literacy through the communicative and visual arts. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster Macmillan.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Jenkins, R. (2008). Social identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jovic, E., Wallace, J., & Lemaire, J. (2006). The generation and gender shifts in
medicine: An exploratory survey of internal medicine physicians. BMC Health
Services, 6, 55. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-55
Lee, J., & Graham, A. (2001). Students’ perception of medical student stress
and their evaluation of a wellness elective. Medical Education, 35, 652–659.
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00956.x
Liaw, S. (2004). Considerations for developing constructivist web-based learning.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 31, 309–321.
Lujan, H., & DiCarlo, S. (2005). First year medical students prefer multiple learning
styles. Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 13–16. doi:10.1152/advan.00045.2005
Mann, S., & Robinson, A. (2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: An investigation
into the contributors, moderators, and outcomes of boredom amongst university stu-
dents. British Educational Journal, 35, 243–258. doi:10.1080/01411920802042911
Maudsley, R., Wilson, D., Neufeld, V., Hennen, B., DeVillaer, M., & Wakefield,
J. (2000). Educating future physicians for Ontario: Phase II. Academic Medicine,
75, 113–126. doi:10.1097/00001888-200002000-00005
Monrouxe, L. (2010). Identity, identification and medical education: Why should
we care? Medical Education, 44, 40–49. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03440.x
Naghshineh, S., Hafler, J., Miller, A., Vlanco, M., Lipsitz, S., & Dubroll, R. (2008).
Formal art observation training improves medical students’ visual diagnostic skills.
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23, 991–997. doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0667-0
Powis, D. (2008). Selecting medical students. The Medical Journal of Australia,
188, 323–324.
Semali, L., & Fueyo, J. (2001). Transmediation as a metaphor for new literacies in
multimedia classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/
lit_index.asp?HREF=semali2/index.html
Shapiro, J., Nguyen, V., Mourra, S., Ross, M., Thai, T., & Leonard, R. (2006). The
use of creative projects in a gross anatomy class. Journal for Learning through Arts,
2. Retrieved from http://repositories.cdlib.org/clta/Ita/vol2/iss1/art20
Shields, M., & Shields, M. (2003). Working with generation X physicians. Physi-
cian Executive, 29, 14–18.
Sibbald, B. (2010). White coat warm heart. Canadian Medical Association Journal,
182, E586–E588. doi:10.1503/cmaj.100905
Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The generative power of transmediation for
learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 20, 455–475. doi:10.2307/1495082
Taylor, J. (1981). Learning to look: A handout for the visual arts. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Thompson, T., Lamont-Robinson, C., & Younie, L. (2010). Compulsory creativity:
Rationales, recipes, and results in the placement of mandatory creative endeavour
in a medical undergraduate curriculum. Medical Education Online, 15.
Washburn, E. R. (2000). Are you ready for generation X? Physician Executive,
26, 51–57.
 L. C. Chan
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

This chapter deals with the concept of mindfulness as a skill required both by teach-
ers and by students. This concept is explored by providing a brief review of why the
concept of mindfulness is gaining attention in medicine and higher education. As
mindful practitioners, the authors describe examples of how mindful practices in
their daily lives have opened and enriched their teaching experiences and enhanced
student learning. Mindful practice has also enabled the authors to take a broader
perspective of how medical schools can develop “better” doctors. In engaging with
colleagues across the university, they have applied this perspective to develop a
medical humanities course for the undergraduate medical curriculum.

Mindfulness can be defined as the capacity to embrace a moment to moment, non

judgmental awareness (Kabat-Zinn, 2009). It is based on the eastern tradition of
meditative exercises with the purpose of enabling practitioners of mindfulness
(those engaging in mindful practice) to acquire insight into the nature of reality by
fully paying attention to what is happening in present moment. At the same time,
mindfulness requires one to acknowledge, but not be overwhelmed by, whatever

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch008

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
feelings, emotions or thoughts arise and to let go of any past beliefs, opinions or
commentaries that often prevent one from paying attention. Thus, a mindful prac-
titioner, by seeing things as they really are, and not what they seem, is in a better
position to make choices and decisions more clearly whatever the situation.

From its early days as a series of meditative exercises, mindfulness training is now
offered to patients by the medical profession as an additional therapeutic tool to
help relieve suffering, in particular pain and stress associated with chronic disorders
(Ludiwg & Kabat-Zinn, 2008). Through mindfulness training, both mental and physi-
cal aspects of suffering can be viewed through a more objective lens. This opens
new coping strategies that include the ability to take greater responsibility for one’s
choices and the capacity to develop self-compassion. The prototype program apply-
ing mindfulness in medicine is the Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR)
program which was designed by Kabat-Zinn (2009) at University of Massachusetts
over 30 years ago.
The efficacy of MBSR has been validated in many clinical studies (reviewed
in Baer, 2003; Ludwig & Kabat-Zinn, 2008). These include the relief of chronic
pain in a variety of clinical settings, the alleviation of stress and mood symptoms
in cancer patients (Speca, Carlson, Goodey, & Angen, 2000) and the prevention
of relapses of major depression when supported with mindfulness based cognitive
therapy. MBSR programs and those closely linked to MBSR have flourished in
many hospitals and health care settings around the world. Mindfulness training
has enabled the improvement in well being of individuals with obesity and eating
disorders by enabling greater awareness of their dietary habits (Proulx, 2008). Cur-
rent trials are underway to test whether mindfulness training can help to modify
symptoms and clinical progression in medical conditions associated with lifestyle
such as diabetes, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, drug abuse and human im-
munodeficiency virus infection.

The secret of the care of the patient is caring for oneself whilst caring for the patient.

– Medicine and the Family: A Feminist Perspective (Candib, 1995)

The rigors and demands of medical training and stress of clinical practice due to
long work hours, excessive workload, unrealistic demands from patients, coupled
with limited control of the work environment, have led to alarming levels of burnout
that affects both medical students and physicians (Shanafelt, Bradley, Wipf, & Back,
2002). Burnout leads to poorer quality of care of the patients including increased
medical errors, and a poorer quality of life for the care giver due to higher risk of
substance abuse, health problems, family discord and in the extreme, self harm and
suicides. Preliminary results in several small and short term studies (Irving, Dobkin,
& Park, 2009) show that participation in MBSR programs decreases anxiety and
mood symptoms associated with stress and burnout in medical students (Shapiro,
Schwartz, & Bonner, 1998), nursing students (Beddoe, 2004), and health care
professionals (Shapiro, Astin, Bishop, & Cordova 2005). A recent study compared
a large group of primary health care physicians with a control group and results
support the impact of mindfulness training to enhance well being; importantly find-
ings also connected mindfulness training with improvement in attitudes towards
patient-centred care (Krasner, Epstein, Beckman, Suchman, Chapman, Mooney et
al., 2009). The case for cultivating mindfulness in health care professionals is not
just compelling, it is established, and opens up the question of not if, but when,
medical schools embed this as part of the training of medical students and doctors.

The concept of mindfulness in education (Langer, 1993, 2000) was developed by

educators over twenty years ago as a challenge to traditional ways of teaching and
learning. Central to the early development of mindful learning was the need for the
teacher to present information not as absolute truth, free of context or perspective
(which can lead to premature cognitive commitment), but instead to focus on edu-
cational exercises that encourage students to look more closely, to explore ambigu-
ity and to be open to possibilities when working with information. Ritchhart and
Perkins remind teachers to be models of mindfulness themselves and by doing so,
teachers and students together can set up a learning environment in the classroom
that fosters mindfulness, not just as a disposition (Ritchhart & Perkins, 2000) but
as an enduring trait.
In recent years, the concept of mindfulness in education has been widened to
include meditative practice and takes into account that learning and motivation to
learn is linked to life stories, emotions, values, and personal identity (Hyland, 2009;
Peters 1966, 1972). Hyland argues the contemplative practice of mindfulness (with
seven key aspects—non-judgmental, patience, beginner’s mind, trust, non-striving,
acceptance, and letting go) will enable teachers to pay greater attention not just to
the teaching environment but to what the students bring to the classroom and the
individual needs of students. Mindful teachers recognize that the academic devel-
opment of their students is linked to their psychological and emotional wellbeing.
In a mindful teaching and learning environment, teachers sense what is happening
in the classroom and react, as opposed to trying to fulfill expectations of what
should happen. Teaching is thus transformed into an activity that is both scholarly
and humanistic by honoring the dynamic setting in which learning takes place and
making best use of what is present and available.
To foster mindfulness as part of the learning environment, Schoeberlein has
written a practical guide to help teachers use simple and effective techniques to help
students to develop skills to cultivate mindfulness techniques (Schoeberlein, 2009).
The essence is for students to notice what they are doing ‘in the moment’ so they
can decide what to do next. For the development of mindful teachers and for mind-
ful teaching to be sustained, it is necessary to foster the creation of teacher support
groups (MacDonald & Shirley, 2009) and other educational structures within schools
or organizations that nurture and support such activities (Hoy, 2002).

My journey as a mindfulness practitioner started after I completed training in mind-

fulness as an integral part of the module “Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction”
(MBSR) while completing a Master’s in Buddhist Studies. My main reason for taking
the MBSR course was to learn new ways to deal with the stresses and demands of
modern life and a high-pressured academic job. The instructor advised me on more
than one occasion to consider whether I truly wished to take the course warning that
“it will definitely change your life.” In time, I realized how right she was.
I began to appreciate that mindfulness training enabled one not only to deal with
the stresses of modern day living and job demands but also opened opportunities
to enjoy the present moment of routine daily activities such as eating, walking or
taking a shower. The experience of these daily activities is often missed when our
minds are filled with incessant thoughts and worries or when we are daydreaming.
Indeed, incorporating mindfulness into our daily activities has been shown to be an
effective antidote against excessive worry and anxiety that can lead to the develop-
ment of mood disorders.
When I began to apply mindfulness into my daily life, questions arose as to how I
could articulate mindfulness into my teaching and how I could harness mindfulness
to enrich the learning activities for students. There were several issues to explore
including:
1. How do I bring mindfulness to the learning environment to enrich my teaching
experience?
2. How can I bring exercises in mindfulness to enhance student engagement and
learning?
3. Can mindfulness be incorporated to the curriculum?

One teaching activity that leads to undue stress for many teachers is large group
teaching for undergraduates (medical or otherwise). Common factors that make
large group teaching a challenge include limited time for discussion in class due to
the pressure to finish delivery of content, the degree of difficulty of the material to
be presented and the knowledge that students may not be able to concentrate fully
in a large group setting.
Prior to mindfulness training, once I had prepared the teaching material and
lesson plan for a class it was a case of doing my best according to ‘my script’ dur-
ing the 50 minute session dedicated to the lecture. The focus was to ensure that
learning outcomes and content were ‘covered’ (measured in terms of number of
slides to be shown). Activities, such as conducting in class quizzes and exercises
were required ‘to do’s’ that needed to be ticked of the list. As teachers, we fall into
a common expectation that students will learn if we complete our teaching script.
The reality is that when we teach, we are often unaware that our behaviour (and
students’ behaviour) is shaped by factors that occur before and during the lecture,
and frequently colored by past experiences. Our beliefs form our cognitive mindset
that shapes our expectations, behaviours and experiences in the classroom. As a
teacher who has cultivated mindfulness, I am more aware of these factors. This
awareness allows me to reframe and readjust my teaching pace and style to embrace
‘in the moment teaching’.
The following are examples of how I use mindfulness in my teaching.
Mindfulness is practiced at the beginning of class, during the class and after
the class.

• Before Class: At the beginning of a class I am now consciously aware of the

feelings and thoughts that I bring to class; these thoughts and feelings, which
can be unrelated to teaching but a part of human existence, can unsettle the
mind, hinder clarity in what we do as a teacher and make teaching another
chore. Such thoughts may include preoccupation with work pressure, job dis-
 satisfaction or relationship issues with colleagues or loved ones. As a way
to anchor myself and bring equilibrium to my inner self, I practice mindful
breathing for a few moments at the beginning of the class. To do this I fo-
cus my mind on full awareness of the breath, look around at the lecture hall
or classroom with concentration, notice the size and shape of the room, the
lighting, acknowledge the seating arrangement of the students, and feel the
feet on solid ground. This simple act of engaging our senses in the present
moment is an easy and practical way to help free the mind from rumination
about past or future worries and to prepare one for the next stage – the actual
act of teaching. The process is similar to a musician tuning a musical instru-
ment before he starts the performance.
• During Class: During the actual act of teaching, I am now aware of many
possible things that can occur within the lecture that can frustrate and cause
stress (for the teacher and the students). This can help the teacher to adopt re-
sponses that directly or indirectly affect students’ ability to be effective learn-
ers. In thinking about these responses, I am struck by their similarities to the
‘flight, fight or fright’ response (although a milder version) as a physiological
response to acute stress (Stele, 1976).

If students show a lack of interest, by behaviours such as sleeping, talking and

working on their laptops, the ‘flight, fight, or fright’ response can be triggered in
the teacher. These student behaviours lead to uncomfortable feelings in the teacher
especially when noise created by some can affect other students from paying at-
tention. A response adopted by many teachers including myself is to suppress such
uncomfortable feelings and press on with the lecture; this is akin to the “flight
response.” Alternatively, one can adopt the “fight response” which is to inform
the students that such behaviour is not tolerable and expect students to then pay at-
tention. A third response is the “fright response”—this is seen in small number of
teachers who are inexperienced in large group teaching. In this situation, teachers
are overwhelmed by such student behaviour and teaching under such circumstances
becomes a struggle that causes anxiety. These 3 types of responses, whether affect-
ing the teacher singly or in combination, undermine teaching and deny students of
opportunities to be effective learners.
As a mindful teacher I now view adverse scenarios in class as an opportunity to
bring mindfulness into the act of teaching rather than a trigger for the ‘flight, fight
or fright’ response. To do this I focus on the following mindful practices:

1. Awareness: Be aware of difficult feelings and emotions that occur and develop
the ability to let go of these emotions (by applying mindfulness techniques).
2. Compassion: Bring compassion to self and students in class especially in
difficult situations. Understand that students who are sleepy, noisy and inatten-
tive may have reasons. Mindful teachers can respond by giving students kind
reminders to show respect for the teacher and others to foster an environment
conducive to learning. Send loving kindness to self and students with a few
mindful breaths to calm to oneself and serve as a reminder that teachers and
students alike are humans, never perfect though we strive to do better. When
I feel the energy levels of the class being low (such as in the first class of the
morning or after lunch), I invite my students to do some mindful stretching
exercises coupled with exercises to focus awareness.
3. Optimism: Endeavor to see difficult situations as opportunities to adopt fresh
and imaginative ways to engage students in learning using practical and novel
teaching strategies (Salter, 2011). Like a skilful musician who ensures that the
strings of instrument are regularly adjusted so that they are played neither too
tightly nor too loose, the mindful teacher adjusts the teaching style and pace
to take into consideration the dynamic forces at play in the classroom.

• After Class: Immediately after class it is helpful to reflect on the teaching

session. In addition to reflecting on how particular mindful practices helped
or how a different approach might be used in the future, it is necessary to
consider classroom facilities such as lighting or physical comfort of the room
or teaching arrangements which may have impacted on the students’ learn-
ing. Factors such as students’ schedules that include too many lectures on the
same day can affect concentration. If possible, provide feedback to adminis-
trators to improve the situation in the future.

I have been a PBL tutor for 14 years since this approach was introduced as part of
the pedagogy in the undergraduate medical curriculum of the Faculty of Medicine
at the University of Hong Kong. Under a hybrid medical curriculum, students are
exposed to a wide variety of teaching and learning formats including large group
teaching, laboratory practical sessions, community visits, bedside teaching and PBL.
Unlike the other formats of teaching and learning, the mode of learning in PBL
(Savery & Duffy, 2007) is not the dualistic model of teacher as expert and student as
novice but of the teacher as facilitator enabling students to develop as self directed
learners with critical thinking and good communication skills.
 Unlike the lecture where the onus (traditionally) is on the teacher to deliver
content and for the students to listen and make sense of the information provided,
in a PBL tutorial, the roles are reversed. Here the students are in the driver’s seat. A
case is presented in the form of a health or clinical trigger and students must analyze
the case, discuss key issues, come up with learning outcomes, search information
on their own and in a subsequent tutorial, present the material to each other and
be ready to respond to questions. The lectures and practical sessions that students
attend supplement the tutorial with information that is aligned with but not directly
related to the PBL case.
Prior to mindfulness training my role of a PBL tutor (Chan, 2008) was to go
through a checklist of what the tutor is meant to do as a facilitator. The checklist
included items for the tutor such as listening, asking questions for clarification, ob-
serving students performance on specific areas such as critical thinking and teamwork
(items also provided on the checklist). This is a difficult task and engaging students
to participate can be a challenge. Despite encouragement from the tutor, students
tend to wait for someone else to respond and often, only some of the students get
involved. The average time for a tutorial is 2 hours. How does one maintain students’
engagement and participation?
It occurred to me several years ago that I could use mindfulness exercises to
enhance student learning in PBL. First, I teach the students a simple mindful exer-
cise focusing on the breath to bring awareness to the present moment (i.e. I remind
them that they are in a PBL tutorial and that it’s time to focus on the task at hand
and try not to let their minds wander to the past or the future). Students report this
helps them to settle down, quiets strong feelings and anxiety, and helps them to
be ready for the tutorial. Once the students are focused, I need them to be mindful
that they have come to the tutorial with a lot of information from their attendance
at other classes. I do this by asking them “Can you let me know what teaching and
learning sessions took place today, yesterday, last week?” The ensuing discussion
helps them to remember the information from past classes and be ready to bring
this information to the PBL problem.
Also, as a mindful tutor, I am aware that students bring different levels of learning
potential and ability to the PBL. To find out about their immediate prior learning
experiences I ask, “What teaching or learning sessions (related to this topic) did
you enjoy most? Were some less helpful and why? What were the challenges - the
subject/topic, the teaching method, or other factors”? Students are encouraged when
I reassure them of the confidentiality of any information provided.
It is important that each student is given time to respond to the above ques-
tions. In a PBL tutorial group of 10-12 students the exercise may take half an hour;
however, it is worthwhile for 3 reasons. 1. Through the discussion students are able
to consolidate their prior learning and realize that they come to PBL with a great
deal of collective information. 2. The tutor is better able to facilitate participation
by knowing what students have found of benefit in the past. 3. On rare occasions,
when the whole group is dissatisfied with a prior class that has a particular bearing
on the PBL case, the tutor can adjust the pace of the PBL tutorial to allow more
time for students to discuss the particular issue that they did not understand from
the prior class.

The emphasis of most medical education is to understand mechanisms of disease

with the aim to cure or prolong lives through scientific discoveries and biotechnol-
ogy. Through embracing mindfulness in my teaching, I have become more aware
that the current medical curriculum has neglected a very basic tenet of medical
practice, that is to alleviate suffering and bring comfort and care for the patient at
all times. In order to redress the imbalance in the medical curriculum, it is necessary
to incorporate medical humanities, an interdisciplinary body of knowledge, reflec-
tion and inquiry, which addresses the nature of suffering and the human condition
(Hurwitz, 2003) into the medical curriculum. The last 3 years have been a very
meaningful and educational journey for me in developing a medical humanities
curriculum. The development of ideas for the new curriculum has been informed
by comments and advice from colleagues from the faculty of Medicine and the
wider university community including working closely with colleagues in Centre
for Enhancement of Teaching and Learning at the University of Hong Kong (HKU),
attending international workshops and seminars related to humanities and medicine,
and running pilot modules of medical humanities for medical students at HKU. The
result is a new medical humanities curriculum with an outcome based approach to
student learning as the educational framework. The outcomes based approach is a
framework to help ensure that learning outcomes, learning activities and assessment
practices are clearly articulated and aligned.
At the time of writing this article I am delighted that the efforts of myself and
other colleagues interested in medical humanities has resulted in the adoption of a
new 6 year medical humanities curriculum starting in September 2012. I believe
this longitudinal, mandatory medical humanities curriculum will be a first for any
medical school in Asia and given the mandatory nature, possibly the first for an
English speaking medical school in the world.
Mindfulness training, originally used as a stress reduction technique, is gaining
attention for applications to teaching and learning and curriculum development.
When students are mindful of their learning environment and learning potential,
they are more likely to engage with the task at hand and to connect new learning to
prior knowledge. The development of mindfulness in the teacher enables him/her
to be a more reflective practitioner of his craft and to be sensitive to the needs of
the student as an individual learner. A mindful teacher is a catalyst for curriculum
reform and review.

Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual

and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 125–143.
doi:10.1093/clipsy.bpg015
Beddoe, A. E. (2004). Does mindfulness decrease stress and foster empathy among
nursing students? The Journal of Nursing Education, 43, 305–312.
Candib, L. M. (2005). Medicine and the family: A feminist perspective. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Chan, L. C. (2008). The role of a PBL tutor: A personal perspective. The Kaohsiung
Journal of Medical Sciences, 24(3), S34–S38. doi:10.1016/S1607-551X(08)70092-5
Hoy, W. K. (2002). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some
theoretical, research and practical considerations. Journal of Educational Admin-
istration, 41(1), 87–108. doi:10.1108/09578230310457457
Hurwitz, B. (2003). Medicine, the arts and humanities. Clinical Medicine, 3(6),
497–498.
Hyland, T. (2009). Mindfulness and the therapeutic function of education. Journal
of Philosophy of Education, 43(1), 119–131. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00668.x
Irving, J. A., Dobkin, P. L., & Park, J. (2009). Cultivating mindfulness in health
care professionals: A review of empirical studies of mindfulness-based stress re-
duction (MBSR). Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 15(2), 61–66.
doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2009.01.002
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2009). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and
mind to face stress, pain, and Illness. New York, NY: Bantam Dell.
Krasner, M. S., Epstein, R. M., Beckman, H., Suchman, A. L., Chapman, B.,
Mooney, C. J., & Quill, T. E. (2009). Association of an educational program in
mindful communication with burnout, empathy, and attitudes among primary care
physicians. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(12), 1284–1293.
doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1384
Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational Psychologist, 28, 43–50.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2801_4
Langer, E. J. (2000). The construct of mindfulness. The Journal of Social Issues,
56, 1–9. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00148
Ludwig, D. S., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (2008). Mindfulness in medicine. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 300(11), 1350–1352. doi:10.1001/jama.300.11.1350
MacDonald, E., & Shirley, D. (2009). The mindful teacher. New York, NY: Teach-
ers College Press.
Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and education. London, UK: Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Proulx, K. (2008). Experiences of women with bulimia nervosa in a mindful-
ness-based eating disorder treatment group. Eating Disorders, 16(1), 52–72.
doi:10.1080/10640260701773496
Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). Life in the mindful classroom: nurtur-
ing the disposition of mindfulness. The Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 27–47.
doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00150
Salter, D. (2011). Practical strategies from award winning teachers. Hong Kong,
Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional
model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–37.
Schoeberelin, D., & Sheth, S. (2009). Mindful teaching and teaching mindfulness:
A guide for anyone who teaches anything. Boston, MA: Wisdom.
Shanafelt, T. D., Bradley, K. A., Wipf, J. E., & Back, A. L. (2002). Burnout and
self-reported patient care in an internal medicine residency program. Annals of
Internal Medicine, 136(5), 358–367.
Shapiro, S., Astin, J., Bishop, S. R., & Cordova, M. (2005). Mindfulness-based
stress reduction for health care professionals: Results from a randomized trials.
International Journal of Stress Management, 12(2), 164–176. doi:10.1037/1072-
5245.12.2.164
Shapiro, S. L., Schwartz, G. E., & Bonner, G. (1998). Effects of mindfulness-based
stress reduction on medical and premedical students. Journal of Behavioral Medi-
cine, 21(6), 581–599. doi:10.1023/A:1018700829825
Speca, M., Carlson, L. E., Goodey, E., & Angen, M. (2000). A randomized, wait-list
controlled clinical trial: the effect of a mindfulness meditation-based stress reduction
program on mood and symptoms of stress in cancer outpatients. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 62(5), 613–622.
Stele, H. (1976). Stress in health and disease. Reading, MA: Butterworths.
 Gregor Campbell
University College London, UK

A shift from pure neuroscience research to research into innovative approaches to

teaching and learning has afforded an opportunity to consider ways to develop and
integrate technology to improve student learning. Using the authors’ teaching of
histology at University College London (UCL), they describe how student learn-
ing and engagement in the subject has been advanced through the integration of
a Web-based platform for students to view microscope slides. The opportunity to
explore these innovations has been facilitated by a recent increase in recognition
of teaching at UCL and the consequent expansion of the teaching grant program to
explore new technological solutions for learning. In addition, there is now increased
incentive to consider new approaches to teaching as a provision has been made
for staff promotions to be given primarily on teaching prowess, as opposed to the
historical research focus only.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch009

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
After many years at University College London (UCL) carrying out laboratory
neuroscience research with only a minor teaching role, I began to develop a greater
interest in teaching. In 2006 I gave up bench research, briefly became part-time
and moved to a teaching role. I now teach histology (microscopic anatomy) and
neuroanatomy (structure of the nervous system) to science and medical students
and am involved in many different aspects of the curriculum.
I was fortunate to have had a supportive research supervisor who allowed, and
in fact encouraged, me to become involved with teaching. Initially, this was as a
demonstrator for neuroanatomy practical classes for science and medical students
and then as a tutor. I later received more encouragement and opportunity to teach
from my Head of Department and this led to my demonstrating histology practicals
for medical students. Later, and after the departure of one of the course organizers,
I was offered the chance to take over his lecturing and presentation of histology
practicals. I began to enjoy teaching in this way and tested this idea further by taking
on some part-time teaching outside UCL. Here I taught neuroscience in the UK to
students from the USA who were due to sit their medical degree (USMLE) exams.
The reception I received from these students and their keenness to learn convinced
me to dedicate my time to teaching at the tertiary level.
During my teaching over the years I found that undergraduates benefited from
my research background and interests in two ways: they got a taste of the scientific
endeavour necessary in creating new knowledge, and they benefited from the in-
novations I have made in the teaching arena that have been discovered as a result
of my knowledge of the scientific research process. One such innovation involved a
highly interactive web-based collection of digital microscope slides for the teaching
of biological tissues. I introduced this to the teaching of histology at UCL for all
medical and science students because I felt that the students were beginning to find
this subject rather stale. Because of a tripling of student numbers (due to the merger
of three large London medical schools) the histology practical classes that used
traditional microscopes and glass slides became a thing of the past. This traditional
method of teaching was useful for teaching students how to use a microscope but
was of limited value when attempting to teach them about the subject of histology.
The microscopes were often of poor or variable quality as were the glass microscope
slides. This meant some students had an advantage when they had a good microscope
and good quality slides compared with those that had a poor quality microscope and/
or slides. This problem of variable quality of images viewed by each student plus
the large increase in student numbers led us to adopt a digital solution that became
an interim computer program for the teaching of histology. This provided students
with large and clear images of tissue sections on computer monitors. However, this
program had limited interactivity; it allowed the students to ‘zoom in’ on specific
regions of a digital slide but little else. I therefore introduced, to all teaching classes
of histology at UCL, a totally new and radical way of viewing and interacting with
the digital images of microscope slides. The program is described in detail in the
section on Teaching and Learning Research but briefly it allowed students to view
and magnify, and sometimes ‘focus’, any part of any digital slide in our collection
at high resolution. This generated exceptional student and staff feedback and played
a large part in my receiving a number of teaching awards and promotion.

My initial background was as a researcher and this research has inspired how I teach
by considering what students have to learn, what they need to do to learn the material
and how I can provide support to this learning. Since graduating I have spent almost
30 years researching various aspects of neuroscience at a number of universities. I
initially specialized in the structure of the brain (neuroanatomy) at the level of the
light and electron microscope (Campbell and Lieberman, 1985), before moving on
to study the development of connections between nerve cells (Campbell and Shatz,
1992). Finally, I studied the repair and regeneration of nerve cells in the mammalian
brain (Campbell et al., 1999, 2005). Being in the neuroscience community for this
length of time meant I engaged with many fellow researchers and gained a broad
interest in many aspects of nerve cell biology. This total immersion in the subject
for so long stood me in good stead when I began to teach neuroscience. In addition,
the years of research training and activity enabled me to effectively research areas
outside my initial interests of neuroscience. Therefore, when teaching, I was able to
utilize the research literature in diverse subjects including epidemiology, histology
and optometry. This had obvious benefits to the students: they found the lectures
and practicals stimulating because I was able to introduce them to many exciting
and recent developments in the subjects they were studying, and also helped them
realize both the need to learn the basic background but to temper text-based mate-
rial with up-to-date research within scientific journals. For the first and second year
students, the introduction of such research into their courses provided a context in
which to learn about the science. While in the first and second year of study students
are not generally assessed on their knowledge of this kind of cutting edge, up-to-date
research, whereas in their final, 3rd year they are expected to understand in depth the
issues of current research and are therefore tested on this material. By introducing
the research early on in their academic studies, the students see the relevance of the
material and can more easily connect it to their learning throughout the program.
I have been teaching in universities since 1978. This initially took the form of practi-
cal class demonstrations in human neuroanatomy at UCL for science and medical
students. Being based in a research laboratory with a mixture of undergraduates and
postgraduates working alongside me, I would teach them the rudiments of neurosci-
ence research and its methodology and its techniques. In this way, they were able
to ‘learn about research’ by ‘doing research’, rather than just being told how to do
research. When postdoctoral fellows and visiting researchers appeared in the lab I
would teach them the more specific techniques that we carried out. They all benefited
from my day-to-day supervision of their projects, learning both bench work tech-
niques and ways of working, together with how to access and analyze the immense
scientific literature and to write coherently about it and about their own research.
More recently, I have taken to teaching and running a number of courses for our
large number of science and medical students. This involves lecturing and presenting
practical classes in neuroanatomy, histology, and general anatomy to approximately
150 science students and 350 medical students at a range of levels from 1st year to
3rd year. These large groups of different student types require a different form of
teaching and a very different way of my organizing the classes. For example, even
though a large number of science and medical students simply want to know which
facts to learn in order to pass their exams, there are generally more science students
than medical students who become really interested in the experiments and their
findings. Science students more often than not enjoy the actual science and want to
know further aspects to it even if they are unlikely to be examined on them. Another
difference is in the size of groups being taught. A lecture to a group of 30 third
year students can become more like a seminar or tutorial with lots of interaction
between myself and them and also between themselves, whereas a lecture to a group
of 120 – 350 students becomes just that, a lecture. I do however, attempt to make
my lectures to large groups as interactive as possible but, possibly due to intimida-
tion, few students tend to participate in such large groups. Further differences are
apparent between first year students and second or third year students. Here I tend
to treat first year students as coming straight from school with little training in the
subjects that I’m teaching. I therefore am always mindful to give these students just
the basic facts and the simplest explanations so they can more readily absorb the
new material. At this stage they probably also get a little of the exciting background
to the science they are learning without the detail. This may take the form of the
kind of science journalism that appears in the national press rather than in learned
scientific publications which I would reserve discussing briefly with second year
science students but more fully with the third years.
 As a part-time teacher, I enjoyed the experience of teaching a number of different
subjects such as epidemiology and optometry in addition to histology and neurosci-
ence to a range of types of student in UK universities other than UCL. Once again
I adapted my teaching to the specific group type - science students or career-path
students, group size and year group.
In all teaching I try and incorporate some exciting and recent research into the
program, particularly for the final year science students. In their third year, these
students are learning mainly from scientific journal literature rather than from text-
books. This keeps them up-to-date and knowledgeable of the scientific method and
endeavour that goes into discovery. They begin to realize the importance of good
evidence and the difference between this and poor evidence and opinion. I believe all
my students should know about how science is accomplished and how it progresses
and they can only do this by being guided as to which science is good—has been
carefully carried out, and results analyzed correctly, and which science is of poorer
quality—has been poorly planned, carried out and the results misinterpreted. They
learn that opinion may have little to do with evidence.
Most of my teaching involves students learning a very large number of facts.
However, facts in isolation are not meaningful to students and so by utilizing the
latest in teaching and learning innovation that makes use of state of the art computer
technology I believe that I have made it considerably easier and more entertaining
for them to learn this bulk of material. For example, the medical students need
to know about the structure and function of the human body and this means that
they are required to learn the structures that make up the body at many different
levels—with the naked eye, the hand lens, the microscope and at the subcellular
level with the electron microscope. They also must learn what the tissues and cells
they come across actually do in the body, their function. I will describe in detail the
technological aspects of this innovation in the next section.

By going off on a tangent from lab-based research to concentrate my activities on

teaching and learning, I have developed the skills I learnt and used for research in
the teaching and learning sphere. In this different form of venture, that I had not
been used to, I found myself naturally curious of the existing ways of teaching my
subject areas and the ways they could be improved. This was a slightly different
form of discovery from those few ‘Eureka’ microscope moments at the bench, but
nevertheless they generated discovery of new and interesting ways in which to teach
my subject. I discovered that virtual microscopy, where images of tissue sections
were viewed on a computer screen rather than on a light microscope from glass
microscope slides, had recently taken off in a big way (Harris et al., 2001; Heidger et
al., 2002; Kumar et al., 2004, 2006; Krippendorf et al., 2005; Scoville et al., 2007).
These authors had successfully adapted large teaching classes of primarily medical
students to learning the subject of histology from microscopes to virtual microscopy.
They found that the students not only thought highly of the innovation but that their
learning of the subject had improved as shown in assessments. I therefore seized
the opportunity to put this type of virtual microscopy teaching into practice at UCL
and it turned out very timely, as I shall describe.
I first concentrated on the subject of histology as this is what I taught most to the
largest number of students. Fifteen or so years ago when class sizes were smaller
(about 100) we were easily able to teach histology using microscopes. Every student
would be allotted their own microscope and set of slides for use in the practical
classes. As already noted there were often problems with the variable quality of
both microscopes and glass microscope slides in some classes. Some students would
be given a microscope that had not been cared for well since the previous practical
class, so it would require considerable cleaning in order to be able to use it effectively
to view slides at high magnification. Other students may have a microscope slide
that was cracked or displayed a tissue that had become faded with time, had folds
in it, or had hairs or fingerprints or dirt embedded in it, making viewing specific
areas difficult. We wanted to avoid such problems of variable quality of material
for student viewing in the future.
In the year 2000, class sizes tripled and because microscopes were expensive
and microscope slides were no longer being produced by our histology technicians,
we therefore changed to a method of displaying microscope images on computer
screens. This was an html-based program simply called UCL Histology Website
for the teaching of all our histology on web-based computers that could also be run
from a CD and was produced ‘in house’ by Drs Charles Hoyle and Tim Arnett. This
had certain advantages: it allowed all students to view the same specimen at the
same high quality thus avoiding the problems of quality variability; it enabled the
students to click on certain boxes on the digital slide images and view the region at
an increased magnification. We could also group students in pairs at each computer
and this meant greater collaboration and discussion over the class material, and as
others have found this usually leads to an increase in interest and knowledge of the
subject (Triola and Holloway, 2011). In the past the classroom learning of histology
had become a very solitary affair with one student looking down his or her own
microscope and only occasionally sharing information.
However, eventually the UCL Histology Website became rather outmoded as
it was not very interactive. What was called for was something with considerably
more interactivity that would engage the students further. I had been familiar with
the marvelous geographical program ‘Google Earth’ for some time but had not
realized, until I searched the teaching and learning literature that very similar types
of program were available for the viewing and exploration of biological tissue. A
number of products on the market were readily available as demonstrations on the
internet, but my research of this field revealed that most of these generated rather
poor quality images. Departmental colleagues alerted me to a most superb program
that appeared to do everything I wanted, and furthermore, it did it to a very high
standard. I immediately arranged a demonstration webinar with the company pro-
ducing it, SlidePath Ltd of Dublin, Ireland—and was bowled over by the quality of
the microscope images and in their high resolution. With this company’s software,
Digital Slide Server, I was able to view any region of any thin slice of tissue at a
magnification that varied from the very lowest, where a long slice of several mil-
limetres would fill the computer screen (Figure 1), up to many scores (Figure 2) and

Figure 1. Low magnification light micrograph of a thin slice of spinal cord stained
for Nissl substance. This is a ‘screengrab’ from the UCL SlideSurfer program that
students use to learn histology. This is how students first see this tissue when using
UCL SlideSurfer. They are then able to ‘move around’ and ‘zoom in,’ for example,
on the small dark purple ‘dots’ that are neuronal cell bodies (nerve cells), seen
considerably better at higher magnification in Figures 2 and 3. Scale: in reality the
left to right width of this section is 5.2mm; top to bottom length is 6.8mm.
Figure 2. Medium magnification light micrograph of a thin slice of one half of the
spinal cord stained for Nissl substance. This ‘screengrab’ simulates a student’s view
once they have moved this region of the section as seen in Figure 1 into the centre
of their computer and then ‘zoomed’ into it. The neuronal cell bodies are now seen
to be considerably larger than in Figure 1. Scale: width of section = 5.2mm.

hundreds of times magnified so as to demonstrate individual cells and their nuclei

(Figure 3) which are fractions of a millimetre in diameter (the average cell diameter
is approximately 10µm, which equals one hundreth of a millimetre).
I quickly realized that this was the program that would instantly revolutionize
the learning experience of my histology students. I then applied to UCL for teach-
ing grants and was successful and so able to purchase the necessary hardware and
software to run this program. I introduced it as UCL SlideSurfer (Campbell et al.,
2010) in the 2007/8 session and it was a big hit with students immediately. I could
tell this just by observing them in class to see that they began to explore the im-
ages with renewed enthusiasm. Most of all, they found it a thoroughly enjoyable
experience and fun and were glad to be working together in pairs. The beauty of
the program was that they could work on it at their own pace both in the practical
classes and at home or anywhere they had internet access. As the subject is heavily
image based, the majority of histology teaching is carried out in practical classes
with relatively few lectures.
Students used the program in the practical classes in a step-by-step manner to
learn each subject area of histology.
I recently obtained an additional teaching grant allowing me to develop Slide-
Surfer further. I am now able to write textual narratives with active links within
them to digital slides, annotations, additional images and multimedia. Students now
have their own customized access to the website where they are able to add their
Figure 3. High magnification light micrograph of a thin slice of a small region of
the spinal cord stained for Nissl substance. This ‘screengrab’ simulates a student’s
view once they have moved this region of the section as seen in Figure 2 into the
centre of their computer and then ‘zoomed’ into it. The major components of ap-
proximately 12 nerve cells are clearly seen: within each large dark purple structure
there are ‘flecks’ of purple Nissl substance, a clear white circular nucleus and
within the centre of this a small black circular nucleolus. Scale: width of this part
of the section = 0.8mm.

own annotations and make measurements of structures. This has therefore become
a much more personalized teaching tool for each student and is likely to lead to
their greater use of the program. Students can now work slowly and systematically
through text that is both on screen and in their practical notebooks and click on
relevant links in the screen text (Narrative) to be taken to the correct slide or feature
within each slide (Figure 4).
The text would initially ‘set the scene’ and describe the key features of a tissue
section. Students were then asked to find certain structures on the digital slides
themselves. I also posed questions in the text that kept them thinking keenly about
the subject. Once again like the UCL Histology Website the UCL SlideSurfer en-
abled every student to view the very same high quality image of all the digital slides.
In addition to the Narrative text, I had added annotations to the program so was able
to lead them to features of interest that they were required to learn (Figure 5).
At course end, the student feedback was exceptional. Here are some examples:
“I particularly like the software that is used within these practicals and I found
“slidesurfer” a very useful tool in helping me to cover all of the objectives”; “Re-
ally enjoyed using slide surfer and particularly the fact that we can access all the
histology information from outside the labs”; “Enjoyed the interactivity, maybe we
could do more of that?” In addition, staff and postgraduate demonstrators loved the
program and found it easy to adapt to and a treat to use. Students can use the program
Figure 4. Shows the text box students see when working through the narrative of
a typical histology practical. They can click on the blue (underlined) links and be
taken to either the correct digital slide (e.g. 1. cell bodies: Nissl stain) or to the ap-
propriate region or structure within the tissue (e.g. dorsal roots). The correct slide
in this case is that shown, which is similar to that shown in Figure 1, but shows the
pertinent regions and structures boxed or arrowed.

via a password on any internet connected computer in class or at home. They es-
sentially have a collection of our best 100 microscope slides with a high quality
‘virtual microscope’.
Unfortunately, because our medical students are tested on their knowledge of
histology throughout a large number of their exams, it is difficult to determine quite
how successful this software package has been to their learning of this subject. I see
no easy way of assessing this. However, I can say that in days gone by, the subject
of histology, together with embryology and epidemiology, were some of the most
difficult to teach in such a way as to fully engage students’ interest. In terms of his-
tology teaching this has now changed considerably at UCL and most students now
thoroughly enjoy the subject, learn it well and can become enthused by it.
I have no doubt that the introduction of the UCL SlideSurfer interactive histology
program played a large part in my receiving various teaching awards from UCL:
Provost’s Teaching Award in 2008, this is given to about 12 staff from the entire
college, per year; Excellence in Medical Education Award in 2009, given to 10 – 15
members of staff who teach medical students in any of the years 1-6; Top Teacher
Figure 5. This is a list of annotations that students can see when working through a
typical histology practical. Each annotation contains a title and a description and
these act as active links that take students to the appropriate region or structure
within the tissue. The annotations are also often linked to via the narrative in ad-
dition to this route.

Award in 2010 and 2011, this reflects medical students’ views of their teachers.
These in turn have undoubtedly helped my promotion to Principal Teaching Fellow
in October 2010. My teaching innovations most likely also helped me to become a
Fellow of the Higher Education Academy in the UK in 2011.
In addition to this teaching innovation, I have continued to keep abreast of the
latest developments in e-Learning and other aspects of using the latest advances in
Information & Communication Technology to increase the student learning experi-
ence. This has been particularly relevant for integrating pathology into histology
teaching. A number of authors had recently discovered great advantages of virtual
microscopy compared with traditional microscopy for the teaching of histopathology
(the study of diseased tissue at the microscopic level, as apposed to histology which
is the study of normal tissue at the microscope level). This has been found to be
the case for both basic science students (Husman et al., 2009) and medical students
(Dee 2009; Paulsen et al., 2010; Triola et al., 2011). The most recent breakthrough
has been the introduction of the computer tablet that has been very successfully
used for this form of teaching (Hamilton et al., 2012).
Through the UK Higher Education Academy, I have networked widely at teach-
ing and learning conferences with others in the field of teaching innovation and
discovered additional ways in which to enrich the learning experience. In addition,
UCL’s own teaching and learning departments have enabled me to keep up-to-date
with the latest developments in teaching research, some of which could be useful
to encourage my students to learn.

Historically, teaching has not been considered as ‘worthy of recognition’, or as im-

portant as research in research intensive universities. Even as recently as 2010 this
appeared to be the case at most institutions of higher education (mostly universities)
in the UK as laid out in their comprehensive review of the subject (The Academy of
Medical Sciences, 2010). As a principal teaching fellow at UCL, I am one of about
a dozen of us with this job title. Although our job equates with the senior lecturer/
reader level of academic achievement, we do not always receive the kind of recogni-
tion and treatment those on such research academic grades have. For example, it is
easier for management to dismiss us from a post, and we usually appear at the very
bottom of any list of academic staff within our departments and divisions. This is
not good for the morale of teaching staff. However, the fact that this position exists,
in addition to senior teaching fellow and teaching fellow positions, shows how far
our university has come in giving teaching staff some recognition. Teaching fellow
posts have only been in existence at UCL for about 8 years. Before this there were a
few College teachers that were equivalent to teaching fellows but there was no high
grade teaching posts such as senior or principal teaching fellows. Consequently, few
staff know of them or have any idea of what their holders’ status is or what their
job entails. At least now UCL has begun to recognize outstanding teaching that is
independent from research. We now have a senior academic promotion exercise
that can be based largely on a person’s teaching ability. This has led to promotions
within the teaching fellow grades and to promotions to professorships of existing
senior lecturers and readers who have given up research to teach. It is now possible
to become a full professor on the basis of teaching ability and teaching innovation/
enhancement. In addition, since 2007 the college has offered prestigious awards for
outstanding teachers—the Provost’s Teaching Award that is offered to 10-12 people
per year. The tide has now turned whereby dedicated teachers are recognized by senior
management and are therefore retained to some degree at least. This can only be a
good thing for both staff morale and for the student experience. Of course, there are
many fine teachers amongst those who also have considerable research programs.
Similarly, many teaching fellows, including myself do carry out some research.
A further note on how teaching is perceived can be seen in the workload allocation
exercise that is carried out from time to time in our division and is a requirement of
each member of academic staff to complete. This is essentially a spreadsheet of hours
worked for each lecture/practical/tutorial and number of students taking a course or
completing exams, in addition to numbers of research staff, etc. It forms the basis
on how staff are judged in terms of their workload and can be particularly used by
management when finances are constrained. What it does not address effectively is
the amount of work necessary for teaching duties outside of student contact time;
organizing courses, assessing the curriculum, organizational and leadership duties.

The MBBS curriculum at UCL is changing. Clinical issues are becoming more and
more integrated into all areas taught. There is therefore, a need for all our medical
students, throughout all 5 years, to have instruction in normal tissue microanatomy
(histology) so as to compare it with diseased tissue micro-anatomy (histopathol-
ogy). Pathological tissue can easily be added to SlideSurfer both in the form of fully
interactive digital slides (of which there are some already) and of photographs of
whole large specimens.
Our teaching to science students is also changing, so this program can be utilized
with an increasing number of courses.
There is tremendous scope then for UCL SlideSurfer to expand into other areas
of the medical curriculum such as pathology, anatomy, and neuroanatomy, and into
further science courses, to the great benefit of our students.

Academy of Medical Sciences. (2010). Redressing the balance: The status and
valuation of teaching in academic careers in the biomedical sciences. The Academy
of Medical Sciences. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/
p99puid181.html
Campbell, G., Demetriou, L. A., & Arnett, T. R. (2010). Virtual histology in the
classroom and beyond. Medical Education, 44, 1117–1147. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2923.2010.03828.x
Campbell, G., Holt, J. K. L., Shotton, H. R., Anderson, P. N., Bavetta, S., & Lieber-
man, A. R. (1999). Spontaneous axonal regeneration after optic nerve injury in the
adult rat. Neuroreport, 10, 3955–3960. doi:10.1097/00001756-199912160-00042
Campbell, G., Hutchins, K., Winterbottom, J., & Grenningloh, G., A. R., & An-
derson, P. N. (2005). Upregulation of activating transcription factor 3 (ATF3) by
intrinsic CNS neurons regenerating axons into peripheral nerve grafts. Experimental
Neurology, 192, 340–347. doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2004.11.026
Campbell, G., & Lieberman, A. R. (1985). The olivary pretectal nucleus: Experimen-
tal anatomical studies in the rat. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 310, 573–609. doi:10.1098/rstb.1985.0132
Campbell, G., & Shatz, C. J. (1992). Synapses formed by identified retinogenicu-
late axons during the segregation of eye input. The Journal of Neuroscience, 12,
1847–1858.
Dee, F. R. (2009). Virtual microscopy in pathology education. Human Pathology,
40, 1112–1121. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2009.04.010
Hamilton, P. W., Wang, Y., & McCullough, S. J. (2012). Virtual microscopy and
digital pathology in training and education. Acta Pathologica, Microbiologica et
Immunologica Scandinavica, 120, 305–315. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0463.2011.02869.x
Harris, T., Leaven, T., Heidger, P., Kreiter, C., Duncan, J., & Dick, F. (2001).
Comparison of a virtual microscope laboratory to a regular microscope labora-
tory for teaching histology. [New Anatomy]. The Anatomical Record, 265, 10–14.
doi:10.1002/ar.1036
Heidger, P. M., Dee, F., Consoer, D., Leaven, T., Duncan, J., & Kreiter, C. (2002).
Integrated approach to teaching and testing in histology with real and virtual imag-
ing. [New Anatomy]. The Anatomical Record, 269, 107–112. doi:10.1002/ar.10078
Husman, P. R., O’Loughlin, V. D., & Braun, M. W. (2009). Quantitative and quali-
tative changes in teaching histology by means of virtual microscopy in an intro-
ductory course in human anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 2, 218–226.
doi:10.1002/ase.105
Krippendorf, B. B., & Lough, J. (2005). Complete and rapid switch from light mi-
croscopy to virtual microscopy for teaching medical histology. [New Anatomy].
The Anatomical Record, 285B, 19–25. doi:10.1002/ar.b.20066
Kumar, R. K., Freeman, B., Velan, G. M., & De Permentier, P. (2006). Integrat-
ing histology and histopathology teaching in practical classes using virtual slides.
[New Anatomy]. The Anatomical Record, 289B, 128–133. doi:10.1002/ar.b.20105
Kumar, R. K., Velan, G. M., Korell, S. O., Kandara, M., Dee, F. R., & Wakefield, D.
(2004). Virtual microscopy for learning and assessment in pathology. The Journal
of Pathology, 204, 613–618. doi:10.1002/path.1658
Paulsen, F. P., Eichhorn, M., & Bräuer, L. (2010). Virtual microscopy – The future
of teaching histology in the medical curriculum? Annals of Anatomy, 192, 378–382.
doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2010.09.008
Scoville, S. A., & Buskirk, T. D. (2007). Traditional and virtual microscopy com-
pared experimentally in a classroom setting. Clinical Anatomy (New York, N.Y.),
20, 565–570. doi:10.1002/ca.20440
Triola, M. M., & Holloway, W. J. (2011). Enhanced virtual microscopy for collab-
orative education. BioMed Central (BMC). Medical Education, 11, 4.
 Tanya Chichekian
McGill University, Canada

Olivia (Liv) Hua

McGill University, Canada

Bruce M. Shore
McGill University, Canada

Research-based or scholarship-based teaching is better teaching because it leads

to better learning and sustained motivation. Creating a mutually supportive link
between teaching and research comprises the teaching-research nexus. In this chap-
ter, the authors address the teaching-research nexus in undergraduate education by
presenting a range of initiatives for inquiry-based instructional improvement through
activities that require integrated, individual, and collaborative efforts in and across
disciplines. The authors present theoretical and practical arguments of the theory
of social constructivism in support of a professor’s own scholarship and teaching.
They also highlight the importance of changing the nature of undergraduate

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch010

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
teaching by offering examples of how undergraduate instructors can foster inquiry-
based learning in their teaching as well as ways of facilitating these approaches to
teaching. To be able to connect research and teaching in students’ minds, instruc-
tors must strengthen within undergraduate students some of the knowledge, skills,
and dispositions that enable the development and maintenance of inquiring minds.

This case occurs at McGill University, a highly ranked medical-doctoral university

that explicitly describes itself as research-intensive. The university offers some 300
different academic programs. About 9000 of its 37,500 enrollment are graduate
students, almost 2000 studying for doctorates. The undergraduate students have
the highest academic standing of all entering classes in Canada. This wealth of
research opportunities is recognized as a major resource with potential to enhance
the undergraduate learning experience, but progress toward making this connection
is proceeding slowly. Large lecture halls are still the most common undergraduate
learning setting, and even the greatly increased availability of internet-equipped
spaces does not necessarily change the way undergraduates are taught. At the same
time, McGill was the first in Canada to create an instructional-improvement service;
this unit is well aware of the need to change the ways learning and teaching occur
in the university. The impact is gradual but continuing. The case described in this
chapter is based primarily on one of the examples McGill’s Teaching and Learn-
ing Service has posted with its internet resources, plus one excerpt from a second
example. Although teaching can be linked to research in any setting and in any
discipline, the potential is especially great to have an impact upon large numbers of
outstanding undergraduate students through this connection. However, this link does
not ignite spontaneously. This chapter is about some of the ways to light the flame.

The four main goals of this chapter are to:

1. Present some of the theoretical and practical arguments for the importance of
changing the nature of undergraduate teaching in the direction of inquiry, the
most important of which is our contention that taking this approach adds to the
quality of education by bringing the instructor’s own scholarship or research
and teaching closer together in what is called the teaching-research nexus.
2. Describe the general theory, social constructivism, that underlies inquiry instruc-
tion and enables research and teaching to be uttered in the same breath rather
than regarded as separate or even competing parts of a university instructor’s
professional life.
3. Share the main elements of one instructors’ undergraduate teaching philosophy
that facilitates an inquiry-based approach to teaching.
4. Offer examples of practical advice of how undergraduate instructors can fos-
ter inquiry-based learning in their teaching (the case examples are meant to
be relatively easy to implement, and suitable across a number of disciplines;
although they originated in a social sciences context, extensions to other dis-
ciplines will also be made explicit).

Undergraduate teaching is about to be pushed, rather hard and sooner than many
expect, away from centuries-old practices such as carefully prepared didactic
lectures (necessary in eras when books were rare and expensive), toward more
student-centered and active approaches. This pressure will come because of chang-
ing expectations from students about what their learning experiences should be.
Matriculants, especially from schools in Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand, will increasingly be graduates from elementary and secondary schools
that have already changed the way students learn. Some postsecondary institutions
have already started to send teams of observers to schools that use such approaches
in order to prepare themselves and their pedagogical practices for this new reality.
Many undergraduates continue to come from places where traditional pedagogy
still rules, but we increasingly live in a knowledge-producing society--not just a
knowledge accumulating society. Undergraduate education needs to ensure that
learners do more than acquire the knowledge we have, but also become comfortable
contributors to this process and replicate the process in their own lives.
This chapter is inspired by the challenge of creating and sustaining a spirit of
inquiry in undergraduate students to provide and reinforce the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions that enable them to develop and sustain inquiring minds with a goal of
them becoming inquirers. By the term inquirer, we mean “A person - student, teacher,
or any other person - who values inquiry as a way to learn, is engaged in acquiring
competences of inquiry and the ability to communicate these, and who completes
one or more inquiry projects; an inquirer has knowledge, skills, dispositions, and
experience that support inquiry” (Chichekian, Savard, & Shore, 2011, p. 103). Among
other qualities that will unfold throughout the chapter, we are referring to students
• Who take responsibility for setting at least some of their own learning goals
and part of the evaluation of their progress toward these goals.
• Whose interests guide their learning within and beyond that set out in the
curriculum.
• Who learn through dialog and interaction with other learners in a process of
mutual exchange.

(for an extended list of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of inquiring stu-
dents, see Shore, Birlean, Walker, Ritchie, LaBanca, & Aulls, 2009).
Such inquiring learners might be called scholarly students in the sense that they
relish the positive values of scholarship such as the independent pursuit of ideas, the
willing exposure of their ideas to the helpful scrutiny of their peers, and the sharing
of their conclusions with others as they move on to a new level of investigation of
inquiry. Such learners are experiencing the teaching-research nexus.
Traditional lecture-based units of study (called courses or subjects, for example,
in different parts of the world) communicate a more limited set of primary, often
implicit objectives, namely, that the student learns what the instructor knows about
the topic of the course, or what the instructor considers important or fundamental in
the domain. This learning may be about facts (declarative knowledge) or about how
to work with information (procedural knowledge). The instructor is the arbiter of
what is important or salient. In most classes there is typically one-sided teacher-talk
rather than student-student and student-teacher interaction. Dialog is often limited to
students’ requests for clarification (when the classrooms are small enough) or students
responding to questions or solving problems set or selected by the instructor, often
from a textbook. When stated, goals are usually clear about the content that is to be
emphasized and this likely resembles the topical headings in a textbook. Although
there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such information acquisition, the problem
is that these goals alone are insufficient (rather than unnecessary). Educational
theorist and psychologist Jerome Bruner (1960, 1966) articulated the insufficiency
a half-century ago in the context of elementary and secondary education:

To instruct someone . . . is not a matter of getting him to commit results to mind.

Rather, it is to teach him to participate in the process that makes possible the es-
tablishment of knowledge. We teach a subject not to produce little living libraries
on that subject, but rather to get a student to think mathematically for himself, to
consider matters as an historian does, to take part in the process of knowledge-
getting. Knowing is a process not a product (1966, p. 72).
 Undergraduate students have typically received limited opportunities to experi-
ence how the knowledge was created and organized, or to themselves engage in that
highly energizing process (Boyer Commission, 1998). Expectations by both learners
and teachers about undergraduate instruction too frequently limit the student role in
the classroom to passive participation, such as staying awake, taking (or download-
ing) good notes, and repeating back information with high accuracy and a degree of
literacy. The expectation of passivity is starting to lift, but it may still be found in
the majority of undergraduate classroom environments (Chichekian, Hua, & Shore,
2012). College lectures and textbooks describe classic experiments, archival finds,
and creative works on which the current canon is built in each subject, but important
elements are missing, for example, that many keystone discoveries have been the
result of passionate pursuit of personal interest over time. How can undergraduates
engage in the other universal quality of inquiry--a diversification and expansion
of student and teacher roles into those of the other? How can and why should a
facsimile of this process be made a core experience in undergraduate education?
“Why” is easy to answer: There are important goals beyond being able to repeat
back on command content that the instructor has delivered (such as in an examina-
tion). Here are some examples that our research team (see Shore et al., 2009) and
others have proposed: Students are expected to learn to

• Recognize their own interests and strengths in the subject and use these to
help guide curricular decisions.
• Ask relevant and nontrivial questions, for themselves and an appropriate
audience.
• Propose explanations for and build understanding of phenomena based on
empirical evidence, and be able to defend the quality of the evidence cited.
• Be comfortable with the existence of multiple approaches to solve the same
problem.
• Look for patterns and links across knowledge.

Knowledge producers, such as doctoral-level university instructors and students,

pursue these goals and also acquire canonical knowledge in their scholarly activities.
These and related objectives distinguish the knowledge producer, that is the inquirer,
researcher, or scholar, from the knowledge consumer. For example, although evidence
valued by a sociologist is different from evidence for a nuclear chemist; both need
to define what kinds of evidence will contribute to the generation of valuable new
knowledge, to value their own judgment in creating this knowledge, and to respect
the input from others in challenging it. These inquiry-based goals (see Aulls & Shore,
2008; Shore, Aulls, & Delcourt, 2008) complement rather than replace knowledge
of the subject matter; however, achieving these goals requires an important change
in teaching methodology for undergraduate learners.
The “how” (or teaching) part is admittedly more challenging, but it is not out-
of-reach. In this chapter we provide case-based examples of specific pedagogical
approaches to achieve inquiry- or research-based goals in undergraduate teaching,
and we place them in the broader context of educating inquiring students in any
setting, students who will have the dispositions and skills as well as core knowledge
base of experts in and contributors to a discipline. Therein lies the heart of the
teaching-research nexus described in the next section.

The teaching-research nexus refers to the positive and symbiotic ways in which
teaching and research can support, enhance, promote, and jointly expand the prac-
tice of both through the integration of teaching and research as components of un-
dergraduate education. There is an unprecedented need and opportunity to nurture
and enhance the teaching-research nexus in undergraduate education, for numerous
reasons. For example, employers pressure universities to produce graduates who have
marketable skills in a knowledge-producing world. Limiting our impact to filling
students’ heads with knowledge renders their knowledge almost instantly obsolete
and does not equip them with abilities to create new understandings in the context
of the several jobs graduates are likely to have over a career. Students need to learn
chemical knowledge, for example, but they especially need to know how chemical
knowledge is created and applied in evidence-supported ways. Topics from any
discipline can be substituted here. There are increasing pressures to demonstrate the
effectiveness of learning, and too many of these demands frame their standards in
terms of the accumulation of knowledge alone; international comparisons of school
achievement, for example, increasingly test students’ ability to apply and adapt their
knowledge in original situations and to build upon their knowledge. Canada has been
slipping a few ranks in these comparisons (from about 4th to 8th in the first decade
of the 21st century) and the US is in the teens among some 50 countries compared
(OECD, 2011c). Understanding the nature of knowledge, including multi-disciplinary
knowledge, and knowledge retrieval is increasingly important, but it is difficult if not
impossible to be an expert with all the answers about an entire subject, especially
when students can easily look up the answers (and probably do) on the internet.
In order for students to truly succeed in a knowledge-based world they must have
a grasp of not only the facts but of how knowledge is created in the 21st century.
 The real world also values collaboration. The image of a solitary student pour-
ing over books is not sufficient. Students need to learn about how to create new
understandings while working with others who bring complementary expertise to
the table. These abilities are not acquired by watching a lecturer provide a consoli-
dated summary of knowledge in its final state. Research findings appear orderly
and linear when read in journals, but knowledge creation itself is a messy, iterative,
sketch-and-test (Cohen, 2008) process that is also common to all kinds of creative
endeavors. Bringing the world of research into close contact with undergraduate
teaching facilitates accomplishment of these kinds of student outcomes, such as
the acquisition of learning process skills, sustained interest in the subject matter,
autonomy and responsibility as a learner, collaborative abilities, and the exchange
and diversification of learning and teaching roles (Saunders-Stewart, Gyles, Shore,
& Bracewell, 2012).

The teaching-research nexus receives support from several important educational

theories. One of these is the idea of cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown, &
Holum, 1991). Similar to the way a plumber learns plumbing skills by spending time
at the master plumber’s side, and gradually taking on expanded but closely supervised
independent responsibility, cognitive apprenticeship refers to learning to think like
the person one is studying with. Cognitive apprenticeship requires students to be
exposed to the thought processes of experts in the context in which such thinking
would eventually be utilized, in order for students to meaningfully integrate expert
knowledge into their own schemas (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Although
students have recognized some disadvantages when being taught by researchers they
report an overall benefit from being in contact with active researchers and scholars
(Jenkins, Blackman, Lindsay, & Paton-Saltzberg, 1998).
Another important theoretical expression of the teaching-research nexus is the
idea of Communities of Practice (COP) (Lave & Wenger, 1991). COP theories predict
that there should be a symbiotic relationship between teaching and research because
COPs empower and equip learners to become experts in their fields. Communities-
of-practice theory emphasizes the importance of authentic learning experiences,
within context, that provide opportunities for learners to solve problems and create
end-products that are useful to society at large. A community of practice is character-
ized by “shared competence that distinguishes members from other people” (http://
www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm). It enables engagement in joint activities in
which members of the community interact together and learn from each other, and
in which “members of the community are practitioners . . . [who] develop a shared
repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring
problems” (http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm).
According to Wenger (2006), such activities illustrate how communities can
develop their practice. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of “legitimate peripheral
participation” refers to newcomers in a field becoming gradually exposed to expert
thinking and actions in authentic contexts, allowing them to collaborate, negotiate,
and construct meaning increasing participation in a community of practice. During
the initial potential stage, individuals begin to connect over something they have
in common, although they have yet to explore the full extent of that commonal-
ity. The symbiotic integration of research and teaching in a manner that actively
involves students in the process of knowledge creation is precisely what advocates
of inquiry-based learning in higher education have been seeking over the past two
decades (Boyer Commission, 1998). Most studies narrowly assumed that indices
such as publication rates and teacher ratings constitute adequate operational defini-
tions, respectively, of research and teaching variables, however, Robertson and Bond
(2005) suggested that more qualitative methods be used to examine the different
ways that professors conceptualize and experience research-teaching connections.

Scholars take pride in the theory-based organization and coherence, and the evidence-
based nature of the subject matter in their disciplines. There are, of course, loose
ends such as unexplained phenomena that do not fit well into the present state of
knowledge, and therein lies part of the excitement of building knowledge. However,
the approach to teaching the subjects typically differs. Often, scholars approach
teaching by focusing on gathering subsets of the content of the discipline and orally
presenting organized summaries, often with supporting visual images or practice
problems. The emphasis of teaching with this traditional and limited approach is
to provide students with information to be mastered, rather than, for example, have
students ask questions or understand how this knowledge was created and assembled.

In traditional learning situations with content-mastery goals, students are rewarded

by grades or acknowledgement or praise for giving correct answers, paying atten-
tion, even attending classes. They are punished with lower grades, reprimands, even
failure, for wrong answers, talking with each other, or skipping classes. Asking
interesting questions, requesting clarification, or answering the instructors’ ques-
tions, might help get a good reference letter or contribute to marks for participation.
Performance is normally judged on the basis of what the individual student repeats
back to the instructor, not on the insights derived from an animated conversation
in a group of students, especially during class. Instruction consists of a series of
actions traditional to the discipline, for example, a lecture, problems, an essay done
entirely independently and graded by a teaching assistant at the end of the course,
a laboratory conducted by a graduate student in which the outcomes are known.
We would be somewhat hard-pressed to identify the unique learning or educational
theory that binds all different approaches together, or the single line of research that
supports their efficacy. They are, in fact, supported by different theories.
Two well-established nineteenth- and early-twentieth century psychological
theories are a reasonable fit. The first of these two theories, behaviorism, has useful
but limited applicability to understanding complex cognitive learning in interactive
settings. Behaviorism predicted that behavior that is rewarded or reinforced will be
repeated. Therefore, getting high grades for accurately repeating back what the in-
structor has said leads to students becoming very good at this process, to the extent
of writing down instructors’ jokes. Behaviorism also predicted that punishment leads
to avoidance. Therefore low grades, unpleasant experiences, unintelligible lectures,
or lack of access to feedback or interaction, lead to students missing or dropping
classes, and not continuing the study of a discipline they might have come to enjoy.

Educational theory applied to classroom learning has evolved considerably from

simplistic behaviorist beginnings. The second of the two major theories that have
shaped classroom learning in the last century, social constructivism, began in first
half of the 20th century (Vygotsky, 1978—this is a translation of work first published
in the 1930s), and gained prominence in the last quarter of the century in the form
inquiry-based learning (see Aulls & Shore, 2008; Shore et al., 2008).
At the heart of inquiry-based instruction, in social-constructivist terms, interactions
among students and between students and teacher result in a richer understanding
in which feedback and scaffolding are provided (Bereiter, 1994). Vygotsky (1978)
proposed that meaning is constructed through dialog, and that there were critical
and moving boundaries, known as the “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD),
between what a learner could already do unassisted, or do with the assistance of a
more knowledgeable person (peer, teacher, parent, etc.), or not do at all. A teacher’s
professional judgment, therefore, becomes critical at this point in helping learners
recognize when they are in a ZPD and creating classroom activities that enable
learners to use these social processes to individually construct and develop their
new knowledge.
Compared to more traditional educational settings, students within inquiry-based
learning environments may find themselves taking on different roles, such as the
role of question-asker, analyst, evaluator, or communicator (Aulls & Shore, 2008).
The teacher becomes more of a facilitator or consultant. Unique to inquiry-based
learning environments, instead of simply exchanging roles, students and teachers may
assume additional or more diversified roles (Walker & Shore, 2012). These inquiry
roles, increasingly experienced by learners in elementary and secondary schools,
by postgraduate students, and by some undergraduates in honors or project-based
programs, convey important qualities of research or scholarship that assist students
in their path toward becoming knowledge producers.
These social-constructivist principles and inquiry roles are just finding their way
into undergraduate instruction, perhaps the last domain in which lecturing remains
the norm. Several attempts have been made to understand the relationship between
research and teaching and to develop it in institutions of higher education (Brew,
1999, 2003; Colbeck 1998, 2002; Healey, 2005). Colbeck’s work is particularly
useful to understanding the conditions that facilitate or discourage such integration.
She stated that, in a university in which research is conceived in a broader context
and academics have flexibility over the curriculum, greater opportunities exist when
trying to combine teaching and research. Student awareness of research is also a
critical factor in the integration of research and teaching. Claims that teaching is
research-led will not be regarded as credible if students are unaware about the uni-
versity as a research environment (Brew, 2010). We can imagine research practice
as a teaching model for at least some undergraduate education as a foundation for
this practice (Jenkins & Healey, 2005; Shore, Pinker, & Bates, 1990). Specific in-
structional strategies such as inquiry-based pedagogy are needed (Justice, Rice, &
Warry, 2009; Justice, Rice, Warry, & Laurie, 2007). Students need to be able to ask
important questions, critically assess knowledge, exercise rational judgment, evaluate
evidence, and reflect on what they are doing and why. Inquiry is one way in which
universities can effectively link research and teaching (Brew, 1999; Healey 2005).
Innovative approaches to improve teaching and learning in higher education have
attracted the attention of academic researchers and policy makers (e.g., Brew, 2003;
Council on Undergraduate Research and National Conference for Undergraduate
Research, 2005; Friedman, Crews, Caicedo, Besley, Weinberg, & Freeman, 2010;
Hu, Kuh, & Gayles, 2007; Kalman, 2007, 2008; Hu, Scheuch, Scwartz, Gayles, &
Li, 2008; several chapters in Shore et al., 2008), many of whom also provide useful
examples of related initiatives. The need for inquiry-based learning in undergraduate
instruction, beginning with newly matriculating students and using research practice
as a model, has received important endorsement at the policy level from a panel of
university leaders, in the milestone Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates
in the Research University (Boyer Commission, 1998). The “Boyer Report,” which
stemmed from the previous ideas about four kinds of scholarship—discovery, appli-
cation, integration, and teaching (Boyer, 1990)—stressed that faculty members and
students need to re-evaluate their roles and relationships. The Boyer Report (Boyer
Commission, 1998) provided broad policy and program or degree-level suggestions
for a new model of undergraduate education, plus a long list of specific suggestions
for universities and units, in which students’ learning experiences are integrated
into the research and scholarship of universities, and undergraduate students share
in the adventure of the knowledge-discovery process. The report made few specific
suggestions at the level of what individual instructors can do in their classes, but
did include the following points, expressed in our words with some elaboration:

• Inquiry-based individual and collaborative activities should begin in under-

graduates’ first year and continue throughout their years of study; we are not
just talking about advanced courses.
• Scholarship involves mastery, creation, and communication of content, plus
the ability to interact with peers. Therefore students require opportunities to
communicate their learning with other students and with the instructor, both
orally and in writing. An important trio of principles of effective learning is
that learners must practice or rehearse any valued learning outcomes, the op-
portunities for this practice should be a part of the in-class experience—not
just homework, and learners must expect to be evaluated on these outcomes.
• Learning through collaboration involves joint projects and “mutual critiques
of oral and written work”; students taking on the role of evaluator and coach
well illustrates the role diversification that strongly characterizes inquiry.

Nevertheless, since the Boyer Report emerged a quarter century ago, and as
hinted in the earliest follow-up studies (Boyer Commission, 2001), undergraduate
instruction remains extensively interpreted as what the instructor does, usually lec-
turing, and students have a passive role as receivers of knowledge. Although it is
important to have dialog and policies at the program, departmental, faculty or school,
and institutional levels, successful implementation of inquiry-based undergraduate
education begins with the individual instructor and individual motivation; it requires
a revised vision of the role of learners and of one’s own approach to teaching.
Note: This section directly quotes parts of a text presented by one of the authors of
this chapter (Shore), and is therefore written in the first person (until our next main
section on Current Challenges).
A critical step in creating and sustaining inquiring minds in undergraduate in-
struction is articulating a personal vision of what undergraduate teaching should
be. It is possible to begin with some specific changes to teaching activities that the
instructor finds comfortable and then develop the philosophy over time. However,
an important early element in the philosophy must be that students spend at least
some of their class time in active learning, interacting and building understanding
with each other, and exploring questions that interest them. Early expressions of
an undergraduate teaching philosophy can be a lot shorter and simpler than what
follows. Please do feel free to adapt as your own any of the ideas contained in the
following text (the shift in this section to a singular voice reflects the history of this
sample statement).

My overall teaching philosophy, grounded in constructivism and social constructiv-

ism (Vygotsky, 1978), is that students should learn in the ways experts learn in their
respective disciplines. My favorite citation in this respect is Jerome Bruner (1960)
in The Process of Education to the effect that learners do not learn best when they
are presented with the already organized knowledge of a discipline, but when they
learn to learn in the ways creators (or recognizers!) of new knowledge learn. I am
not opposed to direct teaching or lecturing, but these should complement the overall
learning experience rather than dominate it. Students need to own at least some of
their learning processes and products, and the teacher’s role is to facilitate that,
guide, share the privilege of teaching (including formative evaluating) by provid-
ing a supportive learning context and helping students acquire effective learning
strategies. Of course we are aware of some things they need to know that they do
not yet know, but that agenda should not be to the exclusion of other agendas, even
in introductory courses.

My approach to and philosophy of undergraduate classroom teaching is essentially

that my primary role is to promote understanding rather than to present material.
The primary role is necessary as a result of selecting material that is an intellectual
and creative challenge for the students, and choosing supporting material such as
readings and texts that are well designed and enable the students to learn the content
therein as easily as possible, and with minimal explanation from me. It sometimes
means pushing students to be intellectually uncomfortable, while knowing that they
are on safe ground personally—willingness to persist in an uncomfortable zone is
comparable to learning to swim or ride a bicycle in the sense that both also start off
well when the learner can trust that she or he will not be allowed to drown or fall
onto the road. I also regard the role of university-level education (for that matter
any level of education) as one that includes knowledge creation as well as master-
ing what is already known. I try as much as possible to ensure that students learn
how to learn in the subject matter they are studying, and that they work from first
principles, not memorized rules. I take special care to learn the names of all my
students, to help them through difficulty, and to treat them as partners in learning.
I cannot recall the last time I prepared a class in the form of an hour-long or
longer lecture. I prepare activities that facilitate students’ learning, interspersed with
some short lectures or responses to their questions, but even a very large class, a
visitor will find the students spending some of the time interacting with each other.
This is not a process of sharing of ignorance. The myth that leaving students to
discuss ideas among themselves would increase the level of misunderstanding in
the content being taught has been dispelled; to the contrary, when students discuss
and solve problems among themselves, misconceptions actually decrease or become
corrected and understanding increases (Crouch, Watkins, Fagen, & Mazur, 2007).
It is very important to circulate around the class and ensure that students are indeed
integrating what they are newly encountering with the knowledge they already
have, ensuring that they can identify and explain the key ideas to each other and to
themselves, and that they can effectively use the language of the discipline. I can
demonstrate these qualities, but the demonstration does not give them the chance
to practice. The students must own both the content and the process. They need to
learn what we know and how we create knowledge in our field. Telling them about
it is not enough. It is worth the investment to “cover” less material and to give them
this experience. In the end, guided by suitable readings and the chance to practice
their mastery of these readings, they accomplish both.

My undergraduate teaching over several years was primarily in medium-large sec-

tions in educational psychology. The course was compulsory for most of the teacher-
education students, and they were initially much more focused on learning “tricks
of the trade” than important first principles. My role as teacher of undergraduates
is to lure students into the topics that will help them learn and to be transparent
about what I am doing, in other words, to teach by explicit example. In these under-
graduate classes, primarily consisting of teachers-to-be in their early degree years,
I frequently pause and ask them why I or we did what we just did. Their experience
in the course is heavily activity-based, and they get ample opportunity to practice in
class the application of psychological principles that they read about in assigned or
independent readings. Their challenge in individual projects is to teach something
that I and their fellow students do not know. Not only do I create contingencies that
largely guarantee they will have done their readings before coming to class (e.g., they
must frequently arrive with and deposit questions about assigned readings and draft
answers that they will exchange with other students in dyads), I make these processes
transparent. Two of the principal assignments in the introductory educational psy-
chology course are a log of observed applications of key psychological principles in
their classrooms--we spend the first few weeks addressing these, and building a file
of teaching ideas. Whatever their levels and subjects of preference, using important
psychological principles, they also present in a mini teachers’ conference, plus an
independent paper that explores a course topic in depth. In some years I have had
students script and stage mini-dramas demonstrating the psychological principles
of teaching or classroom management that they wish to address. In a reversal of
commonly experienced teaching methodology, I advise my class to do what I do
more than to do what I say.
The syllabus for this section of the educational psychology course was expanded
at the request of the department into a handbook for all six sections of the course
taught each year. One of the co-authors of this chapter (Tanya Chichekian) co-authored
the handbook, the other (Liv Hua) is at this time the teaching assistant, and another
of my PhD graduates currently teaches three of the six sections. With focus and
planning it is possible to bring inquiry-based instruction into the university-learning
experience of an entire cohort of teacher-education students.
In other essentially undergraduate courses that I have taught, such as introduc-
tory statistics, a different approach is sometimes needed because the students are
terrified of the content and seriously underestimate their competence to do it well.
I therefore use student-to-student discussion and problem discussion to help them
build confidence and learn by teaching (the profession of most students in the class
so that they worked from strengths). Major doses of humor and cajoling helped.
I used an inquiry approach as much as possible so that students became comfort-
able thinking statistically (that is the goal, not memorizing equations—a “real”
researcher always has access to notes, texts, and consultants), so the emphasis is
on telling a good story with data and on how the thinking process works. A lot of
class time was spent with students in dialog with each other (the most powerful tool
in the Vygotskian social-constructivist tool box) planning how to use data to make
an argument. This was carried forward to the computer lab after each class, during
which time the students worked in pairs or triads, never alone, because knowledge
creation in the real world is rarely a solitary activity. At home they could choose
to work alone, but in class, learning is a socially not solely constructed process.
As a result of the development of this course over the decades, student success and
comfort with the course soared. The department was able to abolish the lower-level
intermediate statistics course and students could proceed directly to the next level.
Students sometimes rated the course slightly lower in the spring terms due to the
concentrated schedule that did not give learners as much time between classes, but
ratings and performance remained high.

There is no essential difference in my overall view of undergraduate versus gradu-

ate teaching, but the specific practices vary as a result of the one-on-one and small
group instructional opportunities versus the logistics of medium to large classes. The
graduate student’s academic home is also very close physically and intellectually
to the advisor’s. In contrast, the Faculty or School and the University as a whole is,
to a greater extent, the university home for undergraduates.
I also created and steered a course on talented and gifted education toward a
strong and explicit focus on inquiry-based learning and teaching, partly because the
literature on giftedness and gifted education has long stressed the excellent fit of
inquiry learning to these students. In addition, highly able students often come to
university. The course is open to senior undergraduates in education, arts and science,
to practicing teachers, and master’s students. The course continues to offer a main
challenge to the students to gather greater expertise than the current instructor has
on a topic of their choice. We help the students get there by helping each to jump to
the front of the literature, and to ask questions that matter to him or her and the field.
My research team once had the opportunity to create a capstone project (as recom-
mended by the Boyer Commission) for the undergraduate teacher-education degree,
a project that linked theory and practice, specially through action research, and that
sent the students off with the mind-set that teaching is not just doing. Teaching is
also an active process of self-improvement that draws on all their knowledge and
that can be well informed by empirical data available on the job. We thereby partly
blurred the boundary between undergraduate and graduate studies, to demonstrate
the links to curriculum reforms, and to equip the students with the language of in-
quiry, and action research (that is, studies done to directly benefit one’s own profes-
sional activity or decisions). At the end of the semester the students presented their
action-research projects knowledge fair open to the Faculty. All the presentations
were recorded on video.
Most students have been told what, how, and when to learn since Grade 1. They need
respect, encouragement, and the clear instruction not to wait for permission before
putting ideas on the table. The goal is to create an environment that is more than
an apprenticeship wherein one follows the masters around for years. The learning
environment must be safe for errors and experimentation with ideas. That means I
structure assignments so that I (or, when available, sometimes a teaching assistant)
can divide tasks such as essays into steps, and I can give feedback. It is very hard
for students to learn to be better writers, for example, if they are entirely on their
own when completing a major assignment, and they just turn it in for grading at the
end of the course. Over my career I have lost exact count of the number of graded
essays with comments that students never came back to collect. At the end of the
semester they are drained and moving on to the next step of their degree. The time
to have an impact is while they are choosing topics, finding existing research, and
beginning to draft their ideas. An important part of my undergraduate (and graduate)
teaching approach is therefore to ensure that there are many opportunities to give
helpful and formative feedback while students are learning, not after the learning
is presumed to be done. This also means that my grading burden is much lighter at
the end of the course--the student work is likely to be of higher quality, easier and
more fun to read or observe, and needing fewer detailed comments.

Universities and colleges face many challenges in moving toward inquiry-based

instruction. The first is awareness of the need to make a change. Research-oriented
institutions in particular are especially focused on the research enterprise. Even when
high-quality pedagogical services are offered, at best they reach a large minority of
the teaching staff and administration. Another challenge is inertia, not inconsequential
in organizations that have a recognizable history of nearly a thousand years. And
never to be underestimated is the impact of the prior experiences of students and
professors, and the perceived requirement that one “covers the material.” It takes a
massive leap in trust to accept that one can indeed do more with less, in this case
more learning with less lecturing.
We shall, however, concentrate on a subset of specific instructional challenges
that can be successfully overcome by instructors seeking to teaching through inquiry
in higher education, even if they are acting alone.
Even when instructors encourage more active student participation or even if there
are questions, students may be reticent to respond. They might fear that requests for
clarification would reflect badly on them, and students accustomed to the one-way
communication typical of lectures to large groups probably regard such invitations
as courteous but not practical. In addition, asking good questions, high-level ques-
tions, is difficult and needs to be practiced in less stressful settings than in front of
50, 100, or 500 peers. Making the leap from being interested in a topic to asking a
good question is a very difficult task, well understood by professors and graduate
students alike. But we might have forgotten how large a leap it is. In the Solutions
section below we offer the instructional technique of Learning Cells to enable students
to overcome their hesitancy or inability to ask high-level questions and to practice
that skill with effective scaffolding even within a large lecture class.

As students go from class to class, discipline to discipline, and topic to topic, one
of their major challenges is to understand how the different specific knowledge or
skills they are acquiring are interconnected. Yet such understanding that knowledge
is linked, and how it is linked, are critical components of a deep understanding of
any topic. As in every element of expert-like thinking, students need to be walked
through the steps of being able to create such links and to be able to eventually make
these connections for themselves. They will do this poorly if they can only watch
or listen to the instructor demonstrate the process. Professors need a repertoire of
teaching practices that can be implemented, in a small seminar or in a large lecture
hall, that hand over this opportunity to the students in small-enough doses so they
can master it. Students need to practice articulating the meaning of the connections
between the concepts they are learning, and to work at imagining new links that may
remain to be discovered. In our proposed Solutions, we recommend that instruc-
tors ask students to construct Concept Maps, diagrams that portray the main ideas
and their interconnections. These can be done in small groups of students sitting
together, individually, as homework that students compare in small groups then turn
in as proof that the map was done, and as quizzes.
There is a visible artificiality in doing substantial work only to have it buried in a
pile of grading seen privately by no more than one other person in the world, often
a teaching assistant rather than the actual instructor. That is not how scholars or
researchers share their creative efforts. Other students in the course share some
degree of interest in the topic, and they constitute an authentic audience, or at least
a good approximation of one. It is possible to provide authentic audiences in many
ways, such as course web page, blog, or wiki showcasing student work. Class pre-
sentations are a familiar option, but large class sizes can make these impractical and
students do need help making these engaging. A simpler alternative, modeled on
poster sessions at academic conferences, is the knowledge fair. Students can prepare
as little as a single page with a template, to a “bristol board” panel display. This
can take as little as a half hour of class time across a semester. In a knowledge fair
students adopt some of the roles of the teacher, they apply and share knowledge,
and they need to take the perspective of their audience in effectively communicat-
ing the core of their work.

Writing a university-quality essay is not the same as most secondary-school efforts,

nor should it necessarily be so. If university raises students’ academic skills, we
should not expect that students would enter with the writing skills we expect them
to have at the end. Students need to be guided, scaffolded, through many complex
elements of writing a good essay, including mastering the language and technical
terms of the discipline, writing grammatically, organizing the material effectively,
using appropriate rhetorical techniques, and doing honest work—the written work
must be their own. Producing good written work is an authentic scholarly task.
Unless we are teaching writing, we might be tempted to argue that we do not teach
writing. However, we can teach students to write well in our disciplines without
stepping out of our primary roles. Among our proposed solutions, we propose break-
ing an essay assignment into parts. This teaches students the process, gives them
benchmarks to evaluate their own progress (taking on some of the teacher’s role for
evaluation), and obtaining feedback early on their writing. Essays are commonly
due near the end of a course, far too late for students to learn from the feedback if
there is any other than the grade. Dividing large writing assignments into smaller
steps spread across the semester forces students to plan and start early, it gives them
a template for communicating clearly and effectively in the discipline, reduces the
risk of cheating, gives the instructor an opportunity to steer students in productive
directions, and actually lightens the burden of the final grading.

Even the most accomplished lecturers, those who can entertain as well as inform
their classes, face the challenge that students are engaged in a much different activity
than they are. The instructor gets the privilege of telling the story of the discipline
while engaged behind the scenes, out of the view of most undergraduates, in what
many regard as the most exciting part of the discipline—creating new knowledge.
In most cases, it is not possible for professors to provide direct or even indirect
research opportunities for all undergraduates. Some simulations are possible, and
some elements of the process can be experienced vicariously. In science and engi-
neering courses that have labs, and certainly in creative writing courses, attention
can be paid to the nature of the laboratory or workshop activities and trying to
ensure that some of them are more than demonstrations. The main benefit of these
opportunities is motivational. The largest challenge is that institutional facilities and
initiatives are needed, and this can be difficult in the face of scarce resources. Some
of these possibilities are addressed in the Solutions section, including a science
course that built in an opportunity for original research and scaffolded it similarly to
the process suggested for essays. Engaging in authentic tasks is highly motivating,
sustains interest in the subject, and gives learners a taste of what graduate study in
the discipline could be like.

Even if we were all wonderful and inspiring lecturers, students would still only be
receiving a demonstration of a learning outcome, not a chance to practice the same
intellectual skills and processes that brought the instructor to the didactic decisions
about organization of the material and the understanding of its elements and their
interrelations. Students can sometimes be seduced by the charisma of the lecturer
and respond less to the content to which they are supposed to be primarily attending.
This seduction is called the “Dr. Fox effect” (Naftulin, Ware, & Donnelly, 1973); an
animated actor portraying “Dr. Fox” was more highly rated by students than a content
expert. Having students actually engage in the process of learning as experienced
by an expert in the field (Bruner, 1960), and having the learning experience highly
regarded by students are both important.
In this section, in response to the challenges we just cited above, we present
examples of assignments and in-class activities that foster inquiring minds in under-
graduates. These activities are highly valued by students and can lead to improved
student-questionnaire evaluations. The activities address both content and process,
learning that matters and lasts. We have direct experience with these activities
through teaching or research with instructors who teach through inquiry, and we
have seen one or more of these implemented in a single semester by instructors who
previously taught in very traditional ways. The instructors enjoyed the experience,
and so did the students. All these have been successfully used in medium to large
classes. These ideas need to be adapted to the discipline, undergraduate level, class
size, and students’ academic background, and not everyone fits easily into every
situation, but they can be adapted. So please take your pick!

This is one of the easiest inquiry-supportive activities to implement in teaching.

These are reading assignments with a twist. A learning cell begins with students
having to complete a reading, for example, a textbook chapter or article (Goldschmid
& Shore, 1974; Schermerhorn, Goldschmid, & Shore, 1975). Rather than, or in ad-
dition, to writing a summary, the first part of the assignment is to construct one or
two high-level questions (i.e., a question that cannot elicit just a “yes” or “no” reply,
that goes beyond repeating facts, and generates thoughtful reflection in dialog). The
question should require thinking about the reading, relating ideas therein, relating
it to other events or readings, constructing applications, evaluating, or comparing
content. Then students must outline the main points of what they consider to be a
good answer to each of their questions. Our experience is that students need one
round of practice with just one question with feedback, not for grades, to understand
high-level questioning (refer to the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy if you wish; Anderson
& Krathwohl, 2001). They are asked to bring two copies to the next class. One copy
is handed in at the beginning and used to take attendance without wasting time of
a role call or checking off the list. The other is used for about a five-minute dialog
with another student (a trio can also work, in rotation). The first student asks the
first question, listens to the second students’ reply, then they compare that reply to
the answer the first student anticipated as a good reply. Then they alternate roles or
rotate around the trio. The instructor can circulate around the room and listen in.
Another option is to take a few minutes and ask two or three pairs (cells) to report
orally on their questions, answers, and discussion. A variation can be for students to
read different material, such as a key article they locate for a term paper, and first to
provide a summary then ask the questions, and so on. There is no need to wait for
everyone to finish; when most dyads seem done, call the class to order and move on.
A learning cell should take about five to ten minutes of class time. Content
mastery consistently exceeds that from just reading or summarizing (reflective
writing has parallel benefits over summarizing, especially when combined with
student interactions; see Kalman 2007, 2008—both could be built into a course).
This activity provides practice asking high level questions, a key part of inquiry,
and students enjoy the interaction with each other. Reflecting the importance of
role-diversification in inquiry, students in a learning cell learn from each other as
well as the instructor. We use learning cells in class two to four times in a semester,
and the questions and suggested answers can “count” for 5% to 10% of a course
grade. Learning cells also guarantee that students will read their assignments before
coming to class; if a student comes unprepared, she or he must go to the side of the
room and do the questions. It is not permitted to engage in the dialog without having
done one’s reading or question preparation. Finally, we tell students that preparing
good questions and answers about their readings, in addition to summaries, is a very
powerful way to take notes and study for examinations. This exercise helps students
become inquirers by allowing them to take on the roles of explainer and evaluator,
and to engage in critical thinking within their academic community.

Concept mapping (Novak, 2010) is another powerful, easily added learning tool
that supports the development of inquiring minds. Concept maps are visual repre-
sentations that show and explain connections between the main ideas of a reading
or a conversation. To create a concept map, which can be done individually very
effectively in pairs or groups of three or four, students identify a number of the key
concepts or ideas in a reading, topic, or unit of study, and briefly describe each con-
cept in their own words. In the first practice example, the instructor could provide
the list of concepts, but students also need to practice identifying main ideas in a
topic. Begin with a very small number of concepts, three to five, to practice the
process. By the end of a unit of study, students should be able to work effectively
with 10 to 20 concepts. Students should take turns comparing notes to agree as a
group on which concepts to work with.
The next step is to write the concepts on a large sheet of paper, or on small cards
or sticky notes so they can be moved around, group them when appropriate, and then
draw a line between each pair of concepts that are in any way related. On that line,
write an explanation of the relationship, ensuring that every link between pairs of
connected concepts briefly explains the conceptual, functional, or causal relation-
ship between them. Finally, decide if the relationship is weak, medium, or strong.
Make the line a double line for connections of medium strength, and a triple line
for strong. These steps are especially appropriate for small group work, especially
in early stages of learning a topic. This can be done for five to ten minutes even in a
large lecture theater. Concept maps may be presented in a number of formats; they
may be drawn by hand and hand printed or drawn on a computer, for example, by
using the drawing toolbox in Word or a free software such as Cmap Tools (http://
cmap.ihmc.us/). Here are sample directions that can be given to students:

• Every member of the group must contribute to each step.

• Place the main or most important idea at the top or in the center of the map.
• Organize the words or terms from most general to most specific.
• Use a linking word (verb, preposition, or short phrase) to connect and illus-
trate the relationship and linkages of one idea with another.
• Use crossing links to make connections between words in different areas of
the map.
• Reflect on the statements and modify them if needed.

Creating concept maps helps students visualize abstract ideas that they encounter
in the readings. Furthermore, by discussing these ideas and constructing a concept
map, students will reinforce their understanding of the readings. We use concept
maps in ways similar to learning cells in classes we teach. Both enhance learning
through rehearsal and dialog, two important principles in inquiry-based learning,
and both enhance the students’ role as their own and each others’ instructors capable
of identifying key ideas, justifying decisions, and making judgments.
Basic terms and how they are related to each other are the fundamental building
blocks of a discipline (Amundsen, Saroyan, & Donald, 2004). The basic terms are
not enough. The creative potential lies on how ideas interact. Concept maps high-
light the importance of the connections, and allow for creative exploration of these
links. Maps have been successfully used across disciplines (Donald, 2002), and just
as learning cells lead to better learning than merely reading, doing concept maps
improves student’s performance on more realistic multistep problems in which it
is necessary to take given information and make transformations or interpretations
before addressing the more complex situations (Austin & Shore, 1994, 1995). As
students become more expert in a domain, their maps become more complex and
fewer concepts are stranded without strong links to others (Austin & Shore, 1993).
Simply by counting the number of well-described links, concept maps, can be used
to measure progress in student or class learning (Austin & Shore, 1995; Chichekian
& Shore, 2012).
This is an idea for a major assignment in the order of an essay, and worth 20% to
50% of a course grade. It is especially suited to professional studies such as teacher
education or social work, but it is easily adapted to other disciplines. This assign-
ment is well suited to team work.
We first used this assignment in an educational psychology course for first-
year undergraduate teacher-education students. A core goal of such a course is to
provide students with a scientific basis for teaching decisions and actions. Simply
telling students they should apply their psychology, philosophy, or other founda-
tional subject to their later teaching, especially years ahead, is close to a waste of
time. On their own, students do not make the connections. As with concept maps,
they need to practice both making the connections and benefiting from collegial
input. The assignment consists of selecting, in this case 20, key theoretical ideas
from the unit or subject, and showing how each can be applied in a future activity
by the students. It is used, for example in educational psychology, to plan a class or
part of a class, such as to use the social-constructivist focus on dialog in devising a
class activity in which students must interact with each other. This assignment can
be adapted to basic sciences, humanities, and social sciences by asking students to
find, brainstorm, or imagine applications of subject matter in any area from public
policy to manufacturing or professional activity, and so on. Solving problems in
groups and sharing the solution process and potential applications could be an
example of such an activity.
This toolkit of ideas for theory to practice is created over weeks or months and is
ultimately presented in a binder with approximately 20 pages. Groups can be asked
to have a subset ready for informal review in class over the time interval, reducing
cramming at the end. Each idea in the binder should include the date it was first
shared, who in the team first suggested it, a note indicating how the idea was ini-
tially realized, how it was developed and improved, the rationale, and resources or
references to resources (e.g., books, web sites, cartoons, materials, organizations).
It should be organized into headings or sections that include similar categories of
ideas. Students are invited to make it visually pleasing and use tables, charts to re-
cord the details of the ideas. Some students include original web or other computer
elements, but the ideas are more important than the glamour of the presentation.
There should be no intermediate grading of this work.
Each toolkit should have an appendix containing a narrative description of the
process by which this was prepared. Attendance for each member of the team, in
class or outside, must be listed with the date, location, and starting and end times
of the meetings. The contribution of each person present must be stated, for each
meeting and overall. It must be clear that the team started with well more than ten
ideas (at least five original suggestions from each member—these should be reported
as an appendix which will not count in the 20-page limitation).
In addition, time should be allocated for the toolkits to be on display for people
to circulate and admire in a “Knowledge Fair.” This can take up about a half hour
of a class. The display copy should be constructed in a more interactive format,
such as a poster. There could be a popular vote for the “people’s choice” toolkit
of ideas. The team members could each be awarded a prize at the same class (we
have offered university pens, decals, and other low-cost memorabilia, just for fun).
This toolkit and poster assignment addresses several elements of the inquiring
student. It requires students to choose important ideas in which they are interested
within a subject, and to build these ideas independently. It helps them connect
whatever they are studying to real-world experiences that are important to them.
They learn to work in teams, argue the value of their contributions, respect the
contributions of others, and communicate to a broader audience. This assignment
forces students to define a goal and collaboratively work toward it.
Sometimes collaboration stumbles. We tell students that if a group is not working
well and they cannot fix it, that a representative of the group should come in con-
fidence to the instruction. We guarantee that there will be no penalty for doing so,
and that the purpose of meeting will be to explore ways to enhance the functioning
of the group. It has occasionally been necessary to find a new group for a student.
Usually, however, students revel in this type of assignment. They stop asking “Why
are we being taught this?” and they learn more about how their efforts complement
the material selected by the instructor. This introduces them to the role of knowledge
producer and collaborator in their own educational process.

Nearly every course, subject, or unit of study in the social sciences and humanities
has an assigned essay. This major assignment can count from 20% to 100%, but we
urge leaving room for such other activities as have been described. (Incidentally, or
perhaps not so, the kinds of activities and assignments we are suggesting eliminate
the need for assigning marks to the vague element of participation; the group ac-
tivities in particular require effective peer participation.) Generally, students select
a topic from or related to any chapter in the textbook, extend it to learn something
that goes beyond the text, and what is presented in class. Sometimes they choose
from a list of topics, or they may be able to propose original topics. Our practice is
to leave the topic open (as long as it addresses a main theme of the unit or course),
but to insist that students set out to become expert about a topic and, in the essay,
teach the instructor something new and interesting, not necessarily a fact, but a
connection or insight. The essay is normally an individual assignment of between
10 and 30 pages, depending on the level.
The original contribution here is to pace students through the process of writing
a good essay. Too many wait until the weekend or overnight before the due date.
Reading these products is most unpleasant, as is the duty of assigning and explaining
low grades. This process has many advantages: Students begin almost immediately,
we find out quickly who needs help with writing (and perhaps a referral to the
campus writing center), and cheating or downloading material from the internet is
dramatically reduced—not totally eliminated, but when it happens it is obvious and
rarely requires an internet paper depository to detect.
Students begin by formulating a question to which they are seeking answers.
Then, conduct a basic review of the research literature to see what is known. We
insist that reporting just what is known is at best a “B” paper. An “A” paper has a
new insight, a new connection, a new problem not yet addressed. This extra demand
pushes students from reproductive repetition of others’ work to the importance of
a scholarly contribution. When we break this assignment into parts and grade each
part separately, we create scaffolds for students who have never before written a
university-level essay. When students (and scholars!) feel supported at each stage
and have the resources they need to do the work, they are more likely to do honest
work (Shore, Delcourt, Syer, & Schapiro, 2008). Here are the three steps into which
we typically break an essay assignment:

Students identify a topic or question in which they are interested in and submit it in
writing along with two journal references in the required format, one item of which
may be a review. In order to guide learners in the writing process and coach them
on reference style, the topic papers are returned with brief comments and possibly
suggestions for key reading. This step need not be graded; this allows students to
take some creative risks and get feedback.

(a) Students identify, list and annotate five primary-source references that will
guide them in writing their essays. Primary sources means that students have read
the items they cited and the textbook cannot be one of these five annotated refer-
ences. (b) At least three out of the five references above and at least half of the
final number of references must be empirical research articles from peer-reviewed
journals. This criterion can be adjusted according to the discipline. (c) Each of the
five initial references must be annotated with three- to five-sentences in their own
words explaining why they think these are useful to the essay topic. It is important
to emphasize that an annotation is not just a summary or abstract.
The preliminary five-item reference list counts for about 5% to 10% of the essay
total. Prompt written feedback, however brief with a very large class, is important.

The final full essay paper should include the following: (a) a title page with the
author’s name and student number plus the course or subject title, (b) an abstract in
students’ own words of between 100 and 150 words—students need to know this is
written last! (c) the essay’s main text with an introductory paragraph that contains
a clear statement of the goal of the essay followed immediately by making the main
point explicit, (c) good organization such as sections with headings--for a 10-page
paper, expect at least three main sections, an introduction, the main research or
review findings, and the conclusion that discusses implications, and (d) a reference
list in a close approximation of the style suited to the discipline, without annotations.
An essay is clearly a scholarly product. Having students generate it in steps has
the additional scholarly benefit of emphasizing the processes of identifying a topic
not only of personal interest but of importance to the discipline, focusing on select-
ing good quality evidence for the argument to be given, and communicating in the
language and style of the discipline—participating as a member of the scholarly
community.
Our anecdotal experience over several years and with a half-dozen participating
instructors, is that this approach enhances the quality of essays. There is more work
“up front” for the instructor (and, if she or he is lucky enough to have one, for a
grader or teaching assistant), but essays are usually read at or near the end of a unit
under time constraints. Good essays are easier to read and require less feedback.
It is also our experience that many students do not bother to collect final essays or
exams, especially if they know and accept the grades accorded. If we are going to
help students learn by giving them feedback on their thinking and choices, it has to
be done earlier. Breaking essays into stages in this or a similar way gives students
feedback that they actually receive and can use to perform better. And they do
perform better.

Direct, data-based research experiences for students in the sciences, social sciences,
and many professions, are the equivalent to thoughtful essays for students in the
humanities. Research projects can be phased in similar ways to essays. In many
disciplines one can do essays and research projects. It is almost certainly impracti-
cal for every undergraduate to become an active participant in professors’ research.
When university scientists reflect on how to give students authentic research experi-
ences, however, they frequently cite the opportunity to spend time in a functioning
laboratory (Hua & Shore, 2012; Chichekian, Hua, & Shore, 2012). Until such time
as there might exist good computer-based simulations such as are becoming avail-
able in medical education, what are some ways to provide authentic direct research
experiences for large numbers of undergraduates, starting in the first year of study?
In recent years, our university has developed an “Inquiry Network.” In this net-
work, the university’s central Teaching and Learning Services (TLS) leads faculty
members and students to promote undergraduate students’ understanding of research
within courses of all sizes, disciplines, and academic levels. This goal is achieved by
(a) developing an awareness that knowledge is dynamic, not static, (b) developing
skills to gather, organize, analyze, interpret, and evaluate data and source material,
and (c) using dialog and writing to develop and communicate students’ understanding
of a research topic, subject area, or discipline. We propose that authenticity can be
claimed when these three qualities are present. The research process may be more
authentic when students are taught and supported in pursuing their own projects.
Apprenticing in a professor’s research activity is a valuable experience, but it remains
substantially a spectator sport. Instructors should continue to welcome students who
want to be part of their research groups in any role.
The answer is only sometimes in the hands of individual instructors. Senior
undergraduates may seek out individual supervision of an honors thesis or major
project. Others may seek supervision of an individual reading course in which a
scholarly process and product are the goals. These work but they add to the workload
of instructors and benefit a minority of students.
Each student needs progressively complex and complete opportunities to do
independent scholarly work in classes and in programs, as with essay writing. An
opportunity that is within the control of individual instructors is to build a direct
research experience into a unit of instruction. To aid this process, in 2006‐2007,
our Teaching and Learning Service led a university‐wide initiative, “The Nexus
between Teaching, Learning and Research/Scholarship Project,” to promote links
between teaching, learning, and research. Within this project, TLS launched the
“Inquiry Network” mentioned above and also developed additional resources, such
as a documentary series consisting of five McGill instructors who engage under-
graduates with research as part of coursework (retrieved from: http://www.mcgill.
ca/tls/nexus; also see http://www.mcgill.ca/tls/projects/nexus) and a website that
presents written interviews with instructors on the subject of teaching and learn-
ing, and includes their answers to the question “How do you help your students
understand what research and/or scholarship is in your discipline?” (retrieved from:
http://www.mcgill.ca/teachingsnapshots). These faculty members provided capstone
learning experiences for their undergraduate students so that they remain engaged
with research at increasing levels of sophistication and autonomy throughout their
degree. Here, quoted directly [except for notes in brackets and some punctuation], is
how one instructor integrated a major research project into St. Lawrence Ecosystems,
a compulsory first-year course in Environmental Biology.

• The Research Project (45%): Students will be placed in groups, and will
complete a research project related to “seasonal changes in forest ecosys-
tems.” Students will complete their projects at the Morgan Arboretum, and
there are visits scheduled to the Arboretum 5 times during the term--these are
meant to be times that students will design their projects and collect data. The
project will take time outside of regular class contact hours. Project outcomes
will be presented and evaluated as individual written reports, and as a group-
based presentation. Additional details about the project, and how it will be
evaluated, will be presented in class.
• Draft of the final report (5%): Each student will submit a rough draft of
his or her final report. This should be in point form, and will represent the
overall “skeleton” of the final report. It is due on or before midnight on (mid-
semester date).
• Final report (25%): Each student will submit a final report that summarizes
his or her research project. Report is to include standard sections from a sci-
entific journal article: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion,
Literature Cited, and Figures . . . or Tables. The text of the report is expected
to be a maximum of 3000 words (not counting Literature Cited). It is due on
or before midnight on (date of the last class).
• Final presentation (15%): Each group will make a presentation that sum-
marizes their research project, including the research problem, experimental
design, data collection, results, and discussion. Each presentation is expected
to be 12 minutes long plus three minutes for questions. All members of the
group will receive the same grade on the presentation to a value of 10%; 5%
will be based on peer evaluation. Presentations will likely occur either (a
meeting or two before the last class).

The project is phased, as we proposed for major essays. Students are asked to
emulate the process followed by working scientists. Important feedback is provided
in the first two steps. Students have individual and group obligations. The instruc-
tor sets boundaries around the topics and schedules needed field trips with clear
purposes at this early stage of student research. Some class time is devoted to sup-
porting the process.
 At an institutional level, capstone projects, year-long projects can be undertaken,
but administrative units need to recognize that supervisory staff are teaching when
they oversee these projects. For example, in our department, 20 to 40 MEd students
each year complete a capstone project on a topic of their own choosing. A series of
about a half-dozen seminars directly helps them get started, and three to five students
annually have arranged to have an individual supervisor for the content of their work.
The project is weighted as a half semester of full-time study (half that of an MA
thesis). The professor assigned to oversee and assist this group is credited with about
half an annual teaching assignment. This appropriately recognizes guiding students
in direct scholarly experiences as teaching, and effectively manages the impact of
project supervision on teaching loads. This approach may not be affordable when
hundreds or thousands of undergraduates are involved; in this case smaller projects
within courses or subjects may be the extent of the possible.

This is probably the easiest step we can take to encourage inquiry in undergraduates,
but we listed it last because it is a vicarious experience for students. Students are
observers rather than active participants in the process of creating new knowledge
in the discipline. Indirect research experiences are not specifically an instructional
strategy, but they can be a useful addition. These can be embedded in a lecture; they
enable students to watch and hear an expert in the field, but not to openly practice.
The best value is probably motivational. Robertson and Bond (2005) identified three
initial ways in which the professors can bring research to the classroom: sharing
their research findings, modeling learning through the research process, and actively
engaging students in inquiry. We address the first two here, and the third was ad-
dressed in the previous section.
The first idea is to tell students about one’s own scholarship or research. What
projects are underway now? Where are they leading? Have undergraduates assisted
with any of them? Especially talk about where the ideas came from, how the research
ideas had to be reshaped to be doable. Depending on the nature of the subject in the
unit or course, this can be done at the beginning when introducing oneself, as well
as at appropriate times in the sequence of content.
Consider taking these options one step beyond telling them about it. Is there a
good video to show? If questionnaires or interviews were used, can the process of
collecting data be replicated in the class so students can experience being in a study
(but the data cannot be saved without ethics approval). Replicate part of a conference
presentation and ask a panel of students to volunteer to be discussants. Or bring a
poster and ask for feedback. Then allow time for questions and discussion. The time
doing this is not “spent”; it is “invested” in bringing students into the community
of scholars and researchers, in from merely being observers. Come as close as pos-
sible to having students experience the process first-hand rather than second-hand.
Robertson and Bond’s (2005) second suggestion was modeling learning through
the research process. This is partly addressed through the extensions proposed above
to presenting one’s own research, but it is possible to be more direct. There are many
times in a unit of study when the instructor, or students (e.g., in learning cells or a
concept map or selecting an essay topic), identify important ideas in the topic. Stop
and ask: How do I, we, or you know that? How did we as chemists, economists,
philosophers, engineers, or whatever, come to know this? This can make a very
appropriate lecture topic of various lengths. It can also be a good assignment for
students, perhaps for class presentations and demonstrations or skits, if the class
size is small enough. This emphasizes the inquiry process of understanding what
constitutes good evidence in a field.
Sometimes indirect (and even direct) research experiences can be provided off
campus through summer or part-time work in industry, government, healthcare, or
policy institutions. Collaborating with career and employment offices to especially
highlight these opportunities is one way to bring them to students’ attention, but
taking this approach avoids rather than facilitates engaging university instructors in
the process of changing undergraduate students’ classroom experiences.

Our primary goal was, in effect, to propose that making the teaching-research
nexus a reality in university instruction was both worthy and attainable. There are
many steps that individual instructors can take to bring this reality about through
an inquiry-based approach to teaching. This can be done alone, but it works even
better in the context of dialog and role exchanges and diversification among col-
leagues, between instructors and students, and among students.

We thank Philosophy student Danika Drury for a thorough reading of our full draft
and for many useful suggestions to clarify and unify our message.
Amundsen, C., Saroyan, A., & Donald, J. G. (2004). Analysis of course content. In
Saroyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (Eds.), Rethinking Teaching in Higher Education:
From a Course Design Workshop to a Faculty-Development Framework (pp. 33–51).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives.
New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry in education: The conceptual founda-
tions for research as a curricular imperative. New York, NY: Routledge.
Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1993). Concept mapping of high and average
achieving students, and experts. European Journal for High Ability, 4, 180–195.
doi:10.1080/0937445930040207
Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1994). The use of concept mapping as an instructional
strategy in college-level physics. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis, 31, 249–264.
Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1995). Using concept mapping for assessment in
physics. Physics Education, 30(1), 41–45. doi:10.1088/0031-9120/30/1/009
Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper’s world 3. Edu-
cational Researcher, 23, 21–23.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching.
Boyer Commission. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for
America’s research universities. Stony Brook, NY: Carnegie Foundation for Uni-
versity Teaching and The State University of New York at Stony Brook. Retrieved
from http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/673918d46fbf653e852565ec0056
ff3e/d955b61ffddd590a852565ec005717ae/$FILE/boyer.pdf
Boyer Commission. (2001). Reinventing undergraduate education: Three years after
the Boyer report. Stony Brook, NY: Carnegie Foundation for University Teaching
and The State University of New York at Stony Brook. Retrieved from http://dspace.
sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/1951/26013/1/Reinventing Undergraduate Educa-
tion (Boyer Report II).pdf
Brew, A. (1999). Research and teaching: Changing relationships in a changing context.
Studies in Higher Education, 24, 291–301. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379905
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications
for inquiry- based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education
Research & Development, 22, 4–18. doi:10.1080/0729436032000056571
Brew, A. (2010). Imperatives and challenges in integrating teaching and
research. Higher Education Research & Development, 29, 139–150.
doi:10.1080/07294360903552451
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture
of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belkapp Press.
Chichekian, T., Hua, O., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Chemistry professors’ perceptions
of learning in undergraduate education. Unpublished.
Chichekian, T., Savard, A., & Shore, B. M. (2011). The languages of inquiry: An
English-French lexicon of inquiry terminology in education. LEARNing Landscapes,
4(2), 93–109.
Chichekian, T., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Concept maps provide a window onto
preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the domain of
mathematics. Unpublished.
Cohen, P. (2008). The embodied conductor: Concert pianists, diaper dancers, and
the fine art of creative variability in performance. In Shore, B. M., Aulls, M. W., &
Delcourt, M. A. B. (Eds.), Inquiry in Education: Overcoming Barriers to Successful
Implementation (pp. 165–206). New York, NY: Routledge.
Colbeck, C. L. (1998). Merging in a seamless blend--How faculty integrate teach-
ing and research. The Journal of Higher Education, 69, 647. doi:10.2307/2649212
Colbeck, C. L. (2002). Balancing teaching with other responsibilities: Integrating
roles or feeding alligators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, PA.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making
thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11, 38–46.
Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engag-
ing students one-on-one, all at once. In E. F. Redish & P. Cooney (Eds.), Research-
Based Reform of University Physics. College Park, MD: American Association of
Physics Teachers. Retrieved September 18, 2012 from http://mazur-www.harvard.
edu/email/download.php?YnJ1Y2Uuc2hvcmVAbWNnaWxsLmNh&NTM3
Donald, J. G. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Friedman, D. B., Crews, T. B., Caicedo, J. M., Besley, J. C., Weinberg, J., & Free-
man, M. L. (2010). An exploration into inquiry-based learning by a multidisciplinary
group of higher education faculty. Higher Education, 59, 765–783. doi:10.1007/
s10734-009-9279-9
Goldschmid, M. L., & Shore, B. M. (1974). The learning cell: A field test of an
educational innovation. In Verreck, W. A. (Ed.), Methodological Problems in
Research and Development in Higher Education (pp. 218–236). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching to benefit student learning. Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, 29, 183–201. doi:10.1080/03098260500130387
Hu, S., Kuh, G. D., & Gayles, J. G. (2007). Engaging undergraduate students in
research activities: Are research universities doing a better job? Innovative Higher
Education, 32, 167–177. doi:10.1007/s10755-007-9043-y
Hu, S., Scheuch, K., Schwartz, R., Gayles, J. G., & Li, S. (2008). Reinventing un-
dergraduate education: Engaging college students in research and creative activities.
ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(4).
Hua, O., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Chemistry professors’ perceptions of learning in
undergraduate education. Unpublished.
Jenkins, A., Blackman, T., Lindsay, R., & Paton-Saltzberg, R. (1998). Teaching and
research: Student perspectives and policy implications. Studies in Higher Educa-
tion, 23, 127–141. doi:10.1080/03075079812331380344
Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2005). Institutional strategies to link teaching and re-
search. York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.
Justice, C., Rice, J., & Warry, W. (2009). Academic skill development--Inquiry
seminars can make a difference: Evidence from a quasi-experimental study. Inter-
national Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1–23.
Justice, C., Rice, J., Warry, W., & Laurie, I. (2007). Taking inquiry makes a
difference--A comparative analysis of student learning. Journal on Excellence in
College Teaching, 18(1), 57–77.
Kalman, C. S. (2007). Successful science and engineering teaching in colleges and
universities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kalman, C. S. (2008). Successful science and engineering teaching: Theoretical and
learning perspectives. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6910-9
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Naftulin, D. H., Ware, J. E. Jr, & Donnelly, F. A. (1973). The doctor fox lecture: A
paradigm of educational seduction. Journal of Medical Education, 48, 630–635.
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as
facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
OECD. (2011). Programme for international student assessment: PISA 2009 country
profiles. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.pisa.oecd.org
Robertson, J., & Bond, C. (2005). The research/teaching relation: A view from the
edge. Higher Education, 50, 509–539. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6365-x
Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Gyles, P. D. T., Shore, B. M., & Bracewell, R. J. (2012).
Student outcomes in inquiry: Students’ perspectives. Unpublished.
Schermerhorn, S. M., Goldschmid, M. L., & Shore, B. M. (1975). Learning basic
principles of probability in student dyads: A cross-age comparison. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 67, 551–557. doi:10.1037/h0077001
Shore, B. M., Aulls, M. W., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (Eds.). (2008). Inquiry in educa-
tion: Overcoming barriers to successful implementation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shore, B. M., Birlean, C., Walker, C. L., Ritchie, K. C., LaBanca, F., & Aulls, M.
W. (2009). Inquiry literacy: A proposal for a neologism. LEARNing Landscapes,
3(1), 139–155.
Shore, B. M., Delcourt, M. A. B., Syer, C. A., & Schapiro, M. (2008). The phantom
of the science fair. In Shore, B. M., Aulls, M. W., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (Eds.),
Inquiry in Education: Overcoming Barriers to Successful Implementation (pp.
83–118). New York, NY: Routledge.
Shore, B. M., Pinker, S., & Bates, M. (1990). Research as a model for university
teaching. Higher Education, 19, 21–35. doi:10.1007/BF00142021
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (Cole, M., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Role diversification in inquiry education:
Linking role theory and social constructivism. Unpublished.
Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved February
16, 2012 from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/communities_of_practice_intro.htm
 Arshad Ahmad
Concordia University, Canada

Denise Stockley
Queens University, Canada

Roger Moore
St. Thomas University, Canada

The 3M National Teaching Fellowship program has a rich history in Canada as

the premier teaching award, coveted by university professors and post-secondary
institutions alike. This program was developed in 1985 through a unique partnership
with the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE) and 3M
Canada. It has evolved into one of the most successful public/private partnerships
in Canada. While the Fellowship Program has expanded and strengthened over
the years, the original vision of celebrating teaching excellence and leadership in
teaching continues to distinguish it from other national award programs. Each year,
10 new individuals are chosen to join the Fellowship through the submission of a
detailed nomination package, which in turn is adjudicated by a rigorous selection
process. Unlike the UK National Teaching Fellowship Scheme, the European Award
for Teaching Excellence, or the Australian Awards for University Teaching that offer
significant monetary benefits, the 3M Fellows are not awarded money. In addition,

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch011

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
while self-nomination is not encouraged, increasingly institutions nominate their
recent award winners, especially when they have been recognized for teaching
internally and by regional and provincial bodies. So, why do the 3M Fellowships
receive nominations year after year and why are they perceived to be more presti-
gious than ever before? This case study reveals why by highlighting the history of
this award, the selection process, and the multiplier effect of the community of 3M
Fellows. Further, the authors distinguish the salient aspects of the 3M Fellowship
Program from other award schemes in higher education.

Most national teaching award programs tend to be initiated by the government or a

disciplinary society. Right from its inception, this award had different origins. The
company 3M Canada approached STLHE in 1985 with the object of creating an
award that would recognize exceptional teachers who have made a difference in the
lives of their colleagues and their students. This award was to aspire to become the
“Stanley Cup1 of University Teaching.” This particular vision has been attributed
to John Myser, President at the time for 3M Canada when he asked a number of the
guests at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC to whom they attributed their
success. The responses surprised him, for in most cases, references were made to
university professors who had made a profound impact on their lives. This resonated
deeply with John Myser’s own experience.
In 1985, STLHE was in its embryonic stages of connecting with interested teach-
ers in Ontario in order to form a new teaching society. Christopher Knapper, the
inaugural President of the new Society, took this opportunity to ask his colleagues
to generate proposals to present to 3M Canada. Their initial proposal included the
idea of bringing together outstanding teachers at a facilitated retreat. It also included
another radical concept at the time—the equal recognition for teaching excellence
and for leadership in teaching. When several 3M representatives showed up in suits at
the 5th annual STLHE Conference in Ottawa, they saw faculty in shorts and t-shirts,
gathered informally, playing games and encouraging active learning with utter joy
and abandon. Christopher Knapper recalls: “my heart sank…. I thought this was
definitely the end of our proposal.” John Myser, however, saw a progressive group
of teachers brushing cobwebs from the Ivory Tower and replacing them with new
and innovative teaching ideas.
The 3M National Teaching Fellowship was different because it not only recognized
dedicated and gifted teachers but also those who demonstrated leadership qualities
that had an impact on their colleagues and student learning beyond their discipline,
their institution and sometimes their country. Celebrating these two facets of teaching
excellence and leadership is what distinguishes the 3M Fellowships from all other
teaching award programs in Canada and abroad. In addition, for the majority of Fel-
lows, the award is seen not as an end in itself but as the beginning of a journey of
personal development. This journey begins with the retreat where all winners gather
for 4 days of intense conversations. The retreat is also the cornerstone in building
a community of practice, with common aims that, from small beginnings, has now
grown into a significant national caucus within STLHE.
Celebrating tradition and nurturing friendships have throughout the history of the
award been cultivated by dedicated coordinators including, Dale Roy and Arshad
Ahmad who each served in this position for ten years. Currently, Ron Marken, who
was a recipient of a 3M National Teaching Fellowship in 1987, holds this position.
In addition, 3M Canada has remained involved throughout the history of the award
and has provided generous financial support. In addition to this, 3M has been fully
engaged at the STLHE Annual Conference, at the 3M retreat and at special educa-
tional events. 3M’s notable contributors to the program include John Myser, Roy
Duxsburry, Mike Calhoun, Sue Romyn, Greg Snow, and the most recent President
Brian Young.

The key to understanding the successful profile of a 3M Fellow is the selection cri-
teria and the process used to apply these criteria. Selection committees have, over
the years, become more open and have provided more detail and explanations over
time. This openness includes seminars and panel discussions at the STLHE annual
conference and visits to individual universities when requested. This openness reveals
that the criteria used solicit two specific types of evidence to establish (1) teaching
excellence and (2) leadership qualities. This nomination package itself is built on
the concept of a teaching portfolio, in that the nomination package provides a sum-
mary and evidence of the nominees’ teaching excellence and leadership (Knapper &
Wright, 2001). Examples of teaching excellence include the candidate’s philosophy
of teaching, the teaching strategies used to support the philosophy, teaching awards
and recognition, student ratings, course development, letters of support and other
related evidence. Examples of leadership evidence include the candidate’s statement
of what leadership in teaching excellence means and how it is accomplished; this is
supported by actual contributions including workshops on teaching and learning,
mentorship, research on teaching, and impact on educational development with the
institution and beyond.
 The selection of winners has evolved into an extraordinary process with commit-
tee members selected from past winners and current educational developers. How
does the committee operate? To start, at least 3 members of the selection committee
read each candidate’s dossier.
These dossiers are read and re-read over a long period of time before the actual
selection committee meeting. This allows the members of the selection committee
to prepare and revise their feedback in preparation for the face-to-face meeting,
usually held in Montreal. Second, the readers fill out feedback forms and offer a
preliminary ranking of teaching and leadership profiles for each candidate’s dossier.
Third, during a 3 day face-to-face meeting shortlisted dossiers are debated and, in a
collegial but intense selection process, a list of proposed candidates is confirmed.
Note that at least three of the six committee members read each dossier in great
detail and over an extended time period. Points are awarded for each dossier and
these points, together with the readers’ notes and recommendations are presented to
the full committee. When competing dossiers with similar scores are recommended
for final selection, all six committee members read each of the competing dossiers.
This means that in close and/or contentious cases, all six committee members are
intimately familiar with each dossier.
A recurring challenge facing each new selection committee is that the majority
of the nominations tend to fulfill, or go beyond, the stated criteria. In any given year,
there can be as many as fifty or sixty candidates, each presenting a 50-page dossier
filled with teaching and leadership achievements. Initially, almost all the 50-page
dossiers seem equally deserving of being selected. Each committee has responded
to this situation with a novel and creative step in the course of which they identify
the so-called meta-criteria.
To articulate these meta-criteria, the committee brainstorms words and phrases
that speak to the extraordinary and that elicit a sense that the candidate not only
surpasses the stated criteria but has achieved something radically different. This has
been called the “WOW!” factor. Some of the words used in developing the meta-
criteria include creative, authentic, fresh, genuine, authoritative, super energetic,
captivating, convincing, versatile, different, innovative, path-finding, way-breaking,
pioneering, passionate, transformational and deep! Few of the dossiers show evi-
dence of all of these meta attributes but most selected candidates fall into one or
more of these meta-categories. More important, these meta-criteria give each new
committee a sense of what each member means by excellence in teaching. This
open discussion on the meaning of excellence allows each committee to distinguish
between candidates who attain or exceed the standard criteria and those who can
now be assessed in qualitatively differentiated ways that are visible to all participat-
ing in the discussion.
 This process is extremely important because each year the committee contains one
or two new members and this open discussion provides an opportunity to establish
new meta-criteria based on the multiple views of members old and new. This assists
each new set of committee members to establish a consensus that permits the mak-
ing of very fine discriminations among multiple submissions that all demonstrate
virtues of quality and excellence. Further, each committee member and potential
nominee is recommended to read an article by Ahmad (2008) that describes the
above process in detail.

Once the candidates have been chosen, written feedback files are prepared for
the unsuccessful candidates and their nominees. Rather than being negative, this
feedback underlines the strengths and weaknesses of unsuccessful candidates and
encourages them to further develop their credentials for future submissions. The
next step in the process is the announcement of the awards of up to ten successful
nominations in any given year. Maclean’s, the national Canadian Magazine, is the
official media sponsor of the awards program and it announces the winning cohort
for each year. In the meantime, the program coordinator calls each award winner
and shares the absolute delight of giving the good news and preparing them for the
events to come. Then, the retreat facilitators break the ice online by inviting the
cohort to share stories of how they were celebrated in their home institutions. The
facilitators also give an idea of what can be expected at the annual STLHE confer-
ence in June where the winners will be celebrated in various events including the
grand conference banquet.
During the conference, a concerted effort is made to introduce the members
of the new cohort to each other in a meet and greet session. This is followed by
the presentation of the new members to the community of Fellows at the annual
3M Dinner. The new members are also invited to join the Council of 3M National
Teaching Fellows. This group elects an executive and they engage in special proj-
ects that the Council leads and wishes to bring forward. These celebrations are a
prelude to the marquee event, the retreat in November—a four day affair which has
become the magical time together that inevitably leads to the collective identity of
each new cohort.
This retreat, often described as inspirational and transformational, was, for 25
years, set in the luxury of the Fairmont Hotel in Montebello, Quebec with its his-
toric backdrop and memorable setting. The retreat has moved to the western part of
Canada and now takes place in Banff; the spectacular views of the Canadian Rockies
provide a peaceful, natural background to the highly energetic mental activities of
each new cohort. But it is not only the setting that makes a difference. It is what
the new cohort of Fellows chooses to do in an environment designed to learn from
each other and to engage in passionate conversations about teaching and learning.
In what has now become a tradition, each new cohort tries to associate itself with
a special initiative on teaching and learning that they tend to make their own. It is
remarkable that these few days of group thinking have seen the birth of documents
that have been used in the national context, as well as open letters to university
Presidents, national campaigns to thank teachers, the development of a teaching
oath, the development of funding initiatives and so much more.
From the time the cohort is announced early in the year, to the time of the re-
treat in November, the cohort becomes part of the glue that holds together a larger
community of Fellows who include them from the start in teaching and learning
initiatives led by the 3M Council.

Two hundred and seventy-eight 3M National Teaching Fellowships have been

awarded to date and each receives a lifetime membership in the STLHE and entry
into a distinguished group of educational leaders. Over time, many of the Fellows
stated that they missed the inspiring intellectual activity of the retreat and felt that
with experience they had even more to contribute to teaching and learning. As a
result, in 2003 over fifty 3M Fellows gathered in Toronto at a Think Tank and here
they formed a constituent group or Council of 3M National Teaching Fellows with
an elected executive. The Council has now gained the status of the largest caucus
within STLHE and is represented by its Chair on the STLHE Board of Directors.
In addition to the valuable contributions that individual Fellows have made and
continue to make at the institutional level, there are equally valuable contributions
to the wider communities they serve. Further, the individual cohorts have contrib-
uted to several initiatives, some of which are mentioned above. One of these initia-
tives has had a transformative impact on STLHE and we hope that this impact will
significantly influence the higher education landscape in Canada. The idea was to
obtain charitable status; this would allow the Society not only to seek funds but
to extend its activities and outreach. Since then, members of that particular cohort
have worked with the STLHE Board to establish Teaching Learning Canada (TLC)/
Apprentissage Médiation Enseignement, a group that has created its own consulta-
tive Board. TLC/AME aims to hold a global conference on The Future of Learning
in collaboration with The International Consortium for Educational Development
which represents networks like STLHE from 21 countries around the world.
More recently, the 2011 cohort took out advertisements in the Globe and Mail,
a national newspaper, to “Thank your teacher.” They then created links to the
STLHE website for others to thank their own teacher (see http://www.stlhe.ca/
awards/3m-national-teaching-fellowships/initiatives/thank-your-teacher/). This is
another example of the type of impact that continues to ripple across broader com-
munities in Canada.
As a collective, the 3M National Teaching Fellows, led by the Council, have
produced three book length publications: Making a Difference/Toute la différence;
Silences in Teaching & Learning/Silence; and Students speak—Paroles d’étudiants.
These publications have united Fellows by soliciting grass roots contributions and
they have become highly regarded by all who are interested in teaching and learning
issues. 3M Fellows are also contributors to, and sit on the editorial boards of, STLHE’s
Green Guides for Teaching; the STLHE Newsletter, which is now publishing its
59th issue; the Canadian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning; and
CELT, Collected Essays in Learning and Teaching, which is now in its fourth year.
Kreber’s work (2002) suggests that these teachers have moved from being excellent
teachers to scholars of teaching, wherein “they share their knowledge and advance
the knowledge of teaching and learning” and “make their knowledge public.”
The 3M National Teaching Fellowship continues to expand and to highlight
teaching and learning at the post secondary level in Canada. The award has recently
been replicated in ten national student fellowships awarded for their leadership efforts
in improving the quality of post secondary education. The inaugural 2012 cohort
of student Fellows again testify to the high standards espoused in both award pro-
grams. Another similar award has been created for distinguished teachers from the
College sector, who add another vital perspective to enrich the diverse community
of national award winners in Canada.
As has been demonstrated, the 3M Fellowship continues to evolve as a robust
and vital program contributing to improving the quality of Canadian higher edu-
cation. It continues to be one of the most sought after and coveted awards in post
secondary education.

It should be apparent from the above why institutions recommend their outstanding
teachers for inclusion in the 3M National Teaching Fellowship. The 3M Excellence
Award offers no monetary gain; however, it does offer entry into what one might
truly define as a fellowship. Shaffer and Anundsen (1993) defined a learning com-
munity as a group of individuals who participate in common practices, depend on
one another, make decisions together, identify themselves as part of something
larger than the sum of their individual relationships, and commit themselves for
the long term to their own, one another’s, and the group’s well-being. By providing
opportunities for individuals to become a part of this community of practice, the 3M
program has an outstanding record of success and this explains its high standing as
Canada’s Stanley Cup of Teaching.

Ahmad, A. (2008). Interesting times for teaching & learning and some reflections
about teaching philosophies and dossiers of award winning teachers. Teaching
Perspectives, 9, 4–6.
Australian Awards for Teaching Excellence. (2012). Website. Retrieved from http://
www.olt.gov.au/system/files/2012AAUTNominationInfo1.pdf
Collins, R., & Palmer, A. (2004). Perceptions of rewarding excellence in teaching:
Carrots or sticks? Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/
id394_perceptions_of_rewarding_excellence
European Award for Teaching Excellence. (2012). Website. Retrieved from http://20.
ceu.hu/teaching-award
Frame, P., Johnson, M., & Rosie, A. (2006). Reward or award? Reflections on the
initial experiences of winners of a national teaching fellowship. Innovations in Educa-
tion and Teaching International, 43(4), 409–419. doi:10.1080/14703290600974016
Knapper, C., & Wright, A. W. (2001). Using portfolios to document good teach-
ing: Premises, purposes, practices. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 88,
19–29. doi:10.1002/tl.34
Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence, teaching expertise and the scholarship of
teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 27(1), 5–23. doi:10.1023/A:1020464222360
National Teaching Fellowship Scheme. (2012). Website. Retrieved from http://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/ntfs
Palmer, A., & Collins, R. (2006). Perceptions of rewarding excellence in teaching:
Motivation and the scholarship of teaching. Journal of Further and Higher Educa-
tion, 30(2), 193–205. doi:10.1080/03098770600617729
Shaffer, C. R., & Anundsen, K. (1993). Creating community anywhere: Finding sup-
port and connection in a fragmented world. New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc.
Skelton, A. (2004). Understanding ‘teaching excellence’ in higher education: A
critical evaluation of the national teaching fellowships scheme. Studies in Higher
Education, 29(4), 451–468. doi:10.1080/0307507042000236362
Warren, R., & Plumb, E. (1999). Survey of distinguished teacher award schemes
in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23(2), 245–255.
doi:10.1080/0309877990230208

1
The Stanley Cup is the trophy awarded annually in the National Hockey League
to the winning team.
 Harry Hubball
University of British Columbia, Canada

Anthony Clarke
University of British Columbia, Canada

Daniel D. Pratt
University of British Columbia, Canada

This chapter examines a recently launched institutional initiative around scholarly

approaches to summative and formative peer-review of teaching within and across
the disciplines at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada. The peer-
review of teaching initiative, led by a team of UBC national teaching fellows, was
fuelled by institutional concerns about the quality of student learning experiences
and the effectiveness of teaching in a multi-disciplinary research-intensive university
context. Canadian universities have long recognized the importance of attending to
the evaluation of teaching practices in their particular context; however, the enact-
ment of localized scholarship directed at these practices remains very much in its
infancy. Traditional approaches to the evaluation of university teaching have often

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch012

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
resulted in the over-reliance on student evaluation of teaching data and/or ad-hoc
peer-review of teaching practices with numerous accounts of methodological short-
comings that tend to yield less useful (and less authentic) data. Issues addressed
in this chapter include contemporary approaches to the evaluation of teaching in
higher education, faculty “buy-in” and the evaluation of teaching in a research-
intensive university, scholarly approaches to summative and formative Performance
Reviews of Teaching (PRT), faculty-specific engagement in summative and formative
(informal to formal) PRT training and implementation, and strategic institutional
supports (funding, expertise, mentoring, technological resources).

Historically, inadequate means of evaluating teaching have undermined the consid-

eration of teaching in tenure, promotion, and re-appointment cases within research-
intensive universities (Arai et al, 2007; Elen, Lindblom-Ylänne, & Clement, 2007;
Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004; Shulman, 2011). For the most part, this
has been due to the lack of rigour, authenticity, and credibility in peer reviews of
teaching. Peer Reviews of Teaching (PRT) for high-stakes decisions (e.g., consider-
ation for tenure and promotion) face a number of challenges (Chism, 2007; Harris,
Farrell, Bell, Devlin, & James, 2008; Hubball & Clarke, 2011; Seldin & Associates,
2006), including:

• Lack of systematically prepared and knowledgeable assessors.

• Confusion about the relationship and distinction between formative and sum-
mative PRT.
• Exclusive reliance on classroom observations by peers or student evaluations
of teaching.
• Methodological shortcomings that result in less less authentic and credible
data.
• Potential conflict of interest associated with peers acting as reviewers.

This chapter describes an institutional initiative intended to address many of these

historical shortcomings through the development of scholarly, and therefore more
credible, approaches to the PRT within and across the disciplines at the University
of British Columbia (UBC), Canada.
As a research-intensive university, the University of British Columbia educates a
student population of 50,000 and has over 250 graduate degree programs with 12
Faculties, 2 Colleges (Interdisciplinary Studies and Health Disciplines), and multiple
Schools (see http://www.ubc.ca/). It is routinely ranked among the top 30 universities
in world and among the top 3 in Canada (Times Higher Education World University
Rankings, 2011). Therefore, if peer review of teaching is to be accepted for tenure
and promotion decisions, it must be consistent with the standards of quality that are
characteristic of scholarly work across the university. For this to happen, data from
PRT must be rigorous and credible, ideally addressing all of the challenges above.
However, while UBC has long recognized the importance of student evaluation of
teaching, discipline-specific scholarly approaches to PRT remains very much in
their infancy (Glassic, Huber, & Maefoff, 1997; Hubball & Clarke, 2010; Kanuka,
2011; University of British Columbia, 2009b).
In 2010, UBC embarked on major curriculum, teaching, and learning initiatives that
are articulated in UBC’s Place and Promise: The UBC Plan—a ‘10-year visioning’
document for the institution (University of British Columbia, 2010a). The academic
plan outlined in the document emphasizes priorities and goals for enhancing the
quality of teaching and learning across the university. For example, by 2020 UBC
is to be known for creating an exceptional learning environment to which students,
staff, faculty, and alumni are drawn from all over the globe (University of British
Columbia, 2010a, p. 3). In addition, there is a new ‘Professor of Teaching’ career
track, a newly merged Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology (CTLT), and
a re-configured Institute for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISoTL).
The mandate of CTLT and ISoTL is to enhance scholarly approaches to curricula
and pedagogical practices within and across the disciplines (see http://ctlt.ubc.ca/).
Collectively, these initiatives provide a unique opportunity in the history of UBC to
not only raise the quality of the teaching and learning, but to also situate educational
practices as both scholarly and professional endeavours within a research-intensive
environment. These opportunities accentuate the need for more authentic and cred-
ible data on the quality teaching.
Typically, PRT has been undertaken by experienced academics for the purpose
of evaluating new/less experienced/tenure-track faculty members. In most instances,
there has been a disproportionate reliance on student evaluation of teaching or hastily
conceived classroom observations. When these types of data are used, peer reviews
are often dismissed or given little credence in tenure, promotion, or re-appointment
reviews (Pratt, 1997). Specifically, traditional PRT practices have lacked adequate
prior dialogue or follow-up around critical issues such as a clear rationale for how
particular judgments are made, as well as the appropriateness of guiding (institu-
tional, disciplinary, programmatic, and teaching) frameworks and timelines used
in the process. Further, the actual practice of PRT often bears little resemblance or
makes any reference to the current SoTL literature and articulated ‘best practices’
for teaching within these respective disciplinary contexts. UBC considers teaching
as one of three essential components (research, teaching and service) for all profes-
sors. Faculty members are expected to not only be pedagogically proficient but also
to develop a scholarly approach to their university teaching practices.

Contemporary approaches to PRT are increasingly the subject of research in higher

education (Collins & Pratt, 2011; Harris, Ferrell, Bell, Devlin, & James, 2008). For
example, a recent report by four Australian Universities recommended that peer re-
view of teaching should be tailored to specific institutional needs and circumstances
rather than adopting generic protocols (Crisp et al, 2009). Further, contemporary
approaches draw on authentic assessment and evaluation processes including at-
tention to criteria, standards, data collection, trained reviewers and the inseparable
relationship between formative and summative peer reviews of teaching (Arreola,
2007; Clarke & Erickson, 2004; Lomas & Kinchin, 2006). For example, Figure 1
illustrates the relationship between formative and summative approaches to PRT.

Figure 1. Relationship between formative and summative approaches to PRT

 Formative peer review of teaching emphasizes periodic feedback to faculty
members to improve teaching practices. Formative approaches range from informal,
classroom observations with follow-up collaborative reflection and discussion among
colleagues, to formal, rigorous criteria-driven processes that simulate summative
evaluations. Building on these approaches, summative PRT uses both internal and
external evaluators to provide information and feedback to faculty members about
the quality of their teaching to inform decision-making purposes for consideration
of tenure, promotion, or re-appointment.
Researchers have cautioned that peer reviewers of teaching, as with peer review of
other forms of academic work, must be sensitive to personal agendas and frames of
reference, such as, their understanding of institutional and teaching contexts, personal
beliefs and values about effective teaching, and their evaluative skills, as well as the
beliefs, values, and intentions of the faculty member being reviewed (Courneya,
Pratt, & Collins, 2008; Pratt, 1998). While recent literature has documented a ‘best
practice’ approach to formative and summative peer review of teaching, this approach
can easily become ad hoc and/or lost within the disciplinary context or complex (and
often competing) priorities of research-intensive universities. Scholarly approaches
to PRT deliberately build upon ‘best practices’ by tailoring peer reviews of teaching
to the diverse needs, circumstances and disciplinary contexts of one’s university.
But in all cases, a scholarly approach to PRT (formative and summative) requires
greater commitment to the process than ad-hoc or one-off evaluations that currently
characterize the practice in many research-intensive universities.

Scholarly approaches to PRT are part of a larger process of current institutional,

curricular, and pedagogical reform in higher education (Ambrose et al, 2010; Nor-
ton, 2009). A scholarly approach to PRT, as with all forms of research, is based on
underlying assumptions about knowledge, in this case, knowledge about teaching
and learning. We believe that there are at least three assumptions that are significant
in relation to PRT, specifically that knowledge is: (1) personally constructed, (2)
socially mediated, and (3) inherently situated (Cox, 2004; Hubball & Albon, 2007;
Huber, 2006; McKinney, 2007). Each assumption provides direction and caution
for the peer review of teaching. For example, the first assumption cautions that
individual conceptions of the ‘good’ in teaching will always be part of the PRT
process. Therefore, peer reviewers need to make explicit their personal beliefs about
effective teaching (Atwood, Taylor, & Hutchings, 2000; Pratt, 1998). Similarly,
those being reviewed should be allowed to clarify their own assumptions, beliefs,
and intentions related to effective teaching. This bilateral transparency is critical to
making peer reviews of teaching fair, as well as authentic.
The socially mediated aspect of knowledge construction speaks to the negoti-
ated nature of gathering and presenting authentic and credible knowledge about
someone’s teaching. Negotiation may be more obviously relevant in the formative
review process, but it is no less relevant in summative reviews. Indeed, scholarly
approaches to summative reviews of teaching often involve faculty members from
different institutional levels or disciplinary traditions, e.g., when internal and exter-
nal reviewers are involved (Friedman, 2008; Healey, 2000). Coming to consensus
about the quality of someone’s teaching may, therefore, require negotiation across
disciplinary traditions and diverse communities of practice. Negotiation between
various stakeholders, e.g., administrators, peers, and students, can enhance the va-
lidity, reliability, and authenticity of PRT (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
Finally, knowledge about teaching is also inherently situated within disciplin-
ary traditions, learning environments, and political landscapes that frame what is
acceptable in both the review process and evidence of effective teaching. Scholarly
approaches to PRT must, therefore, have regard for the historical, political, and
contextual factors that are beyond the control of individual teachers, but are part
of the ‘signature pedagogies’ within which they are teaching. Acknowledging the
situated nature of knowledge about teaching is, therefore, also a matter of assessing
the ‘fit’ of an individual within a culture of teaching (Stake & Cisneros-Cohernour,
2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991).

As noted at the outset, a myriad of factors (SoTL literature, institutional, and pro-
grammatic reform) led to a UBC faculty working group in 2009 that developed
guidelines for PRT processes in order to enhance the quality of teaching evaluations.
Heads, Deans, and the Senior Appointments Committee were also seeking better
data on teaching so they could more responsibly carry out their respective oversight
and evaluation responsibilities in the university.
In the summer of 2010, with the restructuring of the Centre for Teaching Learning
and Technology (CTLT) and its attendant ISoTL function, there existed for the first
time at UBC a structure and academic leadership for launching a UBC PRT Initiative
(UBC, 2010b). Further, with the formalization of CTLT/ISoTL, each Faculty (by
working with senior faculty members appointed by the respective Dean) now had a
means to develop guidelines and professional development strategies for PRT within
and across the disciplines. The campus leadership team for this initiative includes
three 3M National Teaching Fellows and the Director of Faculty Relations and 12
representatives (Dean’s nominees), one from each of the Faculties on campus. The
university is funding this initiative by providing a one-course credit, for each of two
years, for leadership team members to implement the goals and practices inherent
in the PRT initiative.
With the PRT leadership team in place, the immediate task was to address issues
of authentic assessment and evaluation of teaching. For example, it was important for
the process to be authentic (e.g., to honour the disciplinary culture in each Faculty/
School), for it to be rigorous (e.g., to be methodologically sound and theoretically
defensible), and to be manageable (e.g., the process had to be realistic and practical
given the competing demands on the reviewers’ time within the institution).
The aims of this initiative were for the university to: (1) improve the quality of
summative PRT processes and reporting outcomes through the professional develop-
ment of a peer reviewer cohort; and (2) develop and implement appropriate profes-
sional development in each Faculty/School in order to foster a culture of formative
and summative peer review of teaching. The processes employed were as follows:

• Engage the 12 PRT leaders in a discussion of the aims and processes to be

implemented over the next two years.
• Identify SoTL literature & UBC contextual documents pertaining to PRT.
• Generate examples of summative PRT reports in different disciplines.
• Identify appropriate pedagogical frameworks (evidence, criteria, standards,
and protocols) that enhance the quality of existing practices across disciplines.
• Design Faculty-specific plans for PRT to be discussed within each Faculty.
• Implement above plan with on-going analysis of impact and further profes-
sional development as required.

The initial session for leaders was opened by the Provost to reinforce the impor-
tance of the initiative. Subsequent sessions consisted of two cohort meetings (i.e., the
leadership team and the 12 Faculty nominated leaders) in the fall, followed by 1-to-1
meetings with the Chair; one meeting in the spring, followed by 1-to-1 meetings
with the Chair; and two meetings at the start and end of May 2011, and self-directed
initiatives within faculties for planning and implementing the revised PRT process.
The first year of the initiative, with a strong focus on summative PRT, was guided
by a number of questions drawn from the UBC context and the literature related to
peer review of teaching:

• What are critical elements of an effective summative PRT report?

• What evidence/data for summative PRT are appropriate in my Faculty?
• What criteria for summative PRT are appropriate in my Faculty?
• What standards for summative PRT are appropriate in my Faculty?
• What ethical principles for summative PRT are appropriate in my Faculty?
• What engagement sequences for summative PRT are appropriate in my
Faculty?

The second year of the project focuses on helping members of the cohort work
with and train their colleagues in formative and summative review procedures, as
well as periodic leadership meetings to discuss lessons learned and challenges and
support strategies for implementing formative and summative PRT. Where appro-
priate, CTLT provides additional support. The intent of this second year is to build
discipline-specific protocols that will be sensitive to the pedagogical norms of each
discipline, profession, or field of practice.

We argue that there is no one single institutional strategy or scholarly approach to

PRT in research-intensive universities. Building on PRT perspectives presented in the
literature and research, the organizational framework shown in Figure 2 was useful
for facilitating scholarly approaches to PRT within and across the UBC Faculties.
Figure 2 provides a flexible and iterative framework that takes into account the
PRT context, and integrates responsive institutional strategies for conducting schol-
arly approaches to PRT. Practical strategies, outlined briefly below for each com-
ponent of the framework, are drawn from a combination of literature sources and
research at UBC (Hubball & Clarke, 2011).

PRT context refers to the attention and sensitivity given to the ‘big picture’ that
shapes peer review of teaching practices. This can be achieved through appropriate
leadership, research and ethical considerations, consultation, dialogue, collaboration,
and attention to adequate support and incentives to conduct PRT. These strategies
ensure that the PRT experience is not only meaningful and relevant to the needs
and circumstances of faculty members, but it is also manageable to administer,
and, above all, empowers the community to engage in scholarly approaches to PRT.
Figure 2. Operational framework for conducting a scholarly approach to peer review
of teaching in a research-intensive university

PRT planning refers to the preparation and development of short- and long-term
PRT goals including the scheduling of timely (e.g., pre-assessment, assessment,
and post-assessment) meetings, deadlines, and expectations with respective parties
(e.g., Department Head, reviewers, and reviewed faculty member when appropriate),
which, in part, drive the PRT process. For example, these meetings can be focused on
discussions to clarify signature pedagogies (such as PBL in clinical settings or large
class lectures in other settings), and appropriate forms of assessment and evaluation.

PRT data sources would be quantitative and qualitative in nature and include teach-
ing workload statistics, classroom observations of teaching, course syllabi, teaching
dossier, and student evaluations of teaching. Data sources must be appropriate and
sensitive to assessing a broad perspective of teaching practices, including evidence
about context, process, outcomes, and impact within the institution.

PRT must be guided by appropriate frameworks related to criteria (e.g., command

over subject matter and representation of recent developments in the field, pre-
paredness, relationship between goals/objectives, student engagement strategies,
and assessment of learning) and standards for effective teaching (e.g., descriptors
pertaining to designated criteria for percentile or A, B, C, D ratings; exceeds, meets,
or does not meet standards; strengths and weaknesses) if judgments about the qual-
ity of a faculty member’s teaching practice is to be authentic and credible within
specific contexts.

Various types of data for summative peer review of teaching are documented in
the literature (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Building on the earlier organizational
framework for conducting scholarly approaches to PRT, data sources can be stra-
tegically categorized within the conceptual framework shown in Figure 3 (Hubball
& Clarke, 2011).

Teaching context data focus on critical structures that shape a faculty member’s
teaching practice. Therefore, a comprehensive needs assessment involving consulta-
tions and collaborations between respective parties is required in order to situate a
faculty member’s teaching practice within the SoTL literature, institutional vision-
ing documents, signature pedagogies within their discipline, and an individual’s
academic workload.

Teaching process data focus on issues of importance that arise throughout a faculty
member’s teaching practice. For example, to what extent are learning outcomes
made explicitly to the students through course syllabi? To what extent are indi-
vidual instructors incorporating learning-centred classes that are responsive to the
needs and circumstances of the students? To what extent is the instructor drawing
on an appropriate selection and sequencing of active learning methodologies and
developing a reflective teaching disposition to guide further teaching development?

Teaching outcome data focus on immediate outcomes of a faculty member’s teaching

practice. For example, what are key student learning outcomes from this particular
teaching approach and how do students rate the quality of the educational experi-
ence? It might also encompass an examination of the quality of students’ work and
an examination of the faculty member’s student grading practices.
Figure 3. Potential data sources for PRT

Teaching impact data focus on the long-term (e.g., months, years) impact of a faculty
member’s teaching practice. This might involve, for example, an examination of
the faculty member’s long-term impact on and contributions to teaching and learn-
ing within a subject or unit. It might also encompass a longer-term analysis of the
range in quality of students’ work, a longitudinal examination of grades given, and
an examination of the faculty member’s responses to and subsequent changes from
previous formative peer review of teaching feedback/reports.

Various criteria frameworks for effective teaching have been documented in the
higher education literature. The following criteria are suggested in the collective
agreement at the University of British Columbia (UBC, 2009a):

• Command over subject matter (how knowledgeable or authoritative).

• Representation of recent developments in the field (what’s in; what’s not).
• Preparedness (for individual sessions and for overall course/term).
• Relationship between goals/objectives, student engagement, and assessment
of learning.
• Appropriateness of course materials and requirements (given the topic and
level).
• Articulation with other programmatic courses/elements.
Making judgments on aspects of a colleague’s teaching practice (evaluation) is typi-
cally the most challenging dimension of PRT. Evaluation challenges often emerge
due to inadequate attention to communities of practice, inappropriate criteria, and
vague standards. For example, judgments tend to focus on committee members’
interpretations of statements such as “Exceeds,” “Meets,” or “Does not meet” ex-
pected standards. The following descriptions are provided as examples and illustrate
valuable specificity (further developed and contextualized by each Faculty) that, in
part, overcomes idiosyncratic interpretations:

• Exceeds Faculty/Departmental Expectations: Reserved for the (usually) few

exceptional examples of teaching practice consistent with the standard, re-
served for those that the Department/Faculty would nominate for teaching
awards. Both internal and external peer reviewers need to be in agreement
with the evidence presented.
• Meets Faculty/Departmental Expectations: Evidence suggests there is gener-
ally a high quality throughout the instructor’s teaching practice, no problems
of any significance, and evidence of consistent attention to the following:
student engagement, effective teaching practices, and developing a scholarly
approach to teaching and learning.
• Does Not Meet Faculty/Departmental Expectations: Evidence suggests there
is generally an inadequate quality in the instructor’s teaching practice and
serious flaws or deficits in the instructor’s understanding of teaching and
learning.

For any process to be fair and equitable, it must be as transparent as possible to the
participating members. For that reason, a protocol for the PRT should be established
and agreed upon by the members in the Department/Faculty. An example of one such
protocol that was developed in one Faculty context included the following sequence:

• Notification of required summative PRT.

• Meeting of PRT committee (internal and external reviewers) to discuss con-
text, appropriate data, criteria, standards, and process expectations.
• Meeting of candidate with PRT committee to discuss/clarify context, data
collection, criteria, standards, and process expectations.
• Data collection to obtain a long and broad perspective of a faculty member’s
teaching practice.
• Meeting of candidate with PRT committee to discuss and debrief outcomes
from PRT.
• Meeting of external and PRT committee to discuss data analysis and formula-
tion of summative report that is submitted to Department Head by external
PRT committee member.

The excerpts (purposely edited) (Table 1) provide a working example of a summa-

tive PRT report at UBC.

Table 1. Working example of a summative PRT report

<Unit Letterhead>
Date: XXXX
To: XXXX Head
          Department of XXXXX
From: XXXXXX <Name of External ad Internal Reviewers>
Re: Peer Review of Teaching for <name>
Summative Peer review of Teaching: Feedback Report
Introduction
We have worked with XXXXXXX over the past six weeks to review his/her teaching practice. The departmen-
tal guidelines for the ‘Colleague Review Process’ define teaching practice to include post-Baccalaureate
courses, graduate courses, and membership (including supervision) of graduate student thesis committees.
Departmental guidelines identify key data sources and criteria when determining the standard (exceeds,
meets, or does not meet the standard of teaching expected of faculty members in this department) upon which
to evaluate teaching practices.
This report looks back over XXXXXXX’s recent accomplishments and forward to professional development
goals for future teaching practice. Prior to the peer review, we met with XXXXXXX to discuss the context
of his/her teaching, departmental criteria and standards for effective teaching, his/her teaching and course
goals, and the peer review protocol. In compiling this report, therefore, we drew on the following data
sources:
      our pre-instruction, post-instruction, and follow-up discussions with XXXXXXX
      his/her course syllabi and lecture plans (e.g., is based on current scholarship and literature; uses
authentic methods to assess and evaluate student learning outcomes; contributes to departmental/programme
goals; and articulates a rationale for pedagogical approaches)
      her/his scholarly teaching dossier (if available)
      two peer classroom observations of XXXXXXX (e.g., breadth and depth of pedagogical repertoire;
clear and helpful classroom discourse; engagement with and responsiveness to students; and inclusiveness
and fair treatment of student diversity is evident)

continued on following page

Table 1. Continued

      comments elicited specifically for this evaluation from XXXX students (graduate and undergraduate)
for whom XXXXXXX was a course instructor and/or supervisor (e.g., Is reasonably accessible; provides
timely feedback; offers high quality guidance; knows institutional/departmental procedures)
      her/his student evaluation of teaching (SEoT) open-ended comments and numerical scores on teaching
practice from UBC’s 6 module teaching evaluation components
      student grading practices (including distributions and justification, review of feedback on students’
assignments)
      his/her 2-page reflection paper pertaining to XXXXXXX’s interpretation of his/her previous formative
PRT or SEoT data from XXXXX to XXXXX
XXXXXXX’s teaching expertise is in the areas of XXXXX, with a scope that is interdisciplinary and interna-
tional. XXXXXXX has a strong commitment to diversity and innovation in his/her teaching practice, evident
in his/her teaching philosophy statement and pedagogic goals. For example, XXXXXXX’s teaching practice
draws on and uses a wide range of learning and teaching strategies (such as XXXXX) in order to recognize,
acknowledge, and honour XXXXX in the student learning experience.
Major Teaching Contributions
XXXXXXX’s contributions to teaching at UBC are significant and varied. For example, she/he is the XXXXX,
she/he is a graduate student advisor, and teaches in both the graduate and undergraduate programs within
the Faculty.
Since coming to UBC, XXXXX has been involved in direct supervision, co-supervision, and committee work
of several graduate students at the XXXXX and PhD level. In the XXXXX years that he/she has been at UBC,
a total of XX graduate students (XXXXX) with whom she/he worked as Principal Supervisor or Commit-
tee Member have successfully defended their research theses/dissertations. In addition to guiding his/her
graduate students in their research inquiries, she/he has actively encouraged and successfully supported a
number of them in developing conference proposals, presenting conference papers, and preparing articles
for publication. One of her/his recent XXXXX graduates has since enrolled in the PhD Program in XXXX and
she/he was successful in securing one of the prestigious 4-year XXX graduate scholarships.
The following two quotes from his SEoTs demonstrate how his/her teaching (both graduate and undergradu-
ate) has been perceived and interpreted by students at UBC. The first quote refers to his undergraduate teach-
ing, and the second quote comes from a student who took one of his/her XXXXXX graduate courses.
XXXXX (graduate student XXXXX)
Graduate Student Supervision
Since 2007, XXXXX has worked with several graduate students. We were able to contact XXX of these
students to request feedback about XXXXX’s graduate teaching practice and supervision. All responses con-
sistently speak of a highly dedicated and talented teacher. A representative selection of their comments (and
those from a selection of undergraduate students) include the following:
XXXXX l (XXXX May-June 2009).
Meetings with XXXXX: Reflective Practice and Professional Development
Our meetings with XXXXX proved to be valuable in that we were able to move beyond artifacts and observa-
tions to a conversation about the assumptions that underlie and give meaning to his/her teaching practice.
We were impressed with the thoughtfulness, enthusiasm and care with which XXXXX talks about and reflects
on his/her teaching, and the willingness to constantly seek ways of further developing her/his teaching reper-
toire.
Student Evaluation of Teaching (SEoT) Numerical Scores on Teaching Practice
The SEoT Office provided a summary report of the numerical scores for three undergraduate courses and
four graduate courses XXXXX has taught while at UBC. The scores are based on student responses to a
30-item questionnaire. The report documents XXXXX’s record of achievement beginning with courses she/
he taught in 2007 as an AAAAA Professor. SEoT records document XXXXX courses which Dr. XXXXX has
taught since the fall of XXXXX. Since XXXXX, the three-year faculty average for undergraduate courses
was XXXXX, and the graduate average was XXXXX. Dr. XXXXX was above the faculty mean for one of the
undergraduate courses and above the faculty mean for all XXXXX of the graduate courses listed. Dr.

continued on following page

Table 1. Continued

XXXXX’s weighted overall average was XXXXX across XXXXX undergraduate courses, and XXXXX across
all four graduate courses she/he has taught since XXXXX (SEoT Summary Report, October XXXXX). Taken
overall, these results reflect a very high standard of teaching.

Summary
We commend XXXXX for her/his valuable contributions to the graduate and undergraduate (XXXXX)
programs and for his/her commitment to embark on professional development initiatives to expand and
improve his/her teaching practice in order to enhance student learning. In our opinion, when taking into
account all data sources and criteria, XXXXX meets the teaching standards of our department.

UBC PRT leaders, collectively and individually, have progressed through the stages
of PRT professional development training albeit from different starting points and
disciplinary contexts pertaining to scholarly PRT processes. Not unexpectedly, vari-
ous challenges emerged from these PRT experiences. Initially, for example, there
was a great variation in quality and rigor of initial summative PRT reports that
were disseminated among the group. On review, these generated sometimes heated
debates about disciplinary cultures with respect to PRT (e.g., misunderstandings
about formative and summative PRT practices, initial confusion and anxiety about
the rationale and interpretations for internal and external PRT evaluators, misunder-
standings about PRT sources of data collection). However, over time, inspired by
cross-disciplinary discussions pertaining to best practices, significant progress was
made and greater coherence agreed upon with respect to authentic (e.g., signature
pedagogies) and scholarly approaches to PRT within the university.
One important outcome that emerged from the PRT leadership group was the
strategic, effective, and efficient use of new media opportunities (emerging and
innovative digital technologies) in order to facilitate faculty members’ engagement
in scholarly approaches to PRT. Given the significant time challenges and schedul-
ing conflicts with colleagues within and across disciplines, the appropriate use of
technology was deemed to provide greater flexibility and, in many cases, improve
the quality of analysis of teaching practices (Hutchings, 2002). For example, the
increasing use of e-mail communications and video conferencing tools (e.g., Skype™)
was deemed to facilitate pre- and post-assessment meetings, as well as e-portfolios
for teaching dossiers and digital recordings of “classroom” experiences (e.g., split
screen video with one camera focusing on the instructor and the other on the class).
However, it should be noted that technology did not always adequately capture true
classroom atmospheres or teacher-student dynamics and/or tensions in diverse
classroom settings and sometimes posed difficulties with the technology itself.
 Scholarly approaches to peer review of teaching often require faculty members
to move beyond their own disciplinary orientation and embrace broader social sci-
ence methodologies, which for many is epistemologically and ethically challenging
(Kanuka, 2011; Regehr, 2010). Despite these inevitable challenges, the early signs
for implementation of the UBC PRT initiative are very encouraging, though we
are closely analyzing progress over the first two years (and will do so beyond). For
example, by developing a networked improvement community (Bryk, Gomez, &
Grunow, 2010) pertaining to PRT effectiveness and efficiency within and across the
disciplines, strategic data sharing, dissemination and research questions over this
implementation period focus on the following: To what extent are all UBC Faculties
engaged with the PRT initiative? To what extent have summative PRT reports (and
formative training) been improved for use in tenure, promotion, and merit contexts?
What has been the impact of the PRT initiative on student learning experiences? How
have PRT leadership workload assignments been resourced within the disciplines?
Evidence thus far based on 1) a review of all discipline-specific PRT protocols, 2)
PRT leaders meeting discussions, and 3) semi-structured individual interviews,
suggest: significant differences have occurred in pre-post (18-month PRT leaders
training outcomes) PRT reporting protocols; increased familiarity and clarity with
PRT literature and key concepts such as formative, summative, external and internal
reviewers; diverse and authentic PRT data sources and evaluation guidelines; explicit
PRT sequencing; improved methodological rigour of PRT processes by refining/
developing initial reports to incorporate key PRT concepts; and a greater sense of
community and cohesion among UBC PRT leaders within and across the disciplines.

This chapter has outlined a PRT initiative at one Canadian research-intensive

university and the issues, practices, and challenges associated with that initiative.
We are still learning and trust that the progress made to date will provide a strong
foundation for a reputable and respected PRT process within and across the disci-
plines into the future. We acknowledge that we will still have to overcome existing
suspicions and conceptions that linger from earlier and less scholarly PRT efforts.
Thus, as outlined in this chapter, we have attempted to provide a more scholarly
underpinning to PRT through campus-wide renewal, review, and reconceptualization
of the process. A scholarly approach to PRT in a research-intensive university is a
complex and multifaceted process. It involves focused attention to the needs and
circumstances of discipline-specific communities of practice, relevant literature,
and conceptual frameworks, systematic methodology for authentic assessment and
evaluation, ethical considerations, and dissemination of outcomes.
 Summative PRT should take a broad and long perspective of a faculty member’s
teaching practice with explicit procedures and guiding principles (e.g., scholarship,
accuracy, integrity, transparency, diversity, credibility, and usefulness). Further, to
implement formative and summative scholarly approaches to PRT, in a research-
intensive university requires appropriate resourcing for peer reviewers’ time, ex-
pertise, and training costs. Consequently, if scholarly approaches to PRT are not
adequately supported, confronting implementation issues can present significant
challenges for many reviewers and administrators - the magnitude of which may well
be an outright deterrent for some academic units to engage in scholarly approaches
to PRT (Hubball & Clarke, 2011). While there are still many significant challenges
and areas for improvement at this university, the growing institutional support and
widespread attention to scholarly approaches to the PRT within and across disci-
plines is a testimony to the increasing value placed on SoTL in research-intensive
universities. An institutional commitment to research, therefore, far from being a
barrier to improving teaching, can be publicly engaged as the basis for authentic
assessment and evaluation of teaching in a research-intensive university setting.

The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to all institutional PRT lead-
ers within and across the disciplines for their critical contributions to this chapter.

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., Norman, M. K., &
Mayer, R. E. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for
smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Arai, K., Cech, T., Chameau, J.-L., Horn, P., Mattai, I., Potocnik, J., & Wiley, J.
(2007). The future of research universities: Is the model of research-intensive uni-
versities still valid at the beginning of the twenty-first century? European Molecular
Biology Organization Reports, 8(9), 804-810. Retrieved August 31, 2010, from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973958/
Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A
guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation systems
(3rd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Bernstein, D. J. (2008). Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teach-
ing. Change, 40(2), 48–51. doi:10.3200/CHNG.40.2.48-51
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2010). Getting ideas into action: Build-
ing networked improvement communities in education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.carnegie-
foundation.org/spotlight/webinar-bryk-gomez-building-networkedimprovement-
communities-in-education
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
Chism, N. V. (2007). Peer review of teaching: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:
Anker Publications.
Clarke, A., & Erickson, G. (2004). The nature of teaching and learning in self-study
. In Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. (Eds.), Inter-
national Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp.
41–68). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-
1-4020-6545-3_2
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2004). Practitioner inquiry, knowledge, and uni-
versity culture . In Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T.
(Eds.), International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education
Practices (pp. 601–650). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Collins, J. B., & Pratt, D. D. (2011). The teaching perspectives inventory at 10 years
and 100,000 respondents: Reliability and validity of a teacher self-report inventory.
Adult Education Quarterly, 61(4), 1–18. doi:10.1177/0741713610392763
Courneya, C.-A., Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. (2008). Through what perspective do
we judge the teaching of peers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 69–79.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.009
Cox, M. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 97, 5–24. doi:10.1002/tl.129
Crisp, G., et al. (2009). Peer review of teaching for promotion purposes: A project
to develop and implement a pilot program of peer review of teaching at four Aus-
tralian universities. Retrieved December 2010, from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/
clpd/peerreview
Elen, J., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Clement, M. (2007). Faculty development in
research-intensive universities: The role of academics’ conceptions on the rela-
tionship between research and teaching. The International Journal for Academic
Development, 12(2), 123–139. doi:10.1080/13601440701604948
Friedman, V. J. (2008). Action science: Creating communities of inquiry in com-
munities of practice . In Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Action
Research: The Concise Paperback Edition (pp. 131–143). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evalu-
ation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2004). Evaluating our peers: Is peer
observation a meaningful process? Studies in Higher Education, 29(4), 489–503.
doi:10.1080/0307507042000236380
Harris, K.-L., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin, M., & James, R. (2008). Peer review
of teaching in Australian higher education: A handbook to support institutions
in developing and embedding effective policies and practices. Sydney, Australia:
Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: A
discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2),
169–189. doi:10.1080/072943600445637
Hubball, H., & Albon, S. (2007). Faculty learning communities: Enhancing the
scholarship of teaching, learning, and curriculum practice. Journal on Excellence
in College Teaching, 18(2), 119–142.
Hubball, H., & Clarke, A. (2010). Diverse methodological approaches and consid-
erations for SoTL in higher education. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 1(1).
Hubball, H., & Clarke, A. (2011). Scholarly approaches to peer-review of teaching:
Emergent frameworks and outcomes in a research-intensive university. Transforma-
tive Dialogues Journal, 4(3).
Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Poole, G. (2010). Ten-year reflections on mentoring SoTL
research in a research-intensive university. The International Journal for Academic
Development, 15(2), 117–129. doi:10.1080/13601441003737758
Huber, M. T. (2006). Disciplines, pedagogy, and inquiry-based learning about teach-
ing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 107, 63–72. doi:10.1002/tl.246
Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (2002). Ethics of inquiry: Issues in the scholarship of teaching
and learning. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching and Learning.
Kanuka, H. (2011). Keeping the scholarship in the scholarship of teaching and
learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1).
Retrieved December 2010, from http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical un-
derpinnings . In Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T.
(Eds.), International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education
Practices (pp. 817–869). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3_21
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lomas, L., & Kinchin, I. (2006). Developing a peer observation program with
university teachers. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Edu-
cation, 18(3), 204–214.
McKinney, K. (2007). Enhancing learning through the scholarship of teaching and
learning: The challenges and joys of juggling. San Francisco, CA: Anker Publishing.
Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide
to conducting pedagogical research in universities. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Pratt, D. (1997). Reconceptualizing the evaluation of teaching in higher education.
Higher Education, 34(1), 23–44. doi:10.1023/A:1003046127941
Pratt, D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education.
Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Regehr, G. (2010). It’s not rocket science: Rethinking our metaphors for research in
health professions education. Medical Education, 44(1), 31–39. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2923.2009.03418.x
Richlin, L., & Cox, M. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarship
of teaching and learning through faculty learning communities. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 97, 127–136. doi:10.1002/tl.139
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for
teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Seldin, P. (2006). Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide to assessing
teaching, research, and service. Boston, MA: Anker Publishing.
Shulman, L. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning: A personal account
and reflection. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
5(1). Retrieved February, 2011, from http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Stake, R. E., & Cisneros-Cohernour, E. J. (2000). Situational evaluation of teaching
on campus. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 83, 51–72. doi:10.1002/
tl.8305
Taylor, J. W., Atwood, C. H., & Hutchings, P. A. (2000). Why are chemists and other
scientists afraid of the peer review of teaching? Journal of Chemical Education,
77(2), 239–243. doi:10.1021/ed077p239
Times Higher Education World University Rankings. (2010). World reputation
rankings 2011. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-
university-rankings/
University of British Columbia. (2009a). Guide to reappointment, promotion and
tenure procedures at UBC for 2009/10. UBC Press.
University of British Columbia. (2009b). Report of the UBC working group on peer
review of teaching. UBC Press.
University of British Columbia. (2010a). Place and promise: The UBC plan. Re-
trieved October 2010 from http://strategicplan.ubc.ca/
University of British Columbia. (2010b). UBC peer review of teaching initiative.
Retrieved January 2011 from http://ctlt.ubc.ca/about-isotl/programs-events/ubc-
peer-review-of-teaching-initiative/
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Quality assurance
in higher education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer.
 Spencer A. Benson
University of Maryland, USA

Ann C. Smith
University of Maryland, USA

David B. Eubanks
University of Maryland, USA

In this chapter, the authors explore how faculty learning communities that focus on
teaching and student learning have been instrumental in transforming the percep-
tion of teaching as a “tax to be paid” into an engaging scholarly activity. Faculty
engagement in learning communities devoted to teaching and learning facilitates
the development of new knowledge and insights into teaching and student learning
as well as new perceptions regarding the roles of teaching in the faculty’s profes-
sional career. Using a case study approach, the authors describe various examples
of learning communities at the University of Maryland that have transformed per-
ceptions about teaching.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch013

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
The hallmark of research universities is the generation of new discipline knowledge
through faculty research. Many faculty perceive this as the primary component of
their work and as the unit for which they are recognized and rewarded (Boyer, 1990;
Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997). Many faculty therefore perceive teaching as a
tax paid to enable the important work of research, which they believe is the basis for
recognition, rewards and promotion. As a consequence, faculty efforts and engage-
ment in teaching and student learning are often compromised. While most faculty
approach their teaching with a professional attitude and strive to do well, too often
their work as teachers lacks the scholarly orientation present in their discipline
research efforts. In other words, they approach teaching not as scholars but as jour-
neymen who disseminate information to students using traditional pedagogies that
he or she experienced as a student. Contributing to the journeyman approach is the
lack of basic training in how to teach during graduate school. Rather than receiving
any formal training, new graduate students adopt an apprenticeship approach and
when they move into faculty roles they teach as they were taught. This reiterative
cycle fails to account for advances in our understanding of how people learn, new
pedagogical approaches, and new technologies integral to the contemporary world.
Moreover, most faculty have little or no awareness, much less knowledge of, the
significant body of literature within their own or related disciplines that provides
grounding and insights into how students learn or what constitutes effective teaching.
Yet, we have observed award winning teachers. Some develop scholarly expertise
in teaching through luck, trial and error, and/or persistence. For others, a scholarly
interest in teaching evolves from participation in a faculty learning community.
The concept of learning communities in higher education dates back to the early
20th century and is rooted in the seminal work of John Dewey (1916). Much of the
early work was on student learning communities focused on structured programs for
undergraduates that connected student life with the academic curriculum in order
to foster engaged life-long-learners (Shapiro & Laufgraben, 1999; Laufgraben &
Shapiro, 2004). Looking at the faculty experience, O’Meara, Terosky and Newman
proposed that “higher education is centered on learning, and learning should be at
the center of how faculty grow throughout their careers” and, importantly for this
discussion, “faculty learn, grow, and make professional contributions through profes-
sional relationships embedded in communities” (O’Meara, Terosky, & Neumann,
2009, p. 171). Numerous professional societies (“POD Network” | Professional and
Organizational Development Network in Higher Education) (the American Society
for Microbiology “Biology Scholars Program”) and others, plus institutions such as
the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning have embraced
the concept that learning as a community activity is a significant force in faculty
development and change.
Milt Cox and Laurie Richland (Richlin & Cox, 2004) have championed the use
of faculty learning communities (FLCs) for improving faculty understanding of
teaching and learning. They define FLC as “a group of trans-disciplinary faculty,
graduate students and professional staff of a group size 6-15 or more (8 to 12 is the
recommended size) engaging in an active, collaborative, yearlong program with a
curriculum about enhancing teaching and learning and with frequent seminars and
activities that provide learning, development, transdisciplinarity, the scholarship
of teaching and learning, and community building” (Richlin & Cox, 2004). Randy
Bass proposes that challenges (or, in scholarly terms, “problems”) in teaching can
be addressed through discourse and community in way analogous to how challenges
(problems) are addressed in traditional discipline scholarship (Bass, 1999). As the
higher education paradigm shifts from teaching-centered to learning-centered (Barr
& Tagg, 1995), the need for faculty to grow beyond traditional content delivery to
teaching that focuses on student learning and engagement is increasingly needed.
Faculty to a large degree are professional learners; by turning their propensity for
learning toward questions related to teaching, student learning, and today’s edu-
cational challenges it is possible to change the ways faculty teach and view teach-
ing. Establishing theme-based or cohort-based FLC (Richlin & Cox, 2004) is one
way that centers for teaching and learning address faculty development, creation
and dissemination of innovations in teaching and learning, course and curricular
challenges, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). This article
describes how nine learning communities have had an impact on graduate student
and faculty development as teachers at a large public research university: the Uni-
versity of Maryland (UMD). All of the UMD communities described have a theme
or mission, five of the nine are cohort based (generally working together for one
year on a project), of which two are long standing communities, and one which has
a membership linked to specific teaching responsibility (faculty move in and out
of the community dependent upon when they are teaching a community relevant
course) the other fours communities are theme based (See Table 1).

The oldest faculty learning community at UMD is the CTE Lilly Faculty Fellow-
ship. This learning community is more than 20 years old, with the first cohort es-
tablished in 1989 with funding from the Lilly Foundation (Lilly Endowment, Inc.,
Table 1. University of Maryland faculty and graduate student learning communities

Number Year
Learning
Members Recruitment of Incentive Outcome Duration of
Community
Members Origin
Cohort-Based1
I-Series Faculty Selective, 20 - 40 per Course Individual, Semester 2010
Faculty teaching RFP for semester development course
an I-Series course grant2
course development
Blended Faculty Selective, 10 teams Course Individual Academic 2011
Learning redesigning RFP for redesign course Year
Initiative a course to course grant4
a blended redesign
format
CTE-Lilly Senior Selective 8 $1000.00 Group Academic 2008
Graduate Graduate Self- Year
Fellows Students nomination
Internationals International Nomination 8 $500.00 Individual Academic 2008
Teaching Graduate by program or Year
Fellows Teaching department
Assistants
University Graduate Open to >100 No Individual On-going 2000
Teaching Teaching interested
and Learning Assistants individual
Program
Theme-Based1
CTE-Lilly Faculty Selective 10 $4000.00 Group Academic 1989
Faculty Self- Year
Fellows nomination
Host- Faculty and Open to 18 No Yes, group On-going 2004
Pathogen Graduate interested
Institute Students individual
Summer Faculty Selective, 12-16 $1500.00 Individual Academic 20075
Technology Self- Year
Institute nomination
Marquee Marquee Selective RFP 12* Course Individual, On-going 2007
Faculty Faculty for course development course
redesign grant3
1
Cohort-based FLC are define as communities where membership is limited to a defined groups of individu-
als, e.g., senior graduate student, international graduate students, teaching an I-Series Course, theme-based FLC
are communities where membership is limited to individual interested the central focus of the FLC, e.g. interest
in the teaching with technology, interesting is a discipline area, improving undergraduate education.
2
Faculty received $6,000 for development of an I-Series course
3
Faculty received $10,000 for development of a Marquee course
4
Faculty teams received $25,000 to 50,000 for redesign on course into a blended format
5
In 2011 participation in a yearlong FLC became a required part of the Summer Technology Institute
2012). At the end of a two year pilot, the program was institutionalized a Maryland
with the support of the Office of Undergraduate Studies and the leadership of the
Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE). Each year faculty from all disciplines and
ranks are encouraged to apply be a CTE Lilly Faculty Fellow. Applicants submit a
short (two-page) letter describing their progress as a teacher and scholar and their
goals for participation in the yearlong CTE-Lilly Fellowship. Upon review of these
and supporting letters (from a chair, dean or senior colleague), each year up to ten
faculty are selected to be CTE Faculty Lilly Fellows. Each fellow receives $4,000
in recognition of their contribution to enhancing undergraduate education at UMD.
The fellows meet regularly throughout the academic year and design and imple-
ment a campus wide project related to enhancing teaching and learning. Examples
of previous projects include the establishment of an annual Departmental Award
for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching recognizing a department or unit for
innovation and excellence in undergraduate education, an annual Undergraduate
Research Day where 100s of undergraduates present research projects, an honor-
ific Academy for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, as well as projects such
as a Campus-wide Town Hall Meeting with Undergraduates and a white paper on
Strategic Approaches to Achieving Transfer Student Excellence. For a complete
list see the CTE website (University of Maryland, 2012a). In 2010, the project area
for the cohort’s year-long work was pre-determined and described in the call for
applications. The change was precipitated as the Office of Undergraduate Studies
was faced with the challenge of implementing a new general education curriculum
and the desire of the Dean for Undergraduate Studies to engage faculty, particularly
in the launch of two new course categories, Cultural Competency and Scholarship
in Practice (University of Maryland, 2012a). Faculty participants of the Lilly FLC
recognize the value of the experience and stay connected with members of their Lilly
cohort and consider those connections as valuable to their personal and professional
lives on campus. Most remain deeply committed to undergraduate education and
serve as invaluable campus resources advancing to leadership positions within their
departments, colleges, or the University and from these roles encourage new faculty
to participate as Lilly Fellows. After completing their tenure as a Lilly Fellow, each
remains a member of the community as a CTE-Lilly Faculty Alumni which meets
several times each year. More than 130 current UMD faculty are members of the
CTE-Lilly Faculty Alumni group and represent a “who’s who” among faculty en-
gaged in improving teaching and undergraduate learning. Key characteristics of this
theme-based learning community are selective admission, a monetary incentive, an
online site for sharing resources and information, discipline diversity, leadership by
the Center for Teaching Excellence, campus recognition and support of the FLC,
and a defined educational outcome/product.
 A theme based long standing faculty learning community within the STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) discipline of microbiology coalesced
around shared research and teaching interest in Host Pathogen Interactions (HPI) in
microbiology (Marbach-Ad, et al., 2010). The HPI-FLC includes all faculty ranks,
lecturer to full professor, and at times funding of the group has allowed graduate stu-
dents to participate with the work of the group as HPI Fellows. Faculty and graduate
students are all from STEM focused disciplines with the exception of one member
with expertise in science education. The HPI learning community was founded in
2004 in response to a call for proposals to support of STEM education in the College
of Chemical and Life Sciences. This group proposed the use of an FLC focused on
a shared research and teaching interest in the field of host pathogen interactions as
an agent for curriculum reform. This ongoing learning community is now entering
into its eighth year and has 18 members. Several components served to unite the
group; discipline research interest in host-pathogen interactions, responsibility for
the undergraduate courses within the microbiology curriculum, a desire to improve
the curriculum through increased understanding of what students knew and learned
as they progressed, and the goal of developing and validating a HPI concept inven-
tory (Marbach-Ad, et al., 2007). The HPI concept inventory is an instrument that is
used to monitor and improve student learning and success within the microbiology
major. Development and on-going maintenance of the HPI learning community is
facilitated by strong leadership within the group, the intellectual satisfaction that
accrues when faculty tackle a difficult problem, and support from external fund-
ing from a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Undergraduate Science Education
Grant to the University of Maryland and an NSF CCLI-1 grant (DUE-0837315).
Faculty did not need to apply to be part of the HPI-FLC an open invitation to join
the HPI-FLC is issued each year to faculty campus wide with a research interest
in HPI or in the broader area of microbiology (this also includes the faculty likely
to teach courses in the microbiology major)—nor do members of the HPI-FLC
receive monetary stipends. The tangible rewards were modest, lunches provided
at the meetings, the opportunity to support a graduate student (limited funding)
and the publications generated by the team. This group values the recognition that
peer-reviewed publications provide and have made an effort toward this end. The
HPI-FLC meets regularly throughout the academic year. Key characteristics of this
learning community are open admission, commitment to the FLC theme, an online
site for sharing resources and information strong leadership within the community,
external funding, college and department support, and a defined outcome/product.
In 2011 the Summer Technology Institute-FLC (STI-FLC) was instituted. This
grew from an initiative to support faculty interested in learning, piloting and testing
existing and emerging technologies for teaching and learning. In 2007 the Center for
Teaching Excellence developed and piloted a 3-day Summer Technology Institute
(STI) for Teaching with New(er) Technologies (University of Maryland, 2012b).
The summer institutes included 12 to 16 members who have work on implementing
a technology to address a specific pedagogical problem of their choosing (use of
wikis, mobile devices, social networks, student response polling etc.). Individuals
apply and were invited to be part of the institute based on a two-page application
that outlines a pedagogical problem they hope to address through the use of technol-
ogy. This application must address student learning and hypothesize the effect of a
new technology; the communities is not focused on the nuts and bolts of e-learning
technologies, though it facilitates learning how to use the selected technology. The
institutes were successful in attracting faculty, so much so, a second 3-day institute
was added in the summer of 2011. Although the idea was to have the faculty who
attended the summer institutes engage as a faculty learning community, in the first
four years, 2007-2010 faculty did not show interest in attending follow up meet-
ings throughout the following year. In 2011, an intentional shift in the program was
instituted with a clear and explicated expectation of participation in the yearlong
FLC as part of the invitation letter to faculty to be a member of the summer insti-
tute. The structure of the program was altered to include a yearlong learning com-
munity that began with a three-day summer workshop. The community members
met regularly throughout the fall and spring semesters. Meetings were organized
by CTE and lunch was provided. As a result, we found strong faculty participation
throughout the academic year and a more robust faculty experience that supported
the ongoing discussion of successes and challenges as faculty implemented their
curriculum plans. Key characteristics of this learning community are application,
commitment to learning and experimenting with new technologies for teaching
and learning, leadership from CTE, opportunities to share and vet ideas with other
faculty, funding from the Office of Undergraduate Studies and the expectation of a
educational or pedagogical product to improve teaching and learning.
A second faculty learning community focused on technology for enhancing
learning was formed in 2011. The Blended Learning Initiative-FLC (BLI-FLC)
came about as a result of campus interest in blended courses. The purpose of the
Provost’s blended learning initiative was to develop innovative learning opportunities
for students through the redesign and implementation of ten undergraduate courses
into blended learning formats. A blended learning course involves a combination
of face-to-face and online interactions, built on a rich collaborative environment
that includes a variety of information sources such as multimedia data, social media
technologies (such as blogs, wikis, Twitter, Facebook), simulations, and visualiza-
tion for individual and collaborative learning and for team projects (University of
Maryland, 2012). The BLI-FLC was established according to the 2011 STI-FLC
model: kicking off with a summer workshop followed with at least five meetings
over a semester with lunch. As with the STI-FLC and BLI-FLC, each member
Table 2. Survey response for the BLI and STI learning communities

Agree, Disagree,
Survey Question Neutral
Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
I would encourage future faculty who want to cre- 93% 7% 0%
ate a blended course to be part of a blended course
learning community (n =15).
Participation in a learning community should be 73% 27% 0%
required for faculty creating a blended learning
course (n=15).
Participation in the Blended Initiative Learning 80% 20% 0%
Community was beneficial to me as a faculty
member (n=15).
Participation in the Summer Institute on New(er) 86% 14% 0%
Technologies increased my understanding of how
technology can be used to facilitate student learn-
ing in my courses (n=14).
Participation in the Summer Institute on New(er) 100% 0% 0%
Technology resulted in increased understanding of
how technology can be used to facilitate student
engagement in my courses (n=13)..

worked on her or his own project, but each project addressed the theme of the learn-
ing community. In 2011 the STI-FLC and BLI-FLC faculty were polled in regard
to the value and utility of their learning community; more that 80 percent of these
FLC participants supported and valued the learning community (Table 2). Key
characteristics of these learning communities are selective admission, a monetary
incentive, discipline diversity, leadership by the Center for Teaching Excellence, an
individually defined outcome that connects technology with learning, and campus
support and recognition.
The final FLC that we explore here involves a large number of faculty from dif-
ferent disciplines developing and teaching a new type of general education offering:
the I-Series course (University of Maryland, 2012a). I-Series courses are the sig-
nature of the new general education program at the University of Maryland. I-Series
courses “address issues that spark the imagination, demand intellect, and inspire
innovation and challenge students to grapple with big questions, and examine the
ways that different disciplines address them” (University of Maryland, 2012b). They
are significant in that they are not taught as traditional introductory survey courses
focused on knowledge delivery, there are no pre-requisites and are open to all stu-
dents. I-Series courses “strive to provide students with the basic concepts, ap-
proaches, and vocabulary of particular disciplines and fields of study as well as an
understanding of how experts in those disciplines and fields employ terms, concepts,
and approaches.” A member of the faculty whose proposal for an I-Series course is
accepted receives $6,000 for course development, support for a graduate teaching
assistant if course enrollments are sufficient (i.e., >60 students) and are invited to
(and expected to participate in) a FLC focused on the challenges of teaching this
innovative type of course. From the awareness of the value of FLCs the Dean for
Undergraduate Studies intentionally introduced an I-Series FLC into the implemen-
tation plan for the newly launched general education program. (University of Mary-
land, 2012a) The I-Series FLC is designed to support faculty as they embarked on
the teaching of these unique, student centered, big question oriented courses. The
I-Series FLC began meeting in 2010, two years prior to the full implementation of
the new General Education program. The faculty teaching I-Series courses, meet at
least five times a semester over lunch. The meetings are organized by the Office of
Undergraduate Studies and the Center for Teaching Excellence. The Dean, Associ-
ate Dean, Assistant Dean from Undergraduate Studies along with the Director for
CTE attend all meetings. I-Series-FLC meetings are devoted to sharing successes,
challenges, and pedagogical approaches. A high percentage of I-Series faculty
regularly participate in the meetings and express strong satisfaction with the engage-
ment that occurs in the FLC. Key characteristics of this cohort-based learning
community is selective admission, a monetary incentive, discipline diversity, an
online site for sharing resources and information, leadership by the Office of Un-
dergraduate Studies, the teaching of an I-Series course and campus support and
recognition.
The I-Series FLC built on the success of another learning community that was
instituted by the Associate Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Studies, that had a
mission similar to, but more focused than the I-Series: The Marquee Faculty Learn-
ing Community. This community was founded in 2007 to address the national need
for courses that engage students in an appreciation for and understanding of how
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics can provide solutions to pres-
ent and future world challenges (University of Maryland, 2012). This community
is composed of a select group of eminent research faculty who have demonstrated
excellence in teaching. The theme of the group is a commitment to teaching science
to non- science majors. The theme of this community is a commitment to creative
teaching of STEM to non-science majors. Each member teaches a Marquee course.
The Marquee courses pre-dated the I-Series courses and served as a model for them.
Now all Marquee courses also fall in to the I-Series category and all Marquee fac-
ulty participate in the I-Series FLC. However, the Marquee faculty maintain their
distinct learning community. The Marquee-FLC meets three times each semester
with the Dean for Undergraduate Studies. The group grapples with challenges in
teaching STEM, assessing student learning, meeting the outcomes they devised
for the Marquee courses and has founded a lecture series. Key characteristics of
this ongoing theme based learning community are selective admission, a one time
monetary incentive for course design, TA support, expertise in STEM fields, rank
of associate or full professor, direct involvement of the Dean for Undergraduate
Studies and an assistant dean, an on-line site for sharing resources and information,
leadership campus support and recognition.

At large research universities, graduate students assume many roles with respect to
undergraduate teaching. They serve as graders, oversee laboratories, lead discus-
sion and recitation sessions, and autonomously teach as the instructor of record.
Graduate teaching assistants are often the teachers who interact most with first- and
second-year students; as such, they play critical instructional roles in undergraduate
education. More importantly, they are the faculty of the future. To address the need
for better training of this important resource CTE has developed several programs
for professional development of graduate students that use a learning community
model. Building off the success of the CTE Faculty Lilly learning community, in
2008, we established a parallel CTE Graduate Lilly learning community open to
senior graduate students. Graduate students who have taught at least one year and
who have advanced to candidacy apply with a letter describing teaching experience
and articulating interest in the CTE Graduate Lilly Fellowship. A letter of support
from the advisor or other appropriate faculty member is also required. Eight stu-
dents from a variety of disciplines are selected. Each receives a $1,000 stipend and
can apply for one of four travel grants to attend a professional meeting so long as
sessions are focused on teaching. The CTE Graduate Lilly Fellows learning com-
munity meets on a regular weekly basis throughout the academic year to define and
work on a group project related to undergraduate education. Past projects include
a research project on programs that address sustainability, a set of podcasts that
delineate various literacies, a needs assessment of faculty knowledge about service
learning and civic engagement, and the development of a survey instrument for
faculty to examine students’ expectations (University of Maryland, 2012). The work
of the CTE Graduate Lilly Fellows FLC are routinely presented at campus venues
and regional conferences (e.g., the Lilly DC Conference on College Teaching and
Learning) and submitted for published. Key characteristics of this cohort-based
learning community are selective admission, a monetary incentive, discipline di-
versity, leadership by the CTE, a defined group outcome related to undergraduate
education and campus support and recognition.
Many international graduate students also function as graduate teaching assis-
tants. They often face the additional challenges of teaching in a second language,
teaching undergraduates from a culture that is different from their own, and finding
community in a new environment. To better address these issues, CTE, in col-
laboration with the Graduate School, developed the International Teaching Fellows
program. This yearlong learning community assists novice International Graduate
Teaching Assistants (IGTAs) in their professionalization as university teachers and
future faculty. The IGTAs meet regularly with CTE staff to discuss challenges of
teaching, write regular reflections on teaching and learning and develop a teaching
philosophy statement. Each IGTA is paired with a senior international graduate
student mentor who observes the IGTA’s teaching and provides feedback. Each
year, graduate programs are asked to identify a novice graduate teaching assistant
student who has the potential be become a good teacher but may benefit from some
support. Up to eight IGTAs are selected each year and matched with a mentor. Each
IGTA and mentor receives a $500 stipend and a CTE certificate upon completion of
the program. Many of the mentors are former Graduate Lilly Fellows or IGTAs. A
critical aspect of this learning community is that the IGTA cannot apply to be part
of the learning community but must be nominated by the departmental or program.
This requires a careful messaging and balancing of recognizing potential, as op-
posed to celebrating demonstrated performance. While it is and honor to be to be
designated an IGTA, receive the stipend, and become part of a supported learning
community, this learning community is designed to help novice struggling IGTAs
adapt to teaching in a different culture and become better teachers. Attempts at
allowing self-nomination yielded primarily applicants who were already excellent
teachers. Graduate students struggling with teaching are less likely to self-identify
as such. The mentors nominate themselves and are selected on the basis of prior
experience and contribution to undergraduate teaching. Key characteristics of this
cohort-based learning community are selective admission, a monetary incentive,
discipline diversity, leadership by CTE, a teaching philosophy statement and campus
recognition and support.
A less formal graduate learning community is the University Teaching and
Learning Program (UTLP) (University of Maryland, 2012b) which assists in the
professional development of graduate teaching assistants as college teachers. This
self-paced program is open to all graduate students and includes more than 100
graduate students from all disciplines. At the heart of the UTLP is the philosophy
that teaching, like research, is a scholarly activity, one that requires intellectual en-
gagement and public conversation. Two specific components of the program provide
opportunity for a structured learning community. The first is the annual three-day
teaching portfolio writing retreats during which 10 to 12 participants meet for three
days in a structured program that includes writing, peer review, and reflection. This
program allows student to make major progress as she or he completes the teaching
portfolio. The second is the requirement that UTLP students take a graduate seminar
course on university teaching. CTE provides a 14-week course in university teach-
ing and learning in which students learn from each other and from the literature of
teaching and learning through reading, reflection, and discussion of what it means
to teach and what is means to learn through the lens of pedagogy, student engage-
ment, assessment, and learning taxonomies. Key characteristics of this theme-based
learning community are open admission, discipline diversity, leadership by the CTE,
participation in a number of group activities including observations of distinguished
faculty, a graduate seminar, and a development of a teaching portfolio and campus
recognition and support.

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of nine learning communities at the University

of Maryland, six of which are organized and facilitated by the Center for Teaching
Excellence, whose mission is to improve teaching and student learning across the
University. The remaining ones are the HPI-FLC, the I-Series FLC and the Marquee
FLC, the latter two are primarily organized and facilitated by the Office of Under-
graduate Studies in partnership with CTE. All of the communities share the common
characteristics of having members with a declared interest in improving teaching and
learning, and all involved a product or outcome related to improving teaching and
learning. Two (UTLP-FLC and HPI-FLC) have open membership (i.e., members are
invited to join the community based on criteria ranging from individual interest to
course development). For the HPI-FLC there is a common interest in research and
teaching in the area of host pathogen interactions and in improving teaching within
the microbiology major. For the UTLP-FLC is improving one’s teaching, develop-
ing of a teaching portfolio, and earning a notation of program completion on the
graduate transcript. The incentives for joining the others are both extrinsic, in that
there is a monetary incentive, and intrinsic, in that they provide a community and
an environment for personal and professional growth. An important aspect of the
monetary incentive is that it is given in recognition of contributions the individual
is making to undergraduate education at Maryland. The amount of funds provided
is insufficient to compensate for the time spent in the community and required for
the development of the expected outcome. Communities in which the product is a
group project have stronger incentives for bonding since individuals must coordinate
and work as a team to complete the project. In communities for which the product
is individual such as the STI-FLC, BLI-FLC, and I-Series-FLC the benefit of the
community comes from the sharing of ideas, problems, challenges, successes, and
support among the cohort. With the exception of the HPI-FLC all of the communities
are multi-disciplinary. Although all members of the HPI community share common
interest in host-pathogen-interactions their individual areas of discipline expertise
are diverse within this area of biology, ranging from pathogenic microbiology, to
immunology, to genetics, to cell biology. Discipline diversity is one of the aspects
of the learning communities that members cite as a major strength. The diversity of
viewpoints, experience, discipline expertise, cultural background, and age provide
an environment, which engages the individual in learning and in the community.
Large universities tend to be decentralized and often faculty and graduate students
have few if any interactions outside their department. For both the faculty and the
graduate students in the various learning communities, the community provides a
unique opportunity for sustained interactions with individuals from outside of their
department who share similar interests. The interest that links individuals within
and across these communities is becoming a better teacher. We recently surveyed
faculty in the STI and BLI learning communities and observed a strong consensus
that being in learning community was beneficial and recommended (Table 2). When
participants in the BLI-FC were asked “What aspect of the BLI Faculty Learning
Community was most helpful?” the overwhelming response was sharing and inter-
action with group members.
Do these learning communities help individuals become more engaged and
scholarly teachers? The answer is yes, as evidenced by the fact several members of
the various FLC have received university and/or discipline society teaching awards
in the last two years. Boyer defines Scholarship in Teaching “as the work of helping
others understand and construct knowledge so they may engage in the other forms
of scholarship” (Boyer, 1990). Boyer however does not clearly differentiate between
scholarship in teaching and scholarly excellence in teaching (Benson, 2001). Scholarly
teaching is reflective, based on knowledge of what works, applying the literature on
teaching and learning, and involving a level of risk taking in the development and
application of new or adapted pedagogical approaches, and the evaluation of their
effect on student learning. Although we have not directly measured the effect of the
learning communities on change within the teaching practices of the constituents,
several lines of evidence suggest that the communities do impact how faculty and
graduates students think about and practice teaching. For example, two STI members
noted in unsolicited comments that the community altered how they view teaching “
It (STI) can’t help but change the way I think about teaching” and a second individual
noted. “it (STI) has made me rethink everything I do in teaching”. In the I-Series
faculty learning community similar statements are routinely expressed. In the HPI
faculty learning community and the Graduate Lilly communities members have
co-authored manuscripts on teaching and given presentations on their educational
work at campus, regional and national meetings devoted to teaching.
Cultural change within a large research university is difficult to identify and
measure and more difficult to attribute to a given initiative or program. The dif-
ficulties of quantifying, identifying, and assigning causation arise from the slow
nature of institutional change, the interconnected complexities of a large institution,
turnover in institutional leadership at the department, college and university level,
as well as societal and social impacts such as economic climate and the emergence
of innovation in technology. None-the-less, the nature of conversations, the tempo
of enthusiasm, and the engagement of faculty with issues related to teaching and
learning and the accessibility of support for educational projects and initiatives are
all potential indicators of change. At Maryland, over the last five years, we have seen
an increased awareness and recognition of the importance of teaching, the develop-
ment of a new undergraduate general education program and its implementation,
a continuation of the paradigm shift from teaching to learning through support
for activities that center on improving teaching and learning as evidenced by the
number of learning communities that have arisen and are sustained and funded ini-
tiatives, including most of those addressed above. Certainly, many research faculty
continue to see and view teaching as a tax required to cover time and resources for
research. However, increasing numbers of research faculty and graduate students
engage the work of teaching as a challenging scholarly endeavour that is rewarding
and rewarded. Through both cohort-based and theme-based learning communities
we have been able to grow this population and increase the capacity for further
change with respect to the recognition of the importance of teaching as scholarly
work focused on taking risk, understanding what works, defining what is possible,
and better understanding how students learn both Maryland and elsewhere. As this
population continues to grow, it will continue to reshape the educational landscape
of the research and teaching communities at the research university.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning--A new paradigm for under-
graduate education. Change, 27(6), 12–25. doi:10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
Bass, R. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: What’s the problem. Inventio, 1(1), 1–9.
Biology Scholars. (2012). Website. Retrieved May 31, 2012, from http://www.
biologyscholars.org/
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of
education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed:
Evaluation of the professoriate. special report. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Inc.
Laufgraben, J. L., & Shapiro, N. S. (2004). Sustaining & improving learning com-
munities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Lilly Endowment, Inc. (2012). Education. Retrieved June 4, 2012, from http://www.
lillyendowment.org/education.html
Marbach-Ad, G., McAdams, K. C., Benson, S., Briken, V., Cathcart, L., & Chase,
M. (2010). A model for using a concept inventory as a tool for students’ assessment
and faculty professional development. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 408–416.
doi:10.1187/cbe.10-05-0069
Marbach-Ad, G., Volker, B., Frauwirth, K., Gao, L. Y., Hutcheson, S. W., & Joseph,
S. W. (2007). A faculty team works to create content linkages among various courses
to increase meaningful learning of targeted concepts of microbiology. CBE Life
Sciences Education, 6, 155–162. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0212
Network, P. O. D. (2012). Welcome. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from http://www.
podnetwork.org/
O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2009). Faculty careers and work lives:
A professional growth perspective: ASHE higher education report. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Richlin, L., & Cox, M. D. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarship
of teaching and learning through faculty learning communities. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 97, 127–135. doi:10.1002/tl.139
Shapiro, N. S., & Laufgraben, J. L. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practi-
cal guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs.
San Francisco, CA: Taylor & Francis.
University of Maryland. (2012a). Website. Retrieved May 31, 2012, from http://
www.provost.umd.edu/announcements/BlendedLearning2011.cfm
University of Maryland. (2012b). Website. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from http://cte.
umd.edu/programs/faculty/STI/index.html
University of Maryland. (2012c). Website. Retrieved May 31, 2012, from http://cte.
umd.edu/programs/graduate/UTLP/index.html
University of Maryland. (2012d). Website. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from http://
www.gened.umd.edu/
University of Maryland. (2012e). Website. Retrieved May 31, 2012, from http://
www.gened.umd.edu/i-series/iseries.php
University of Maryland. (2012f). Website. Retrieved June 4, 2012, from http://www.
marqueecourses.umd.edu/

Institutional Change: The processes by which a central characteristic of an

institution evolves to meet new challenges.
Scholarly Teaching: Teaching in which the practitioner in reflective about his/
her teaching such that teaching and learning continue to improve.
Faculty Development: The process and activities that facilitate professional
growth and change within faculty and graduate students generally through works
with individual or centers.
 Peter Felten
Elon Univeristy, USA

Ashley Finley
Association of American Colleges and Universities, USA

Despite the widespread use of teaching awards in the United States, little is known
about whether such awards influence faculty attitudes or behaviors on teaching.
Similarly, there is a lack of systematic evidence to understand what motivates faculty
beliefs and actions on teaching. This chapter explores what motivates U.S. faculty
toward innovation and excellence in teaching. Drawing from a national study of
faculty across twenty colleges and universities, the authors find that, like other
professionals, U.S. faculty highly value the support of their colleagues, particu-
larly as it applies to innovating in the classroom and pursuing engaged learning
practices. They argue there is compelling evidence to suggest that the presence of
intrinsic rewards for innovation in teaching (e.g. opportunities to discuss pedagogy
with colleagues and building a campus culture supportive of teaching) has greater
impact on critical faculty outcomes, such as job satisfaction and commitment, than
extrinsic rewards like teaching awards and even stipends.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch014

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Over the past three decades, teaching awards have become a routine feature of the
faculty reward system at U.S. colleges and universities. These awards have distinct
histories and traditions at different institutions, but in general U.S. teaching awards
aim to achieve at least one of three purposes: to symbolize the importance of and
support for teaching at a college, to honor excellent teachers, or to create teaching
role-models who can motivate other faculty to enhance their own practice (Chism,
2006, p. 589).
The rise of teaching awards in the U.S. reflects a broader trend to elevate teaching
and learning on many campuses, linked in part to increased emphasis on assessment
of student learning outcomes, expanded resources for faculty development, and at-
tention to the scholarship of teaching and learning. Despite the rise in the stature
of teaching, a recent report by prominent scholars of higher education in the U.S.
concludes that “there remains a troubling gap between rhetoric about teaching’s
value and the realities of teaching’s recognition and reward” (Hutchings, Huber &
Ciccone, 2011, p. 87).
Scholarship on teaching awards in the U.S. has rarely moved beyond expository
writing (Carusetta, 2001, p. 31). The most comprehensive empirical study (Chism,
2006) focuses on the criteria and standards used in the award process, not their
outcomes or value. In other words, despite the widespread use of teaching awards
in the United States, little is known about whether such awards influence faculty
attitudes or behaviors on teaching.
These limits are echoed in related literature on teaching in U.S. higher education.
Discussions about how faculty view institutional reward structures on campus are
often driven by anecdotal evidence regarding what faculty value, what motivates their
decision-making to change in the classroom, and how they view the best uses of their
time (see for example Christensen & Eyring, 2011). Despite significant scholarship
on faculty work in the U.S. (e.g., Schuster and Finkelstein, 2008), little empirical
or systematic evidence exists to understand what actually drives faculty beliefs and
actions on teaching. Scholarship on what motivates U.S. workers broadly across
various occupations, although not focused on higher education, has demonstrated
the benefits of co-worker support in encouraging employees to engage and invest
in their jobs (see for example Ducharme & Martin 2000; Harris, Winskowski, &
Engdahl 2007; Ng & Sorenson 2008).
In this chapter, we explore what motivates U.S. faculty toward innovation and
excellence in teaching. We find that, like other professionals, U.S. faculty equally
value the support of their colleagues, particularly as it applies to innovating in the
classroom and pursuing engaged learning practices. Additionally, we find compelling
evidence to suggest that the presence of intrinsic rewards for innovation in teaching
has greater impact on critical faculty outcomes, such as job satisfaction or commit-
ment, than extrinsic rewards like teaching awards and even stipends.
With funding from the S. Engelhard Center and in association with the Bringing
Theory to Practice project, an exploratory study was developed to investigate faculty
practice and attitudes toward the culture of teaching and learning at their institu-
tions and also within their disciplinary affiliations, the degree to which a spectrum
of rewards influences their motivation to participate in engaged learning activities,
and the influence of these rewards on important faculty related outcomes such as
job satisfaction and commitment.

Twenty U.S. institutions were non-randomly recruited to participate in the study.

Though not intended to be representative of higher education as a whole, the study
included a diverse group of colleges and universities. They vary in institutional
size, Carnegie classification, public or private status, and geographical location. A
breakdown of participating institutions by Carnegie classification, sample size and
response rate is presented in Table 1.
A survey instrument was developed based upon national conversations through
the Bringing Theory to Practice project with campuses nationwide. A small group
of advisors representing multiple roles on campus were recruited from a diverse set

Table 1. Sample characteristics by institutional type, size, and region

Public/Private Carnegie Classification Undergraduate Region

Enrollment
Public 7 Research/ 3 500-3999 10 East 8
Doctoral
Private 13 Master’s 3 4000-6999 6 Mid-Atlantic 5
(small programs)
Master’s 4 7000-9999 2 Southeast 1
(medium programs)
Master’s 2 10000+ 2 Midwest 3
(large programs)
Baccalaureate 8 West 1
Northwest 2
Total 20 20 20 20
of institutions across the country to review the draft instrument. Advisors were
faculty members who as scholars have engaged in national work focused on issues
pertaining to teaching and learning in higher education. Many of the advisors had
additional campus roles, such as undergraduate dean and director of the teaching
and learning center. Feedback was used to revise the survey. The final instrument
encompassed six topical sections, including current teaching practices and levels
of innovation, attitudes regarding existing institutional reward structures of incen-
tives, perspectives on the culture of teaching and learning at the institution, and
attitudes regarding the connection between pedagogical practice and incentive
structures including promotion/tenure and teaching awards.1
The instrument was administered in two waves. The first wave included five
institutions and was used to test the instrument for flaws before the final administra-
tion with fifteen additional institutions. The first wave was conducted in the fall of
2009. Minor changes were made to the survey following the first wave to eliminate
redundancies between questions and response categories. As a result, the survey
was condensed slightly between waves. The second wave was administered in the
spring of 2010.
Faculty samples on each campus were contingent upon the size of the institution
and were ultimately guided by the prerogative of the institutional liaison. Institutional
liaisons were institutional researchers on campus, directors of campus assessment
and/or faculty members overseeing assessment efforts. Because institutions were
allowed to receive their individual data upon completion of the study, institutional
liaisons were provided the final decision regarding whether they wanted to survey
the entire population of faculty or draw a random sample. For institutions with fewer
than two hundred faculty members the survey protocol was to administer the survey
to the entire population of faculty. Institutions with larger populations of faculty
were encouraged to draw random samples to mitigate issues of survey fatigue on
campus. Again dependent upon the final decision of the institutional liaison, random
samples were often chosen but not in every case. Overall, over 5000 faculty received
an invitation to participate in the study. 1163 faculty responded; a response rate of
approximately 21%.
Despite the low response rate, the characteristics of the sample were represen-
tatively distributed across gender, race, and rank. Respondents were predominantly
women (52%) and white (88%). Twenty-two percent of respondents were assistant
professors, 32% held an associate rank, and 23% were full professors. The sample
also includes 11% of faculty who identified themselves as adjunct or visiting. The
remaining faculty identified themselves as “instructors or other.” By discipline, the
greatest number of faculty respondents were located in the humanities (35%) and
the fewest in the “formal sciences” (i.e. mathematics and computer science). The
median number of years faculty in the sample have been at their respective institu-
tions was 7-10 years.

When campus leaders consider incentives or institutional rewards to motivate faculty

to innovate or try new approaches to teaching and learning, the typical list tends to
include extrinsic rewards, such as course release time or stipends. Acknowledgement
of intrinsic rewards as motivators for innovation often rest solely with the offering
of an annual teaching award. However, if we think of faculty like most professional
workers, many things can serve as motivators for change, innovation, and engage-
ment. To address how faculty view a range of institutional rewards, respondents
were asked to rank a list of possible incentives, indicating which would most likely
influence their decision to adopt or significantly revise a course around a new or
alternate pedagogy.

• Course release or reassigned time.

• Consideration of teaching efforts for tenure or promotion decisions.
• Stipend or grants for enhanced teaching/learning.
• An institutionally sponsored seminar or workshop on teaching and learning
where I could discuss ideas or strategies with fellow faculty members.
• A teaching assistant or student assistant to help coordinate logistics.
• Formal recognition (e.g. teaching award or certificate of excellence).
• Administrative office designated to help manage student relationships with
community sites, course development, and student placement.

Faculty were asked about common extrinsic rewards that loosely translate to pro-
fessional or monetary gain, such as course release, stipends, and consideration for
promotion and tenure. Faculty were also asked about incentives or rewards that
could be considered to be more intrinsic; salient returns that appeal to fundamental
desires to connect with colleagues, feel supported, and be acknowledged for efforts
by superiors. To address the impact of these types of rewards, faculty were asked
about the influence on their decisions by institutional offerings of an “annual teaching
award or certificates of excellence or appreciation,” organizational or administrative
support via a “teaching assistant to coordinate logistics” or an “administrative of-
fice designated to help manage student relationships with community sites, course
development and student placement” (responsibilities typically associated with teach-
ing and centers or centers of civic engagement). Faculty were also asked about the
impact on decisions to innovate if given the opportunity to engage with colleagues
and learn about best practices. Specifically, faculty were asked about the degree to
which an institutionally sponsored “seminar or workshop on teaching and learning
to discuss ideas or strategies with fellow faculty members” would motivate their
decision for innovation or change (See Figure 1).
While it is perhaps not surprising that Chart 1 indicates a large number of fac-
ulty are motivated by extrinsic rewards such as course release time and stipends,
it’s striking how many are also motivated by far less resource intensive or bureau-
cratic means, such as receiving support for logistics and course development and
also the opportunity to interact with colleagues. It is notable among the factors
identified both extrinsic and intrinsic that impact faculty decisions, how few fac-
ulty are swayed to innovate by formal institutional recognition like annual teaching
awards.2

Most people like working in a place where they feel acknowledged in either (or,
preferably, both) extrinsic or intrinsic ways. When workers feel rewarded, this tends
to have a positive effect on other important outcomes, such as job satisfaction and
commitment. What is the connection between institutional rewards and salient job-
related outcomes for faculty?
A correlation analysis was performed to assess the connection between the
presence of particular rewards or incentives on campus and associated increases or
decreases in faculty job satisfaction. Professionals, like faculty, tend to view commit-
ment more complexly than simply connectedness to a job. Professional commitment
also includes one’s commitment to the organization for which one works and to
the profession itself. Thus, to assess commitment among faculty a commonly used
nested model for job commitment was used. Faculty were asked to evaluate their
commitment to their current position, their college or university, and to academia.
Before taking into account the impact of incentives or rewards, the faculty in the
study were found to be, on the whole, both satisfied and committed. The average
score on job satisfaction was 7.0, on a 10 point scale (with 10 being most satisfied).
Position, Institutional, and professional commitment were measured on 10 point
Figure 1. Faculty level of agreement on rewards that motivate decision to innovate
in teaching

scale with 10 being highly committed. Both job and professional commitment were
similarly high with average scores of 8.3. Institutional commitment lagged slightly
behind with an average score of 7.8.
The correlative relationship between particular types of rewards or incentives on
these outcomes paints a compelling portrait of where campuses should target resources
when the objectives are improving satisfaction and/or commitment among faculty.
Results of this correlation analysis showed significant positive correlations be-
tween rewards aimed at providing faculty with consistent and varied forms of sup-
port for innovating pedagogically (See Table 2). Specifically, the consideration of
teaching efforts for promotion and tenure decisions, the presence of faculty culture

Table 2. Impact of intrinsic rewards on faculty outcomes

Job Commitment Commitment Commitment

Satisfaction to Position to Institution to Profession
Consideration of teaching efforts for +++ +++ +++
promotion and tenure decisions
Presence of faculty culture that values +++ +++ +++ ++
teaching and learning
Help with curriculum development +++ + +++
or innovation (e.g. from teaching and
learning center)
Technological support for teaching +++ ++
efforts
+=p<.05, ++=p<.01, +++=p<.001
that values excellence in teaching and learning, and receiving support for innovative
teaching efforts from a campus offices such as a teaching and learning center all
correlated with significantly greater levels job satisfaction and most forms of com-
mitment. To a similar degree, support for faculty engaging in technology enhanced
forms of innovation was also associated with higher levels of both job satisfaction
and institutional commitment.

Additionally, faculty were asked about factors that contribute to a culture of teaching
and learning at the institution. These factors included the degree to which excel-
lence, innovation, and scholarly teaching are priorities for the institution, whether
there are opportunities to pursue new teaching experiences, and whether faculty are
able to learn from colleagues about best practices in teaching. Faculty responses on
the degree to which these factors exist were taken as indicators of the strength of
a culture of teaching and learning on campus. Drawing from findings of collegial
and other forms of support as motivators for innovation among faculty respondents
and the strength of the correlational relationships of these factors with job-related
outcomes, indicators of a culture of teaching and learning were similarly correlated
with levels of job satisfaction and commitment.
Table 3 demonstrates the power of developing a culture of teaching and learning
at institutions. All indicators examined in this study are associated with significantly
higher levels of both job satisfaction and commitment to a nearly uniform degree. As
campuses consider how to direct resources toward effective motivators for engaging
faculty in developing innovative teaching practices, affording resources to programs

Table 3. Impact of factors supporting a culture of teaching and learning on faculty

outcomes

Job Commitment Commitment Commitment

Satisfaction to Position to Institution to Profession
Excellence in teaching is a priority +++ +++ +++ +++
Innovation in teaching is a priority +++ +++ +++ +
Scholarly teaching is a priority +++ +++ +++ +++
There are opportunities for innovation +++ +++ +++ +++
in teaching
Hear from colleagues about best +++ +++ +++ +++
practices in teaching
+=p<.05, ++=p<.01, +++=p<.001
or faculty development that contribute to perceptions of the above indicators may go
a long way toward connecting faculty to their jobs, the institution, their professional
identity as scholars and educators, and improving satisfaction.

The robust and consistent positive impact of intrinsic rewards on faculty outcomes,
from multiple forms of campus and colleague support to having a culture of teach-
ing and learning stands in some contrast to the lesser impact of certain of extrinsic
rewards.
Table 4 presents comparably weaker relationships between the above rewards
and job satisfaction and commitment. Course release time stands as the one extrinsic
reward that is as strongly associated with these outcomes as the intrinsic rewards
presented above. Stipends are similarly associated with significant positive increases
but for fewer outcomes (only job satisfaction and institutional commitment). Ad-
ditionally, far weaker associations were found for the impact of certificates of ap-
preciation. The reward with the both fewest and weakest impacts was the annual
teaching award, perhaps because the likelihood of winning such an award is low
on most campuses.

This study suggests that campuses ought to think carefully about using teaching
awards and certificates of teaching excellence/appreciation as motivators for U.S.
faculty. While these awards have become ubiquitous, they appear to not contribute
significantly to faculty motivation or innovation in teaching, nor do they play a major
role in enhancing faculty job satisfaction or commitment to their work. While these
findings do not directly address Chism’s summary of the purposes of teaching awards

Table 4. Impact of extrinsic rewards on faculty outcomes

Job Commitment Commitment Commitment

Satisfaction to Position to Institution to Profession
Course release time +++ +++ +++
Stipends +++ +++
Certificates of excellence or + +
appreciation for teaching
Annual teaching award +
in U.S. higher education, this study suggests that such awards probably serve little
more than a symbolic role in faculty or institutional life. Symbols are important, of
course, particularly in an academic culture that often seems to privilege research
above all other faculty pursuits. To bolster the symbolic value of these awards,
they should be embedded within a larger institutional program to support teaching
innovation and excellence.
To further enhance the value and impact of these awards, institutions might re-
consider their design. The vast major of U.S. teaching awards focus on individual
excellence and provide only personal rewards such as a plaque and a check (Chism).
This approach may unintentionally reinforce a culture of teaching that emphasizes
performance and isolation. Our study provides evidence to underscore what Lee
Shulman (2004) and other advocates of the scholarship of teaching and learning
contend – that making teaching a more collaborative and public scholarly activity
not only improves student learning, it also encourages faculty motivation and in-
novation. The time is ripe for U.S. institutions to reimagine teaching awards so that
they align with what we know about what really contributes to the larger goals of
teaching excellence.
One such approach might be for campuses to implement benchmarks of teach-
ing excellence to which all faculty could contribute. For example, a campus might
establish that 80% of faculty should achieve scores of very good or excellent on
particular teaching criteria, or that 90% of graduating students in a department earn
at or above a particular score on an exit exam. When this goal is reached all faculty
would be invited to celebrate the accomplishment. This stands in stark contrast to
inviting all faculty to celebrate the outstanding work of just one faculty member per
year, particularly when there are many people worthy of praise for their teaching
each year on a campus. This approach to teaching awards, while unconventional
in the United States, builds on what this study highlights—faculty appreciate the
camaraderie or working with and learning from their colleagues. Faculty morale
and enthusiasm may be garnered more fully by creating incentives that involve col-
lective contribution and that are celebrated as a group, rather than as individuals.

Carusetta, E. (2001). Evaluating teaching through teaching awards . In Knapper, C.,

& Cranton, P. (Eds.), New Directions for Teaching and Learning: Fresh Approaches
to the Evaluation of Teaching (pp. 31–40). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Chism, N. V. N. (2006). Teaching awards: What do they award? The Journal of
Higher Education, 77(4), 589–617. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0031
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing
the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ducharme, L., & Martin, J. (2000). Unrewarding work, coworker support and job satis-
faction. Work and Occupations, 27(2), 223–243. doi:10.1177/0730888400027002005
Harris, J., Winskowski, A., & Engdahl, B. (2007). Types of workplace social sup-
port in the predication of job satisfaction. The Career Development Quarterly, 56,
150–156. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2007.tb00027.x
Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching
and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ng, T., & Sorenson, K. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relation-
ships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group
& Organization Management, 33(3), 243–268. doi:10.1177/1059601107313307
Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2008). The American faculty: The restructuring
of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Shulman, L. (2004). Teaching as community property: Essays on higher education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

1
Survey available from authors upon request.
2
In the survey, faculty were asked to respond to their likelihood to be motivated
by institutional recognition as both an “annual teaching award or a certificate
of excellence or appreciation.” However, in a previous question regarding
the presence of certain rewards on campus only a small percent of faculty
indicated certificates of recognition were offered (approx. 11%), while the
majority indicated the presence of an annual teaching award (approx 58%).
Thus, when evaluating forms of institutional recognition that motivate their
desire to innovate, faculty were most likely to view this item in terms of an
annual teaching award rather than certificates of excellence or appreciation.
 Geraldine Lefoe
University of Wollongong, Australia

Dominique Parrish
University of Wollongong, Australia

This chapter presents a framework for the development of leadership capacity in

higher education institutions that is underpinned by the concept of distributed lead-
ership; this approach focuses on the development of all members of the institution
as leaders, not just those in formal leadership positions. The case study used to
illustrate this approach is drawn from an initial program at a regional university
in Australia. This program, known as the Faculty Scholars Program, has become
embedded in practice at the university. The program empowered a group of aca-
demics, who were not in formal leadership positions, to lead key change initiatives
within the institution. The chapter describes the pilot program initiated locally and
how the program was expanded in 2006-2008 through funding by the Australian
Learning and Teaching Council to include three other institutions, with further
funding provided in 2009 to expand to two more institutions.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch015

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
As higher education institutions face the challenges of the twenty-first century, the key
to embracing new strategies for improving the academy is in the hands of the current
early and mid-career academics, our future leaders. Facing this challenge requires
not only an improved capacity for institutional leadership but also a commitment
to organizational change. This chapter presents a framework for the development
of leadership capacity in higher education institutions that is underpinned by the
concept of distributed leadership. The approach focuses on the development of all
members of the institution as leaders, not just those in formal leadership positions.
At a time of increased change, where academics are feeling considerably over-
loaded, new avenues for faculty development outside of standard workshop prac-
tice are seen as essential for engagement to enhance teaching practice (Taylor &
Schönwetter, 2002, p. 6). One such practice at a regional university in Australia is a
faculty-based leadership development initiative that partners new leaders for teach-
ing and learning with a centrally located faculty developer. This program, known as
the Faculty Scholars Program, has become embedded in practice at the university.
Leadership capacity development was supported by people at many levels in the
institution combined with a significant allocation of resources and focused action
learning projects aligned with university and faculty strategic goals. The framework
developed through this process empowered a group of academics, who were not in
formal leadership positions, to lead key change initiatives related to teaching and
learning within the institution.
Whilst the pilot program was initiated locally, the program was expanded through
national funding by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) to in-
clude three other institutions and later further funding was provided to expand into
two more universities. All of the participating institutions focused on improving
assessment practices through faculty based initiatives embedded in action learning
projects. Annually, four faculty scholars were selected in each institution to engage in
the Faculty Scholars Program. The scholars nominated issues for a funded research
project that had direct relevance to their faculty needs and were aligned with the
university’s strategic plan for improving teaching and learning. The scholars were
supported in their research through engagement with a centrally based academic
developer, regular network meetings and engagement and support of the senior
executives. On completion of the funded project faculty scholars disseminated the
outcomes of their research through a national assessment forum and many continued
the process of dissemination through conference or journal publication.
 A key outcome of the funded project is a Leadership Capacity Development
Framework (LCDF) for potential leaders within higher education institutions.
The resultant framework identified five key domains that supported the Scholars:
growing, reflecting, enabling, engaging and networking. This chapter provides the
background and context, explains the rationale for the leadership program, and
identifies the key related activities that contributed to the development of the pro-
gram and the resultant framework. Critical factors for successful implementation
are identified and discussed with pointers for expansion. Finally the impact of the
program in terms of the career trajectory for participating academics is discussed in
terms of recognition through institutional and national awards, and reward through
the promotion system.

Leadership for teaching and learning in higher education has presented many chal-
lenges for institutions in recent times. In particular, research outcomes and achieve-
ments are perceived to be more valued through the institutional reward systems despite
significant changes occurring in the area (Gibbs & Habeshaw, 2003). Positional
leadership roles in faculties could be seen as a distraction from the ‘real work’ of
the academic and many were ill-prepared for such tasks (Anderson & Johnson,
2006; Jones, Ladyshewsky, Oliver, & Flavell, 2009). With increased demands for
external accountability in many countries including Canada, the UK and Australia,
changes were needed to address the need as the university formalized its policies,
processes, and procedures to meet the audit requirements of new government bod-
ies (Australian Government, 2009; Harman, 2003; Rayner, Fuller, McEwen, &
Roberts, 2010). In addition, many universities identified a future staffing crisis as
reduced funding for the sector created an increased casualization of the workforce
(Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999; Coates, et al., 2009; Coates & Goedegebuure, 2012).
With a large percentage of the academic workforce due to retire in the next five
years, a gap in succession planning was identified and this required a rethink about
how leadership capacity for teaching and learning could be enhanced within higher
education (Anderson, Johnson, & Saha, 2002; Hugo & Morriss, 2010).
Key drivers for change have included:

• External accountability requirements through government quality agencies

(for example, the Australian Universities Quality Agency) has meant in-
creased demand for evidence of impact on student learning and a need for
quality assurance data as well as quality enhancement information.
• An increasingly strong focus on research outcomes within the sector meant
taking a teaching pathway was seen as “career suicide”, and perceived as
limiting future opportunities for promotion.
• A lack of formal leadership training created challenges for many in positional
leadership roles in higher education institutions.

A government initiative to address the perceived gap to support improvements

in teaching and learning as well as recognition for excellence in teaching was es-
tablished in 2004. Originally the Carrick Institute, it was subsequently renamed the
Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) and most recently has become a
federal government department entitled the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT).
Each change has been linked to a change in government that signifies the political
nature of accountability and requirements that universities now face. However, re-
gardless of name changes the mandate remained to support excellence in teaching
and learning in higher education.

The development of a framework for leadership capacity was shaped over a number
of years, initially at the University of Wollongong, a regional university in Australia,
and later across a number of institutions (including University of Tasmania, Flinders
University, La Trobe University). It was driven by a need to identify strategies to
address some inherent problems with leadership capacity building for academic staff
prior to embarking on positional leadership roles. More specifically the following
challenges were identified:

1. The need to encourage career aspirations in the area of leadership for teaching
and learning through internal and external recognition and reward systems.
2. The need to source funding and methods to support a move from the traditional
learning on the job to leadership development for the job.
3. The need to support workload relief to ensure time could be allocated for
leadership for change.

To address these challenges, a leadership development pilot program was initi-

ated following an audit of successful programs in other universities both within
Australia and internationally. A fellow or scholar type program was deemed by the
researcher to be a successful model but little research had been carried out in the
area (Ingram & Gilding, 2003; Southwell & Gilding, 2004).
 Initially a small trial was conducted with just one participant in 2004 who was
mentored by an academic developer from the central unit. The challenge of group
work in undergraduate classes was the focus of the scholarly work undertaken. A
collegial approach was used to support development of the program and the two
co-constructed the future program through reflections on the process. The success
of this initial Scholar saw funding support of 90,000 Australian dollars from the
Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) to implement a pilot program in 2005 for six
scholars, with each scholar the recipient of funds to support a research project re-
lated to a specific teaching/learning challenge. The theoretical underpinnings of the
early development of this program are expanded in an earlier paper (Carew, Lefoe,
Bell, & Armour, 2008).
The initial phase of the program was not without challenges. The first call for
Expressions of Interest for Faculty Scholars was not initially supported by Deans
of the faculties who would have preferred to make their own decisions about how
the funds were spent. However, the first group of Scholars was appointed from a
variety of faculties and their main focus was to lead a major change initiative within
their faculty related to teaching and learning. Through regular network meetings
and reflection on their processes they were able to succeed with some aspects of the
implementation; however, all indicated a major challenge was influencing change
when they were not in formal leadership positions. Their reflection indicated a strong
need for formal leadership training to support their initiatives and to learn to work
strategically within the structures of the university.
The evaluation of this pilot program coincided with a major political change
in Australia that recognized the need for leadership capacity development within
higher education institutions. The establishment of the Carrick Institute for Higher
Education, later to become the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, was a
major initiative in Australia for the recognition of teaching and learning with fund-
ing for competitive grants and awards related to teaching and learning. This led
to the expansion of The Faculty Scholars Program to the University of Tasmania
initially, then the following year Flinders and La Trobe Universities joined the pro-
gram in 2006 though a successful national competitive grant entitled Distributive
Leadership for learning and teaching: Developing the Faculty Scholar Model. In
partnership with these institutions, the project focused on the development and trial
of a Leadership Capacity Development Framework (LCDF) to assess its relevance
and validity for developing leadership capacity. The notion of distributed leadership
provided a conceptual framework for leadership capacity development and we have
adapted our original definition (Lefoe, 2010) to define it as the empowerment of the
individual through the collegial sharing of knowledge, of practice, and reflection
within the sociocultural context of the university. We drew on the work of a number
of scholars in the area (Bennett, et al., 2003; Dinham, Aubusson, & Brady, 2006;
Knight & Trowler, 2001) and identified the need for a collaborative, practice based
approach that engaged people at multiple levels within the institution to support the
successful implementation of the Scholars’ faculty based initiatives. In addition, a
number of theoretical frameworks guided the development of the LCDF.

Key to this faculty development program was the underpinning theoretical frame-
works (social constructivism, communities of practice, and authentic and situated
learning) which were made explicit to the participants during the initial stages of the
program. These frameworks provided a shared language for reflection and discussion
of change processes to be implemented within the faculty projects. Social construc-
tivism supported the belief that the Faculty Scholars should be actively engaged
in their learning through skill and knowledge building within a supportive group
environment. This was underpinned by the Vygotskian view that the co-construction
of knowledge can be enhanced when communication, collaboration and interaction
are facilitated within the group (Kim, 2000; Oliver & Herrington, 2001; Vygotsky
& Cole, 1978). The ideals of the communities of practice framework also support
this notion through workplace collaboration and sharing of knowledge and practice
(Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Wenger (1998)
identified the need for mutual engagement, shared repertoire, and joint enterprise
to ensure success. This suggests that “each member of the community contributes
to a shared activity; the evolving community negotiates meaning by developing a
shared repertoire; and learning results from the full joint enterprise of contributing
to activity, negotiating repertoire and working with common purpose.”(Carew, et
al., 2008, 57).
The provision of an authentic learning environment for leadership capacity de-
velopment moved beyond staff development conceptions of ‘one off’ workshops to
embedding action within a much longer timeframe to facilitate ongoing professional
development. Through the identification of a strategic change initiative located
within the Scholar’s faculty an opportunity was provided within the local setting to
develop leadership capacity. An action learning approach provided the method for
this approach. Drawing from Herrington & Herrington, (2006), in an earlier paper
we identify the key factors to support such an approach as:

• Provision of an authentic context that reflects the use of knowledge in real

life.
• Authentic activities that involve complex, ill-defined problems.
• Access to expert performances and modeling of processes.
• Multiple roles and perspectives which allow support for collaborative con-
struction of knowledge.
• Provision of coaching and scaffolding at critical times.
• Promotion of reflection to enable abstractions to be formed.
• Opportunities for articulation to enable tacit knowledge to be made explicit.
• Provision for integrated assessment of learning within the tasks. (Lefoe &
Parrish, 2009).

The theoretical frameworks also guided our choice of research methods.

We used a mixed methods approach for the study within a participatory action
learning framework (Kemmis, 2009; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2001). This in turn
provided a model for the Scholars for the implementation of their own projects.
There were twenty-four Scholars or participants who were the focus of the program
across the institutions. They varied from early career academics to professors and
were at various stages of their career. They shared a common interest in an interest
in improving their ability to lead change in the area of teaching and learning within
their institution. Some self-nominated for the project and others were encouraged
to participate by a senior member of their institution because of their potential to
take a leadership role. They did not necessarily hold formal leadership positions.
In addition, the program engaged with a large number of people at many levels of
the institution including a facilitator from the central academic development unit, a
representative steering committee of experienced academics from within the institu-
tion as well as the project manager and the external evaluator.
Data was collected from members of these different groups at the various ac-
tivities within the program. Data collection included semi-structured interviews,
reflective journals, and anonymous surveys. Supplementary information was col-
lected through key activity evaluation from the start including the initial planning
workshops, leadership retreats and a Roundtable to report the outcomes to the
wider community (Gunn & Lefoe, 2011). Qualitative analysis methods were used
to identify key themes and successful solutions to challenges faced by participants
engaged with the program. The analysis informed the development of the LCDF
and the associated resource development.
The Program was implemented in two stages. In the initial stage two institutions
trialed and evaluated a Leadership Capacity Development Framework (LCDF),
developed from the earlier work at the original institution. The second stage in-
volved two additional institutions who tried the improved program to determine
the relevance and validity of the LCDF in developing leadership capacity in other
institutional contexts. In this next section, we provide an overview of the LCDF and
its related activities. We identify challenges and critical success factors through an
examination of the implementation in the participating institutions.

The challenge for the program was to address the need for leadership capacity de-
velopment ‘on the job’ prior to taking responsibility for a formal leadership role. A
formal application process was undertaken in participating institutions to identify
participants for the program. Each institution provided financial support for the
program through workload allocation, and in some cases, additional funds for re-
search assistance and conference attendance. Five key domains made up the LCDF:

• Growing - through the leadership development activities and related expe-

riences (Caffarella & Zinn, 1999; Harris, 2009; Knight & Trowler, 2001;
Palincsar, 1998; Vygotsky & Cole, 1978).
• Reflecting - on individual actions and through group discussions (Reynolds,
2011; Rodgers, 2002; Schön, 1983).
• Enabling - through enactment of leadership within individual projects and
group organization of a national forum (The Assessment Roundtable) (Boud
& Brew, 2012; Harris, 2009; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, et al., 2002).
• Engaging - in institutional and cross institutional communication and activi-
ties (Herrington & Herrington, 2006; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
• Networking - at multiple levels within and across the institutions (Carew, et
al., 2008; Dinham, Aubusson, & Brady, 2006; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; West-
Burnham, 2004).

During the program, the Scholars engaged in eight key activities that encompassed
the five domains. In the first stage the activities were carried out over approximately
a six month timeframe, reviewed and revised and then implemented again in the
second year of the program over a longer timeframe.
 The key activities included: an initial three day leadership retreat; the design,
development and implementation of a strategic leadership activity (an action learning
project) to facilitate improved assessment practice within the participant’s faculty
or school (six to twelve months); regular facilitated meetings within each institu-
tion; network meetings across the institutions using various technologies and an
additional face-to-face two-day planning workshop; a one day national teaching and
learning forum (Roundtable) to present outcomes of the action-learning projects
and to gain feedback from key interested academics across Australasia and Project
Steering Committees from participating institutions. These were facilitated through
regular meetings with a senior academic developer from the central institutional unit;
mentoring and coaching by a member of the senior executive as well as other senior
academics providing a supportive environment to engage in reflective practice. We
expand on three of the key activities in the next section to provide a flavor of the
program, as well as give a brief overview of the other activities. Additional details
can be found elsewhere (Lefoe, 2010; Lefoe & Parrish, 2008; Parrish & Lefoe, 2008).

The retreat aimed to provide a structure for Scholars to understand the role of dis-
tributed leadership within institutions. The retreat was held in a quality retreat centre
away from all institutions involved and signaled the importance of the program
to the Scholars. It aimed to provide a background and introduction to the higher
education leadership literature through a variety of activities to engage in a deeper
understanding of what it means to take a leadership role in the current climate in
higher education. Social activities also supported the development of relationships
between the scholars from within and across the institutions to ensure opportuni-
ties for ongoing collaboration and communication. A major outcome of the retreat
was that each scholar prepared an action plan for how they would implement their
initiative. The culmination of this planning was a presentation to other participants
and senior executives from the participating institutions whose role was to provide
feedback and ongoing support for the implementation over the next twelve months.
In the second year a further two-day retreat was conducted with several goals includ-
ing: to facilitate better communication and collaboration, to provide opportunity
for shared reflection on the development of their action-learning projects and to
facilitate ongoing discussion about their engagement in the teaching and learning
forum planning process.
For the workshop planning key challenges included the design of such activities
to meet the needs of all participants and sustain their engagement over the three day
timeframe. A key challenge for participants included the difficulties with scheduling
time away from work and family commitments. From surveys and interviews with
the Scholars the following good practice features were identified:
• Provide opportunities for the establishment of connections with people from
outside their own discipline/faculty/institution through social activity.
• Communicate required deliverables so participants can determine realistic
timelines to complete their action learning project.
• Carefully plan all activities to engage participants in active learning by mod-
eling good practice.
• Ensure the event is conducted offsite in a venue that communicates the im-
portance of the program.
• Schedule face to face events outside of usual teaching time.
• Keep the momentum through regular sharing of up to date leadership materi-
als such as recent journal articles.
• Clarify and develop a shared understanding of distributed leadership and
where it fits within institutional hierarchical leadership structures.
• Initiate planning for regular ongoing facilitated meetings within and across
institutional groups during the retreat.

The participants indicated strong support for the role of the leadership retreat in
the framework. One Scholar identified “The retreat served to cement a union among
the group.” Another stated, “I found all the face to face activities valuable—being
able to go away and stay in a nice place—it communicated the value of the project.”
This was supported by another who stated, “The project was very generous and
spoilt scholars, the accommodation and venues provided for the major activities
was exceptional and it was nice to feel pampered, valued and important.” Another
indicated the long term benefits, “The retreat got us going, momentum was at least
started … there was enough momentum to keep going knowing that the roundtable
was eventually going to roll down the road and we needed to do something about it.”

In their application to take part in the Faculty Scholar Program, candidates identified
a faculty-based action-learning project related to the faculty and university strategic
plan that had the support of their Dean. This strategic approach was designed to
ensure the support of the faculty executive and also to have impact more broadly
in the school or faculty. By basing the project within the context in which they
worked, the Scholars engaged in leadership opportunities and experiences through
taking a leadership role.
Prior to, and during the retreat the Scholars developed a detailed action plan
for their project and discussed, reviewed and received feedback on the plan and
possible challenges and solutions to achieving the goals they set for themselves.
During a plenary session at the retreat they presented their project to senior leaders
from their institutions for feedback. One scholar noted, “I think the retreat pushed
us all together and made us think about our projects in ways that if we had not gone
to the retreat we might not have thought about, I think the retreat put us in contact
with each other and showed us the dimensions of the smaller project and the bigger
leadership project.”
These situated and complex, real world tasks were implemented over the next six
months and supported through the other key activities. Through their engagement in
this process the Scholars were able to develop an awareness of the complexity and
various perspectives of the leadership role, as well as the structures that supported
and constrained innovation in higher education. Many were unaware of the struc-
tures and one identified, “I have become very aware of the function of committees
at universities and schools and faculties so forth; … my awareness … was very low
prior to this program and I wasn’t very aware of bureaucracy in fact my opinion of
universities was that there was a hierarchy and I’ve really come to understand the
different levels of bureaucracy and the importance of membership of those com-
mittees.” This Scholar expressed concern at how slowly change took place within
universities “… I may have had ideas of change occurring within 1 or 2 years with
the project and then the … Associate Dean would tell me this is great and it will
take us 4-5 years and then at the university wide level I’m hearing something like
7-10 years.”
Some found resistance from other faculty members that they attributed to a variety
of issues including workload, conflicting agendas within the faculty, a lack of interest
in teaching related activities, and a lack of recognition within the institution or the
faculty for the importance of the project. One voiced their concern: “Some [faculty
members] just pay you lip service and give you reasons why it can’t work but these
too are good comments that you get back. Many of the problems that these people
give you are actually good because they are issues that you have to work through.”
Another observed: “Employees directly associated with the project can see the value
but they don’t always want the extra workload that comes with it.”
Where the project implementation worked well the Scholars noted strong support
from faculty leaders or institutional leaders was paramount. One stated, “… [Senior
Executive] are the key players in change basically and if you don’t have them on
board [it won’t work]and you need it at both ends. You need grass roots support as
well but if you don’t have institutional support through PVCs and Associate Deans
and Deans and the like then you are not going to go anywhere.” Another observed
that without this support it was more challenging to get change to occur: “It was
interesting to compare my project to one that was being pushed from the top down,
mine was from the bottom up. There was a noticeable difference, mine lacked that
faculty driven impetus, there wasn’t a purpose from the faculty for mine whereas
there was in the other project.” Scholars also found a detailed action plan with key
outcomes, timelines and deadlines helped keep them and the project on target. The
opportunities to see how their faculties worked from a completely different perspec-
tive gave them insight into how leadership can be enacted but most importantly
why communication with key stakeholders throughout the project is imperative.
An interesting outcome of the individual projects was articulated by one of the
Scholars, “Fundamentally what participation in this project has done is … reassured
me that I have got leadership qualities…I have already got some skills that are useful
in leadership… this has been helpful because … I wouldn’t have classified myself
as being a leader before this particular project.” This realization came through
from a number of Scholars who did not see themselves as leaders if they did not
have formal leadership roles. Through the program they identified how distributed
leadership was enacted within their projects and realized they were indeed leaders
and identified with the leadership role.

The organization, facilitation, and presentation of the Roundtable, the culminating

event each year, provided an opportunity for Scholars to engage in further develop-
ment of their leadership skills in a national arena but this time working collabora-
tively with other Scholars across the institutions involved. For many who had only
engaged in faculty based forums before, it was move out of their comfort zone and
akin to organizing a mini-conference with approximately fifty key academics in the
area of improving assessment invited. One Scholar recognized “The organization
of the roundtable has been a way of putting leadership theories into practice which
has also enabled learning about them.”
In the first year this proved very challenging as the Scholars struggled to identify
what a roundtable could look like. However, despite some challenges related to
communication and collaboration across the institutions a very successful round-
table was conducted. In the second year, after mentoring from the previous year’s
Scholars, the new Scholars were able to apply their own perspectives and introduced
a World café format to encourage the kind of participation by attendees that they
were seeking, whilst acknowledging that everyone there had something to contribute
to the discussion. This was organized in round tables, set up like a café with coffee
and cake provided. A facilitator, with some guiding questions, introduced people
and encouraged discussion around the key assessment theme. People moved to
different tables during the session to keep the conversation lively. Notes were kept
on the paper ‘tablecloth’ to guide a sharing of dialogue with the rest of the tables
at the end of the gathering. The evaluation of the Roundtable identified the World
Café as a highlight of the day; with 95% of the forty-four attendees indicating that it
was either ‘very effective’ or ‘somewhat effective’. The originators of the idea had
identified that it “can make a special contribution when the goal is the focused use
of dialogue to foster productive relationships, collaborative learning, and collective
insight” (Brown & Isaacs, 2002, p. 6). The attendees supported this notion with
comments like, Worked extremely well; Very valuable; Very open lively interac-
tion—some very good idea; Great way to get issues out—doesn’t limit the discussion,
questions worked really well; Brilliant! Interactive, refreshing!
The evaluation feedback in both years indicated very successful events and the
Scholars found: “The roundtable … was an opportunity to do something which we
hadn’t done before and that’s work on something with another group of people that
were outside our institution … and having to fit in with those things so that was use-
ful to because it gave you another perspective on trying to organize and coordinate
events where you do have to take leadership.” Another reflected: The Roundtable
enabled me to get feedback on my project and provided a good link with [a key
person] who was invited to the event. [We] are going to be submitting an application
for a [national] grant. The project has been good in that it has presented opportunities
to seize on. One Scholar perceived it as a great opportunity to promote the assess-
ment work and indicated “I think the roundtable was great and I would have liked
to have had another one. I think the work that we do is important and its success
rests on constant promotion, and the more you talk about this the better the chance”
There were many challenges identified with the organization of this event in the
first year and initially the Scholars could not see any benefits. However, as a dis-
semination activity it proved to be very useful not only for the individual Scholars
as their projects were lauded by more senior academics from other institutions, they
made key contacts for future collaborations and several other institutions indicated
an interest in implementing a Faculty Scholars Program in their own institution. As
a result of the final Roundtable, additional institutions indicated a keen interest in
implementing the program in their universities. They collaborated with the second
stage universities and were successful in attaining additional national grant funding
supported by the universities from the second year of the program (Smigiel, 2008).

Whilst we focus here on the three major activities with which the Scholars engaged,
coaching/mentoring, reflective practice and communication/collaboration as well
as the cascade process to engage new institutions, we do not discount the impor-
tance of the other activities that shaped the program. Rather than discrete activities
these contribute in such a way that they are the glue that binds or enables the key
activities to occur.
There were three levels of mentoring and coaching provided as possible components
of the LCDF. Firstly the role of the senior academic developer to coach and facilitate
group and individual meetings at the institutional level were important components
of the program (Carew, et al., 2008). In one institution staff changes made it very
difficult for the Scholars to receive the level of support required and one indicated,
“There was so much change in the area, the project was initiated by X and then X
moved on [so Y took over], Y’s focus moved on [too] so [it was handed to Z] and
then Z just wasn’t interested in the project at all.”Where support was continuing
one participant indicated, [it was] crucial to the success of the project, without this
support and enthusiasm available every step of the way it would be easy to let things
slide and lose focus and momentum for achieving what we had set out to achieve.”
In some of the participating universities, mentoring was available from the in-
stitutional steering committee or previous scholars, whilst in others mentoring was
informal or not available. However, where it was available, many of the Scholars did
not take this up or engaged in mentoring later in the project. One indicated, “The
mentoring relationship for my part I was certainly late and slow in getting around
to seeing my mentor, a 2 hour conversation with him was really valuable. “I got
more out of those 2 hours than I have in most 2 hour conversations with anybody.”
I really kicked myself that I hadn’t met with my mentor sooner”. Another engaged
much earlier and was able to identify some real benefits from the it, “mentoring and
reflection were very important because I did feel challenged, I did feel concerned
that I would slip into my default position which is [to] mentally ignore the difficul-
ties particularly the difficult people, just keep working around them and do it all
yourself, because at the end of the day you are the person that can be relied on – I
was concerned that I could easily slip into that default position”…
Finally the third opportunity for group mentoring came from a senior executive
member, though this was only provided in some institutions. These people were
involved in the selection process, provided feedback on formal presentations at the
retreat and met irregularly with the Scholars to discuss operational challenges they
faced. They also provided opportunities such as invitations to key committees related
to the Scholars’ projects or nominated them to attend related national events. One
scholar stated “the mentor, coming from the same university, knows about dealing
with people in this environment, about how the university and university policy works
and … giving a sense of optimism that leadership itself is valued.”Another com-
mented on the involvement of the Deputy Vice Chancellor, “The senior leader now
knows who we are and that’s always a good thing. He also knows we are committed
to promoting teaching and learning across the institution and will be more likely to
consider us for roles and responsibilities within the university in relation to this.”
 Whilst access to mentoring was available at many levels, it was mostly informal
and not facilitated. Where Scholars pursued it or had access they found it very valu-
able. An important component for revising the LCDF would be to formalize the
mentoring aspect of the program.

Whilst initially the ideal was a written reflection in the form of a diary, few Scholars
engaged in this form of reflection. They found this component challenging though
many felt they engaged in reflection on their actions, especially at the regular group
meetings. One declared, “I am naturally a reflective person in the sense that I am
always going over in my head what’s happening and always trying to come up with
new ideas that kind of ongoing sense of reflection.” But with all of the obligations
and everything that has been going on I haven’t really done much with the reflective
journal but I would say that the overall structure of the project has kept me thinking
and kept me reflecting on ongoing goals.
The reflective process for many Scholars, as indicated here, came from their
engagement in regular meetings and presentations for the Roundtable. It may be
useful in revising the LCDF to incorporate some formal training on using reflec-
tive journals to encourage this form of participation if this is specifically required.

For the most part communication and collaboration worked well within institutions
although multi-campus institutions created challenges for some. An ongoing chal-
lenge for any cross-institutional collaboration is good communication, one Scholar
felt that contact ‘via email has been good, the videoconference has been better and
the face to face even better.” Whilst another suggested, “It might be useful to have
more structured video conference protocols established early on in the project’s
implementation.” Overall communication was more challenging in the first year
whilst trialing new technologies but improved in the second year with the use of
email and videoconferencing supported through the addition of an extra face- to-
face planning workshop for the Roundtable. One Scholar summarized the general
response to this addition,
“The ongoing communication with other scholars has been fantastic and a re-
ally great thing for me. Planning for the roundtable I was quite amazed at how well
we worked together and trusted each other and treated each other with respect. We
built a rapport with each other and as a group that saw us wanting to do right by
each other and wanting to do well as a group. There weren’t any egos among the
group. It was good that the overall project invested in us establishing relationships
with each other and as a group at the retreat. We all got to know each other and
being able to engage in eating, drinking and especially the quiz night was really
important for the relationship building. We aren’t in competition with each other
and I never felt there was any sense of rivalry or empire building or personality
clashes or anything like that.”

A key dissemination strategy was to include two new universities each year to
implement the Program within their institutions. This required a commitment at
the executive level to support and funding. Each institution adapted the program to
meet their own needs though the basic organization was maintained, including the
above activities. Though for the most part it was at the facilitator level that coach-
ing occurred, some of the Scholars from the first year were involved in the Leader-
ship retreat for the second year and they shared their challenges and successes in
terms of their individual projects as well as their organization for the Roundtable.
The Scholars commended this approach, “One of the main things was to prepare
people for what was ahead and that worked well. I think we were all well prepared
in terms of having the scholars from last year attend and that carried on through
the whole project.”
The development of the LCDF over each implementation of the Program meant
that a process to provide better support was identified in the second year. This was
further refined and adapted for each institution. There were a number of key factors
that supported the success and provided evidence for the program to continue in
institutions after the external funding component was completed.

The key factors that afforded the success of this new leadership program were re-
lated to the dissemination practices implemented to identify new partners though
engagement of likely adopters from the start of the project (Southwell, Gannaway,
Orrell, Chalmers, & Abraham, 2005) and also the ability to assess “the climate of
readiness for change” that provided the opportunities for sustained change practices
in teaching and learning leadership (Gannaway, Hinton, Berry, & Moore, 2011).
This is described as “a fertile environment [which] nurtures a climate of risk tak-
ing and systematic change […] essential conditions for successful innovation and
dissemination” (Southwell, Gannaway, Orrell, Chalmers, & Abraham, 2005, p.
53). The most successful implementations of the program occurred at institutions
where there was support at many levels of the institution and faculty or school and
provision of a truly distributed approach to leadership. A facilitator was essential to
the success of the program to ensure regular meetings and support to talk through
challenges as they emerged but also to ensure opportunities to celebrate successes.
An institutional champion amongst the senior executive and support from senior
faculty members for the action learning projects also ensured success. A change in
some of the key people meant a change in institutional culture and climate and this
influenced the ability for Scholars to achieve their goals, sometimes to the detriment
of individual projects or for the program itself.
Perhaps the most significant accomplishment of the program was the personal
growth of the Scholars who began to see themselves as leaders and change agents.
Many Scholars did not see themselves as leaders at the start of the program. The
concept of distributed leadership was new to many of them but as they tried to
implement the action learning project (in institutions that for the most part they
saw as hierarchical in their leadership structures) the Scholars developed a good
understanding of distributed leadership and their potential role. The organization of
the roundtable also highlighted their ability as leaders at the national level. By the
end of each program, many of them saw themselves as leaders with the potential for
future leadership positions within the leadership structures of their institutions and
beyond. One Scholar summed this up, “There is cultural capital that comes with the
title Scholar. This gave me confidence to go forward and claim a role as a leader.
Without that I don’t think I would have felt as confident acknowledging myself as a
leader. I also felt that I had confirmation of myself as a leader from my involvement
and experiences in the project and from the significant people in the project such
as [the facilitator]. These influences definitely brought about a change in my own
self identity. I now see myself within the faculty as having an understanding of my
ability as a leader and acknowledging and understanding what leadership means
in the field. I had previously always thought of leadership in higher education as
hierarchical but I now view leadership differently as being more collaborative and
collegial.”
In the final interview another of the Scholars acknowledged new skills to support
future leadership “A skill emerged that I didn’t realize I had, that of facilitating and
getting people engaged and involved in something that they might not necessarily
want to do. I knew I could do it with students and now knowing that I can also do
it with colleagues and those senior to me actually helps me in my confidence to
take on this sort of thing in the future” They also identified that others saw them
as leaders now, and one indicated “The senior leader now knows who we are and
that’s always a good thing. He also knows we are committed to promoting teaching
and learning across the institution and will be more likely to consider us for roles
and responsibilities within the university in relation to this.”
There are many opportunities for future research in the area with ongoing research
on the opportunities for distributed leadership in higher education, including deter-
mining institutional readiness for such initiatives (Jones, Lefoe, Harvey, & Ryland,
2012) and also further applications of the LCDF in other institutions (Jayashree,
Shen, & Lefoe, 2011; Smigiel, 2008; Smigiel, Pannan, Szorenyi-Reischl & Don-
nan, 2011). The impact of such programs over the longer term is also an area for
further research.

In this chapter, we examined the need for better preparation for leadership for teaching
and learning within higher education in order to ensure excellence in the area and
to support early-career and mid-career academics in times of change. We identified
the components of a successful model through the Leadership Capacity Develop-
ment Framework that influenced the development of a new group of champions for
moving teaching and learning forward within their institutions.
Significant changes have occurred in the careers of many of the Scholars involved
in the program; however, with so many variables, it is hard to say how much influ-
ence the program had on them. The Program Leader and twelve of the twenty-four
Scholars involved have received acknowledgement through the highly competitive
Australian national teaching citations for their contributions to student learning.
In addition, many have achieved promotion at their institutions, with their Faculty
Scholar role a significant feature in their applications. Three have made career
changes and are currently working as academic developers in senior roles within
their institution’s central unit and a number have taken on formal leadership roles
within their institution as heads or leaders for teaching and learning within their
disciplinary area and within key committees within the institution. While participa-
tion in the LCDF cannot be claimed as having directly impacted their career changes
or been the only contributing factor, the Scholars identified a significant impact of
the program in how they began to see themselves as leaders, “By putting the notion
of leadership on the agenda – it became part of my thinking framework.” Another
acknowledged, “I will look back one day and recognize that this was a highlight in
my career, I was so fortunate to end up on this program.”
Anderson, D., & Johnson, R. (2006). Ideas of leadership underpinning proposals
to the Carrick institute: A review of proposals from the ‘leadership for excellence
in teaching and learning program. Sydney, Australia: Carrick Institute for Learn-
ing and Teaching.
Anderson, D., Johnson, R., & Saha, L. (2002). Changes in academic work: Implica-
tions for universities of the changing age, distribution and work roles of academic
staff. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Australian Government. (2009). Transforming Australia’s higher education system.
Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Bennett, N., Harvey, J., Wise, C., & Woods, P. (2003). Distributed leadership: A
desk study. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/literature reviews
Boud, D., & Brew, A. (2012). Reconceptualising academic work as professional
practice: Implications for academic development. The International Journal for
Academic Development, 1–14. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2012.671771
Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2002). The world café: Shaping our futures through con-
versations that matter. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Caffarella, R. S., & Zinn, L. F. (1999). Professional development for faculty: A
conceptual framework of barriers and supports. Innovative Higher Education,
23(4), 241–254. doi:10.1023/A:1022978806131
Carew, A., Lefoe, G., Bell, M., & Armour, L. (2008). Elastic practice in academic
developers. The International Journal for Academic Development, 13(1), 51–66.
doi:10.1080/13601440701860250
Coaldrake, P., & Stedman, L. (1999). Academic work in the twenty-first century:
Changing roles and policies. Canberra, Australia: DETYA.
Coates, H., Dobson, I., Edwards, D., Friedman, T., Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, L.
(2009). The attractiveness of the Australian academic profession: A comparative
analysis. Melbourne, Australia: ACER.
Coates, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2012). Recasting the academic workforce: Why
the attractiveness of the academic profession needs to be increased and eight pos-
sible strategies for how to go about this from an Australian perspective. Higher
Education, 64(6), 875–889. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9534-3
Dinham, S., Aubusson, P., & Brady, L. (2006). Distributive leadership through
action learning. Paper presented at the 15th International Educational Leadership
Conference. Wollongong, Australia.
Gannaway, D., Hinton, T., Berry, B., & Moore, K. (2011). Review of dissemination
strategies used by projects funded by ALTC grants scheme. Sydney, Australia: ALTC.
Gibbs, G., & Habeshaw, T. (2003). Recognising and rewarding excellent teaching.
Milton Keynes, UK: Centre for Higher Education Practice, Open University.
Gunn, C., & Lefoe, G. (2011). Evaluating action-learning and professional networking
as a framework for educational leadership capacity development. The International
Journal for Academic Development. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2011.613996
Harman, G. (2003). Australian academics and prospective academics: Adjustment
to a more commercial environment. Higher Education. Management and Policy,
15(2), 105–122.
Harris, A. (Ed.). (2009). Distributed leadership – Different perspectives (Vol. 7).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9
Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic learning environments in higher
education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hugo, G., & Morriss, A. (2010). Investigating the ageing academic workforce:
Stocktake. Canberra, Australia: Universities Australia.
Ingram, D., & Gilding, A. (2003). Centralised decentralised professional develop-
ment models: Leadership, identification and negotiation. Paper presented at the
26th Annual Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia
(HERDSA) Conference. Christchurch, New Zealand.
Jayashree, P., Shen, K., & Lefoe, G. (2011). Strategic change through distributed
leadership. Paper presented at the 25th Conference of Australian and New Zealand
Academy of Management. Wellington, New Zealand.
Jones, S., Ladyshewsky, R., Oliver, B., & Flavell, H. (Eds.). (2009). Leading courses:
Academic leadership for course coordinators final report. Sydney, Australia: Aus-
tralian Learning and Teaching Council.
Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., & Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed leadership: A
collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher
education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1), 67–78.
doi:10.1080/1360080X.2012.642334
Kemmis, S. (2009). Action research as a practice-based practice. Educational Ac-
tion Research, 17(3), 463–474. doi:10.1080/09650790903093284
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2001). Participatory action research. In Denzin, N.,
& Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 567–605).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the web. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
Knight, P. T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Departmental leadership in higher education.
Buckingham, UK: SRHE & Open University Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get ex-
traordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lefoe, G. (2010). Creating the future: Changing culture through leadership capacity
development. In Ehlers, U. D., & Schneckenberg, D. (Eds.), Changing Cultures in
Higher Education: Moving Ahead to Future Learning (pp. 189–204). Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03582-1_15
Lefoe, G., & Parrish, D. (2008). The GREEN report: Growing • reflecting • enabling
• engaging • networking: A report on the development of leadership capacity in
higher education. Wollongong, Australia: University of Wollongong & Australian
Learning and Teaching Council.
Lefoe, G., & Parrish, D. (2009). Enabling leadership capacity through authentic
learning: The faculty scholars program. In Proceedings of the 32nd HERDSA An-
nual Conference, (pp. 263-272). Darwin, Australia: HERDSA.
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2001). Teaching and learning online: A beginners
guide to e-learning and e-teaching in higher education. Perth, Australia: CRITAC,
Edith Cowan University.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning.
Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345
Rayner, S., Fuller, M., McEwen, L., & Roberts, H. (2010). Managing leadership
in the UK university: A case for researching the missing professoriate? Studies in
Higher Education, 35(6), 617–631. doi:10.1080/03075070903243100
Reynolds, M. (2011). Reflective practice: origins and interpretations. Action Learn-
ing Research and Practice, 8(1), 5–13. doi:10.1080/14767333.2011.549321
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective
thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00181
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Smigiel, H. (2008). Sustaining distributive leadership in learning and teaching:
Cascade and perpetual effectiveness of the faculty scholar model. Retrieved from
http://www.altc.edu.au/project-sustaining-distributive-leadership-flinders-2007
Smigiel, H., Pannan, L., Szorenyi-Reischl, N., & Donnan, P. (2011). Final report:
Sustaining distributive leadership in learning and teaching: Cascade and perpetual
effectiveness of the faculty scholar model. Sydney, Australia: Flinders University
and Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd.
Southwell, D., Gannaway, D., Orrell, J., Chalmers, D., & Abraham, C. (2005).
Strategies for effective dissemination of project outcomes. Brisbane, Australia:
University of Queensland & Flinders University.
Southwell, D., & Gilding, A. (2004). Centralised decentralised professional devel-
opment models: The CATLyst network. In Proceedings of the Online Learning and
Teaching Conference: Exploring Integrated Learning Environments, (pp. 167-174).
Brisbane, Australia: TALS, QUT.
Taylor, K., & Schönwetter, D. (2002). Faculty development as institutional lead-
ership: A framework for meeting new challenges. Paper presented at the Quality
Conversations, the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference. Perth, Australia.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of prac-
tice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
West-Burnham, J. (2004). Building leadership capacity – Helping leaders learn:
An NCSL thinkpiece. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/media/F7B/92/randd-
building-lead-capacity.pdf
 Lynne Hunt
University of Southern Queensland, Australia & University of
Western Australia, Australia

Michael Sankey
University of Southern Queensland, Australia

This is the story of top-down, middle-out, and bottom-up change to promote learn-
ing and teaching at a regional university in Australia. The case study documents
a whole-of-university change process designed to get the context right to enhance
university learning and teaching. It describes the baseline for action, the planning
processes, and implementation strategies that adapted a project management ap-
proach. The chapter explores contestable issues associated with centralised univer-
sity change processes versus devolved, faculty initiatives, and it shows how these
might be combined. It also outlines the guiding principles of the change process,
which was informed by a concern to develop coherent student learning journeys,
cross-institutional planning, and a community development approach to engage the
hearts and minds of staff. It also featured a systems approach designed to make it
difficult for staff to get things wrong.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch016

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
This case study recounts change processes to get the context right to enhance learn-
ing and teaching at a small, regional university in Australia. It argues that a whole-
of-university response is required because “changing only an element at one level
may have limited, local and provisional success ... because the rest of the system
is not touched and established patterns prevail over the single change” (Bamber et
al., 2009, p. 3). Worse still, without a whole-of-university approach, the outcome
might be like a cannibal using a fork (Elkington, 1999, p. 11)—no real change at all.
The case study outlines the principles informing the change processes, the plans
and the implementation strategies. Its purpose is to share good practice, because
“Case studies may provide ideas, suggestions, or imagery that might sensitize outsid-
ers to issues they may have not considered, particularly with regard to the process
of institutional change” (Wals, Walker and Blaze Corcoran, 2004, p. 347). It has
particular import for student retention and progression because the purpose of the
change process was to attract and retain students.
Since its inception, some 40 years ago, the case-study university has specialised
in distance education and gained a reputation for keeping pace with advancements in
online and blended learning opportunities (Taylor, 2001). So, flexible and blended
learning became a defining feature of the university and 78% of its 27,000 students
study online. Unsurprisingly, the University has attracted students unable to partici-
pate in traditional, on-campus, university studies. Often, they are the first in their
families to study for a degree, and many are older students involved with family and
work responsibilities and some are from rural, remote, and Indigenous communi-
ties. Thirty-three percent of the University’s students are from low socioeconomic
backgrounds, so the University may be characterised as engaging with the widening
participation agendas now being set by governments around the world:

A number of recent reviews into higher education attest to the importance that
governments attach to university education (e.g., Bradley, 2008; OECD, 2010;
Spellings, 2006). Such interest in higher education is due, in part, to the global
transition to knowledge economies. This requires nations to have highly educated
populations … As a consequence, governments have sought to widen participation
in higher education and to make university study accessible to a wide cross-section
of the population (Broughan & Hunt, 2012, p. 183).

Given that this university is among the leaders in flexible learning in Australian
Universities, and that it is responding to national priorities to widen participation, it
might seem unnecessary to enhance the quality of teaching and learning. However,
the motivation for change came from a number of sources. Firstly, competition
for students between Australian universities has become increasingly intense and
it is important to attract and retain students to sustain a cash flow. In corporate
terms, universities need to deliver a quality product (degree program). Secondly,
the University was about to be audited by the government and had to demonstrate
transparent, quality processes associated with the design and delivery of its degree
programs. This was the starting point for the change processes to get the context
right for teaching and learning.

The change processes were informed by a Student Learning Journey (SLJ) frame-
work (See Figure 1), which facilitates a student’s contact with a university from
pre-enrolment until after graduation. The SLJ is an elusive concept that will only
take shape within the strategic framework of a particular university. It has been
characterised (Hunt & Peach, 2009, p. 7) as a relationships-based, holistic approach.
It focuses on the student as a whole person, and not “as the subject and object of a
series of unrelated interactions with [a university]”. It directs attention to the need
for connectedness between a university’s responses provided at different points in a
student’s journey through their program. At this university, the SLJ was conceptualised
as points of interaction associated with the needs of nine different ‘types’ of student
groups ranging from on-campus domestic students to students studying online, or
international students studying through a partner campus. For each of these groups
the key interaction points (Figure 1) may be summarized as: Decision to enroll;
application and offer; enrolment; the early weeks (orientation & first classes); the
experience of study in the first semester; preparing for the next semester; continu-
ing study the following years; identifying unplanned events; completing study; and
keeping in touch with graduates via the Alumni.

Figure 1. Key interaction points in the student-learning journey

 The SLJ framework offered an evidence-based approach because Scott’s (2005,
p. 13) analysis of 168,376 comments made by 94,835 graduates of a representative
sample of 14 Australian universities had shown that students want an “efficient and
responsive administrative, IT, library and student support systems actively working
together to support … operation[s]”. They also want quality course design, learning
methods, and assessment, as well as staff who teach well and who are responsive
to students’ needs. In brief, the SLJ is everyone’s responsibility. Plans to get the
context right, therefore, require a whole-of-university, 360˚ approach. Accordingly,
this university implemented cross-institutional planning which meant that senior
leaders had responsibilities across the University for a core function, in this case,
learning and teaching. This cut across organizational silos, such as faculties or
departments, with the aim of ensuring consistent and coherent SLJs for all students.
It might be characterised as a centralised rather than devolved approach and it is
contestable. For example, Kift (2004, p. 8) argued that the successful promotion of:

Teaching and learning may be centralised in teaching and learning centres or devolved
to … faculty roles or a combination of both. There are advantages and drawbacks
in each approach. Centralised teaching and learning centres risk marginalisation
from faculties and schools [departments].

However, Kift (2004) also acknowledged that faculty-devolved processes “risk

isolation from broader international, national and university strategic initiatives”
(p. 8) and that faculty staff may lack the power to effect change. Certainly it might
prove difficult to achieve consistent and coherent students learning journeys through
disparate faculty or departmental initiatives, even though, from a student perspec-
tive, these are the face of the university. The 360˚ solution ensures that all facets of
program design and delivery are addressed in ways that meet the needs of staff and
students, as illustrated in Figure 2.
There is a myth about an academic who lectured for two hours on how not to
lecture for more than forty-five minutes, because that is as long as attention spans
last. Creating a supportive context for staff and students in unsupportive ways would
make about as much sense. This means that it is not just what you do but also the
way that you do it that matters. So the change processes described here drew on a
community development approach (Hunt, 2006), which aims to engage the hearts
and minds of staff through participative planning. Drawing on World Bank re-
sources (1996), Hunt noted that steps in community development include: securing
financial support, developing policy, providing incentives, building community
capacity, and reorienting organizations.
Figure 2. 360˚ model for change to promote teaching

So far, the principles that underpinned plans to promote teaching at this university
have been identified as: the student learning journey; cross-institutional planning;
and a community development approach to change. The planning process was also
informed by the need to be systematic and to monitor outcomes. The aim was to
provide systems that made it difficult for staff to get things wrong and easy for them
to get it right, because university teaching staff are time poor, as Hunt and Potter
(2006) showed “we’ve got to give [students] just as much education in the smaller
… time frame, … I can be creative but I can’t be that creative. You know, I can’t
fit a city into a house.”

Planning formed part of normal cross-institutional, planning processes. Plans were

necessarily constrained by time, budget and current university organizational struc-
tures, so it was not possible to do everything. A scan of what is done to promote
learning and teaching in most university Learning and Teaching Centres (LTC)
around Australia, benchmarked a framework for action, which was also determined
by obvious gaps in process at this particular university. The plans structured and
delimited what the University would do in terms of ten teaching, curriculum and
student oriented projects. Specifically, they were:

• Learning and teaching management and human resources;

• Teaching excellence;
• Learning and teaching scholarship;
• Academic professional development;
• Assessment;
• Vertically integrated curriculum;
• Technology enhanced learning;
• Learning support;
• Evaluation; and
• Course and program mapping.

A simplified project management approach was adopted to implement the plans.

There is a difference between the necessarily punctilious approaches to, for example,
engineering projects and those pertaining to human service (education) organiza-
tions. Engineering projects require an exactness that is difficult to incorporate into
community development. However, the elements of setting targets, estimating time-
lines, measuring outcomes and establishing communication plans can all be used,
as they were in this case. To ensure maximum outcome, each member of staff in
the University’s LTC was placed in charge of a project. It was their task to assess
the resources and action needed to progress their projects. This strategy provided
focus and enabled each member of the LTC staff to develop expertise, rather than
feeling stretched in all directions.
Each project had a plan that identified, for the following year, the:

• Milestones/deliverables;
• Tasks and timelines;
• Constraints; and
• Further project information.

Monthly reports on progress used the traffic light system (Figure 3). Where a
traffic light showed amber or red, the project leader had to account for delays.
Each report’s short, overall summary was used in official communications about
the project and in reports to the University’s Learning and Teaching Committee.
This disseminated information encouraged a whole-of-university approach and of-
fered accountability. The link between the university’s senior committees, strategic
directions, and the everyday activities of the LTC was thus established. So too was
the link to faculties because the University and Faculty Teaching and Learning
Committees cross-reported. The link to faculties and departments was also developed
through annual Faculty Learning and Teaching Action Plans. This gave faculties
the opportunity to determine what they needed to do in any one year, within the
Figure 3. Example of traffic light project reporting

framework of the ten projects. Without wishing to imply any hierarchy of importance,
the whole process might be characterised as top-down (strategic directions, plans,
and funding), middle-out (LTC project management), and bottom-up (faculty plans).
As well as taking responsibility for a project, individual LTC staff members also
worked in faculties to facilitate the implementation of all ten projects, in accordance
with faculty plans. The organization of LTC workloads in terms of project develop-
ment and delimited implementation work in faculties seemed the best compromise
between the need for centralised strategic action and the necessity to embed outcomes
where they matter to staff and students—in faculties and departments.

What actually happened? What emerged from the projects? What difference did
the change process make to students? This section will briefly account for major
outcomes associated with the ten projects.

For a brief period of time in Australia, government funds were given to ‘quit smok-
ing’ campaigns at the same time as government subsidies were provided to tobacco
farmers. Parallel stories may be told in universities that ostensibly support teaching
through professional development programs and teaching awards while at the same
time tolerating high staff-student ratios and poor teaching facilities that are counter-
productive to good teaching. In such circumstances organizational reorientation is
required. It might seem strange to begin the promotion of learning and teaching by
working with the Human Resources and Finance Departments to reorient University
services, but two examples will suffice to show how important this was to getting
the context right to enhance learning and teaching.

1. At this university, the criteria for staff promotion had been confined largely to
evidence about research productivity. It is a widely understood concern among
academic staff that “Being an innovative, fantastic educator doesn’t get you
anywhere as far as promotion is concerned” (Hunt & Potter, 2006). If career
progression does not include reference to teaching outcomes, then it is difficult
to engage staff in spending time on teaching initiatives. Therefore, it became
necessary to work with the Human Resources Department to incorporate teach-
ing achievements in the criteria for promotion. It was also necessary to embed
expectations about teaching standards in annual performance reviews. This
entailed working with the Human Resources Department to include specific
reference to teaching in performance review documentation. This resulted in
the development of two documents, one which outlined broad guidelines about
what good teaching might mean (USQ a) and secondly a series of questions
about teaching that supervisors might incorporate into performance review
interviews. Collaboration with the Human Resources Department was an
essential early step in the change process to ensure that the context supports
learning and teaching initiatives.
2. Major and minor input from the Finance Department was needed to facilitate
the advancement of teaching. In the first instance, special funds were needed
for the change processes to support learning and teaching. Secondly, the
Finance Department had well established processes for the management of
research funds but not so for monies accruing to teaching and learning grants
and awards. The specifics of this require no elaboration because the issues will
vary by university, but it is important to note that it was necessary to address
the Finance Department budget allocation and processes to facilitate teaching
initiatives.

The Teaching Excellence project aligned faculty and university teaching awards with
those operating at national level. In addition, it established a Teaching Academy
with membership offered to all teaching award winners be that at faculty, university
or national level. The aims were to honour individuals and build the capacity of
award winners to proceed to ever-higher levels, as well as helping award winners
to mentor their colleagues to similar success.
 Teaching scholarship is related to teaching awards because learning and teaching
publications may be used as evidence of teaching achievement. Further, scholarship
can have a direct effect on the quality of learning and teaching, as Trigwell (2012,
p. 254) indicated, because one purpose of scholarship is to make “transparent how
learning is being made possible ... describing how it is intended that learning will
happen, and gathering evidence to show that learning is happening, or that an in-
tervention is working”. In this project, strategies to advance teaching scholarship
included:

• A Summit (USQ b);

• A Visiting Scholar’s Program, with associated recordings for long-term use
online (USQ c), to encourage high-end teaching research;
• The introduction of Teaching Fellowships to provide time and money for staff
to implement and research a teaching project;
• The institution of an annual Learning and Teaching Week that included a
forum for staff, particularly Teaching Fellows, to present papers about their
work;
• The integration of teaching scholarship outcomes in poster presentations at
the University’s annual Research Evening;
• The introduction of a fortnightly electronic newsletter, ‘Learning and
Teaching Alert’, which collated information about national and international
grant, publication and conference opportunities;
• A Teaching Scholarship Community of Practice;
• Workshops on developing budgets for grant applications and managing teach-
ing grants; and
• a survey of current teaching research at the university that identified oppor-
tunities and barriers to further scholarship work. It concluded that support in
the development of teaching scholarship needs to focus on shortening the first
steps (Hunt et. al., 2010).

At the start of the change process, professional development comprised a series

of disparate workshops, many of which were cancelled due to lack of interest. In
contrast, the professional development project gave rise to an integrated professional
development program that comprised:

• A series of summits to kick-start a teaching initiative, create awareness and

develop impetus for change;
• A visiting teaching scholar program to enhance national and international
input into professional development for teaching;
• Workshops targeted on the projects;
• Just-in-time, bite-sized information in ‘How to flyers’ (USQ d);
• Online induction to tertiary teaching;
• Reorientation of the two-day foundation program to include reflective prac-
tice that might lead to scholarship and publications;
• The introduction of self-paced, online professional development modules
that could be used for credit towards the Graduate Certificate in Tertiary
Teaching;
• A series of online exemplars of good teaching practice; and
• Communities of Practice (CoP) (USQ e).

The Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998) methodology is particularly perti-

nent to a community development approach because it brings together academic and
professional staff on a cross-institutional basis to build capacity around an issue of
importance. So, for example, it might be all staff associated with teaching first-year
students in one faculty to ensure a smooth first-year transition to university (Mc-
Donald & Star, 2006; Sankey & Lawrence, 2008), or it might be professional and
academic colleagues from across the university who work with international students.
CoPs apply constructivist learning principles (Stewart, 2012) to staff professional
development because participants determine the matters to be addressed and share
and build knowledge together. They provide opportunities to develop applications
for teaching grants and awards, and to publish. CoPs are an important component
in the integrated professional development program, which is summarised in Figure
4 showing the infrastructure of websites, Moodle staff desks, and staff e-portfolios
supporting face-to-face and online professional development opportunities including
tailored professional development which responds to the expressed needs of staff.

The Vertically Integrated Curriculum Project sought to weave a series of issues

across all year levels of degree programs. So, for example, at this university it was
expected that all students study discipline-relevant aspects of Indigenous issues.
This project also aimed to embed in curricula academic skills development, good
assessment practice, and the mandated graduate attributes.
The USQ Good Teaching Guidelines served as a baseline for action in the as-
sessment project (see Hunt et al., 2012) because they specified that at this university
assessment:
Figure 4. The integrated academic professional development framework

• Is an integral part of the teaching and learning process;

• Is designed to guide students’ learning and provide opportunities for person-
al development planning and the documentation of students’ achievements
through e-portfolios;
• Addresses the diversity of students’ backgrounds, experiences and learning
styles;
• Is fair and equitable;
• Informs students of progress through timely, constructive feedback that en-
hances learning;
• Adopts a criterion-referenced approach;
• Demonstrates alignment between learning objectives, learning activities and
assessment tasks;
• Assesses identified graduate qualities and skills, along with disciplinary and
professional knowledge;
• Includes clear assessment criteria linked to learning objectives and provided
to students at the same time as assessment tasks;
• Is moderated in accordance with policy and, where relevant, contractual ar-
rangements with institutional partners;
• Is designed to take into consideration students’ overall workload; and
• Is manageable from a staff workload perspective.

The standards and expectations were set. Now to make it happen! An Exemplar
website (USQ f) modelled good assessment practice and templates, guidelines,
(USQ g) and just-in-time, bite-sized ‘How to’ flyers were developed. These included
an assessment checklist, and, information about criterion referenced assessment,
feedback, moderation, and designing assessment for students living with disability.
The flyers are available online and in hard copy displayed around the University.
Assessment and graduate attributes are discussed together here because the de-
velopment of templates was based on Biggs (2003) model for aligning assessment
with learning objectives, graduate skills and teaching activities, as is now custom-
ary in many Australian universities. Once the resources were developed LTC staff
were able to work with faculty staff to ensure that subject outlines demonstrated
alignment. The templates also helped staff to identify and assess different levels of
learning outcomes.

The aim of this project was to develop blended learning environments suited to
the needs of a diverse and dispersed student population by maximizing the links
between mobile spaces, virtual spaces and physical spaces. This was done with
the understanding that, “actual learning occurs when teachers begin to engage
with the possibilities that are created by a consistent and pedagogically informed
whole-of-university approach to the development of contemporary learning spaces”
(Hunt, Huijser & Sankey, 2011, p. 194). In short, learning design came first—not
technologies. This involved:

• A shift from instruction to active learning;

• Collaborative learning;
• Commitment to project-based learning;
• Skills needed for the 21st century;
• Collaborative networks that support professional learning; and
• Globalisation of education through national and international networks.

The vision for blended learning and more meaningful interactions between staff
and students, and student to students, spawned a range of technologies and Web 2.0
approaches. These where mediated by the introduction of the open source learning
management system, Moodle and the Mahara ePortfolio system. Other tools and
systems that were successfully implemented included:

• Virtual classroom technology;

• Synchronous and asynchronous voice and chat applications;
• 3D virtual worlds simulations;
• ePortfolios and personal learning environments; and
• Blog and wiki spaces, that facilitate collaboration and reflection.

This project ensured that systems and approaches were consistent with the higher
education sector nationally and internationally. Accordingly, the university undertook
benchmarking activity with two Australian universities using the Australasian Council
on Open, Distance and eLearning Benchmarks (ACODE, 2007), the results of which
demonstrated that the University was well placed in terms of integrating technology
into everyday learning and teaching practice (Sankey, 2008). The University also
benchmarked internationally with the University of South Africa—that country’s
largest distance education and online learning provider (see USQ h).

Academic skills support is essential in a university engaged in widening participa-

tion in higher education because new students may not be familiar with the required
standards of written and oral communication and may lack the necessary numeracy
skills. However, it is important for principles to inform practice in academic skills
support because there is a risk that efforts to help may:

translate all too easily into little more than ‘remedial’ support for the ‘weak’ stu-
dents, so that non-traditional students are effectively treated as ‘charity’ cases,
rescued from ignorance. The existing edifice of elite education is simply extended
by adding a large paupers’ wing. ‘Proper’ students continue to define the norms,
while the rest tag along behind. Yet such a response fails to meet the underlying
aims of broadening education. Instead, it creates an underclass of students, who
become alienated from the knowledge dangled beyond their reach and eventually
emerge from their encounter with education with a sense of personal inadequacy
rather than empowerment (Northedge, 2005, p. 13).

For these reasons, the Vertical Integration Project sought to embed academic skills
in curricula. It was a business-as-usual approach—academic skills are for everyone
to learn. At the same time, the Learning Support Project concentrated on specialist
help. The academic skills Learning Centre for on-campus students had been isolated
and few attended, other than for organized workshops, and the systems for online
contact left much to be desired. Online resources had been developed (USQ i), but
they were a somewhat static resource. So the change processes associated with skills
support included moving the Learning Centre to an obvious place in the Library
so that anyone could drop in, thereby avoiding an impression that this was just for
weak students. Further, a Virtual Learning Centre was established to mainstream
support for online students. It deploys virtual classroom technologies for individual
or small group consultations. Other tools include, phone, email, online chat, online
workshops and peer assisted learning sessions - also facilitated online. More recently,
online student mentors have been established along with an academic technology
advocate position to help students unfamiliar with online learning technologies.

A significant aspect of getting the context right for teaching and learning is to provide
for continuous monitoring of the curriculum. A key objective of this project was to
develop a system and a process to facilitate staff reflection on the curriculum and
their teaching. A system was devised that collated all relevant data such as grade
distribution, student retention rates, and student feedback. A process was developed
that requires the team of staff teaching a degree program to meet once a year to
examine the collated data and to respond to qualitative questions about, for example,
assessment and graduate qualities. Subsequently, staff determine what needs to be
done to enhance teaching and learning and their report becomes part of the annual
faculty report to the University. The key points are that quality is locked in to the
accountability processes and it is resourced with one-stop-shop data. It is an em-
powering process because staff have considerable control. This is an improvement
on surveillance models of course review and serves to support reflective practice
by teaching staff.

As may be evident in the description of the projects, there was much to do and cur-
rent resources were not going to achieve the outcomes required for the University
to be ready for the external quality review. Impetus was provided through a special
allocation of funds for a one-year Program Revitalisation Project (see USQ j). The
objective was to enhance learning, teaching and assessment to facilitate the SLJ and
enhance retention, with a strong focus on engaging the university’s online students.
It was aligned with routine planning and implementation processes so that the focus
provided by the ten learning and teaching projects prevailed. As the outcomes of the
ten projects have already been noted, this discussion of the Program Revitalisation
Project (PRP) will highlight the significant systems development made possible by
the additional funding, in particular the Course and Program Management System.
The accreditation and reaccreditation of programs and subjects (also known as units
or modules) is a core quality process in any university. It is closely guided by policy
and is subject to strict compliance obligations. The difficulty for university staff is
that policies can be complex and time consuming to comprehend. So, an early step in
this change process was to update and streamline some of the learning and teaching
policies. The next step was to develop the online Course and Program Management
System (CPMS) which was designed to embed policy, thereby making it difficult
to get things wrong. Special features of the CPMS ensured that staff changes to
subject outlines were automatically flagged to appropriate approving authorities.
This meant, for example, that graduate qualities and assessment could not drift out
of alignment and it avoided ‘creeping duplication’ of curriculum content as staff
inadvertently fine-tuned subjects in similar directions.
The CPMS was also designed to link to students’ e-portfolios so that each time
a student completes a subject, the graduate qualities they addressed are fed to the
student’s e-portfolio—a platform that enables students to provide evidence of their
achievements in a secure and branded university space. The aim was to enhance
graduate employability prospects. An automatic link to staff teaching portfolios was
also designed so that evidence of student feedback and other teaching successes might
be compiled for use in applications for promotions and teaching awards. Figure 5
provides a visual representation of the CPMS design features that were informed
by a concern to make transparent the University’s quality assurance processes in
program design and delivery.

Figure 5. The CPMS schematic

This case study summarises a systematic approach to enhance university learning and
teaching. It shows how the principles and vision of a change process were brought
to fruition in ten core projects, noting, in particular, the need for an embedded ap-
proach that engages the whole university. What worked, what did not, and why? The
facts that the university faced a quality audit and budget constraints that might lead
to job losses meant that the University was change ready, if not, necessarily, change
capable. Barriers to change included a strong decentralized culture with considerable
faculty ownership of processes. Nonetheless, this is a small university, which helped
when implementing rapid change and it already had a solid infrastructure for online
learning. This was a useful starting point. What worked was the influx of funds
to make the changes. The reorientation of the Learning and Teaching Centre to a
structure that supported a modified project management methodology was essential.
As part of change processes elsewhere in the University, the number of degree
programs in the University had been reduced. This made the job of improving
learning and teaching quality a lot more manageable. Further, analysis had shown
that 80% of students were enrolled in 15 of the remaining degree programs—the
so-called ‘Top 15.’ Therefore, strategic decisions were made to concentrate on these
for quality improvements. It was a way of getting ‘best bang for buck.’ This serves
to show how changes elsewhere in the University, provided a platform to enhance
learning and teaching. This might be seen as too corporate by some – organizational
intervention that impedes academic freedom to develop learning and teaching as
individual lecturers see fit. However, the point of this chapter was to shift attention
to whole-of-university responsibility for facilitating students’ learning and for dem-
onstrating quality assurance in learning and teaching. In so doing, this chapter has
documented what happened to get the context right for teaching and learning which
included a holistic approach to change leadership: cross-institutional planning, a
community development approach that incorporates communities of practice, and
a project management methodology tailored to suit a human service organization.

ACODE. (2007). ACODE benchmarks. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://
www.acode.edu.au/benchmarks.php
Bamber, V., Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Knight, P. (2009). Enhancing learning,
teaching, assessment and curriculum in higher education. Maidenhead, UK: Open
University Press.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). Buckingham,
UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Bradley, D. (2008). Review of higher education discussion paper. Retrieved Janu-
ary 24, 2012, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Documents/
PDF/Higher%20Education%20Review_Title%20page%20to%20chapter%202.pdf
Broughan, C., & Hunt, L. (2012). Inclusive teaching. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D.
(Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach (pp. 182–198).
Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century
business. Oxford, UK: Capstone.
Hunt, L. (2006). A community development model of change: The role of teach-
ing and learning centres. In Hunt, L., Bromage, A., & Tomkinson, B. (Eds.), The
Realities of Change in Higher Education: Interventions to Promote Learning and
Teaching (pp. 64–77). London, UK: Routledge.
Hunt, L., Hammer, S., & Sankey, M. (2012). Getting the context right for good as-
sessment practice. In Clouder, D. L., Broughan, C., Jewell, S., & Steventon, G. J.
(Eds.), Improving Student Engagement and Development through Assessment (pp.
166–180). London, UK: Routledge.
Hunt, L., Hartle, T., Brodie, L., & Danaher, P. (2010). SoTTL on SoTTL: An evidence-
base approach to promoting the scholarship of tertiary teaching and learning. Paper
presented at the ISSoTL10 Conference. Liverpool, UK.
Hunt, L., Huijser, H., & Sankey, M. (2011). Learning spaces for the digital age:
Blending space with pedagogy. In Keppell, M., Souter, K., & Riddle, M. (Eds.),
Physical and Virtual Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Concepts for the Modern
Learning Environment (pp. 182–197). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-
1-60960-114-0.ch012
Hunt, L., & Peach, N. (2009). Planning for a sustainable academic future. In iPED
Research Network (Eds.), Academic Futures: Inquiries into Higher Education and
Pedagogy, (pp. 1-14). Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hunt, L., & Potter, M. (2006). What gets in the way of quality teaching? A critical
perspective. In Critical Visions: Thinking, Learning and Researching in Higher
Education. Perth, Australia: University of Western Australia.
Kift, S. (2004). Between a rock and several hard places: Where does a faculty learn-
ing and teaching sub-dean sit and what is that role? HERDSA News, 1(3), 8–11.
McDonald, J., & Star, C. (2006). Designing the future of learning through a com-
munity of practice of teachers of first year courses at an Australian university. In
R. Philip, A. Voerman, & J. Dalziel (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International
LAMS Conference 2006: Designing the Future of Learning, (pp. 65-76). Sydney,
Australia: LAMS Foundation.
Northedge, A. (2005). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity: Supporting
social participation in a knowledge community. In Shaw, G. (Ed.), Tertiary Teach-
ing and Learning: Dealing with Diversity (pp. 13–31). Darwin, Australia: Charles
Darwin University Press.
OECD. (2010). Trends shaping education 2010. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from
www.oecd.org/edu/
Sankey, M. D. (2008). Program revitalisation - Technology enhanced learning and
flexible delivery project: ACODE benchmarking. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from
http://www.usq.edu.au/~/media/USQ/learnteach/ADS/ACODEBMprojectreport-
DeakinFinalpdf.ashx
Sankey, M. D., & Lawrence, J. (2008). I’m not alone: First year course leaders
helped through communities of practice. In D. Orr, P. A. Danaher, G. Danaher, &
R. E. Harreveld (Eds.), 5th International Lifelong Learning Conference: Lifelong
Learning: Reflecting on Successes and Framing Futures, (pp. 348-353). Yeppoon,
Australia: Central Queensland University.
Scott, G. (2005). Accessing the student voice: Using CEQuery to identify what
retains students and promotes engagement in productive learning in Australian
higher education. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sec-
tors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/access_student_voice.htm
Spelling, M. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher educa-
tion: A report of the commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret
Spelling. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.web.virginia.edu/iaas/news/
spellingsreport.pdf
Stewart, M. (2012). Understanding learning: Theories and critique. In Hunt, L., &
Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach
(pp. 3–20). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Taylor, J. (2001). Fifth generation distance education. Paper presented at the 20th
ICDE World Conference. Düsseldorf, Germany.
Trigwell, K. (2012). Scholarship of teaching and learning. In Hunt, L., & Chalm-
ers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach (pp.
253–267). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
USQ. (2012a). Guidelines for good teaching. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from
http://www.usq.edu.au/learnteach/qualpolplan/qual/teachguidelines
USQ. (2012b). Scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) summit. Retrieved Janu-
ary 24, 2012, from http://www.usq.edu.au/learnteach/learnres/summit/sottlsummit
USQ. (2012c). Visiting scholars program. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://
www.usq.edu.au/learnteach/learnres/vsarchive
USQ. (2012d). How to flyers. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.usq.
edu.au/learnteach/learnres/howtoflyers
USQ. (2012e). Communities of practice. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://
www.usq.edu.au/cops/
USQ. (2012f). Teaching exemplars. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.
usq.edu.au/learnteach/learnres/exemplars
USQ. (2012g). Assessment. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.usq.edu.
au/learnteach/topics/assess
USQ. (2012h). University of South Africa. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://
www.usq.edu.au/learnteach/learnres/vsarchive/unisa
USQ. (2012i). Quick tips. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.usq.edu.
au/learningcentre/tips
Wals, A. E. J., Walker, K. E., & Blaze Corcoran, P. (2004). The practice of sustain-
ability in higher education: A synthesis. In Blaze Corcoran, P., & Wals, A. E. J. (Eds.),
Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability: Problematics, Promise and
Practice (pp. 347–348). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
doi:10.1007/0-306-48515-X_27
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
World Bank Participation Sourcebook. (1996). Website. Retrieved January 24, 2012,
from http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB
/1996/02/01/000009265_3961214175537/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf
 Iain Doherty
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the challenges of achieving systemic change
in the teaching culture of a research-intensive university. The chapter makes use of
a teaching improvement case study to identify both the challenges and the solutions
to engaging academics in a research-intensive university with educational profes-
sional development. Ongoing issues are identified and future research directions
are presented.

In the first few months of 2009, the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences (FMHS),
The University of Auckland (UoA), New Zealand initiated a project to provide aca-
demics with a set of resources to support them in achieving excellence in teaching.
The FMHS Faculty initiative will act as a case study for discussing the challenges

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch017

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
involved in achieving systemic change in the teaching culture of a research-intensive
Faculty. The deliverables for the project included: a teaching performance rubric,
a set of online Educational Professional Development (EPD) modules aligned with
the performance guidelines, and an electronic portfolio (ePortfolio) to enable aca-
demics to create teaching records for formative and summative purposes (https://
fmhshub.auckland.ac.nz). The project was referenced to University and Faculty
teaching excellence priorities, to University policies and guidelines on teaching
standards and to the requirement for academics to engage in teaching improvement
activities. Referencing in this way provided the rationale for the project in terms of
the perceived need to provide staff with the appropriate resources and supports to
help them to achieve excellence in teaching and in terms of the overall project aim
of effecting broad change in the Faculty teaching culture.
According to change management theory (Kotter, 1995), transformation efforts
tend to fail in the absence of a sufficient sense of urgency or in the absence of a sense
that the proposed changes are necessary for the ongoing success of the organiza-
tion. One reason for this is that successful change requires the cooperation of many
people over an extended period of time and creating and communicating a sense of
urgency is a way to motivate individuals to engage with the change process for the
requisite period of time. The issue that we faced in a successful research-intensive
Faculty was that our project—which ultimately aimed to embed EPD within the
teaching culture of the Faculty—was not perceived as necessary for organizational
success. Therefore, in the absence of a sense of organizational urgency, we had to
devise alternative strategies to bring about the sort of changes that we wanted to see.
These strategies included: managing change in a way that ensured the support of
senior figures within the Faculty, conveying the strategic importance of the initiative
to multiple stakeholders, making a transparent and concrete connection between
EPD and individual reward and recognition, and creating professional development
resources that aligned with academics’ stated professional development needs and
with the needs of other stakeholders such as academic managers responsible for
supporting academics in their teaching.

EPD is arguably vitally important for educational institutions operating in a time of

significant societal, market, technological, and pedagogical change. Ideally, ongoing
EPD—along with, for example, regular curriculum renewal—would be standard
practice for educators and a defining aspect of teaching and learning cultures. As a
result, educational institutions might respond appropriately to the multiple forces
that are impacting upon higher education. Teaching environments might then be
regularly enhanced to the benefit of students. However, we know that at a macro level
universities are complex places that operate in terms of multiple strategic priorities
and multiple drivers. The most obvious of these is the tension between institutional
research priorities and institutional teaching priorities. This tension is particularly
acute when institutional reputations along with government funding are tied to the
quantity and quality of discipline research outputs. We also know that at a micro
level there are significant barriers to Faculty engagement with EPD including: lack
of time to engage in EPD due to the competing demands of teaching, research and
service; lack of incentive to spend time on teaching improvement; lack of reward
for time so spent; the power of the research culture that results in academics focus-
ing their efforts on discipline research rather than teaching; a failure on the part of
management and EPD specialists to connect EPD with institutional strategic priori-
ties; and a lack of resources and supports for teaching development and innovation
as a result of inadequate EPD funding.
Whilst the UoA strategic plan – like many University strategic plans—details
strategic priorities that are balanced across the three academic activity domains of
teaching, research and service, the reality is that the UoA is a research-intensive
University. This means that the University perceives its national and international
standing to rest upon the quality of its research. As a consequence a premium is
placed on discipline research by both the institution and individual academics. Mini-
mally this means that academics have to make difficult choices about the amount
of time that they spend on their teaching relative to their discipline research. Less
minimally, this means that academics tend to value discipline research over teaching
and that rewards in the form of career progression and peer esteem come to those
who publish discipline research (Adams, 1998; Hemmings & Kay, 2008; Middleton,
2005; Ramsden & Martin, 1996). The New Zealand research rating exercise—known
as the Performance Based Research Fund—tends to exacerbate this situation since
both institutional and individual standing rest significantly on the research ratings
awarded during this exercise (Willis, 2009).

The challenge of achieving systemic change in the teaching culture of a research-

intensive University involves addressing three issues. The first of these is staff
perceptions concerning the strategic and operational priorities of the institution.
Senior individuals within the institution have to be seen to be advocating for a
change initiative because senior support for change sends out the signal that the
desired change is strategically important and highly valued. We will discuss this
issue below in the context of explaining the role of the guiding coalition for this
project. The second issue that needs to be addressed is that of convincing significant
institutional figures – in our case the heads of the five schools, academic managers
and members of the staffing committee – that the change is important and worth
supporting in the long term. Finally, there is the question of what would motivate
academics to spend time on improving their teaching through making use of a set
of professional development modules along with the associated ePortfolio. We
addressed this question through considering a particular theory of motivation that
will be detailed below.

Readers will be aware from other chapters in this book that there are a number of
ways to achieve systemic change in a teaching culture. For example, distributed
leadership initiatives seek to develop leadership capacity within an organization
irrespective of the role or position of the potential leader within an organization
(Keppel, 2010; Parrish, LeFoe, Smigiel, & Albury, 2008). Initiatives of this sort
are often funded to “buy out” academics’ time so that they can focus on develop-
ing their teaching and leadership skills in the context of an authentic teaching and
learning improvement project. These individuals can then work to influence their
immediate teaching and learning context and in this way the wider teaching culture
might be changed. Such initiatives can be very successful. However, in the absence
of funding and with the aim of connecting with and motivating as many staff as
possible to engage in teaching improvement, we opted to design and deliver online
EPD modules. Whether or not our approach is the right one is a question that will
only be answered over time. We will return to this issue in the final section of the
chapter where we discuss future research directions.
The vision of change that we are describing here can be characterized as sus-
taining change or change that sought to support staff in achieving excellence in
teaching in ways that were consistent with previous Faculty goals and activities.
In other words, we were not seeking a radical departure from previous strategy or,
to any great extent, from the way that things were already being done within the
Faculty. Rather, we sought to promote the University’s/Faculty’s strategic goal of
achieving excellence in teaching. In the first instance, the strategy for achieving the
changes that we wanted to see was to ensure that key significant personnel within
the Faculty including the Dean and the Associate Dean Education supported the
project. The Dean and Associate Dean Education were involved from the begin-
ning of the project and were seen to be visibly supporting the project throughout
its lifecycle. For example, the Dean commissioned and signed off on the teaching
performance rubric (described below), was filmed talking about the importance of
teaching for the online resources (described below), and promoted the project in
his weekly newsletter to the Faculty.
Secondly, we sought to communicate the vision to stakeholders across the
Faculty and to empower others to act on the vision through beginning the process
of removing a key obstacle to change (Kotter, 1995), the perception that discipline
research is valued over teaching when it comes to individual reward and recogni-
tion. In addition to promoting the project through the Faculty Education Committee,
we also sought to engage the Faculty Staffing Committee (FSC) with the teaching
excellence project. The FSC is the committee responsible for, amongst other things,
making recommendations concerning promotion applications submitted during the
annual promotion round. This means that the FSC are perceived as “significant
others” by academics and the opinion of the FSC matters to academics who are
making decisions about how to spend their time. We judged FSC support—in the
form of endorsement of the project deliverables—to be particularly important with
respect to motivating academics to engage in EPD. We engaged with the FSC prior
to commencing the project and we provided the FSC with regular updates during the
project. Ultimately, however, the FSC did not officially endorse the project deliv-
erables for use in the promotion process. We considered this to be very unfortunate
in terms of the perceived importance of the project within the Faculty and we are
currently considering ways in which we might get the FSC to endorse the project
deliverables for use in the promotion process.
Finally, we considered the individual motivation of academics to engage in teach-
ing improvement. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) provides
for a conceptual understanding of motivation. TPB presupposes that individuals act
rationally when deciding to engage in a particular behavior and that they make use
of available information as part of the decision making process. Whilst not all of
our behavior is rational in this sense, it seems reasonable to posit that academics do
act rationally when making decisions about how to best progress their careers. Ac-
cording to TPB, an individual’s behavior can be explained in terms of three sets of
antecedent beliefs—behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control—along with
the related constructs of attitude, subjective norm, and behavioral control. These
beliefs and related constructs are said to bear upon a person’s intention/motivation
to carry out a particular action (Ajzen, 1991). In basic terms, a person will be mo-
tivated to carry out an action if they believe the action to be important (behavioral
beliefs), if they believe that significant others see the action as important (normative
beliefs) and if they perceive that they are able to carry out an action (behavioural
control). In reality these antecedent beliefs will likely hold to one extent or another
and to different degrees in any particular case. For example, a person might view
taking action to improve teaching as important and believe that they have the ability
to improve their teaching whilst understanding that significant others do not view
improving teaching as particularly important. Whilst this is a somewhat simplified
presentation of TPB, the theoretical framework does provide a way to understand this
project from the point of view of trying to motivate academics to engage with EPD.
The design and development of the three project deliverables—the teaching
performance rubric, a set of online EPD resources and an ePortfolio—has already
been described in some detail (Doherty, 2010b). In this chapter we critically discuss
the project deliverables from the perspective of the theory of planned behaviour—
summarized above—because this discussion bears significantly on the question of
academic motivation to engage in teaching improvement activities. In the previous
paragraph, we made reference to perceived behavioural control. In contrast to this
concept, actual behavioural control refers to having the necessary resources and
supports to complete an action. We addressed the issue of actual behavioural control
through providing resources and supports that would in fact enable academics to
improve their teaching. This was achieved in a large part due to extensive consultation
with Faculty at all levels of seniority concerning the sorts of resources that would
be most useful for their EPD. In terms of perceived behavioural control—whether
or not academics would feel able to improve their teaching—we sought to produce
resources and supports that would contribute to a feeling of self-efficacy on the
part of lecturers. For example, the resources included a host of videos of Faculty
lecturers talking about their teaching. We also sought to address other motivational
factors—for example, beliefs about the importance of teaching, beliefs about how
significant others perceived teaching—in the resource development. The creation and
dissemination of a teaching performance rubric—outlined in the next paragraph—is
one example of addressing such motivational factors.
The University policy document on promotion outlined the teaching promotion
criteria in a less than straightforward way. We therefore decided to create a straight-
forward teaching performance rubric (https://www.fmhshub.auckland.ac.nz/23.
html) to provide academics with a way to identify and to respond to the University’s
teaching performance expectations for the various academic grades e.g. lecturer,
senior lecturer, associate professor and so on. The document was the first of its kind
within the University and represented a significant step forward in providing all
stakeholders—academics, academic managers and members of the Staffing Com-
mittee responsible for making recommendations about promotion applications—with
a common understanding of the sorts of activities that might be used to evidence
teaching performance. The rubric—endorsed by the Dean—also signals that teach-
ing performance is important to the Faculty and the University and to this extent
the rubric should function to convey that “significant others” consider teaching to
be an important activity. Additionally, the rubric connects teaching improvement
with individual reward and recognition and this should serve to create and reinforce
a positive attitude towards developing teaching amongst Faculty academics.
The EPD modules (https://www.fmhshub.auckland.ac.nz) were designed in
consultation with academics to align with the activity areas in the teaching perfor-
mance rubric. This entailed creating EPD content that would support academics in
developing their teaching in the specific performance areas used by the University
to judge teaching performance. The modules were created to allow academics to
engage in teaching improvement at a time and place of their own choosing. Each
module provides academics with succinct research based information for develop-
ing their teaching. The basic content is supplemented with additional resources for
academics wanting to take their teaching development further. Overall the design
of the modules should help to make academics feel that they have the capacity to
improve their teaching. The modules also include presentations from significant
Faculty personalities—the Dean, Associate Dean Education, teaching excellence
award winners—to convey that key individuals within the Faculty consider teaching
quality to be important. The presence of these significant individuals should func-
tion to further create the belief that important Faculty members consider teaching
to be important.
Finally, the ePortfolio was developed in house to provide academics with a
straightforward means of evidencing their teaching performance for formative (self
appraisal) and summative purposes (annual performance review and promotion ap-
plications). Thus, the ePortfolio functions to connect teaching improvement activities
with University reward and recognition processes. This connection should serve to
motivate academics to engage in teaching improvement and to evidence their teaching
development because the connection with individual reward and recognition is of
direct benefit to academics. However, the actual benefit in terms of career develop-
ment still needs to be established by embedding the rubric, the modules, and the
ePortfolio within the University reward and recognition processes. This is a matter of
ensuring that academic managers reference the teaching performance rubric and ask
to see a teaching portfolio during the annual performance review round. Secondly,
the Faculty Staffing Committee needs to make use of the performance rubric and
the ePortfolio during their review of promotion applications. However, as already
mentioned, embedding the resources within the University reward and recognition
processes will require an ongoing commitment to managing change.
The rubric, modules and the ePortfolio took a little over twelve months to develop
and were launched in April 2010. We communicated the launch in multiple ways
(Kotter, 1995) in order to engage as many people as possible with the changes that
we were seeking to introduce. There was an initial email announcement made to
the Faculty from the Dean’s office. We chose this method for the initial announce-
ment because we wanted the launch to be backed by the authority of the Dean. The
launch was also announced in the Deans’ weekly diary several days after the first
announcement. The Dean’s diary is an electronic newsletter that provides infor-
mation on notable Faculty activities and successes. We held two Faculty for one
week after the announcement in the Dean’s diary in order to present the resources
to academics. We continued to communicate our vision for the teaching resources
through newsletters and emails sent out from the Faculty’s Centre for Medical and
Health Sciences education. This is a respected research center within the FMHS
with a key responsibility for ensuring quality of teaching and learning. All academic
managers within the Faculty were contacted at the time of the 2010 Annual Perfor-
mance Reviews (APRs) carried out December/January and asked to promote the
EPD modules, rubric and ePortfolio for use in academic development in the year
following the APR. Uptake of the resources in the 9 months since the launch has
been relatively low (Doherty, 2010a). However, this was expected for reasons that
are explained in the next section.

Even though we formed a strong guiding coalition, sought to engage significant

Faculty figures with the project and addressed the question of academics’ motivation
to improve their teaching, the question whether we will in fact achieve the project
goal of bringing about systemic change in the teaching culture of the Faculty is
still open. There is still support at a high level within the Faculty for this project
and so we do not see an issue with the signals that are being sent out concerning
the strategic importance of the project. However, we are still faced with the chal-
lenge of convincing significant Faculty figures—particularly academic managers
and the FSC—to formally endorse the need to engage in evidenced based teaching
improvements. Until this happens there will be a question whether academics do in
fact perceive teaching to be important (normative belief). This means that from a
TPB perspective, it will be difficult to convince academics in a research-intensive
University that time spent on developing teaching is time well spent. Finally, whilst
the resources and supports provide academics with the ability to improve their teach-
ing (actual behavioral control), actual uptake of these resources across the Faculty
has been limited. There may be many reasons for this including the barriers to EPD
listed earlier. However, it may be that more needs to be done to increase academics’
feelings of self-efficacy (perceived behavioral control) including supporting aca-
demics in the use of the online resources through workshops and/or in situ support.
 On one level, future research around a project such as this must involve examin-
ing the use and perceived utility of the project deliverables for the three different
groups who will potentially make use of the resources: academics; academic man-
agers; and members of the FSC. We have such a research project in place and will
be focussing our initial research on the annual promotion round as this will provide
an initial manageable research focus. In the longer term we will seek to evaluate
the resources over an academic year. On another level, the question of institutional
priorities in the current teaching and learning climate is one that needs to be ad-
dressed. Universities in the Australasian context are increasingly required to report
on the quality of their teaching whilst also facing significant challenges such as
catering to increased student diversity and increased student numbers. In short, the
expectations for delivering a quality education are high (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent,
& Scales, 2008; New Zealand Government, 2010). At the same time, universities
are facing the threat of competing providers delivering online education (Bradwell,
2009) and a changing student body that perceives universities to be at odds with
their technological preferences and their approaches to learning (Hughes, 2009). In
this sort of educational climate a focus on teaching would seem to be of paramount
importance. It would also seem to be crucial that academics perceive teaching and
teaching improvement to be important. The importance of teaching—or not—in
institutes of higher education needs to be researched and lessons learned in order that
higher education might readily adapt to what was a long time ago a changing world.

In this chapter we have discussed the challenges of achieving systemic change in

the teaching culture of a research-intensive University with reference to a case study
from a Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences. We outlined three key challenges—
ensuring senior support, engaging key stakeholders, and motivating academics to
engage in educational professional development—and provided solutions to those
challenges. Finally, we discussed future research directions and suggested that a key
research area for the future is change processes within institutes of higher education.

Adams, D. (1998). Examining the fabric of academic life: An analysis of three de-
cades of academic research on the perceptions of Australian academics about their
roles. Higher Education, 36(4), 421–435. doi:10.1023/A:1003423628962
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian
higher education: Final report. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations.
Bradwell, P. (2009). The edgeless university: Why higher education must embrace
technology. London, UK: Demos.
Doherty, I. (2010a). Aiming for systemic change through an embedded continuing
professional development initiative. In Steel, C. H., Keppell, M. J., Gerbic, P., &
Housego, S. (Eds.), Curriculum, Technology and Transformation for an Unknown
Future (pp. 305–309). Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press.
Doherty, I. (2010b). A learning design for academic engagement with online profes-
sional development modules. Journal of Learning Design, 4(1), 1–14.
Hemmings, B., & Kay, R. (2008). Lecturer self efficacy, research skills and publica-
tion output. In P. L. Jeffery (Ed.), AARE 2008 International Educational Research
Conference, (pp.1-15). Canberra, Australia: The Australian Association for Research
in Education.
Hughes, A. (2009). Higher education in a web 2.0 world. Bristol, UK: University
of Bristol.
Keppell, M., O’Dwyer, C., Lyon, B., & Childs, M. (2010). Transforming distance
education curricula through distributive leadership. ALT-J: Research in Learning
Technology, 18(3), 165–178. doi:10.1080/09687769.2010.529112
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
61, 59–67.
Middleton, S. (2005). Disciplining the subject: The impact of PBRF on education
academics. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 40(1/2), 131–156.
New Zealand Government. (2010). Tertiary education strategy 2010-2015. Wel-
lington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Parrish, D., LeFoe, G., Smigiel, H., & Albury, R. (2008). The green resource: The
development of leadership capacity in higher education. Wollongong, Australia:
University of Wollongong.
Ramsden, P., & Martin, E. (1996). Recognition of good university teaching: Policies
from an australian study. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 299–315. doi:10.10
80/03075079612331381231
Willis, D. (2009). Disciplines, institutions and the performance based research
fund: The scholarship of teaching and learning from a New Zealand perspective.
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2).
 Lin Norton
Liverpool Hope University, UK

Tessa Owens
Liverpool Hope University, UK

In this chapter, the authors consider the dominance of the managerial discourse in
higher education today related to staff development in learning and teaching, often
perceived as a “top down” policy with which individuals are forced to comply (some-
times their successful completion of probation depends on it). Furthermore, there
is an implication of a “deficit” approach to externally imposed staff development
in learning and teaching where the assumption is that something in the teacher’s
practice needs to be improved (Biggs, 1993). Such an approach does not take ac-
count of disciplinary and subject alliances; nor does it intrinsically motivate the
individual academic, so it is unlikely to engender any real conceptual change. In light
of these issues, the authors put forward a case for establishing strong communities
of practice in teaching and learning where professional academics themselves can
continue to influence policy and practice within their departments, their institutions,

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch018

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
and ultimately, across the sector. In so doing, they draw on an example at one UK
university of a community of practice in learning and teaching that evolved as a
grass roots Pedagogical Action Research (PAR) group in 2001. Pedagogical ac-
tion research has been proposed as an effective means of encouraging academics
to engage with learning and teaching driven by their own need to know (Breslow,
Drew, Healey, Matthew, & Norton, 2004; Norton, 2009). The authors conclude by
analysing the effect of this initiative on the individual, the institution, and the wider
learning and teaching community.

Liverpool Hope University is one of the oldest higher education institutions in the
North West of England (its earliest founding colleges were established in 1844 and
1856). At the same time, it is one of the newest universities to be granted taught
degree awarding powers (in 2005) and research degree awarding powers (in 2009).
Liverpool Hope is a liberal arts inspired university and is the only fully ecumenical
higher education institution in Europe. It has three faculties of Arts and Humani-
ties, Science and Social Science and Education, and a student body of about 7,500
(undergraduate and postgraduate).

In two reports on reward and recognition in higher education by the Higher Educa-
tion Academy and the Genetics Education Networking for Innovation and Excel-
lence (GENIE) Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (2009), there is a
substantial literature review to indicate the dominance of research for job security
and promotion in universities across the globe. In this context, such a situation
means that university staff need to prioritise the demands on their time and decide
where they will best place their energies. Staff development related to learning and
teaching can sometimes be seen as an ‘extra’ activity rather than something which
is at the heart of the academic role of being a university teacher. It is common for
new recruits to turn to their subject disciplines and mentors within those disciplines
for advice on teaching rather than going to centres for learning and teaching which
can be perceived as generic and irrelevant.
The rise of managerialism in university education has been pervasive. Vincent (2011,
p. 239) argues that it is a highly politicised ideology ‘masquerading as a manage-
rial reality’ and its effect has been ‘profoundly destructive’. The many unintended
consequences of this approach are extensively reported. For example, looking at
the most recent literature, Forrester (2011) has pointed out the effects of perfor-
mance management and performance related pay has led to a competitive rather
than a collaborative culture. Rostan (2010) has highlighted its effect on ‘academic
freedom’ where there has been an erosion from its original conception as profes-
sional responsibility and expertise. Instead of trusting in academic professionalism,
the current context is that of public accountability with externally imposed quality
assurance procedures. Not surprisingly, there is resistance and resentment among
academics to such managerial approaches. Cheng (2010), in an interview study
with 64 academics found that two thirds of those she interviewed felt that external
audit procedures had little effect on their work. Feather (2011) looked at the effects
of marketization as well as managerialism in a further education context and in an
empirical study with FE lecturers reported on their levels of frustration at having to
function in what appears to be a production industry rather than a place of further
and higher education.
The managerialist approach to learning and teaching development is one that is
unlikely to be successful. Gosling (2009) in a review of the growth of educational
or academic staff development made the point that there is a tension when the heads
of such provision are given a strategic role because they may lose credibility with
the lecturer ‘on the ground’ and be seen as part of the management structures. Yet
not all managerialist approaches are necessarily negative. A current example in
the UK is the National Student Survey which although controversial has had the
effect of raising the profile of teaching and learning across the sector (Machell &
Saunders, 2007).

Establishing a community of practice of learning and teaching at grass roots rather

than at managerial level could be seen as one way of encouraging and supporting
staff development. The term ‘Community of practice’ is usually attributed to Lave
and Wenger (1991) and later defined by Wenger (2006) as ‘groups of people who
share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as
they interact regularly.’ The term therefore recognises the situated and social na-
ture of learning. Wenger (1998, p. 149) argued that ‘there is a profound connection
between identity and practice. Developing a practice requires the formation of a
community whose members engage with one another and thus acknowledge each
other as participants.’ Having a strong professional identity is therefore an important
distinguishing feature; this identity enables participants to confidently state their
shared values and attributes, to say who they are and who they are not. Sachs (2001)
suggests that having a strong professional identity allows greater self-determination
by such groups, and without this strength managerialist discourses and a favoured
entrepreneurial identity, begin to establish control.
James (2007) offers other positive attributes of communities of practice from her
work researching the identities of university teachers. The multiple communities
of practice that university teachers belong to (such as their specific disciplines, as
members of their particular universities, as educators, as researchers) provide fora
in which these individuals can develop their professional identities and balance their
multiple roles. A community of practice provides a supporting framework within
which individuals can think and learn who they are. It can also help them to begin
to deal with any discrepancies found by understanding their own attributes, their
own meanings, and their own values.

In 2001 a Pedagogical Action Research (PAR) group was established in Liverpool

Hope University, and continued for ten years, formally closing at the end of 2011.
The aims of the group were to encourage practitioner research, to influence prac-
tice, to encourage staff to take into account the student experience and to produce
research which not only impacted on policy but which could be assessed in terms
of the UK Government’s funding for research mechanisms (currently the Research
Excellence Framework, and formerly, the Research Assessment Exercise).
The PAR group was also intended to act as a form of continuing professional
development through the Scholarship of Learning and Teaching (SOTL). The un-
articulated aims were to encourage a community of practice and provide support
in a context where university academics can sometimes struggle to establish their
own professional identity. Pedagogical action research is research in learning and
teaching which aims to modify practice, influence policy, and strategy and produce
publishable outcomes. “The fundamental purpose of pedagogical action research
is to systematically investigate one’s own teaching/learning facilitation practice
with the dual aim of modifying practice and contributing to theoretical knowledge”
(Norton, 2009, p. xv).
The development of PAR at Liverpool Hope University was a low cost initiative
specifically aimed at encouraging academics to carry out research on their own
teaching practice and their students’ learning. It was designed to take an ‘enthusiast’
rather than an ‘expert researcher’ approach to encourage individual teachers to ad-
dress issues that were of direct practical relevance to them, which they owned, had
control over and for which they could see the immediate effects.
The group was formed at the grass roots level and set out to be inclusive and
welcoming. Importantly it was also inter-disciplinary and university-wide. A small
amount of funding support was made available to assist in small action research
projects (usually in the area of £1000 for each project). The group met approximately
every six weeks and had annual themes (e.g. assessment, plagiarism, retention,
student engagement). An annual PAR Symposium grew out of the community of
practice in which colleagues were encouraged to present their research findings
in an environment that was supportive rather than competitive and adversarial.
A further significant development was the establishment of an international bi-
annual conference called the Pedagogical Research in Higher Education (PRHE)
conference which was held three times. These were run on the same principle as
the annual symposia, but brought together world-class pedagogical researchers
with lecturers, staff developers and practitioners, some of whom were at the start
of their own pedagogical research trajectories. Many PAR members presented their
research findings at one of the PRHE conferences. To extend the reach of the PAR
community of practice throughout the university, an in-house refereed journal called
Pedagogical Research in Maximising Education (PRIME) was established to publish
and communicate learning and teaching initiatives. The journal was disseminated
in hard copy to all members of the university staff, including governing council,
and was available electronically to the sector at http://www.hope.ac.uk/gateway/
staff/learningandteaching/.
As with all grass roots groups, the membership of PAR fluctuated from year to
year although on average 50 members of staff would be listed as being members. Not
all of these 50 would attend every meeting. The typical attendance tended to range
from 10 to about 30 staff with larger numbers often attending when internationally
known researchers gave seminars. Throughout, the emphasis in PAR events was
on inspiring, sharing, collaborating and learning about teaching and learning in a
way that individuals would find enabling rather than feeling their participation was
due to compliance.
During its ten year history, there have been some several studies (empirical,
institutional and formal external evaluations) carried out to ascertain the efficacy of
the PAR community of practice in achieving its stated goals. The earliest empirical
study carried out by Norton (2005) was one in which participants assessed the per-
sonal value of membership of the PAR group and considered how this community
of practice influenced university decision making and supported individual goals.
This took the effect of a questionnaire which was sent to the 52 members of the
group in 2005. 25 responses were received, a response rate of 48%. Respondents
came from across the University disciplines (Education, Psychology, Computing,
American Studies, Cinematics, Management, and Business) and included lectur-
ers, a Dean, a writing specialist, a librarian, and research assistants. The length of
university experience of these academics spanned from 2.5 years to 35 years. The
questionnaire asked a range of closed, fixed response and open-ended questions.
The closed questions were analysed using descriptive statistics, and the open-ended
questions were analysed via a thematic content analysis.
The questionnaire’s closed questions were related to pedagogical research out-
comes. The analysis of the data revealed that as a result of respondents’ involvement
with PAR:

• 13 had given 23 papers at Learning and Teaching conferences (including

those at an international level)
• 7 had published in Learning and Teaching journals
• 7 had published in the 1st issue of PRIME
• 12 had taken part in collaborative Learning & Teaching research projects

Respondents were also asked ‘Could you tell me about any other ways in which
you think PAR has helped you and/or why you value being a PAR member?’ Re-
sponses were divided into 113 ‘units of information’. An initial analysis produced 14
thematic categories which were subsequently reduced through an iterative process
to 10. Themes were ranked in order of importance as determined by the number of
respondents who had answers related to the theme, as shown in Table 1.
As can be seen in this table, the most important themes were related to support,
inspiration and sharing interdisciplinary perspectives on learning and teaching.
These are further illustrated in the following quotes:

Without involvement with PAR and the spur and support that it has offered, I’m
doubtful I would have commenced the research, particularly having had very little
direct involvement in publishing/presenting HE research (Lecturer).

As a new academic feeling intimidated by the demands of research/publication

activities, the PAR group offered an egalitarian forum where those with little expe-
rience felt able to contribute, whilst benefiting from the advice and encouragement
of more experienced members (Writing specialist).

The greatest value for me has been in having the opportunity to share experiences
and ideas with colleagues from other disciplines (Lecturer).
Table 1. Themes constructed from the content analysis

Rank Themes Mentioned by respondents

(N=25)
% (N)
1 Support from colleagues 56 (14)
2 Inspiring ideas for own practice 44 (11)
3 Sharing learning from other disciplines 40 (10)
4= Expect to do pedagogical research in the future 20 (5)
4= Relevance of PAR to self 20 (5)
6 Support of PAR funding 12 (3)
7= Scepticism misunderstanding about PAR 8 (2)
7= Can be incorporated into existing practice 8 (2)
7= Promotes status of AR and L&T 8 (2)
7= Fun!! 8 (2)

The experience of meeting with a range of colleagues with a mutual interest in learn-
ing and teaching but often with very different perspectives has been very stimulating
and rewarding both intellectually and socially (Researcher).

Collaboration with those from other Deaneries and support staff is stimulating and
allows issues to be viewed from a range of perspectives. From a personal perspec-
tive I have appreciated the continuous encouragement, guidance and generosity of
a range of colleagues from disparate areas of the university (Dean).

In the final year of its full operation (2009/2010) the Pedagogical Action Research
group had a membership of 70 Liverpool Hope University staff, with representa-
tion from the three faculties of Sciences and Social Sciences, Education, Arts and
Humanities and from other University departments. Seventeen meetings, seminars
and events in that final year were attended by 214 staff in total. PAR members were
asked in an informal survey to provide details of research outputs that linked to their
involvement with PAR. These included presentations at the British Educational
Studies Association conference; the London International Conference in Education,
as well as presentations at HEA subject centre events, journal articles and submis-
sions in Educational Studies, Bioscience Education Journal, Journal of Hospitality,
Leisure Sport and Tourism Education, and Active Learning in Higher Education.
In the third international Pedagogical Research in Higher Education conference of
2010, delegates attended from over 18 countries and there were over 100 author/
presenters of whom 16 were members of Hope’s PAR group. The growing popularity
and increasing numbers of participants in the lifetime of PAR which together with
the record of length of ‘teaching service’ illustrates the nature of the perceived ‘skill
level’ of attendees and their usefulness or experience and ability to support others.
It has always been the aim of the PAR community of practice to give colleagues
a space and a time to come together and to share in an inter-disciplinary setting their
thoughts and reflections about learning and teaching in the widest sense. Not all of
these discussion sessions result in research studies or necessarily direct action, but
all have the effect of consciousness raising and helping the process of reflective
practice. Bolton (2005, p. 2) suggested that ‘Deep reflection and reflexivity for de-
velopment involve authority and responsibility for personal and professional identity,
values, actions, feelings; contestation, and a willingness to stay with uncertainty,
unpredictability, questioning’. PAR’s aim was precisely to create a safe space to
allow colleagues to engage in such deep and sometimes uncomfortable reflections
about learning and teaching matters.
Learning as participation is also important as it legitimises the workplace as a
place of learning. This has not always been the case as formal education has been
privileged over this more informal environment (Billett, 2001). Viewing learning as
participation considers how people learn at work in a previously largely unrecognised
process. Felstead et al (2004, p.3) argued that ‘most learning arises naturally out
of the demands and challenges of everyday work experience and interactions with
colleagues, clients and customers’. Eraut (2004, p. 249) agrees that most workplace
learning occurs on the job rather than off the job, although ‘most respondents still
equate learning with formal education and training.’ He suggests that much learning
is still informal and subconsciously gained in a ‘learning through experience’ situ-
ation. More recently, Crawford (2010, p. 198) in a qualitative interview study with
36 staff from two UK universities found evidence of the importance of ‘informal
and ad hoc networking’ which, she argued ‘could be influential in staff approaches
to practice and professional development’. She also pointed out that the establishing
and mentoring of these networks tended to be inconsistent. In a sense, the slightly
more formal structure of the PAR initiative enabled a level of support and mentor-
ing that might not otherwise have occurred.
When considering learning and teaching and how to engage colleagues in
professional academic development, two camps have been identified in the litera-
ture: those who view learning as ‘acquisition’ and those who regard learning as
‘participation’. Communities of practice appear to learn in and from working with
others, using their knowledge and applying it regularly in their working lives. Their
knowledge is both cognitive and behavioural, shaping the way individuals behave.
Bernstein (2000) terms this sort of knowledge horizontal or every day, as opposed
to vertical or academic and knowledge that is focused largely on workplace learn-
ing. Communities of practice do not belong to the group who see knowledge and
its acquisition as an end in itself but see knowledge acquisition as an integral part
of their everyday working lives. PAR then fulfils this notion of horizontal learning
but it also attempts to go further in publishing empirical outputs of this knowledge
that may be considered vertical or academic knowledge. Indeed one of the essential
elements of pedagogical action research is that it should contribute to knowledge
as well as improve practice (Norton, 2009).
Communities of practice also span organisations however and can be concerned
with professionals who may work in the same organisation but very often do not.
The community therefore sits outside the control of any one organisation and the
‘ownership’ of the knowledge generated there does not belong to an organisation but
to the participants in the community of practice. The development of Liverpool Hope
University’s PRIME journal and PRHE conference have been additional significant
features as the work of PAR could continue in these externally facing fora. These
external opportunities allow all participants to become part of the wider community
of practice outside of the university, to share ideas, experience and research in this
field. External fora allow the full and frank airing of what can be politically sensi-
tive issues. The literature has suggested that where governments or organisations
attempt to monopolise or control a community of practice for their own economic/
political advantage, their actions may begin to run counter to genuine learning that
thrives only in an environment of sharing and mutual regard. In order to combat
this situation, Sachs (2001) argues convincingly that establishing communities of
practice outside the constraints of one organisation may strengthen the influence
of professional groups. Communities of practice could therefore be an ameliorating
force against what has been perceived as managerialist domination.

The implications of this case study are threefold. Firstly, from the individual’s per-
spective PAR was seen as a valued group which encouraged colleagues to engage
with the scholarship of learning and teaching, not through enforced CPD activities
but by interesting participants in researching their own practice problems (Breslow
et al., 2004). Although this can be a successful strategy, it should be acknowledged
here that it may not always lead directly to research outcomes. Some colleagues who
were happy to talk about pedagogical issues were often reluctant to move this practice
on to develop a research project outside their specialist area (i.e. in the discipline
of education/pedagogy). Over time, the benefits of reflective practice and the part
played by discussion were seen by the organisers to be of equal value to the number
of published research outcomes. It is, however, difficult to demonstrate evidence of
enhanced practice that although unrecorded was frequently seen by PAR’s leaders.
Inevitably though in the current higher education climate, where the pressure to
publish is immense and where pedagogical research is not always valued to the same
degree as subject research, publications and conference outputs became the criterion
of success. Hubball, Clarke and Poole (2010), in reviewing ten years of learning and
teaching (SOTL) research in a research-intensive Canadian university, concluded
that establishing a community of SOTL researchers helped individuals who were
working in very different subject disciplines face the challenges (epistemological,
methodological and ethical) of carrying out SOTL research.
Secondly, there were a number of implications from the institutional perspec-
tive. PAR was not bureaucratic and not in the formal committee structures of the
university; this appeared to be viewed positively by participants. Nevertheless,
PAR was embedded in the University’s Learning & Teaching strategy and therefore
had real power and influence, putting learning and teaching at the forefront of the
university’s activities. This was undoubtedly due to the position of the two PAR
leaders (i.e. Dean of Learning and Teaching and Principal Lecturer in Learning and
Teaching). PAR also provided evidence informed decision making possibilities for
a number of initiatives such as Personal Development Planning and meta-learning
and a review of the institutional Virtual Learning Environment.
Thirdly, PAR’s effects should not be underplayed in terms of the national and
international learning and teaching community. Engeström (2001, p. 140) suggests
an alternative to community of practice involving ‘interconnected activity systems’
in which stakeholders use new problems to build new knowledge and understand-
ing of their situations and together work on mutually satisfactory solutions. This
was described as ‘knotworking’ which is seen to be a means of connecting services
and professionals. It was this larger community of ‘knotworking’ that gave the PAR
members the opportunity to discuss, experience, research and influence learning
and teaching practice in higher education in the most transparent and rigorous fora,
such as PRHE, and more recently in the government funded Flying Start project
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/ntfs/projects/Liverpool_Hope.pdf.
In this project, both schoolteachers and university lecturers engaged in cross-
sector action research studies in learning and teaching.
PAR as a formal community of practice ceased within the University at the end
of 2011, partly as a result of its originator’s (the first author) retirement, but also
because times change and new communities of practice need to rise and come to the
fore. The legacy of PAR lies in those members who are now part of the wider SOTL
movement and its influence is embedded within their disciplines (Norton, Norton &
Shannon, 2012), but only time will tell as to how effective this will be. The generic
community of practice that was the bedrock of PAR has inevitably been dissipated
but the effects on individuals is hopefully long lasting and they will in their own
way continue to champion the importance of learning and teaching.

Attwood, R. (2009, December). Pedagogy a poor second in promotions. Times

Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.
asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409511
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research,
critique (revised ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher
Education Research & Development, 12, 73–86. doi:10.1080/0729436930120107
Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace. Crows Nest, UK: Allen and Unwin.
Bolton, G. E. J. (2005). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development
(2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Breslow, L., Drew, L., Healey, M., Matthew, B., & Norton, L. (2004). Intellectual
curiosity: A catalyst for scholarships of teaching and learning and educational de-
velopment. In Elvidge, E. M. (Ed.), Exploring Academic Development in Higher
Education: Issues of Engagement (pp. 83–96). Cambridge, UK: Jill Rogers Associates.
Brew, A. (2007). Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. In Brew,
A., & Sachs, J. (Eds.), Transforming a University: The Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning in Practice (pp. 1–10). Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press.
Cheng, M. (2010). Audit cultures and quality assurance mechanisms in England:
A study of their perceived impact on the work of academics. Teaching in Higher
Education, 15(3), 259–271. doi:10.1080/13562511003740817
Crawford, K. (2010). Influences on academics’ approaches to development: Voices
from below. The International Journal for Academic Development, 15(3), 189–202.
doi:10.1080/1360144X.2010.497669
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Educa-
tion, 26(2), 247–273. doi:10.1080/158037042000225245
Feather, D. (2011). Never mind the quality, take a seat! Research in Post-Compulsory
Education, 16(4), 435–450. doi:10.1080/13596748.2011.626981
Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Unwin, L., Ashton, D., Butler, P., Lee, T., & Walters, S.
(2004). Applying the survey method to learning at work: A recent UK experiment.
Paper presented to the European Conference on Education Research (ER). Crete,
Greece. Retrieved from http://www.guidance-research.org/vetnet/ecer2004/24sept/
Session9c/473/documents/afelstead_ECER_473/attach/afelstead_ECER_473.pdf
Forrester, G. (2011). Performance management in education: Milestone or millstone?
Management in Education, 25(1), 5–9. doi:10.1177/0892020610383902
Gosling, D. (2009). Educational development in the UK: A complex and contradic-
tory reality. The International Journal for Academic Development, 14(1), 5–18.
doi:10.1080/13601440802659122
Higher Education Academy and the Genetics Education Networking for Innova-
tion and Excellence (GENIE) Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.
(2009). Reward and recognition in higher education: Institutional policies and their
implementation. Retrieved July 15, 2012 from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/
documents/rewardandrecog/RewardandRecognition_2.pdf
Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Poole, G. (2010). Ten-year reflections on mentoring SoTL
research in a research-intensive university. The International Journal for Academic
Development, 15(2), 117–129. doi:10.1080/13601441003737758
James, N. (2007). The learning trajectories of old-timers: academic identities and
communities of practice in higher education. In Hughes, J., Jewson, N., & Unwin,
L. (Eds.), Communities of Practice: Critical Perspectives (pp. 131–142). London,
UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/NOE0415364737.ch11
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Machell, J., & Saunders, M. (2007). An exploratory evaluation of the use of the
national student survey (NSS) results dissemination website. Higher Education
Academy. Retrieved July 15, 2012 from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/docu-
ments/nss/web0274_national_student_survey_full_report.pdf
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. (1997). Higher education
in the learning society. London, UK: HMSO. Retrieved July 15, 2012 from http://
www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/
Norton, L. S. (2005). Pedagogical action research (PAR): An evaluation of its ef-
fectiveness in engaging busy academics with SOTL. Paper presented at the 2nd Con-
ference of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
(IS.SOTL). Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved July 15, 2012 from http://www.issotl.
org/meetings_files/2005abstracts.pdf
Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide
to conducting pedagogical research in universities. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Norton, L. S., Norton, B., & Shannon, L. (2012). The impact of UK university
teaching programs on lecturers’ assessment practice: A case for pedagogical action
research. In Simon, E., & Pleschová, G. (Eds.), Improving Teaching in Higher Edu-
cation: The Challenges of Creating Effective Instructional Development Programs.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Rostan, M. (2010). Challenges to academic freedom: Some empirical evidence.
European Review, 18(1), S71–S88. Retrieved July 15, 2012 from http://journals.
cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=7451356&jid=ERW&volume
Id=18&issueId=S1&aid=7451348&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyE
TOCSession=
Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional identity: Competing outcomes. Journal of
Education Policy, 16(2), 149–161. doi:10.1080/02680930116819
Vincent, A. (2011). Ideology and the university. The Political Quarterly, 82(3),
332–341.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved July
15, 2012 from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm
 Grant Campbell
University of Manchester, UK

Assessing students (including giving feedback and making decisions based on as-
sessments) is arguably the single most important thing done in universities in terms
of tangible impacts on people’s lives, but assessment is hard to do. Academics are
seldom trained in assessment, and for many it is the most worrying aspect of the job.
The University of Manchester operates a New Academics Programme for its proba-
tionary lecturers, running over three years and encompassing research, teaching,
and administrative aspects of academic careers, culminating in a reflective portfolio.
This case study describes the introduction of an assessment component into this
programme, including its motivation, content, implementation, and evolution, and its
reception by the new academics. The assessment component of the New Academics
Programme is now delivered in two sessions at different times of the year. The first
covers the importance of assessment and gives guidance for designing good assess-
ments and giving feedback. The second session goes more deeply into constructive
alignment and learning outcomes, leading on to decision making in exam boards,
and ending with a focus on cultivating academic judgement.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch019

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Universities are complex places. In fact, higher education is a complex business.
It can take decades of engagement with university activities and higher education
issues to appreciate fully the complexity of challenges and the diversity of activities
undertaken in universities. Even the tasks we engage with routinely, teaching and
research, have subtleties and nuances that we only become attuned to over time. A
healthy academic career is characterized, one would hope, by an increasing humility
in the light of the profound philosophical, pragmatic, and practical challenges of
engaging with education at the highest level against the changing social, political
and economic contexts. At the start of an academic career, glimpsing the scope and
complexity of academia and aspiring to master it can be daunting. This is, however,
a strategically important moment in which to set new academics off in the right
direction for an effective and rewarding career.
The Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences (EPS) at the University of
Manchester operates a New Academics Programme (NAP) for its probationary aca-
demic staff. The programme is accredited by the UK’s Higher Education Academy
(HEA); completion of the programme is a requirement for passing probation and
also qualifies the academic for acceptance as a Fellow of the HEA. The concern of
the HEA is solely with respect to the teaching activities of universities, but the NAP
programme includes research and administrative aspects of academic activity as well.
The elements of the NAP are undertaken by probationary lecturers normally over
a three year period, culminating in a reflective portfolio. Passing the NAP is based
on attendance at all the elements and on passing the reflective portfolio, which is
assessed by two senior members of EPS staff, one from the probationer’s School,
the other from the Faculty’s Teaching Support Unit.
The Faculty operates a system of Senior Mentors in each School, who co-ordinate
the mentoring provision for new academics, and who mark the reflective portfolios.
The Senior Mentors are also charged with delivering the elements of the NAP, with
contributions from other senior staff.
This chapter describes the introduction of a new component into the New Aca-
demics Programme, to deal with Assessment. Assessment is “the ‘core business’
of universities” (Flint & Johnson, 2011, p. 12) and frequently the most frightening
part of the job for a new academic. It seems important that an induction programme
designed to equip new lecturers with at least the embryonic skills of academia should
include an Assessment component.
The chapter is written as a case study from the first person perspective; I pro-
posed the introduction of this Assessment session and I deliver it. The case study
describes my background and motivation for introducing this session, how the
content and implementation have evolved since its introduction, and its value and
merits as perceived by the new academics.
The University of Manchester was created in 2004 through a merger of the former
Victoria University of Manchester and the former University of Manchester Institute
of Science and Technology (UMIST). The University of Manchester is the largest
single-site university in the UK, with nearly 40,000 undergraduate and postgraduate
students and over 2400 academic staff, and is a member of the elite Russell Group of
research-intensive universities. It is structured into four Faculties: Engineering and
Physical Sciences, Humanities, Medical and Human Sciences, and Life Sciences.
I am a Reader in the School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science in
the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, having joined the Department
of Chemical Engineering at UMIST in 1995. In the UK the academic structure
is traditionally Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor, with promotion
to Reader generally on the basis of research activity. However I am also heavily
involved in undergraduate and MSc teaching, and was the Undergraduate Examina-
tions Secretary for the Department and later the School from 2001-2007; this tenure
spanned the transitional period during the creation of the new university, with the
accompanying reconciliation of examination practices and regulations between the
two former institutions. I have undertaken a wide scope of undergraduate and MSc
teaching, covering lectured courses, laboratory projects, design projects, research
projects and the innovative Book Module (see Campbell et al., 2010), and I have
received several awards for teaching excellence. I am currently external examiner
for an undergraduate programme at another Russell Group university.
Following promotion to Reader, I was appointed Senior Mentor for my School
in 2008, and thus became involved in the New Academics Programme within the
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences. I immediately noticed that although
the programme at that time covered numerous aspects of teaching, research and
administration, it did not include anything specifically on assessment. My time as
Examinations Secretary had developed in me both a passion for the importance of
assessment and an acute awareness of its challenges and pitfalls. I therefore pro-
posed that a component specifically on Assessment should be added to the NAP,
and offered to deliver this session.
The first Assessment session on the NAP programme was delivered in January
2009. It was a 45 minute slot and covered the importance of assessment, designing
assessments, quality assurance processes and exam boards. The material was pre-
sented as a lecture with limited discussion and no interactive exercises. The session
was well received, with more wanted, e.g. from course feedback, a request for: “A
more in-depth and practical session on assessments. This has been one of the most
useful sessions but not given enough time or depth.”
 In the January 2010 session of NAP, the Assessment session was extended to
3¼ hours, allowing time for practical exercises and more extended discussion. The
following academic year (2010-11) it was decided to split the session into two
parts, with Part 1 delivered in September 2010 and 1¾ hours in length, and Part 2
delivered in January 2011, 2 hours in length, to give a total of 3¾ hours. In the most
recent academic year, Part 1 in September 2011 was again 1¾ hours, and Part 2
in January 2012 was extended to 2¾ hours, to give a total of 4½ hours. I also took
on responsibility for the 1 hour session on Programme and Course Unit Design,
which dovetails naturally with the Learning Outcomes material in Assessment Part
2. The sessions typically have around 35 new academics from the nine schools of
the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences.
This chapter describes the most recent incarnation of the combined Assessment
and Programme and Course Unit Design sessions. It aims to illustrate the content
and activities that new academics on this type of training programme find valuable.

Probably no issue in academia is more fraught than the relationship between teaching
and research. For new academics, the largest struggle is to navigate the conflicting
pressures and advice in relation to their efforts devoted to these two areas, when
they are frequently advised to avoid teaching (Botstein, 2011). At the heart of the
tension, both for individuals and for institutions, is that research is more attractive
and rewarding, but (say it very quietly!) teaching is actually more important. There
are other issues regarding synergies or otherwise between teaching and research,
both for individuals and for institutions: that it is the research reputation of a uni-
versity that enhances the prestige of its graduates; that teaching enhances research
and research leads teaching; that students’ questions prompt research avenues and
that those students are a pool from which to recruit researchers. Even so, the bot-
tom line is that the graduates we produce, who go on to have a lifetime of activity
and contribution in industry and society, have a much greater actual impact than
our research.
Most research is not done in universities, it is done in industry; the contribu-
tion of university research to the total bulk of global or national research activity is
relatively small (although of course disproportionately valuable because generally
more fundamental and more freely disseminated). But in either case, the ladders
that ascend to the “shoulders of giants” are erected by teachers; arguably much
more than 50% of the credit for research advances should go to the teaching that
educated the researchers. More importantly, teaching underpins the education and
subsequent activity of that vast majority of graduates who do not follow a career
path into research. Yes, there are important interactions, such as research leading
teaching into new directions, and world-leading researchers inspiring students, and
certain types of teaching (such as final year research projects) relying on viable
research programmes. Yes, university-based research frequently yields important
breakthroughs (but so does industrial research, arguably more frequently and with
more effective uptake). And yes, the freedom to undertake research is for many the
attraction of an academic career. Subtleties and personal preferences aside, however,
the bald reality is that, in terms of actual benefit to society, the teaching we do at
universities is more important than the research. Thus at my own university, our
former president and vice-chancellor, the late Professor Alan Gilbert, wrote in the
university’s internal news magazine:

…Undergraduate students are by far the largest constituency in our university

community, and our primary stakeholders. Manchester is a research university of
international importance… But let us remember that in the eyes of the wider soci-
ety…it is our educational mission that is paramount. Research need not be done in
universities…Higher learning, on the other hand, remains largely the preserve of
universities (Unilife, Issue 2 volume 7, November 2009).

In a similar vein, Haldane (2010), in his 2010 Lord Dearing Memorial Address,
argued that teaching is the highest purpose of universities, with reference to the
influential 1852 Idea of a University of John Henry Newman. He refuted the objec-
tion that good teaching is impossible unless teachers are also researchers by noting:
“First, to keep abreast of one’s subject requires scholarship, which is not the same
as the pursuit and attainment of new knowledge, but may well take deeper learning
and better judgment.” Further support for this view is presented to the NAP partici-
pants in the form of a quotation about the Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard
Feynman: “Feynman believed that his most important contribution to physics would
not be Quantum Electrodynamics, or the theory of superfluid helium, or polarons,
or partons. His foremost contribution would be the three red books of The Feyn-
man Lectures on Physics.” (Goodstein & Neugebauer, 1989). I suggest to the NAP
participants that no doubt some of them are doing some great research, but even if
it’s as good as that of Feynman, chances are their teaching is still more important.
Elsewhere Feynman wrote:
I don’t believe I can really do without teaching. The reason is, I have to have some-
thing so that when I don’t have any ideas and I’m not getting anywhere I can say to
myself ‘At least I’m living; at least I’m doing something; at least I’m making some
contribution’...The questions of the students are often the source of new research…I
find that teaching and the students keep life going, and I would never accept any
position in which somebody has invented a happy situation for me where I don’t
have to teach. Never (Feynman & Leighton, 1985, pp. 165-166).

Teaching assessment to new academics has to start with an awareness of this

tension between teaching and research, a tension that rages around them and within
them. If Feynman valued his teaching so highly, if Haldane and Newman and our
own former vice-chancellor recognized teaching as the highest purpose of universi-
ties, our new academics, even while enjoying and pursuing their research, can feel
liberated to esteem teaching as well.
My principal objective in the Assessment session is to instill in the new academ-
ics an appreciation of the importance of assessment, leading to a commitment to
undertake it well, as I believe that the single most important contributor to good
assessments is the conscientious commitment of the assessor. I am acutely aware of
the limitations of assessment and the impossibility of perfection, but I am an engi-
neer and somewhat pragmatic, and therefore content, like Flint and Johnson (2011),
to “have a strong commitment to moving the assessment agenda towards a fairer
ideal.” (p. 4). Although this session is delivered to new academics, its relevance is to
academics at every level, as cultivating skill in assessment is an ongoing challenge.
Indeed, as I will explore later, this is arguably the defining feature of an academic!
All of us need to attend to assessment in a rigorous and diligent manner, not just to
the benefit of our students, but to our own benefit as ever wiser and more authentic
participants in the business of the intellect.
I start by asking the participants to identify the issues that they face with respect to
assessment. The issues they raise are generally in relation to designing good assess-
ments, giving feedback and managing the high workload associated with assessing.
Then, having argued for the importance of teaching (while reassuring them that I
am research active and was promoted to Reader on the basis of my research – I am
in no way anti-research), my opening quotation to them is one that made a deep
impression on me earlier in my career, and one that in my view captures the heart
of the issue more concisely and incisively than anything ever written on assessment:

Good students can, with difficulty, escape poor teaching; they can’t escape poor
assessment (paraphrased from Boud, 1995).
 I then carry the argument forward with two further quotations from the assess-
ment literature:

There is probably more bad practice and ignorance of significant issues in the area
of assessment than in any other aspect of higher education (Boud, 1995).

Nothing that we do to, or for, our students is more important than our assessment
of their work and the feedback we give them on it. The results of our assessment
influence our students for the rest of their lives and careers (Race et al., 2005, p. xi).

Students cannot escape assessment, it is frequently not done well, and it critically
affects students’ learning whilst at university and their success thereafter. Combin-
ing this with the argument about the importance of teaching, I draw the conclusion:

Assessment is the single most consequential activity we undertake in universities

(Campbell, 2011).

The outline of the NAP Assessment sessions is as follows:

• Assessment Part 1
The importance and difficulty of Assessment
Exercise: Marking a student’s answer
Designing good assessments
Feedback
Exercise: Checking exam papers for accuracy and clarity
Exercise: Evaluating exam questions for level-appropriateness
Quality assurance processes
• Assessment Part 2
Learning outcomes and constructive alignment
Exercise: Writing descriptors for levels of achievement against learning
outcomes
Exercise: Matching descriptors to levels
Exam Boards
Exercise: Mock exam board
Academic Judgement
What’s in it for me?
 The sessions are delivered in seminar format with PowerPoint slides and a ‘pack’
of exercises and information; hard copies of the PowerPoint slides and additional
resources are provided at the end of each session. The style is interactive, with
numerous questions to and from the participants and with as much discussion as
possible within the quite tight time constraints. Both sessions feature participative
exercises, usually performed in groups. These are perceived by the participants as
extremely valuable, and require very careful time management in order to fit in the
entire content of each session. Completing the content of each session is considered
important for reasons of coherence; the discourse is quite tightly argued and inte-
grated, and to miss the end would damage the integrity of the message and lessen
its abiding impact.

Part 1 opens with the above arguments about the importance of assessment and also
its difficulty. This latter point is illustrated through an exercise that is not original in
concept, but based on one that again left an impression on me when I came across
it earlier in my career (apologies that I cannot credit the originator of this type of
exercise). The participants are asked to mark the following student’s answer out of 20:

The answer should be 319318. This is a problem involving long multiplication and
requiring about a dozen separate manipulations. The student has evidently made one
error (making 7×9=56 instead of 63), leading to the wrong answer. The participants
are asked to devise their own marking scheme in order to assign a mark out of 20.
Figure 1 shows the histogram of marks delivered by the 88 NAP participants
who have so far done this exercise. Reassuringly, no one yet has given full marks
for this wrong answer; the highest is 18/20, justified on the basis the student has
made one mistake out of about 12 manipulations and so should lose about 1/12th
of the available marks. Marks of 10 or 15 out of 20 are popular, with about half of
participants giving one of these marks. About 20% give less than half marks, of
which a significant number of participants feel that because the answer is wrong, it
deserves zero marks—end of story. The mean mark is 11.68/20 or 58%, the median
mark is 13/20 or 65%, and the mode is 10.
Figure 1. Marks out of 20, allocated by 88 NAP participants for a student’s (incor-
rect) answer to a long multiplication problem

The startling point of the exercise is that this set of academics, all looking at the
same problem, have managed to give marks ranging from zero to 90%! Okay, this
is a simple problem and given without context, but it illustrates starkly and memo-
rably the difficulty of assessment, of coming up with consistent, reliable, defensible
marks.
Having illustrated the difficulty of assessment, I begin to establish a basis for as-
sessment by introducing the Cognitive and Affective domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy
of Learning, shown in Figure 2, in order to make a number of points relevant to
teaching and assessment: that learning is hierarchical in nature requiring increas-
ingly complex levels of cognitive functioning; that in higher education we should
be aiming to test the higher levels of cognitive ability; and that evaluation (assess-
ment) is itself one of the highest and most intellectually stretching types of cognitive
activity. Much of the literature on teaching and learning focuses on the Cognitive
domain and downgrades the Affective (Beard et al., 2007), but appreciation of the
Affective domain reminds us that thinking about how to make our students “Value”
the subject—how to incline them to want to learn—can transform our teaching.
We then move on to Designing Good Assessments. This session includes:

• The purposes of assessment (incentive to master a subject, opportunity for

feedback, decision-making with respect to progression and degree classifica-
tion, and providing certification of learning);
Figure 2. Bloom’s taxonomy of learning: cognitive domain (top, original and revised)
and affective domain (bottom) (adapted from Atherton, 2009)

• Distinguishing between formative and summative assessments (assessment

for learning and assessment of learning);
• Some thoughts about feedback;
• Six principles of marking and grading (consistency, reliability, validity, level-
appropriateness, transparency and inclusivity (Norton, 2009), with a caution-
ary note, however, about the trade-off between reliability and validity that led
Race (1993) to observe “If you can measure it, it isn’t it!”).

Inevitably, we cannot cover in a short session every type of assessment and every
discipline. As written examinations dominate assessment and encompass most of
its issues, we naturally focus on these. I summarise the holy trinity of a good exam
paper as Appropriateness, Accuracy, and Clarity, and include in their information
pack a Guide to Writing Examinations. From my time as Examinations Secretary
and in my current capacity as External Examiner elsewhere, I am acutely aware that
well conceived examination papers are frequently compromised by ambiguity or
by straightforward errors in the paper. I am also keen that the participants benefit
from doing practical exercises, so at this point the information about assessment
is balanced with some practical group exercises. The first of these is on correct-
ing exam papers with respect to grammar, presentation and formatting, to address
the Accuracy and Clarity aspects of the above trinity, the second on evaluating
some example questions in relation to Bloom’s Taxonomy, to address the aspect
of Appropriateness. The session then ends with comments about the quality assur-
ance processes used to ensure that papers that are appropriate, accurate and clear
are delivered to the Examinations Office, in order to encourage the academics to
comply with these processes; the point is made that, when it all goes wrong, it’s
the individual academic who is left to pick up the pieces, so it is in their interests
to comply with procedures designed to avert examination disasters.
Assessment Part 1 is delivered in September, just prior to the start of the New
Academic year and early enough to help with the preparation during October and
November of the exam papers the students sit during the latter half of January. Other
parts of the NAP programme are also delivered in the week-long September course.
Early January is the next relatively quiet period in the academic calendar, allowing
a further week-long NAP course that includes Assessment Part 2 and Programme
and Course Unit Design.

The Programme and Course Unit Design session is deliberately located just prior
to Assessment Part 2, as the focus in the latter on Learning Outcomes and Con-
structive Alignment dovetails with issues of course design. Here the aim is, in one
short hour, to present a range of specific examples along with generic approaches
and guidance. The session opens with a presentation by a colleague, Dr Marion
Birch from the School of Physics and Astronomy, who gives a detailed example of
redesign of a core first year Dynamics module that employs several innovations in
relation to Just in Time Teaching and use of electronic teaching materials (Birch &
Walet, 2008). I follow this with some briefer examples from the range of courses I
have been involved in, with a view to demonstrating options and approaches relevant
to scaffolding different levels of learning. So, for example, for my first year Heat
Transfer course I have created a bespoke, detailed booklet that has blanks for the
students to fill in, while my MSc course in Biorefinery Engineering had the cohort
of 35 mostly international students write their own textbook. These examples il-
lustrate the contrasting needs of students in the first year transition with the higher
expectations one can have of MSc students. It also illustrates the tighter require-
ments of a foundational unit, on which later units in the degree programme will
build, compared with a stand-alone unit for which the intended learning outcomes
are less constrained.
I then try to provide some more generic frameworks and perspectives from which
to approach course design, including a reminder of the Cognitive and Affective
domains of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning that had been introduced in September.
Related to the Affective domain, I encourage the new academics to think about
how to make students want to learn this topic. We discuss philosophies of teaching,
and I share my own definition of good teaching (adapted from various analogous
definitions of leadership):

Effective teaching is inclining people to learn willingly what they would otherwise
be disinclined to learn.

The participants also find the triad presented in Figure 3 helpful. In contemplating
the design of a course, I encourage the new academics to think in terms of the three
interactions shown in Figure 3. We teachers are privileged to have the opportunity
to engage deeply with a topic. This is chronologically the first activity of teaching
and is labelled Number 1 on the figure – our own interaction with the topic. The
second interaction is between us and the student or students – how we deliver the
material, how they receive it, how we construct learning experiences that allow them
to engage with it, how we listen to them, how they listen to us, how we assess their
mastery, the feedback we give them. An element of learning entails the learner want-
ing, in some sense, to be ‘like’ the teacher – for this interaction to work, the teacher
must, in some sense, be ‘likeable’. Being research-active may enhance this aspect.

Figure 3. The interconnections of teaching and learning. The “only connect” in

the centre is inspired by Dale Salwak’s chapter of the same title (Salwak, 2008).
 These two interactions lead to Number 3, the one that actually matters: the stu-
dents’ own engagement with the topic, in particular, the abiding engagement that
continues long after the course is over – the “education that remains after they’ve
forgotten everything you taught them.” This triad operates within, and interacts
with, the larger context of the degree programme, and the even larger context of
society and the world beyond.
This figure serves as a framework in which to construct teaching that might incline
students to want to learn. An attitude from the teacher of disliking the subject or the
students or both is unlikely to make the students want to learn the subject. Few of
us display overt hostility to the students, but how easy it is to slip into a dismissive
or derisive or cynical tone towards the subject – sometimes as an unconscious ploy
to generate a common enemy in order to get momentarily on side with the students,
but at the cost of their lasting appreciation of the subject. More positively, immers-
ing ourselves deeply into the topic in order to develop a genuine and credible love
for it—and most topics take time to learn to love—is not only a privilege, it is also
the first step towards inclining the students to want to master it.
The “Only Connect” in the centre of Figure 3 is from Dale Salwak’s chapter of the
same title (Salwak, 2008). As a teacher, connect with your subject and connect with
your students, with the aim of creating their own direct connection to the subject.
Salwak concisely captures these three components by summarising “your purpose
for being there in the first place—to share the joy of learning” (p. 23).
I share this final quotation from Salwak with the NAP participants and encourage
them to enhance their teaching through reading books such as his “Teaching Life:
Letters from a Life in Literature”—even though my participants are scientists and
engineers, there is much to inspire us from this teacher of English literature. I further
illustrate the benefits of reading about teaching with some guidance from the book
“How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching” by
Ambrose et al. (2010).
Within this session I also cover the basis of the UK’s credit system, for which
a nominal 1200 hours of an undergraduate year (30 weeks × 40 hours/week) gains
120 credits, hence 1 credit equates nominally to 10 hours of work (This is in contrast
to the European credit system in which 1 year of study equate to 60 credits, each
European credit being worth two UK credits. The 40 hours/week is based on a typi-
cal value for the working week as a reasonable [and legally defensible] expectation
for students; clearly, a proportion of this is in class and a proportion private study.).
This helps new academics in matching, for example, the expectations of the effort
required by students to the value of a piece of coursework, e.g. a coursework that
contributes 5% of the mark for a 10 credit course should require about 5 hours’
work on the part of the student. Many of our new academics are from overseas and
unfamiliar with the UK higher education system, including our credit system, and
they find this information helpful.
The discussion leads naturally to considerations of intended learning outcomes
and hence into Assessment Part 2, to which we move seamlessly.

Part 1 covered the importance of assessment generally and some of the practicalities
of writing exams for a well-specified course. Part 2 aims to stand back slightly to
consider higher level issues, starting with the concepts of intended learning outcomes
and constructive alignment as a framework for designing courses, communicating
with students and assessing mastery.
Constructive alignment, introduced by Biggs (1996), acknowledges that knowl-
edge and understanding are not imparted, rather they are constructed by the learner
as the result of educational experiences (including those purposefully designed by
the teacher)—hence ‘constructive’. ‘Alignment’ then refers to aligning the three
elements of teaching—what you want your students to learn, the teaching methods
you use to achieve these learning outcomes, and the assessment tasks and criteria
you use to demonstrate their degree of mastery of these learning outcomes (Norton,
2009). (This is also reflected in Feynman’s teaching philosophy: “First figure out
why you want the students to learn the subject and what you want them to know, and
the method will result more or less by common sense” (Goodstein & Neugebauer,
1989), although personally I would emphasise working out why the students might
want to learn the subject, on top of why you want them to learn it. Such alignment
seems eminently sensible, to the point of being obvious, but this focus on learning
outcomes does subtly change the emphasis from what you want to teach (content)
to what you want the students to learn—specifically, what you want students to be
able to do. Thus, learning outcomes are verb-based.
I summarise for them the intended learning outcomes as a result of the NAP
Assessment sessions as follows (note the verbs):
By the end of the session the lecturer will be able to:

• Create valid, reliable, level-appropriate, transparent, inclusive assessments.

• Employ and comply with practices and procedures to avoid pitfalls that pre-
vent provision of good assessment marks.
• Contribute effectively to decision-making in Exam Boards.

AND WILL WANT TO!!

 The real power of learning outcomes is in managing and assessing large “au-
thentic” project work such as design projects or research projects. These generally
involve supervision and assessment by numerous academics, against projects diverse
in topic and nature, and are decisively influential in determining a student’s final
degree class. There is therefore an overriding priority to ensure consistent treatment
of all students. Objective marking schemes, based on intended learning outcomes,
allow a transparent and common understanding across academics and between
academics and students regarding the intended learning and the basis for assess-
ment. This enhances communication to the students, clarifying what learning they
are supposed to be obtaining and demonstrating. I supervised several design project
groups last year. The sense of “pennies dropping” in the students’ minds when the
intended learning outcomes were presented to them was audible—suddenly they
understood what the different reports should communicate, and had “connected the
dots” between the learning and the assessment. Objective marking schemes also
encourage greater consistency of supervision and assessment—they act to counter
the idiosyncratic preferences of individual academics, to ensure all the intended
learning outcomes are cultivated and credited, and that similar marks are awarded
for comparable levels of achievement.
We illustrate this in the NAP session with an exercise on writing descriptors
for levels of achievement against learning outcomes, based on a marking scheme
for a Research Proposal that we use in the School of Chemical Engineering and
Analytical Science. The School is the largest chemical engineering department in
the country, with around 700 undergraduates across a portfolio of ten undergraduate
BEng (three years) and MEng (four years) courses in Chemical Engineering with
a variety of flavours. Most of the MEng programmes include a final year Research
Project and Dissertation, which contributes 50 credits to the 120 credits of the final
year. The Research Project starts with a Research Proposal that contributes 10%
(5 credits). Most projects in academia and industry start as proposals, so learning
how to write a persuasive proposal is a useful skill for our graduates; it is also an
activity to which all the NAP participants can relate. After submitting the proposal,
the students undertake the project and write a dissertation.
In our chemical engineering programmes we have typically around 50 students
undertaking projects, supervised by around 30 academics, with each proposal and
dissertation double marked. Ensuring consistency of supervision and marking is a
major priority, particularly as these large projects are disproportionately influential
in deciding degree classifications. The proposals and dissertations are therefore
marked against rubrics or objective marking schemes that list the intended learning
outcomes and describe the distinctive features corresponding to levels of achieve-
ment against each learning outcome, with the corresponding mark for that level of
achievement. As well as enhancing consistency of marking, this rubric also provides
useful guidance to students and gives a basis for feedback.
 Table 1 lists the intended learning outcomes for the Research Proposal (again,
note the verbs). The level of achievement shown by a given proposal in relation to
each learning outcome, and hence the mark that should be awarded to that element,
is considered using a set of descriptors. Table 2 illustrates the descriptors used for the
overarching element ‘Present a persuasive case for approval of a proposed project’.
In this exercise, the NAP participants are given the learning outcomes and are
asked in groups to formulate descriptors corresponding to different levels of achieve-
ment. This exercise also serves to familiarize the new academics with the UK’s
degree classification system, which to our overseas staff is frequently unfamiliar.
As illustrated in Table 2, most universities in the UK set a standard pass mark for
an individual unit at 40%. Aggregated average marks (credit- and year-weighted)
at the end of the degree are used to decide the degree classification. An average of
between 40 and 50% corresponds to a Third class degree; between 50-60% a Second
Class Second Division (2ii); between 60-70% a Second Class, First Division (2i),
and above 70% a First Class degree. Borderlines are dealt with in Exam Boards in
a variety of ways in different universities (more about this later). This overall degree
classification system is used in Table 2 to relate perceptions of the level of perfor-
mance to the appropriate degree range; thus, if an assessor believes the overall
persuasiveness of the proposal they are marking is of a 2i level, they would be
guided to give a mark in the range 12-14 out of 20 for this component.
Initially the NAP groups are not given the descriptors but are asked to create
their own, with different groups tackling different learning outcomes. This they find
stimulating but difficult! Finding words and phrases to describe failing performances
is relatively easy, although the exercise of doing so clarifies what is therefore neces-
sary for an element to be considered adequate for a pass. However, most final year

Table 1. Example of use of intended learning outcomes for assessing project work:
assessing a final year research proposal

Learning outcome to be assessed – Ability to:

Summarise concisely the essential elements of a proposal to undertake a research project
Structure a proposal coherently
Present appropriate context for the proposed work, drawing critically on relevant literature
Formulate objectives that lead logically from an evaluation of the relevant literature and analysis of the
problem
Select or propose appropriate methodologies and formulate these into a workplan to address the objectives
Evaluate the timescale and resource requirements to deliver the workplan
Identify the benefits and beneficiaries of the proposed work
Present a persuasive case for approval of a proposed project
Table 2. Example descriptors for the learning outcome “present a persuasive case
for approval of a proposed project”

Class Mark Performance characteristics

range /20
Fail <8 Little or no basis for approving the proposal.
Pass/Third 8-10 Limited confidence that the proposed work would generate some valid and
worthwhile results.
2ii 10-12 A reasonable case for undertaking a piece of work that is likely to generate valid
and worthwhile benefits.
2i 12-14 A solid case for undertaking the project, in which the purpose and benefits are
clear and the approach is plausible.
First 4-16 A persuasive case for approving the project, on the basis that it is well motivated
from the literature, has clear objectives, significant innovation, a plausible
workplan, represents effective use of resources, would generate specific and
identified benefits, and that the student is competent to undertake the project
successfully. The case employs formatting effectively and is presented to a high
standard of English.
High First 16-18 A compelling case for supporting the project, on the basis that the student is
clearly very competent, able both to undertake the work and to exploit it, while
the novelty is substantial, the deliverables are extremely beneficial and the
workplan very likely to succeed. The quality of the student is evidenced through
a presentation that exhibits high standards of literacy and artistry.
Excep- 18-20 An extremely compelling case for undertaking the project: the researcher is
tional evidently of exceptional quality, and the outcomes would have such impact and
merit that they would lead to significant benefits and/or new research directions.

students are in the 2ii-1st class range, so the greatest challenge is distinguishing
between these levels of performance, and agreeing on the distinctions. Different
academics have different expectations, differing priorities and different tolerances
to imperfections. But it is essential for consistency in marking that different markers
award similar marks for similar levels of performance. Agreeing what those levels
should be, and finding concepts and phrases to distinguish them meaningfully,
stretches the literary and negotiation skills of our new academics.
The exercise is supplemented with a further activity in which, for several of the
learning outcomes, sets of existing level descriptors such as those in Table 2 are
distributed amongst the participants, who then identify the relevant learning out-
come and negotiate their relative placements. Having struggled to find their own
words, the new academics find it helpful to see example phrases. A complete set
of descriptors for all the learning outcomes in this particular activity is provided
later, by way of guidance. In addition, the participants are directed to Appendix C
of Ambrose et al. (2010) which describes “What are rubrics and how can we use
them?” and provides a range of additional examples, and to Kennedy et al.’s (2006)
“Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: a Practical Guide.”
 Flint and Johnson (2011) identify among sources of student frustration with as-
sessment, lack of transparent criteria and guidance, and lack of feedback. In addition
to helping academics return marks relevant to the UK’s degree classification system
and encouraging consistent marking for large project work involving numerous as-
sessors (enhancing consistency, reliability and validity), rubrics such as this also
provide transparent guidance to students and facilitate giving feedback. Of all the
things I try to include in the Assessment sessions, employing criterion-referenced
objective marking schemes based on intended learning outcomes, particularly for
assessing project work, is the one I believe has the greatest power to help academics
assess students fairly.

With respect to assessment, although providing marks looms most prominently in

the minds of new academics, what actually matters is that decisions are made on the
basis of those marks. The decisions take place commonly in Examination Boards,
the operation of which is frequently a source of bemused mystery to new academics.
The final section of Assessment Part 2 moves on to consider Exam Boards.
In the UK most universities operate the degree classification system described
above, in which honours degrees are classified into First Class, Upper and Lower
Second Class, and Third Class. The decision of which class to award is made in
Examination Boards, usually involving calculations of credit and year-weighted av-
erages, with additional considerations of candidates near borderlines; the latter may
consider the profile of marks to determine the preponderance in each degree class,
or may involve an oral examination with the External Examiner to resolve which
class of degree to award. The system clearly has flaws (Burgess, 2007); however,
my purposes in including it in the NAP are to familiarize our new academics with
the specifics of our own regulations, and to encourage appropriate attitudes towards
decision making in Examination Boards. To the latter end, I open with a quotation
from Alexander Pope’s The Rape of the Lock:
The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang that jury-men
may dine.
Exam Boards are tedious and can go on for hours. And towards the end, we all just
want to get out of there, don’t we? And so we rush through those last students—they
don’t get nearly the attention and scrutiny of the earlier candidates. And frequently
results are presented in order from the top students down to the ‘dregs’ – and our
generosity and notions of fairness don’t extend quite so resolutely to the dregs, do
they? I remind the new academics that the decisions we make about these weaker
students critically affect their lives too, and that swiftly cavalier condemnations
have no place in our exams boards. We typically each spend many hundreds of
hours each year teaching students, and about ten hours in exam boards—does not
an extra hour or two, to ensure fair and just decisions, seem negligible compared
with the hundreds of hours expended in getting to this point? In Exam Boards, we
tread on sacred ground.
The problem is, the decisions around borderlines are not clear cut, and yet for
each student the degree class awarded is decisively influential for the rest of their
life and career. Many employers, rightly or wrongly, use degree boundaries to screen
job applicants—if you get a 2i, you’re in, a 2ii and you’re out. As I have noted else-
where (Campbell, 2011), “Irrespective of career influences, your degree class also
labelled you in terms of your intellectual ability, in your own mind and the minds
of those around you… It may be a source of ongoing pride or enduring bitterness.
Although its influence diminishes over time, a degree class is for life.”
For many the answer is to dispense with the degree classification system and
simply to issue a transcript of the marks awarded for each unit on a programme.
The 2007 Burgess report Beyond the Honours Degree Classification considered
the issues and surveyed the range of classification systems around the world. They
concluded that it is the single summative judgement itself that is the problem,
detracting as it does from the more detailed information that gives a fuller picture
of the student’s skills and knowledge; they therefore proposed a Higher Educa-
tion Achievement Report (an enhanced transcript) that would be richer and fairer.
However, they acknowledged that the drivers to aggregate and summarise marks
are strong. The Grade Point Average system in the US and elsewhere is reported
as an average mark out of 4, to one or two decimal places (giving in effect 40-400
gradations compared with the five gradations of the UK classification system). For
recruiters, a cut-off is necessary, and a GPA cut-off is no less severe or arbitrary
than the 2ii:2i cut-off employed by many in the UK. Whatever system is used will
be interpreted, inevitably by aggregation, however the numbers are reported. I
would argue, this interpretation is best done by those who best understand what the
numbers mean—by the academics who generated them. The classification system
gives a basis of common vocabulary and expectations into which to make both the
numbers and their interpretation at least somewhat meaningful.
Whatever the merits or otherwise, my university operates the classification
system. My aim at this point in the NAP session is neither to defend nor question
the classification system, but to familiarize the new academics with the systems
that guide our decision-making. Having described the relevant regulations, we then
hold a mock exam board to engage with realistic decision-making. This mock exam
board considers progression decisions for 20 second year students, and degree clas-
sification decisions for three final year students (progression decisions are more
complex, hence the greater number of examples). The mark profiles are contrived
to illustrate relevant aspects of the regulations, but are realistic representations of
common situations.
As well as engaging the participants with the regulations, this exercise also brings
to light, in an authentic way, the difficulties and issues over reaching consensus on
“fair” decisions, leading to issues of Academic Judgement. This is a fraught issue,
to which I cannot do full justice either here or within the session, yet it is central to
questions of assessment and indeed to the whole nature of academia, yet threatened
with erosion (Furedi, 2011). Again, many are minded to dispense with academic
judgement in exam boards, on the basis that decisions based on mechanical compu-
tations are both more consistent and quicker. And yet a quick Google search reveals
that in virtually all UK universities, the academic judgement of examination boards
is protected against appeal. A few quotations illustrate this:
From my own university:

…It is not possible for you to contest the academic judgement of the examiners and
their decisions in relation to your academic status or progress in the University…
an appeal which questions the academic or professional judgement of those charged
with the responsibility of assessing a student’s academic performance or profes-
sional competence will not be permitted.

From the University of Staffordshire:

Assessment is a matter of judgement, not simply of computation. Marks, grades and

percentages should not be treated as absolute values but a symbol to be used by
examiners to communicate their judgement of different aspects of a student’s work, in
order to provide information on which the final decision on a student’s fulfilment of
award objectives may be based…examiners should have wide discretion in reaching
decisions on the awards to be made to individual candidates. They are responsible
for interpreting the assessment regulations for the programme of study concerned if
any difficulties arise, in the light of the University’s requirements and good practice
in higher education; and their academic judgements should not, in themselves, be
questioned or overturned…Disagreement with the academic judgement of a Board
of Examiners in assessing the merits of an individual piece of work or in reaching
any assessment decision based on the marks, grades and other information relating
to a candidate’s performance, shall not in itself constitute grounds for a request for
reconsideration by a candidate.

From Oxford University:

Review of marks and classification are not mechanical processes, and in their final
meeting the panel of examiners shall be bound solely by their academic judgement.

And from Cambridge University:

Boards of Examiners are expected to exercise academic judgement in determining

the final classes of candidates.

The exercise of academic judgement by exam boards appears to be considered

central to their purpose; to protect it so explicitly, then for some to seek to deny its
operation, seems odd. Meanwhile, the courts consistently decline to overrule in matter
of academic judgement, recognizing that it is outside their realm of competency to
do so and uniquely the realm of competency of academics. These protections imply
not just freedom to exercise academic judgement but indeed obligation to do so.
They recognize that marks profiles can vary in a range of unusual ways that cannot
all be anticipated by algorithms, and that algorithmic computations frequently lead
to cliff-edge decisions, particularly in relation to highly weighted units. A legitimate
appeal by a student, based on procedural irregularity, could be along the lines “My
marks profile happened to deny my borderline case a higher degree classification
automatically, owing to a distorting factor in a sensitive part of the computation, but
any reasonable judgement would indicate the higher class was appropriate; however,
in contravention of the implied procedures, the examination board was denied the
opportunity to exercise academic judgement.” One of the marks profiles I include
in the mock exam board is just such an example, in this case showing a real set of
marks that the real exam board was unanimously of the view deserved a first class
degree, but which just missed out because of narrowly missing a first class mark in
the highly weighted dissertation project. Such examples of unjust decisions resulting
from algorithmic computations are frequent, and the freedom, indeed obligation,
to overrule is part of the raison d’être of the exam board.
Conversely, of course, if decisions were made solely based on mechanical com-
putations, there would be no point in holding the exam board. In the longer term,
this would create a generation of academics lacking the necessary judgement and
unable even to engage with the issues. It would result in provision of marks by in-
dividual academics unaware of the meaning or consequences of those marks, and
with no common basis of expectations, such that the marks themselves, on which
the decisions are made, become invalid and unreliable.
In a different context, that of assessing research funding applications, Lamont
(2009) observes:
The literature on peer review has focussed almost exclusively on the cognitive di-
mensions of evaluation and conceives of extra-cognitive dimensions as corrupting
influences. In my view, however, evaluation is a process that is deeply emotional and
interactional… face-to-face conversations are seen as leading to better decisions…
debating is important for the emergence of shared standards about fairness and for
developing trust (Lamont, 2009, pp. 8, 50).

Similarly, engaging with exam boards is in fact a learning process that contributes
to the cultivation of academic judgement. As Furedi (2011) writes:

The capacity to make judgement calls requires… practical wisdom… the capacity
to make judgements that are morally right for the situation at hand… the kind of
practical wisdom that we gain through experience and informal engagement with
our colleagues and students… Like all forms of judgement, academic judgement is
acquired through experience… the more varied and the more extensive its practice,
the better we get at it (Furedi, 2011).

Perspectives on academic judgement are informed by other areas in which pro-

fessional judgement is relevant. An article from The Chemical Engineer is entitled
“Judgement Call.” Its message could be applied equally to some academics just by
substituting the words indicated in brackets:

There is a lamentable reluctance on the part of some engineers [academics] to

exercise their professional judgement, particularly in matters of health and safety
[assessment]. This often manifests itself in cries for ‘black and white’ standards.
The problem here is that couching standards in completely unequivocal terms is
likely to impose obligations that are inappropriate in many circumstances… It is
the role of a professional engineer [academic], having acquired the appropriate
competencies, to exercise professional judgement with due regard to pertinent guid-
ance (Dearden, 2009).

I promise, at the outset of the Assessment session, to end with “What’s in it for
me?” The moral and indeed practical arguments for the centrality of assessment are
readily accepted, but for the individual academic, navigating the path between the
moral obligation to devise and implement good assessments, and the more reliably
rewarding focus on their research, is difficult. At this point I return to Figure 2, the
Cognitive Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy. In its original formulation, Evaluation
was given the top spot over Synthesis; in the revised version the order is reversed,
with Creating on top. But either way, evaluation/assessment (which can be pro-
foundly creative) is viewed as one of the most intellectually stretching cognitive
activities—and the business of academia is to cultivate the intellect.
And our academic judgement is applied in a wide diversity of situations. As I
have written elsewhere:

Just in the last few months, I have assessed design project reports, industrial experi-
ence dissertations, MEng research dissertations and posters, MSc research project
proposals, oral presentations, over 400 first and second year exam scripts, research
funding applications, journal papers, PhD theses, probation portfolios and over
50 promotions cases. In my capacity as external examiner at another university, I
have assessed their programme structures, exam papers and graduating students.
I am privileged to serve on the judging panel for the IChemE’s awards and later
this year will assess applications for those awards. Quite rightly does Frank Furedi
entitle his Times Higher Education cover article “Our Job is to Judge” (Furedi,
2011). Assessing, judging, evaluating—these are central to scholarly activity in
universities and account for much of our time (Campbell, 2011).

If they want to be a researcher, I suggest to the new academics, go off and be

a researcher, in industry or in a dedicated research institute; but if they want to be
an academic, that’s a different vocation, one distinguished by the cultivation of
academic judgement. I end with a screenshot of Lamont’s book, entitled How Pro-
fessors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment, and suggest that in
engaging with Assessment, and in particular in cultivating Academic Judgement in
relation to Assessment, we most truly become academics.

Feedback on the NAP sessions is obtained via questionnaires that score the helpful-
ness and appropriateness of the content and the speaker’s expertise and ability to
engage, along with opportunities to comment on what was helpful, what could be
omitted and what could be improved. The content and speakers are scored on a scale
of 1 (not at all helpful/very poor) – 5 (very helpful/excellent). In general the sessions
are received very well by the participants, with the most recent outing scoring on
average 4.65/5 for content and 4.82/5 for speaker expertise and engagement. The
participants also vote on Good Points from the NAP programme, for which Assess-
ment was voted second only to the opportunity for meeting other people. Typical
reactions to the sessions include:
All of it [was useful/informative]! Can’t discern between any of it in terms of im-
portance, it’s the most daunting part of the job for me.

This is without a doubt the most important and most effectively delivered course
on NAP.

Great session, very useful for developing assessments—full of resources.

Getting us to think about assessment, marking schemes and academic judgement by

seeing the spread of marks on a calculation exercise. It’s always better to come to
an understanding/appreciation oneself (by doing/seeing/experiencing) than simply
by being told. Very powerful!

I thought the mock exam board meeting was excellent; stimulating and clearly of
use to me in the future.

The mock exam board was superb and gave me an insight into an area of academic
work I hadn’t appreciated before.

It was very interesting to see how difficult the decisions can be on final mark al-
location from exam boards. Very challenging work.

The best lecture on the NAP programme to date. Well organised and thoroughly
engaging. The mock exam board was particularly excellent.

Most useful course by far. Exercises good as reflected what we might be expected
to do.

This was the only session, so far, that I felt provided us with a real life experience
of an aspect of academic life. Really good.

The emphasis on the importance of—and skills required for—effective assessment

has really made an impression and will make an immediate difference to my thinking
and planning for future assessments. The most thought-provoking and challenging
session so far!

In general the content seems to “scratch where they itch”—there are few sug-
gestions for additional content and little that they would advise to take out, but a
recognition that additional dedicated assessment workshops would be helpful as they
progress in their careers. A common request is to have this session earlier! There
are a few negative reactions to odd parts, inevitably, and there is usually one in each
group who reacts strongly against the notion that teaching is more important than
research, while most appear to find this notion objectively defensible and liberating.
Overall, it can be concluded that an assessment session is perceived as valuable by
new academics, that the content regarding the importance of assessment, designing
good assessments, giving feedback, matching achievement to intended learning out-
comes, decision-making in exam boards and the cultivation of academic judgement
is all appropriate, and that delivering this through a combination of presentation,
group exercises and discussion gives a coherent and powerful experience.

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K.
(2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives.
New York, NY: Longman.
Atherton, J. S. (2009). Learning and teaching: Bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved from
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm
Beard, C., Clegg, S., & Smith, K. (2007). Acknowledging the affective in
higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 235–252.
doi:10.1080/01411920701208415
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher
Education, 32, 1–18. doi:10.1007/BF00138871
Birch, M., & Walet, N. (2008). An integrated approach to encourage student-centred
learning: A first course in dynamics. The Higher Education Academy, 4, 21–26.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification
of educational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.
Botstein, D. (2011, November). Why is teaching good for research? ASCB Newslet-
ter. Retrieved January 18, 2012 from http://www.ascb.org/files/1111Presidents.pdf
Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary? In
Knight, P. (Ed.), Assessment for Learning in Higher Education (pp. 35–48). Lon-
don, UK: Kogan.
Burgess, R. (2007). Beyond the honours degree classification: Burgess group final
report. London, UK: Universities UK.
Campbell, G. M. (2011). Degrees of confidence. The Chemical Engineer, 842, 52–54.
Campbell, G. M., Blunden-Ellis, J., & Manista, F. (2010). Encouraging engineers
to read: A book-based final year assessment. Education for Chemical Engineers,
5, e87–e99. doi:10.1016/j.ece.2010.08.002
Dearden, H. (2009). Judgement call. The Chemical Engineer, 814, 18–19.
Feynman, R. P., & Leighton, R. (1985). Surely you’re joking Mr Feynman. New
York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Flint, N. R. A., & Johnson, B. (2011). Towards fairer university assessment: Rec-
ognizing the concerns of students. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Furedi, F. (2011, March). Our job is to judge. Times Higher Education, 34-38.
Goodstein, D. L., & Neugebauer, G. (1995). Special preface. In Feynman, R. P.
(Ed.), Six Easy Pieces: The Fundamentals of Physics Explained. New York, NY:
Penguin Books.
Haldane, J. (2010). The value of a university. Paper presented at Lord Dearing
Memorial Conference. Nottingham, UK.
Kennedy, D., Hyland, A., & Ryan, N. (2006). Writing and using learning outcomes:
A practical guide. In Froment, E., Kohler, J., Purser, L., & Wilson, L. (Eds.), EUA
Bologna Handbook – Making Bologna Work. Berlin, Germany: Raabe Verlag.
Lamont, M. (2009). How professor think: Inside the curious world of academic
judgement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Norton, L. (2009). Assessing student learning. In Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Mar-
shall, S. (Eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp.
132–149). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Race, P. (1993). Never mind the teaching feel the learning. SEDA Paper 80. London,
UK: Staff and Educational Development Association Ltd.
Race, P., Brown, S., & Smith, B. (2005). 500 tips on assessment (2nd ed.). London,
UK: Routledge Falmer.
Salwak, D. (2008). Teaching life: Letters from a life in literature. Iowa City, IA:
University of Iowa Press.
 Cath Ellis
University of Huddersfield, UK

In higher education sectors around the world, lecturing remains the mainstay of
teaching and learning practice (see Bligh, 1998; Jones, 2007). This is despite the fact
that countless high-profile and widely read scholars have shown that the pedagogic
value of lecturing is questionable (see Bligh, 1998; Gibbs, 1981; Laurillard, 2002).
How it has come to be that lecturing persists remains the focus of much speculation
(see Jones, 2007). It may be the case, however, that lectures have finally met their
match in the form of online, self-paced, on-demand resources. As the availability and
number of these resources grows, the viability of face-to-face lecturing as a teaching
and learning strategy becomes increasingly tenuous. In this chapter, the authors
outline the impact that these resources are having on pedagogy and curriculum
design in general and in higher education in particular. They offer a case study of

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch020

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
the use of this strategy in a higher education context within an English Literature
module. The authors conclude by offering some reflections on their own experiences
as on-demand learners and offer some suggestions as to how university teachers
and the institutions for which they work may need to rethink the way they operate.

I’m learning how to knit. Well, actually, I’m teaching myself how to knit. The ma-
jority of novice knitters learn the craft at the knee of someone more accomplished,
often their mother or grandmother. That was initially the case for me. I took my
opportunity while my parents were visiting us in the United Kingdom from Australia
in the summer of 2010. Mum showed me how to cast on, how to knit and purl, and
how to hold the needles and wool to get a consistent tension. Before long I was off.
But so was she. As she was winging her way back to Australia, I was rapidly run-
ning out of wool and I had no idea how to cast off. Instinctively I reached for my
smart phone, tapped on the YouTube app and entered the search terms: ‘casting off
knitting’. Within a few seconds I was listening to and watching a North American
woman demonstrating how to cast off, explaining what she was doing as she went.
I paused the video, picked up my needles and followed her instructions. When she
got ahead of me, I pressed pause. When I needed to watch it again I replayed it.
Before long my knitting and my needles were successfully separated and my knit-
ting journey could continue. Since then, as I’ve tackled more challenging projects,
I’ve turned to YouTube whenever I encounter something I don’t know how to do.
This has included interpreting patterns, adding new wool, increasing, decreasing,
using circular needles and, with unfortunate frequency, how to fix dropped stitches.
So, while I’m teaching myself how to knit, it’s probably more accurate to say that
YouTube is teaching me how to knit.

As Steve Jones (2007) has explained, lectures became established in western higher
education at the time of the rise of the medieval universities almost certainly abetted
‘by the scarcity of books’ (Cubberley, 1920; Jones, 2007, p. 399). Understood in
this way, lectures offered a kind of transcription technology, ensuring all students
had a good set of notes from which to learn in their own time.
Lecturing, however, almost certainly faces its most powerful challenge yet: the
information revolution. With the advent of the world-wide-web, information in a
wide variety of formats and from an equally wide variety of sources is becoming
increasingly available. In recent years we have seen a veritable boom in the devel-
opment and accessibility of online on-demand, self-paced learning resources. Sites
like YouTube (www.youtube.com), iTunesU (www.apple.com/education/itunes-u/),
and Vimeo (vimeo.com) are being constantly populated with ‘how-to’ films for
just about anything you could want to learn. Whether it is using the picture-editing
software on your computer, changing a bicycle tire or, as in my case, learning how
to do a knit-wise, slipstitch decrease, there are multiple videos and demonstrations
already available. These resources are also widely available for more scholarly
subjects. To take an example from my own discipline, you can watch Edward Said
delivering a keynote address at a conference on Orientalism only a few months
before his death in 2003 (Edward Said, 2009). You can also watch Professor Paul
Fry from Yale University delivering a lecture on Postcolonial Criticism, as part of
his Introduction to the Theory of Literature course (Fry, 2012). This proliferation
of resources is leading academics and students alike to question the value of giving
up another hour of their time to deliver or engage with yet another lecture. After
all, in this information-rich context, lectures and the lecturers who deliver them can
only ever be, at best, just another source of information in an overwhelming stream
of it. Indeed, where once lecturers were filling students’ empty information cups,
now these cups are overflowing and lecturers, in the very act of lecturing, could
actually be making that problem worse.
This information revolution is also democratising knowledge in interesting and
powerful ways. On the one hand, it is widening access to information and knowledge
far beyond the bounds inside which it was once tightly held. Now anyone with the
ever-cheaper and easier-to-use technology can engage with materials and informa-
tion previously only available to those with the time, money and ability to access
formal education. What remains uncertain is how universities, and university lec-
turers, respond to this changing information and professional working environment
and, more importantly, what role they might play within it. While it is critical that
universities adapt to make good use of the changing nature of knowledge production
and information provision, it is equally important that they make valuable contri-
butions to it. As Gert Biesta (2007) has pointed out, in a world that is increasingly
commoditising higher education and placing ever-greater emphasis on its capacity
to contribute to the knowledge economy, it is important that universities continue
to perform their valuable and valued ‘civic role … that is [their] particular role in
democratic societies’ (p. 468). He has argued that while universities no longer hold a
research monopoly (given that so much research is now conducted outside of them)
they continue to maintain a knowledge monopoly. This is, he has suggested, mostly
because of their teaching and degree-awarding powers. In making his argument he
has usefully distinguished between two possible interpretations of the knowledge
society: ‘the knowledge economy and … the knowledge democracy’ (Biesta, 2007,
p. 469). He has argued that the civic-role of the university should particularly be
connected to furthering the cause of the knowledge democracy. One way that univer-
sities are exploring this well-established civic role in the new world of information
availability is by making on-demand, self-paced resources freely available. In this
context, academics are able to develop the understanding of anyone interested, not
just the students in their classrooms.
At the same time, it is more important than ever that universities, through their
teaching and learning strategies, are preparing graduates for the world of work. There
is little doubt that the world of work is changing. This is especially true for so-called
knowledge work where the capacity for professionals to store information in their
heads is becoming less important whereas their capacity to retrieve, understand,
and use it is becoming more important.
In support of this growing need for information retrieval, the infrastructure
required for the design, development and delivery of these resources is becoming
increasingly ubiquitous. Most desktop, laptop and tablet computers and even smart
phones now ship with both the hardware and software required by someone with
average IT skills to develop high-quality screencasts. Educational institutions, and
especially universities, are investing in streaming hardware and software and/or using
user-generated-content video sharing sites (such as YouTube and Vimeo) to deliver
resources. Open Educational Resource repositories are gathering content generated
by universities from around the world and making them more easily searchable and
useable.1 Students are increasingly investing in mobile devices such as smart phones,
netbooks and tablets alongside or instead of their home PCs that allow them easy
and portable access to these resources.2 In short, the conditions are right for this
open and easily accessible sharing of resources (and thereby expertise) across and
beyond the international higher education sector.

An important issue that emerges is how to make best use of these resources to bring
significant, substantive, and sustainable learning benefits to students. Given that
this is a relatively new phenomenon, the evaluative research on the effectiveness of
on-demand, self-paced resources is still relatively limited. The majority of analyses
from a curriculum design perspective focus on their use in schools and much of these
are focused on how they are using them in what is coming to be known as ‘reverse’,
‘inverted’ or ‘flipped’ classes. The idea is usually traced back to the work of Aaron
Sams and Jonathan Bergmann who began using vodcasts in their chemistry teaching
in Woodland Park High School, Woodland Park Colorado in 2007 (see Bergmann,
2011; Bergmann & Sams, 2012). The practice has become widely known through
one of the most prominent providers of on-demand resources, Salman Khan, whose
Khan Academy (www.khanacademy.org) has become something of a focus point for
discussions on the phenomenon. An article on the Khan Academy in The Economist
described it as a ‘reversal of the traditional teaching methods--with lecturing done
outside class time and tutoring (or “homework”) during it’ (Bergmann, 2011; Berg-
mann & Sams, 2012). I will consider the benefits that come from the affordances of
these on-demand, self-paced resources in more detail below. At this point, I will turn
to consider what this means in practical terms for what happens in the classroom
and, specifically, how this has affected the role of the teacher within it.
Almost without exception, analyses of the application of this ‘flipped’ approach
report the same key benefit: it buys time (see Demetry, 2010; Sparks, 2011). This
time saving is achieved by automating the process of delivering, explaining and
re-explaining information (content) that usually chews up a considerable chunk of
available class time. This saving is particularly apparent in what Demetry (2010) has
described as ‘content-crammed’ disciplines. This automation brings further efficiency
through a reduced duplication of effort (removing the need to repeatedly deliver
the same material to multiple cohorts—whether they be different class groups, on
different campuses and even over multiple years). The time that is bought by this
process can be used in a variety of ways to bring substantive benefits to students,
academic staff and higher education institutions. In the first instance, the freed-
up time can be redeployed to support student-action-centred learning. Thompson
(2011) has made the important point that it is when students are ‘grappling with
the subject’ by applying their learning that they need the support of their teacher.
In the traditional lecture-heavy curriculum, students are left to do this ‘grappling’
as part of their independent study and, therefore, isolated from the direct support
of their teacher. Even if only a proportion of this bought time is ploughed back into
the students’ experience, however, they nevertheless get added value given that
they are still receiving the content delivery to which they are entitled. As a result,
at least some of this bought time can be reinvested in the research productivity of
(notoriously time-poor) research-active academic staff, which brings benefits both
to them and the institutions for which they work.
While there is growing enthusiasm for this approach to improving both the
quality and efficiency of student learning across all educational sectors, there are a
significant number of concerns being raised about this approach. Thompson (2011)
has reported that critics are alarmed that the Khan Academy videos ‘leave kids
staring at screens’. The predominance of instructional resources in mathematics
and the sciences also suggests that this approach is more suited to procedural than
declarative knowledge acquisition. Cognisant of these concerns, this chapter will
now introduce a case study of how it has been put into practice in a higher education
context. I will then turn to consider some of the key reasons to pursue this approach
before returning to evidence from the case study.

The strategy of ‘flipping’ a traditional lecture/seminar undergraduate module has

been put into practice in a second year undergraduate module called Introduction to
Critical and Cultural Theory. This module is compulsory for several degree courses
that include English Literature as a major component of study. It has an average
enrolment of around 100 students. Critical and Cultural Theory is an area of study
that is notoriously difficult both cognitively (in that it is investigating philosophical
and theoretical ideas which are intellectually and emotionally challenging) and in
terms of its accessibility (much of it is written in a dense theoretical jargon which,
to the novice, can feel completely impenetrable). In its early iterations, the module
was taught with a textbook containing extracts from various critical and cultural
theoretical texts with one extract being covered each week. This was supported
with a live lecture series (delivered by a range of academic staff depending on their
expertise). The lectures would run for roughly 50 minutes once per week. These
were then supported by a follow-up 50-minute seminar each week in which students
had the opportunity to discuss their understanding of the extract covered that week.
The decision to change the curriculum design was triggered by the need to deliver
the module to cohorts at two, new remote campuses alongside the usual cohort at-
tending classes on the main campus. To deliver the module to these new campuses
in its original structure gave us only two options. The first was to ask tutoring staff
located at the remote campuses (some of whom were employed on a part-time hourly
basis) to devise and deliver the whole live lecture series themselves. Delivering
lectures on all of the topics on this module was something that even the full-time
academic staff on the main campus would have found challenging so asking this
of part-time hourly paid staff was out of the question. In any case, having a variety
of different voices and perspectives contributing to the lecture series was one of
the strengths of the module, something that would have been lost if we had taken
this option at the remote campuses. In addition, it would have resulted in vastly
inconsistent material being delivered across the three groups based at the differ-
ent campuses. The other option was to ask the various academic staff responsible
for delivering the lectures on the main campus to travel to the remote campuses to
deliver repeat lectures. This would have involved them spending considerable time
travelling between campuses as well as the two hours of duplicated teaching deliv-
ery time. Neither of these options was feasible or affordable so an alternative was
required. The alternative was to record the lectures as they were delivered on the
main campus, to have technical support staff synchronise these with the PowerPoint
slides used for the lecture, produce these into a screencast and make them available
to students on the remote campuses via the Virtual Learning Environment. The other
elements (the text book and the follow-up seminars) remained unchanged. This way
we could ensure all students had access to the best expertise available and to ensure
consistency of delivery without having any impact on academic staff workloads and
only a relatively small impact on technical support staff workloads.
The screencast lectures met with some initial resistance from students on the
remote campuses. Some reported that they felt left out of the live lecture experi-
ence, to which students on the main campus had access, and consequently felt short
changed. They also reported feeling frustrated at the poor quality of the sound that
was an inevitable result of recording a live event. They did report, however, enjoy-
ing the benefit of being able to revisit the lectures, and to pause and rewind them
as needed. On the strength of their responses in the following years we made the
screencasts available to the students on the main campus so they could share the
benefits the remote-campus students had reported. At the same time, we also com-
mitted to re-recording the screencasts as screencasts (i.e. not as a way of capturing
a live event). For this we used various software packages such as Camtasia and
Screenflow, and where possible, recorded the audio in soundproofed spaces with
good quality microphones to improve the production quality. We found that this
prompted academic staff to rethink their lecturing strategy and many found they
were able to cover more ground in less time knowing that students now had the
opportunity to control the speed of delivery. Eventually we stopped offering the
live lectures altogether because their purpose had become redundant. As a result
of removing the live lectures, we now had an extra hour of class time that we were
able to reinvest into the students’ learning by providing a series of student-centred
workshops alongside the seminars. The seminars themselves were also redesigned
to become much more active rather than simply being discussion based. Together
these face-to-face sessions offered a combination of skills development and more
prolonged opportunities to apply the theoretical knowledge in practice. It was at
this point that the classrooms had become truly flipped.
The experiences of students taking the module have been overwhelmingly positive.
In the reflective essays they submit at the end of the year, students are encouraged
to reflect on not just what they have learned but how they have learned it. Many
students choose to make mention of their experiences of using and engaging with
the screencast resources and active learning sessions within these reflective essays.
Their comments are used to provide evidence to support the discussion that follows.
 The prevalence of on-demand, self-paced resources is changing the way students
learn: how they interact with information and turn it into knowledge. As a conse-
quence of this, students’ expectations about what is beneficial and valuable to them
are changing. It is likely that these changes will happen regardless of whether these
resources are being used actively and strategically in school or university classes or
not. The simple fact of the matter is that these resources are there and students are
already using them. The expertise of almost all (if not all) university lecturers is
being outstripped by the availability of these resources. As Thompson (2011) has
put it: ‘as more high-quality lecture materials go online, teachers and administrators
alike are beginning to realise that when it comes to simply explaining something,
there’s probably someone out there who’s doing it better’.3 This raises important and
powerful questions: why should a teacher even attempt to offer an explanation of a
difficult and complex concept when she can embed a video of someone else with
the same or better expertise offering an explanation of it into her course’s online
learning environment? Why shouldn’t she, instead, use her valuable skills and time
helping students correct their misunderstanding and/or apply their understanding
in practice?
Importantly, this does not mean that teaching staff are becoming obsolete; far
from it. It does mean that the role teaching staff play is changing. Marc Prensky
(2011) has made the valuable point that the use of on-demand, self-paced learning
resources ‘improves pedagogy by allowing one of the best ‘explainers’ to be the
one who does the explaining to all, by making those explanations infinitely repeat-
able, and by utilizing class time in the most productive way’. This was certainly
true in this case study. In the flipped model, the academic staff with, for instance,
expertise in French feminist theory produced the screencast on Hélène Cixous and
all students, regardless of which campus they attended, had equal access to it. This
brought benefits in two ways: not only did she have the greatest expertise, but she
also had the greatest passion and commitment to this theoretical approach. This was
something one student picked up on:

The screencasts composed by members of the module staff were thorough and al-
lowed more detail than would have been possible in the limited time that lecture slots
granted. It was clear to see that the tutors were incredibly dedicated and passionate
about their subject. (Cheryl).

This is particularly important given what we know about the impact that teacher
enthusiasm has on such things as students’ intrinsic motivation to learn (see Patrick,
Hisley, & Kempler, 2000). Prensky has suggested that we should be considering
this as a machines vs humans evaluation: looking at the affordances that automated
machines and humans bring to the quality of pedagogy. He suggests:
Already for certain things—like precisely repeating a single explanation over and
over as many times as needed—the machines hold the edge. But for other things—like
tailoring a different explanation for every piece of content for each learner based
on precisely what that particular learner already knows and can do—humans are
still unmatched (Prensky, 2011).

This offers an important reminder: that to make the most effective use of this
model and to realise the potential pedagogical benefits, the time that is ‘bought’ by
this technique needs to be productively re-invested in students’ learning by providing
active-learning opportunities. Toto and Nguyen (2009), reporting on the application
of a ‘flipped classroom’ approach in higher education, have offered this explanation
of the problematic of providing active learning within a traditional lecture-driven
university curriculum:

Active learning promotes the application of content material while it is still being
learned and presented. It engages students more deeply in the process of learning
course material by encouraging critical thinking and fostering the development
of self-directed learning. Active learning affords the opportunity for application
and practice, and the asking of questions. Additionally it is possible to assess and
remediate student understanding in real time. However, active learning takes time.
Students need time to be able to absorb and process the information needed before
it can be applied (Toto & Nguyen, 2009, p. T4F-1).

It is this time ‘cost’ that arguably dissuades many teachers from employing active
learning in their classrooms: it simply leaves too little room for content delivery. Toto
and Nguyen’s solution was to apply the ‘classroom flip’ which they saw as retaining
the best of both the ‘instructional’ and the active-learning worlds within the economic
constraints of the already crowded curriculum. It is here that it becomes clear that
this technique is making teachers more rather than less relevant. As a report in The
Economist has put it: ‘it can liberate a good teacher to become even better [and …]
it does not replace the other necessary element in education reform, the raising of
teacher quality’ (Electronic Education, 2011). In other words, this technique will
not make poor-quality teachers better but it does allow good teachers to have even
greater impact than they currently do.
In this case study, students responded very positively indeed to the active learning
opportunities that were made available through the flipping model:

The biggest contribution to my engagement with others has to be the structure of the
classroom sessions where [the tutor] would often split us up into smaller groups to
allow us to individually expression [sic] our concerns and often delight with our
new found knowledge. (Quentin).
I greatly enjoyed some of the activities we did [.…] The fact I remember it so viv-
idly shows how memorable it was to me as an alternative method of learning and
discussion, and also makes me consider other ways of looking at an issue, aside
from the usual methods of writing or reading. (Mark).

I found this way of learning not only fun, but effective because information stays
with you for much longer, when you do something out of the ordinary to acquire
it. (Yousef).

It is not simply the ability to provide greater access to active learning opportunities
that makes the flipped approach so beneficial in higher education and particularly in
the University sector. The reason is also because of the affordances of the technol-
ogy through which the online, self-paced resources are made available. There is a
growing body of evidence to suggest that the very nature of their being self-paced
and on-demand means that these resources actually improve student cognition. One
of the reasons why lecturing, as a pedagogical method, has proven to be so ineffec-
tive is that, like all live performances, it is transient. The fundamental skill of the
undergraduate student of being able to take a good set of notes during a lecture has
persisted, like the lecture itself, from the pre-printing-press 13th Century. No matter
how well developed this skill is in the student, however, these notes will always be
partial and all students face the struggle of how best to capture the live performance.4
In comparison to the ‘transient’ nature of the live lecture (or the video played in a
classroom over which individual students have not control), self-paced, on-demand
resources give agency and control to the students in a way that is comparable to
their control over print-media. In their fascinating study, Martin Merkt et al. (2011)
worked from the starting point that videos over which students have no control
are an ‘integral component of educational environments students face these days’
but that their effectiveness has been disputed, particularly in comparison to print-
based resources (p. 687). They have pointed out that the same is true when print
and spoken-texts (such as a live lecture) are compared. They have suggested that
one of the key reasons for this is the affordances of print-based material that allow
recipients to ‘reread relevant passages, skip unimportant ones, and adjust the reading
pace to their individual cognitive needs’ (Merkt et al., 2011, p. 688). In comparison,
the transitory nature of traditional education videos (and by extension traditional
lectures) ‘leads to additional difficulties that print does not present’ (Merkt et al.,
2011, p. 689). They have argued that ‘transient information needs to be continuously
processed in the working memory’ which is necessarily limited, thus resulting in
the potential for cognitive overload if ‘there is a mismatch of the presentation pace
and the recipients’ cognitive capacities’ (Merkt et al., 2011, p. 689). They followed
the argumentation of Lowe (2004) that ‘such a mismatch could lead to deficient
learning outcomes due to an overwhelming effect’ (cited in Merkt et al., 2011, p.
689).5 They cited the findings of Hasler et al (2007) which show that ‘merely the
possibility to control the flow of transient information with stop and play buttons
was as beneficial for learning as having the participants learn with animations di-
vided into predefined segments (cited in Merkt et al., 2011, p. 689). Their findings
reflect those of Chandler (2004), Mayer and Chandler (2001), and Sturm (1984)
that learners need to ‘match the pace of information to their own cognitive needs
and to avoid loss of important information’ (cited in Merkt et al., 2011, p.700). By
being able to pause, re-view and skip over sections of the video, depending on their
own prior knowledge and learning needs, students are better able to extract detail,
write down information and backtrack sections they did not understand in order to
enhance their memory and comprehension (M. Merkt et al., 2011).
This kind of control is never going to be possible in a live-lecture situation and as
a result many teachers who continue to use their live classroom sessions to deliver
content find they are teaching to the ‘middle’ of the class. As Thompson (2011) has
put it: ‘They stand at the whiteboard, trying to get 25 or more students to learn the
same stuff at the same pace. And, of course, it never really works: Advanced kids
get bored and tune out, lagging ones get lost and tune out, and pretty soon half the
class isn’t paying attention’. This is, to a certain extent, what has driven Laurillard
(2002) to be so critical of the lecture:

Their success depends upon the lecturer knowing very well the capabilities of the
students, and on the students having very similar capabilities and prior knowledge.
Lectures were defensible, perhaps, in the old university systems in which students
were selected through standardised entrance examinations. Open access and modu-
lar courses make it most unlikely that a class of students will be sufficiently similar
in background and capabilities to make lectures workable as a principal teaching
method. The economic pressures forcing open access to universities generate higher
student numbers and, while universities remain designed around lectures, therefore
dictate larger classes. Yet, the open access that creates a highly diverse audience
makes lectures hopelessly inefficient for the individual student, in terms of peda-
gogical needs (Laurillard, 2002, p. 93).

Because they are self-paced and self-directed resources, screencasts can alleviate
this problem because the actual pace of these resources can go a great deal faster
than it can in live classes. The advanced, high-achieving students can work at this
actual pace with little or no pauses, perhaps even skipping over the bits with which
they are already confident. In contrast, students who are lagging or struggling can
slow it down to the pace that suits them by pausing when they need to and reviewing
sections they find difficult, and they can do this as many times as they need to. Thus,
while it may take the high-achieving student only 20 minutes to engage effectively
with a 30-minute screencast, a student who is struggling with the material may take
an hour or more to work through it. This stands in marked contrast to the live-lecture
experience that is 50 minutes long regardless of the ability of the students. In other
words, the ‘flipping’ strategy now allows academic staff to genuinely design their
curriculum for the high-achieving students, confident that they are not leaving the
lower-achieving students behind.
By far, ‘control’ was the benefit that was most widely reported in the students’
reflective writing from the case study. The opportunity to control the pace of the
material as a way of managing the cognitive load of the material was of particular
value to some:

Watching the online lectures was something I enjoyed and I feel that the ability to
pause the lectures in order to make more detailed notes was a vast improvement
rather than missing what was said in a live lecture setting. (Barbara).

Screen casts were helpful as they were similar to a live lecture but allowed me
to pause every so often to write out my own notes and rewind if I needed further
clarification. (Luke).

I began by viewing the lecture again and looking at basic […] definitions, gradually
moving on to the more challenging writings […] I feel that this approach was very
successful as I was able to learn at my own pace. (Xavier).

It is not just the self-paced nature of these resources that makes them valuable,
however, but also their on-demand nature. The fact that students can view these
resources not just when they want to but also almost anywhere they want to means
that students can now engage with them in the privacy of their home or study room.
Thompson (2011) has reported one of Khan’s important revelations: that ‘remedia-
tion—going over and over something that you really ought to know already – is less
embarrassing when you can do it privately, with no one watching’. He has quoted
Khan as saying “The worst time to learn something […] is when someone is stand-
ing over your shoulder going ‘Do you get it?” (Thompson, 2011). This may also
be particularly beneficial for high-achieving students who have a tendency to feel
that asking for help is tantamount to admitting to failure (see Jiao & Onwuegbuzie,
1997). By allowing students to remedy the gaps in their understanding at their own
pace and in private means that self-paced, on-demand resources have a significant
edge over the delivery of equivalent information in a live-lecture setting.6
Several students reported that they found it beneficial to revisit resources as
many times as was needed:
This module for me has by no means been easy, there have been many occasions
where I have had to watch the lectures four or five times before I even begin to
understand what people are talking about. I am extremely glad that they are all
screen casts which I can go back to and rewatch as many times as needed. (Kelly).

This ability to revisit material proved particularly valuable as it came time to

prepare for their assessment tasks: an essay and a portfolio of cultural materials.

[…I]f first time round, I did not fully understand a theory or theorist, I could look
back at the lecture and give it another go. I found this particularly useful when it
came to starting my portfolio. […] I wanted to challenge myself by means of utilizing
some of the more testing theories and applying them to texts, but to do this I had to
recap by listening to lectures. Without all this information online, this process would
have been very difficult, so the resources serve a very important purpose. (Yousef).

Using the online lectures as a recap before starting essays […] has been a huge
help this year. (Andrew).

Another student found that screencasts which she had initially found challeng-
ing were easier to understand when she later revisited them and that this offered an
important boost to her confidence:

The first ‘turning point’ at which I began to feel more comfortable with the module
was when I re-watched a couple of the [early] screen casts. (Olivia).

Controlling where and when they watched the screencast and in what order they
undertook their engagement with it in relation to reading the theoretical extract was
something many found beneficial. This control allowed them to find a pattern of
working which suited their learning style:

I found a learning technique of roughly reading a text, watching the lecture and then
with a better understanding of the terminology used in the text, re-reading it. (Imran).

The texts complimented the screen casts perfectly as they supplied two sources with
which to draw knowledge. This enabled me to choose which to access first depending
on the difficulty of the content. In my experience I found it much easier to read the
given passage, colour code and note it before attempting the screen cast. (Luke).
 Others deliberately changed the order in which they engaged with the theoretical
extract and the screencast to challenge themselves and thereby strengthen their skills:

Although I have found it incredibly challenging at times, my progression from watch-

ing the screencasts then applying the explanation to the set reading, to challenging
the reading myself and then clarifying my findings with the screencasts has instilled
within me a confidence I did not have before beginning the course. (Jenna).

During the module I reflected on how I learn best and I know reading the extract
before the lecture challenges me, but in a positive way. However this took me a while
to learn, as the first week I wrote [in my learning journal] “I am glad I watched
the lecture before doing the reading, as I found the reading…tough and difficult to
understand”. However [my tutor] challenged me to do the reading first, as expla-
nation will not always be there for me in life. I accepted this challenge and I wrote
“I found this really tough going and didn’t understand it much of it at all” [sic],
however I persevered with it and a few weeks later I wrote “ I did the reading first
this time, and I think it is actually starting to help me learn more effectively[…]”.
I am glad I persevered because from then on I read the extracts first as I found it a
good challenge and it encouraged me to learn the theories myself. (Suki).

Others found the control they had over where and when to watch the screencasts
an important part of their time- and stress-management strategy:

I set myself a weekly timetable which meant I could dedicate a specific amount of
time each week to each of my modules. […] Through this process I found that by
having, for example, a lecture to watch every Wednesday evening I was able to ar-
range any other commitments around it and to be able to tick off the lecture after
having watched it. (Barbara).

The set reading and lectures I usually watched and read the night before our class
due to their complexity. I wanted them to be fresh in my mind for the seminar. (Ruby).

I upheld my resolution to watch lectures more than once in order to understand

them; which meant I had to leave sufficient time during the week to watch it once
and then watch it again while making notes. (Fiona).

The first few weeks were stressful but once I got into my weekly routine of sitting
down on a Wednesday to do the reading, watch the lecture, make notes, and to reflect
in my online journal I found that my stress levels subsided and I was managing my
time much more effectively. (Tracy).
 So, while critics might argue that transferring live lectures into screencasts is
just a different version of the same thing, there is evidence here to suggest that the
simple additional affordance of giving students control over the material has a sig-
nificant impact on their learning and their lives. Whether we like it or not, indeed
whether we realise it or not, students will make use of these resources and there is
very little we can do about it. This is, without doubt, one of the key reasons why,
regardless of whether these resources are being used and incorporated into the cur-
riculum by academic staff or not, many students are likely to find them preferable
to live-lectures.7

There are several other very important factors that need to be taken into account
when considering making use of and/or developing self-paced, on-demand resources
in higher education. It is here that my experiences of using YouTube to learn how to
knit have been particularly beneficial to my own reflections on the role of self-paced,
on-demand resources. I will take this opportunity to make an important point: that
in order to be effective in the production and use of these resources, it is vital that
Higher education teachers spend some time experiencing learning from self-paced,
on-demand resources themselves. It is, after all, only by putting ourselves in the
shoes of our students, effectively by becoming on-demand learners ourselves, that
we can really develop a good sense of what this type of learning technique feels
like and therefore needs in terms of resources and support. In my knitting journey
I’ve learned the following things about on-demand learning and about myself as
an on-demand learner:

This means several things. First, the information must be accurate and precise.
Therefore, the person presenting the information must have the appropriate expertise
and be able to present it to me in a way that is clear to me. Similarly, the production
qualities of the resource must be good so that I can hear the explanation and see the
demonstration clearly. If any of these things are missing the resource is useless to me.

This is rarely a problem when it comes to knitting, the techniques for which have
changed little over time. But this brings to the fore an important point: to achieve
genuine economy of scale and value from the production of self-paced, on-demand
resources, the information being conveyed needs to have a reasonable shelf-life. It is
here that the concept of the half-life of knowledge becomes important and needs to be
taken into consideration.8 This does not mean that on-demand, self-paced resources
should only be produced for knowledge with a long half-life but instead, perhaps,
that less should be invested in the production of on-demand, self-paced resources
for knowledge with a short or extremely short half-life. At the same time, it is im-
portant to remove resources that provide out-of-date information and to regularly
refresh the selection of resources for use in disciplines and areas of knowledge with
a short half-life. This also means that areas of knowledge that have a long half-life
are likely to be particularly rich in terms of the quality and quantity of self-paced,
on-demand resources already available. This is one explanation for why there are
so many freely available, good quality videos that teach knitting techniques. It is
also a reason why the bulk of resources on the Khan Academy are in Maths and
Engineering.

Presenting information from the point of view of the person who needs to learn
is important, but especially so for resources which (like those for knitting) are
demonstrating and explaining procedural knowledge. All of the best self-paced,
on-demand resources for knitting techniques are shot from the point of view of the
knitter: effectively giving the recipient the view of what they can replicate in their
own practice. Salman Khan has explained that his decision to not include images or
recordings of his face achieves a similar effect. He prefers to record his voice and
his writing (recorded from the screen by using a pen tablet) to make his instruc-
tional videos. The reason, he has argued, is ‘it doesn’t seem like I’m up on a stage
lecturing down at you […]. It’s intimate, like we’re both sitting at a table and we’re
working through something together’ (Thompson, 2011). Similarly, for declarative
knowledge it remains important to keep the point of view of the recipient in mind
when developing or choosing resources for use within the curriculum. Here, again,
Laurillard’s (2002) work is useful. She has argued that it is important to use the
medium ‘to persuade the viewer of a line of argument, or a way of seeing in the
world’ (p. 100). Ensuring that this is presented to the recipients’ point of view is vital.

This is, again, where pace is important. Because recipients can control the pace at
which information is explained and demonstrated, working at a speed appropriate
for the most advanced and high-achieving student is ideal. Given the highly visual
nature of the medium, it is vital that the icons or graphic versions of what is be-
ing described (as Laurillard would put it) are always aligned with what is being
described. Close focus on the structure of knitted fabric that clearly shows what is
being worked with, with as little ‘preamble’ or phatic discourse as possible, char-
acterise the knitting videos I seek out and return to. This is supported by Roxanne
Toto and Hien Nguyen’s research which has shown that students reported finding
‘it somewhat easier to get distracted while watching the video lecture’ and that they
wanted more detail on the slides (Toto & Nguyen, 2009, p. T4F-3). While they have
suggested that further investigation is needed to understand what this might mean,
it seems likely that visual stimulus is important to students maintaining focus and
concentration while using these resources (Toto & Nguyen, 2009). Even though
standard wisdom has long been that less is more when it comes to the number of
PowerPoint slides in a live-lecture, the opposite is almost certainly true for self-
paced, on-demand resources to ensure that the visual stimulus in recorded resources
changes frequently.

One of the limitations of face-to-face learning environments is that they tend to be

time rather than learning limited. In other words, in face-to-face contexts, classes
must finish when the allotted time has expired whether or not the learning has
been achieved (see Barr & Tagg, 1995). The opposite is true for on-demand, self-
paced resources. So while the 50-minute lecture has long been held as the industry
standard learning experience for students, this is largely because of the specific
demands of timetabling systems rather than because of any inherent pedagogical
value. It’s likely that self-paced, on-demand resources are ideally shorter than this.
Toto and Nguyen’s (2009) research has shown that ‘students felt 30 minutes to be
the optimal length for video lectures’ (p. T4F-3) and Demetry (2010) have reported
that ‘two to three microlectures … 10-15 minutes in length and tightly focused on a
specific instructional objective’ for each week of an undergraduate course worked
well (2010, p. T1E-1). Given that most students instinctively use the pause/rewind
controls when engaging with these resources (Toto & Nguyen, 2009) in combina-
tion with the increased pace that this technology affords means that it is unlikely
that these resources should ever be longer than half an hour. At the same time, and
again this is particularly true for procedural knowledge, the resources need only be
as long as they need to be. For instance, if it only takes 50 seconds to explain how
to do a slip stitch decrease in knitting, the ideal length of the resource is 50 seconds
not 50 minutes.
Some knitting techniques are particularly intricate and complex, something made
worse by the fact that making mistakes can be difficult and time-consuming to cor-
rect. Remembering the correct sequence is made even more complicated if these
techniques are performed infrequently. A good example of this is Kitchener stitch:
a grafting technique used to join the toes of knitted socks. Even after successfully
completing several Kitchener grafts now, I still return to a particular video on
YouTube every time I need to do it to refresh my memory. For things students are
likely to need to repeat iteratively several times before they achieve ‘mastery’ the
resources are most useful if they offer just the demonstration/explanation with little
or no preamble. Alternatively they need to enable students to easily access just the
relevant segment they are seeking out of a longer resource.
In addition to the above, there are some other things I’ve discovered about myself
as an on-demand learner through this process:

• I don’t need to learn what I already know so being able to skip over sections
is important.
• But sometimes I don’t know things that I should already know so putting even
basic information in (bearing in mind that others who already know it are
able to and likely to skip over it) is useful.
• Sometimes I don’t know what I don’t know until I need to know it so having
it available to me at that point is important.
• Sometimes I realise I’m missing important information, so being able to re-
visit things I’ve previously skipped or easily find things to fill the gaps in my
understanding are useful to me.

It is important to reiterate that these resources will never, in themselves, offer stu-
dents everything they need. Their value rests in their affordances but also in the
learning opportunities and support that accompanies them. This is, of course, in line
with the well-established pedagogical theories that learning is, as Etienne Wenger
has put it, fundamentally a social act (see Wenger, 1998). Sitting and listening to
screencast lectures is never going to facilitate this, just as sitting in a lecture hall
listening to an academic talk for 50 minutes is not. This has been true also for my
knitting journey. Watching YouTube videos alone is never going to make me an
accomplished or satisfied knitter. Engaging with others (in person or in specialist
social networking sites like Ravelry (ravelry.com)) is an important part of my learn-
ing. So is seeking out expertise through things like knitting books and magazines
and talking with friends and family who are more accomplished knitters than me.
Together, these offer structure and hierarchy to my learning as well as focussing
my aspirations and my determination to try new things. It also allows me to take
pride in my learning achievements by sharing them with others. I find that in the
process this social learning interaction guides me beyond the purely procedural
knowledge of knitting techniques into more declarative knowledge areas such as
colour work, design and the ethics of yarn provenance. The same is true for more
scholarly learning and offers a reminder that the most valuable resources students
have available to them are those which offer them social learning opportunities
(through such things as student-action-centred learning in groups and social learning
environments) and access to expert guidance (such as having opportunities to work
with and ask questions of academic staff). Using self-paced, on-demand learning
resources to buy more time and space in overcrowded curricula to do this is where
their real value lies.
Equally important are the qualities and attitudes of the individual students engag-
ing with them. Sarah Sparks (2011), reporting on the use of ‘flipped-classrooms’
for Education Week has cited a California researcher saying that ‘Student engage-
ment and accountability are critical […] because the flipped-classroom format
requires students to commit to doing a lot more work on their own’. It is here that
this research overlaps with work on self-regulated learning and student agency.
It is important, however, to remind ourselves that the risk of students not making
this commitment or failing to regulate their own learning is not reason enough to
refuse to experiment with these strategies. Maddalena Taras (2001) has made the
valuable point that ‘if we want students to take responsibility, then we have to al-
low them to do so’ (p. 612). Structuring a curriculum that really rewards them for
taking this responsibility is always going to have more potential than working from
the assumption that they never will.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning–A new paradigm for
undergraduate education. Change Magazine, 27, 12–25. doi:10.1080/00091383.1
995.10544672
Bergmann, J. (2011, May 5). The history of the flipped class: How the flipped class
was born. The Flipped Class Blog. [Blog]. Retrieved from http://blendedclassroom.
blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/history-of-flipped-class.html
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012, April 15). How the flipped classroom is radically
transforming learning. The Daily Riff. Retrieved from http://www.thedailyriff.com/
articles/how-the-flipped-classroom-is-radically-transforming-learning-536.php
Biesta, G. (2007). Towards the knowledge democracy? Knowledge production
and the civic role of the university. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26(5),
467–479. doi:10.1007/s11217-007-9056-0
Bligh, D. A. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? New York, NY: Intellect Books.
Brown, S., & Race, P. (2002). Lecturing: A practical guide. London, UK: Routledge.
Chandler, P. (2004). The crucial role of cognitive processes in the design of dy-
namic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 353. doi:10.1016/j.learn-
instruc.2004.06.009
Cubberley, E. P. (1920). The history of education: Educational practice and progress
considered as a phase of the development and spread of western civilization. New
York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Demetry, C. (2010). Work in progress-An innovation merging “classroom flip” and
team-based learning. In Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference. IEEE Press.
Economist. (2011, September 17). Electronic education: Flipping the classroom.
The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/21529062
Ellis, C. (2008). You can’t do that in a classroom! How distributed learning can
assist in the widespread adoption of hybrid learning strategies. Paper presented at
Hybrid Learning and Education. New York, NY.
Fry, P. (2012). Post-colonial criticism. AcademicEarth. Retrieved October 22, 2012,
from http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/post-colonial-literary-criticism
Gibbs, G. (1981). Twenty terrible reasons for lecturing. Oxford, UK: Educational
Methods Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.
Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load
and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 713–729.
doi:10.1002/acp.1345
Jaikumar, V. (2011, February 18). BYOD to work but be prepared for remote wipes
and legal holds, says Unisys. Computerworld. Retrieved from http://blogs.comput-
erworld.com/17847/byod_to_work_but_be_prepared_for_remote_wipes_and_le-
gal_holds_says_unisys
Jiao, Q. G., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1997). Antecedents of library anxiety. The
Library Quarterly, 67(4), 372–389. doi:10.1086/629972
Jones, S. E. (2007). Reflections on the lecture: Outmoded medium or instru-
ment of inspiration? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(4), 397–406.
doi:10.1080/03098770701656816
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational frame-
work for the effective use of learning technologies. London, UK: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203304846
Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning
and Instruction, 14(3), 257–274. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.003
Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple
user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.390
Merkt, M., Weigand, S., Heier, A., & Schwan, S. (2011). Learning with videos
vs. learning with print: The role of interactive features. Learning and Instruction,
21(6), 687–704.
Patrick, B. C., Hisley, J., & Kempler, T. (2000). What’s everybody so excited about?
The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. Jour-
nal of Experimental Education, 68(3), 217–236. doi:10.1080/00220970009600093
Prensky, M. (2011). New issues, new answers: A huge leap ahead for the classroom.
Educational Technology, 51(6), 63.
Salomon, G. (1979). Media and symbol systems as related to cognition and learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 131–148. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.131
Sparks, S. D. (2011). Schools “flip” for lesson model promoted by Khan Academy.
Education Week, 5, 1–14.
Sturm, H. (1984). Wahrnehmung und fernsehen: Die fehlende halbsekunde. Media
Perspektiven, 1(84), 58–65.
Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative
assessment tasks: Towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 605–614. doi:10.1080/02602930120093922
TED. (2011). Salman Khan: Let’s use video to reinvent education. [Video]. Retrieved
from http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_educa-
tion.html
Thompson, C. (2011, August). How Khan Academy is changing the rules of educa-
tion. WIRED. Retrieved May 1, 2012, from http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/
ff_khan/all/1
Toto, R., & Nguyen, H. (2009). Flipping the work design in an industrial engineering
course. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. IEEE Press.
UNESCO. (2012). Open educational resources, useful resources/repositories.
Retrieved from http://oerwiki.iiep.unesco.org/index.php/OER_useful_resources/
Repositories
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
You Tube. (2009). Edward said: Orientalism April 16, 2003. Retrieved from http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JncXpQQoZAo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

1
UNESCO maintains a wiki of OER repositories categorized under ‘general,’
‘national,’ ‘regional and institution,’ and ‘individual’ repositories (UNESCO,
2012).
2
This phenomenon is coming to be known as BYOD or Bring Your Own Device
and is occurring in the commercial and public sectors as well as in education.
This trend brings significant benefits but also its fair share of headaches, par-
ticularly in terms of security (Jaikumar, 2011).
3
Salman Khan makes a similar point in one of his TED presentations when he
says: ‘If Isaac Newton had done YouTube videos on calculus, I wouldn’t have
to’ adding for comic effect: ‘assuming he was good…’ (TED, 2011).
4
As I have argued elsewhere (Ellis, 2008) it is useful to consider Brown and
Race’s distinction between not taking and note making. They argue that ‘most
lecturers would actually like students to be [making notes] in lectures—not
just copying things down, but processing what’s being shown and said, and
turning it into their notes’ (Brown & Race, 2002). They suggest that many
students resort to ‘note taking’ in a live lecture in an attempt to ‘capture’ it ‘so
that there’s more chance of being able to get to grips with it later’ (Brown &
Race, 2002). This was evident in the reflective writing of at least one of the
students in the case study described in this chapter who reported: “The bril-
liant thing about this module was the very fact that the lectures were online.
 More often than not I will attend lectures and write pages of notes, only to
look back on them weeks later and find that they are ramblings, rushed and
confusing” (Yousef).
5
Merkt et al go on to argue that this problem of cognitive overload is the case
even for videos (and lectures) which subscribe to ideal pedagogical structures
(whereby information is segmented) (Merkt, Weigand, Heier, & Schwan, 2011.
p. 689).
6
Similarly, the fact that these resources can be easily downloaded or accessed
via mobile devices (such as smart-phones and tablets) means that students are
better able to make more productive use of their time (particularly otherwise
‘dead time’ spent commuting to and from campus) by being engaged in learning
activities. This is, therefore, something that is especially valuable for time-poor
students (particularly students with caring responsibilities, those who live a
long way from the campus and those in part-time or full-time employment).
7
There are other potential reason for the improved cognition. Unlike print-media
(even enriched, illustrated texts) on-demand resources are able to both show
and tell. Laurillard (2002) has argued that ‘audiovision’ offers more scope
pedagogically than lectures, print and audio-only media because it uses the
‘auditory channel in combination with something for the visual channel to focus
on [… such as] an iconic or graphic version of the verbal description’ (p. 98).
This would, for instance, hold true for even a quite basic screencast recording
which combines presentation software (such as Powerpoint or Prezi) with a
synchronised recorded audio narrative. Laurillard (2002) has gone further to
consider the benefits of television and film in the provision of high-quality
learning experiences for students. She has described the effect of ‘vicarious
perception’ whereby television is ‘peculiarly able to convey a way of expe-
riencing the world […] through dynamic sound and vision’ (p. 99). She has
suggested that ‘by bringing the world to the student’s study it becomes possible
for them to experience vicariously a variety of actions on the world: fieldwork
(climbing a volcano and inspecting samples), experimentation (add another
chemical and watch the reaction), interpretation (compare one part of a paint-
ing with another)’ (p. 100). The pure cost difference of providing these rich
experiences vicariously when compared with providing them in reality makes
the value of such resources clear. Convergent with this, she has argued, is the
effect of supplantation. Here she draws on the work of Salomon (1979) who
has argued that devices in film can supplant cognitive processes: a ‘zoom’ from
a long shot to a close-up supplants the process of selective attention; a ‘pan’
supplants the process of shifting attention, a ‘montage’ supplants the process
of association of ideas’ (quoted in Laurillard, 2002, p. 99). These are, she has
 argued, ‘powerful rhetorical devices’ (Laurillard, 2002, p. 99). I argue that both
vicarious perception and supplantation are as applicable in the production of
screencasts (which can be edited to incorporate filmed sequences and ‘zoom
and pan’ devices) as they are for the considerably more expensive production
of films and documentaries.1 Screencasts bring with them, however, the added
affordances of learner control over pace and, to a certain extent, sequence which
she sees as advantages of videocassette and Digital Video Discs (DVD).
8
This is the amount of time it takes for half of any body of knowledge to be-
come obsolete or to be disproven. This differs from one discipline to the next
(for instance, Physics and Languages are considered to have long half-lives
whereas nutrition and computing science short half-lives) but also differs be-
tween different types of knowledge within disciplines. For instance, technical
knowledge (e.g. How to operate a scanning electronic microscope) tends to have
a short half-life, whereas theoretical knowledge (the fundamental principles
by which Scanning Electron Microscopes operate) have a long half-life. At the
same time, the half-life of knowledge overall or in general changes such that
at one point university graduates would enter the world of work with most if
not all of the knowledge they would need until the end of the working lives.
This is certainly no longer the case and the need for Continuing Professional
Development within almost all career paths is very much established and is
vital for those who want to maintain a licence to practice (such as Engineers
and members of the health care professions).
 Kenneth Bartlett
University of Toronto, Canada

In universities around the world, metrics have been developed to assess research
extremely well in the career development of faculty; however, teaching effectiveness
has been left to the subjective and usually unreliable evidence of student evaluations,
unique or irregular classroom visits, and committee reviews of course syllabi and
assignments. There are seldom standards of achievement provided, and each file is
usually assessed without reference to others. There is need, then, for a broad set of
expectations in the academy for what we call excellence and competence in teach-
ing. This chapter discusses how the authors’ experiences in faculty development in
three institutions—in Canada, China, and Oman—reflects both the need for such
metrics and the difficulties in establishing procedures in very different contexts.
From this, they hope a debate about how to establish international guidelines for
teaching excellence that parallel the rigour given to the assessment of research can
be established to guide decisions concerning appointment, promotion, and tenure
in the modern, internationalized university.

There is no Nobel Prize in university teaching. Research is international; teaching

is local. These somewhat facetious observations reveal a serious problem in the
academy: the difficulties inherent in the assessment and recognition of excellence
in teaching as a criterion for appointment, promotion and tenure. Particularly in

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch021

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
research intensive universities around the world, metrics have been developed to
assess research extremely well in the career development of faculty; however, teach-
ing effectiveness has been left to the subjective and usually unreliable evidence of
student evaluations, unique or irregular classroom visits and committee reviews of
course syllabi and assignments. There are seldom standards of achievement pro-
vided and each file is usually assessed without reference to others.
This situation is one which has complicated the process of achieving, measur-
ing and institutionalizing excellence in university instruction as a means of career
development, especially in the critical decisions of promotion and tenure. Moreover,
the problem has been exacerbated by the rapid globalization of the profession. In
times when most faculty members arose from similar intellectual and cultural com-
munities to their students and colleagues, judgments could be made largely without
clear standards in place. The modern university, however, operates with global
reach and in a world where such fundamental decisions concerning a professor’s
effectiveness and productivity in the classroom require clear guidelines and expec-
tations. Moreover, just as the assessment of research operates within a very broad
context of scholarship, so excellence in teaching must do the same both to ensure
that students are taught at an appropriate level and that mobility among universities
can be facilitated.
There is need, then, for a broad set of expectations in the academy for what we
call excellence and competence in teaching. These guidelines must be sufficiently
flexible as to allow for the diversity of cultural and disciplinary environments and the
variety of institutions that call themselves universities; but they must be sufficiently
rigorous in both expectation and process to ensure some degree of comparability
among faculty across the academy.
This paper will discuss how my experience in faculty development in three in-
stitutions—in Canada, China, and Oman—reflects both the need for such metrics
and the difficulties in establishing procedures in very different contexts. It will also
through the example of an exceptional case study witness for the need of cooperation
by the teaching faculty in the development and application of such tools. From this
I hope a debate might be generated about how to establish international guidelines
for teaching excellence which can be seen as parallel in rigour to the assessment of
research to guide decisions concerning appointment, promotion and tenure in the
modern, internationalized university.
The promotion and recognition of faculty on the basis of excellence in teaching
reflects the problem inherent in recognizing and celebrating teaching in a research
intensive university.1 This issue has become a central concern in research intensive
universities where the culture over the past half century has been defined by research
and the ability to secure grants and attract very highly skilled post graduate and post
doctoral students. Indeed, the question has become a divisive one at certain levels,
as senior academic administrators and department chairs argue that the defined
criteria for promotion and tenure make it difficult if not impossible to use teaching
excellence as the platform for the dossier: most schools specify an international
reputation as a criterion for senior ranks and teaching is by definition local, they
argue; moreover, a stronger emphasis on teaching sends mixed signals to junior
faculty or those at middle rank that they can compromise research productivity in
favour of teaching—particularly undergraduate teaching—resulting in fewer major
grants, a lower citation index profile and hence a decline in the division’s interna-
tional reputation, the first misstep on the slippery slope to mediocrity. Such research
obsessive colleagues argue that those who wish to devote excessive energy to the
classroom should teach in liberal arts undergraduate colleges, not research schools.
This debate is being conducted in a changing academic environment, which is
forcing our less reconstructed colleagues to reconsider such a rigid position. First,
the “consumer” mentality among undergraduates and their parents is driving greater
emphasis on a positive student experience, and that is often best delivered through
excellent teaching in the classroom. Second, the demands of accountability from
government in publicly funded universities invariably list categories such as “content
or curriculum delivery” or teaching effectiveness or student satisfaction as elements
in their metrics of quality: universities, then, are driven to address teaching perfor-
mance in way previously left to research. Third, there is a shift among engaged junior
faculty towards a desire to excel both in the classroom and in research. In part this is
a function of the highly developed egos of the academy but it is more a reflection of
the different kinds of experience graduate students enjoyed, in comparison with their
older colleagues. Many now serve as teaching assistants, and many post doctoral
appointments carry the requirement to teach at least one course. Hence, knowledge
of the classroom has infected their vision of the profession, and teaching is seen as
an integral part of their lives. Also, they see less of a divergence between teaching
and research, viewing them both as functions of their intellectual passions. Finally,
there has been a recognized and in some instances dramatic shift in culture at the top:
more university presidents and provosts and, consequently, deans and chairs, have
actively and sincerely embraced excellence in teaching as a reflection of the health,
vitality and reputation of their schools. This cultural change is driven naturally by
some of the concerns noted above; but there is also a growing recognition of how
the former ivory tower now integrates into the community, and one manifestation
of this is what happens in the undergraduate classroom and how scholar/teachers
can inform and assist the communities in which they live.
To a great degree, the impetus and desire for change in the recognition of teach-
ing excellence have outpaced the mechanisms developed to measure or reward such
engagement. This is an observation based on my experience as the founding Direc-
tor of the Office of Teaching Advancement (OTA) at the University of Toronto.2
In 2002 the provost of my University requested that I begin an office to further
the development of our colleagues as instructors at all levels (including graduate
supervision) and to assist in the formulation of central and divisional policy that
would create both a mechanism and an environment for improvement in teaching
across our very large and complex university. To accomplish this it was necessary
to collect information and evidence from other institutions to determine how best
to proceed. We assigned an intern3 to survey on line or by written communication
major research intensive universities in Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand,
South Africa and the U.K. to determine whether and if so how excellence in teach-
ing was a consideration for promotion and tenure, if appropriate. The conclusions
were interesting, if somewhat expected. In the first instance, the university systems
in Australia, the UK, and New Zealand enjoy established and clearly defined na-
tional criteria for promotion. All require some assessment of teaching quality and
factor this into the evidence for the promotion dossier. With national standards, it
is somewhat easier to identify what is required and the nature of the evidence to be
determined. Other jurisdictions, such as the USA, have a variety of models, most
of which identify teaching as a significant consideration, but few provide clear
instructions as to what is to be collected and by whom. Finally, Canada, as in most
things, falls between the two, with generally clearer guidelines but a great variation
in both evidence required and the means of assessment.
There were other differences both in stated policy and practice. Most research
universities now require teaching dossiers from faculty either annually or when un-
der consideration for tenure and promotion; but there is little in common regarding
their contents. Some require only historical documentation of courses taught, tests,
exams and bibliographies, occasionally together with course evaluations, if they are
done at that school (not all universities employ student course evaluations); others
are very precise and demand course objectives, outcomes and other elements which
indicate the desire for reflective insight on the part of the instructor. Some schools
grant full recognition in both categories of teaching and research for any refereed
publication in the teaching of the discipline; others give only teaching recognition;
some appear to offer neither. Some universities recommend peer assessment of
teaching but with little indication of how this should occur; however, few address
the issues of academic freedom implicit in having colleagues in the classroom, a
particularly fraught ethical issue in North America, with the recurrent fears of Mc-
Carthy era political blacklists or the interventions of race and gender committees.
Equally, tenure is a complicating factor. In the UK and other areas, tenure has
either been abolished or is being phased out or replaced by other means of ensuring
continuity of employment, appropriate disciplinary representation and academic
freedom. In those schools, however, where tenure is the single most important mo-
ment in an academic’s life and drives almost all career decisions of junior faculty,
consideration of teaching excellence is so completely bound with the general criteria
of assessment for tenure that it is difficult to separate these out in a legitimate man-
ner. Although the two files of teaching and research are usually assessed separately
and according to diverse evidence, the reality is that a holistic decision is usually
made and the evidence carefully mined and conflated to support the ultimate deci-
sion of the tenure committee.
There is also the disjunction between those faculty working under collective
agreements and those who are members of voluntary associations. Where salary
increases consist of a blend of across the board settlements and discretionary merit
awards based upon performance, it is important that mechanisms exist to recognize
excellence in teaching in a manner parallel with research. At the University of To-
ronto, we have used this system quite effectively as an instrument to encourage chairs
and deans to celebrate their most skilled teachers and ensure that their professional
profiles—and salaries—compare with eminent researchers. This element of recog-
nition through salaries is central at many universities, and it has served them well,
given that it permits a moment of discussion between a chair and faculty member
on the issue of teaching. Furthermore, institutional reward systems can be expanded
to reflect the growing recognition of teaching as a central function: for example, at
my school the President’s Teaching Award was established in 2006, which carries
privileges parallel to our most distinguished rank for research (University Professor),
in addition to automatic induction into the newly constituted Academy of Teaching.
So, can excellence in teaching be seen as a secure and fair route even to the most
senior ranks of the faculty, such as full professorships? If so, what are the criteria and
how can they be shown to be equal to the rigour of promotion through excellence
in research? How, then, can international standards apply to parallel the standards
required in research? What is the role of peer review and of research in teaching?
What is an appropriate mix between research and teaching excellence in promotion
or tenure? How can the culture of the discipline or the department be factored into
these decisions? And, finally, how can fairness be ensured, based on some measure
of objective assessment in what is often a subjective exercise?
These considerations militate for the establishment of fair, flexible and transpar-
ent instruments to assess teaching ability and commitment while still rewarding and
encouraging the highest quality of research. This is the challenge we face, and the
results will have a significant and permanent impact on the character of the institution
and the lives of our colleagues and students. It is essential, therefore, that an active,
international, and cross cultural debate take place to engage in these issues. As both
students and faculty move among institutions and across continents, these methods,
moreover, must balance the individual institutional practices and traditions with wider
concerns of international standards and appropriate rigour. And, as higher education
is often the creature of broader national policy (what is often unfortunately called
highly trained manpower considerations) these issues will also have to confront the
demands of governments, funding agencies and extra-institutional lobbying. Add to
this the naturally conservative character of university administrations and policies
and the task becomes ever more daunting. Nevertheless, it is a challenge that must
be met and a goal that must be pursued.

To exemplify some of the observations above, let me consider my experience at

the University of Toronto in more detail, as there I was charged with the mission of
addressing these kinds of policy issues for over seven years, and then compare my
work there with my experience as a consulting colleague at the Capital University of
Economics and Business (CUEB) in Beijing, China, and the University of Dhofar in
Salalah in the Sultanate of Oman. All of these assignments were dramatically differ-
ent, although all revealed the problems and pressures that arose as a consequence of
the considerations above, and reflected variations in academic culture and society.
The situation of the University of Toronto was in many ways instructive. Although
a very old, very large research intensive university, with a tradition of supporting
many excellent programs at both the undergraduate and graduate level, there was no
central teaching support office until my appointment in 2002. With the creation of
OTA, a number of interrelated initiatives developed, some of which were reflected
in changes in policy to institutionalize the enhanced commitment to our students
through instruction. The first element to be put in place was the creation of a central
policy on the assessment of teaching for promotion and tenure; and every division
then had to have a clear formulation of a divisional policy guided by the central
statement that incorporated the specific circumstances particular to that division.
For example, those areas where clinical teaching was central had to include material
on how clinicians were to be assessed; departments with an emphasis on creative
or imaginative work had to determine how that would obtain; professional facul-
ties that had to be reviewed by licensing agencies had to indicate how that function
would be judged; and programs with internships, service teaching or community
involvement were requested to define how such teaching would be assessed. And,
there were a great many more.
The definition of policy and the requirement that local divisions revisit or create
guidelines for the assessment of teaching were in themselves dynamic changes, as
the assessment of teaching became a topic of debate and discussion in which the
very important question of who would be promoted and tenured figured largely: and
nothing captures faculty interest than self-interest, as every member of that depart-
ment or division would either be judged according to those rules or be asked to serve
on the promotion committees at some time. Nevertheless, although discussion was
generated, major changes were less visible. After submitting the policy guidelines,
I was instructed to remove any required consideration of teaching ability for candi-
dates for first appointments: individual departments or divisions might employ such
vehicles, but they could not be required to do so. Furthermore, these policies tended
to be ignored or very broadly interpreted in the promotion of colleagues to senior
ranks. Here the culture of research excellence, the requirement for an international
reputation and the divisional traditions governing who should rise to full professor
all diluted the message. Although the Memorandum of Agreement with the Uni-
versity Faculty Association which allowed for promotion to full professor based on
excellence in teaching was known and binding, it was seldom used, because chairs
and deans felt they could not judge what constituted excellence in teaching at a level
parallel to that of research. Therefore, even with the best of intentions, despite clear
guidance from the central administration and an institutional structure to permit
promotion based on teaching excellence, in practice its application foundered on
the lack of clear definitions.
My experience in China resulted from a consulting arrangement with the Capi-
tal University of Economics and Business, a large and distinguished university in
Beijing with a mandate to train Chinese business managers and leaders. During
my two trips to Beijing and a visit from a large delegation from CUEB to Toronto
to observe how our office operated, I learned a great deal about the commitment
to teaching excellence on the part of that one Chinese university. First, the drive
to create the office came from the office of the president. He had traveled widely
in academic circles (including to Toronto) where he came to realize that there was
need to improve how his students were taught. He knew his graduates would be
competing in a globalized business environment and the traditions of rote learning
and content driven instruction alone would be a detriment to their success. As a result
of a workshop I gave to Chinese University presidents, President Wen of CUEB
asked if the OTA model of a central coordinating office with volunteer cells in the
divisions to galvanize discussion and develop policy regarding teaching might work
in an institution such as his. Our model had the advantage of being low cost and put
committed and knowledgeable colleagues into the departments and divisions where
the real decisions about teaching assessment were being made.
Within a year of the delegation’s visit to Toronto, CUEB had established its own
OTA, modeled on ours. It was given a dynamic and visionary director and a team of
engaged and enthusiastic professionals who worked with volunteers to change the
culture of the school. In meetings with senior academic leaders (chairs, deans and
vice presidents) it was made clear to me that this was a central initiative, blessed
(and partly funded) by the ministry of higher education and a particular interest of
the university’s president. As a result it succeeded immediately and grew quickly
both in size and professional reach. Once it was indicated that faculty development
was a central policy, approved by all levels of the administration and government
and that the reasons for this emphasis on teaching had specific objectives, it was
adopted with vigour and embraced with enthusiasm. The hierarchical structure of
the university and the government made this office a success almost from the begin-
ning. The issue of assessing teaching excellence was, however, not so central to the
Chinese model, as a great many elements went into decisions of appointment and
promotion; so, here, the comparison weakens. Still, what was determined is that
excellence in teaching was needed in a globalized academic and business world and
it would only be a matter of time before metrics would have to be applied to ensure
that excellent practitioners could be appropriately recognized and rewarded. Thus,
I expect that CUEB would be a willing collaborator in an international attempt to
define standards of excellence in teaching for promotion to senior ranks.
The situation in Oman was very different indeed. I was invited by the President
of Dhofar University in Salalah to work with the very recently established Faculty
Development Office at the university, a relatively new foundation, located in the
southern and somewhat more remote part of the country. The problems at the Uni-
versity were significant, in part because of the kinds of faculty appointments made,
the decision to teach a significant number of the classes in English and the local
culture of the students.
The faculty at Dhofar was an unusual mix of instructors from a great many
countries: In our week of workshops, classroom visits and meetings, I encountered
many professors from the Indian subcontinent, Americans, Britons and even one
Canadian; there were also instructors from other Arabic speaking nations, such as
Palestine or Lebanon, and one native Omani. They were recruited through international
advertisements to sign limited term contracts to teach in one of the departments of
the university. Knowledge of English was required. The result was a faculty with
little coherence, with some members admitting freely that they were unable to get
employment closer to home and self identified as marginal scholars and teachers;
others saw the appointment as an opportunity for adventure and a contribution to
international education; others simply as a better job than any available in their
home country. As a consequence, the attempt to build a committed consensus on
the need to offer high quality instruction was never achieved. Some of the instruc-
tors were extremely engaged, participating actively and with excitement, sincerely
wanting to improve their teaching and help in the educational development of the
region. This was particularly true of the faculty in the sciences and engineering who
could identify an instrumental application of their subjects; many of the Indian and
Pakistani instructors similarly were open to new models of teaching and assessment,
and delighted in the opportunity to discuss pedagogy and the role it played in their
careers. What emerged from my observation is that departments of the university
that were most involved in research or practica in the community were the most
open to faculty development, while those which did no research were reluctant even
hostile to discuss teaching.
This was especially true of the language instructors. Fluency in English was a
requirement and a relatively large cohort of instructors was employed. The culture
of this group (with a very few exceptions) was one of bitterness and hostility to the
university’s attempts to improve instruction. Many of the teachers took their jobs
out of desperation: the chair of the department confessed that no one else would
hire her; she actively and constantly undermined the teaching office by calling
department meetings at the same time as faculty development opportunities; she
complained that the university was wasting her staff’s time because the students
were too unprepared and undisciplined to benefit from improved teaching. The
department—perhaps the most international with British, American, and Indian
subcontinental faculty—altogether expressed an alienation from both the adminis-
tration and their students. The roots of this bitterness came from two sources: first
their holding limited term contracts, which made them feel temporary and exploited
(despite competitive salaries and no taxation) and the official policy of Omanization
which would permit any qualified Omani to take their positions at almost any time;
second, there was a clearly rehearsed and shared complaint about the quality of their
students, with repeated narratives of poor preparation, lack of discipline—assign-
ments not submitted or completed, multiple absences from class, failure to come
to class prepared—and a perceived absence of academic integrity, with collusion
and cheating rampant.
The first issue was difficult to address because it stemmed from the fiscal situation
and official policy governing the University. The President wished he could give
the best instructors continuing contracts of some kind but it was not the wish or the
tradition at the school; and the policy of Omanization made any such promise moot
regardless. He saw the exile culture of the expatriate community and noted that it
was worst among the westerners, as they did not have the tools to integrate into the
local community and were driven into each others’ company and complaints. He
also recognized that the limited contracts and Omanization resulted in very weak
applicants for positions in the language departments, except for Arabic. We both
agreed that this was an unfortunate situation and one not easily remedied; but the
bitterness and open hostility to any attempts to improve instruction by the language
teaching staff was corrosive to the institution.
The perception of the cultural practices that made any improvement in instruc-
tion difficult if not pointless was voiced most emphatically by the alienated English
faculty but also identified by other professors from across the institution. The argu-
ment was that if too many or more difficult assignments were given the students
simply would not comply: there was a perceived culture of relaxed indifference to
work which was not unique to the University. Also, the tribal traditions made it a
cultural norm to help relatives if asked, and that extended to doing assignments and
giving answers during exams. Because the extended family was embarrassed if any
one of its members received a low grade or chastisement of any kind when poor
work was submitted, students would often not sign their assignments or refuse to
submit work they knew to be weak. Finally, many of the women students (men and
women were educated together and women were required to remove their veils on
campus) were married with children and occasionally in polygamous unions. This
meant that issues of child and family care and the whims of their husbands or fathers
kept them from working at home at all or even attending class regularly. For all of
these complex social reasons, there was a strong lobby against the assessment of
teaching in any form because, it was argued, there was no benefit in teaching well
and because the instructors would certainly be penalized for the failures of their
students. These circumstances and the attitudes they engendered made my work
with the western language instructors fraught and dispiriting: I was perceived as an
enemy (actually called a spy), identified with an administration trying to turn the
University into something they believed it could never become.
The reality, however, I thought quite different. The classes and instructors in the
Engineering and science departments were completely at odds with what I had been
told by the western language faculty. There, the students were attentive, engaged,
and motivated. These classes were mostly men; and the degree of engagement would
not have been out of place on a North American campus. A major difference was
that most of the instructors were natives of the Middle East and fluent in Arabic.
English, then, was not their only means of communication. Also, the science de-
partments and Engineering were seen as routes to prestigious positions, so there
was perhaps a self-selecting element among the students. Finally, the faculty was
much better integrated into Omani culture and did not feel alienated and exploited.
In other words, the students could be galvanized, if their instructors were able to
engage them.
The experience I brought from Oman consequently contrasted markedly with
what I saw in Beijing, and was another world from OTA in Toronto. The similarities
between CUEB and Salalah were obvious: both universities created faculty develop-
ment offices centrally, inspired by an activist and visionary president who saw that
improved teaching was necessary if the standards of the institution and its graduates
were to improve. Both offices had university wide missions and both had elements
of cultural baggage to sort through. But, there the resemblance ends. CUEB had a
well integrated body of teacher/scholars who were of the same culture and linguistic
group as their students and who shared completely the President’s ambitions for the
school and its graduates. In Dhofar many of the faculty were bitter and opposed to
any attempt to improve instruction, as they believed it a criticism of their abilities
and curriculum (which was woefully inadequate) and not their fault. They saw the
problem as their students and resented the university interfering in what and how
they taught, as I was told—often rudely—by the English Department. There were
some members of the English faculty who, I felt, did not share this resentment, but
they were silenced by the culture of complaint and the extreme alienation of the
chair. I sadly concluded that there was nothing that could be done in the short term
to address this, without a wholesale replacement of the staff. Assessment of teaching
quality would have to wait until fundamental changes in appointment procedures
were affected.
Nevertheless, at our workshops in Dhofar, it was gratifying and exciting to see
so many members of the faculty begin to talk about teaching and new means of
instruction (the disaffected refused to attend any of the sessions). These colleagues
were fully engaged and saw a light that illuminated their work and offered sugges-
tions for reconnecting with their students and the curriculum. This group was the
most cosmopolitan, with representatives from the Middle East, the subcontinent
and even some Europeans and North Americans. They indicated that change was
possible and that improvement was something they wished to pursue. In their minds,
the institution of a faculty development office was a splendid opportunity to rekindle
that love of teaching many had witnessed for at the start of our sessions; among
them there was hope.

How then do these examples from Canada, China, and Oman reflect on my argu-
ment that we need clear international standards for the assessment of teaching for
promotion, tenure and merit pay? The answer resides in the observation that CUEB
saw a model of excellence at the University of Toronto and wanted to emulate it
and adapt it to the Chinese environment so that both teachers and students could
benefit. My strong impression is that any attempt to define guidelines for excel-
lence in teaching would be enthusiastically embraced by both the university and the
faculty I met; just to witness the remarkable group of volunteers in the CUEB OTA
was exhilarating and gave me great hope for the future and an indication of certain
success. In Salalah, Oman, however, the situation was more challenging. Despite
the administration’s commitment and assigning of resources to faculty development
to encourage excellence in instruction, the divisions among the faculty and the cul-
ture of complaint on the part of an influential minority made any kind of initiative
difficult if not impossible. But, here, too, the identification of clear expectations of
excellence in teaching and making the assessment of teaching a condition of both
appointment, renewal and promotion could go a long way in remedying the problems
in the faculty. If a set of standards were published and enforced it is possible that
some of the corrosive, conspiratorial opposition might be confronted and neutralized.
What clearly emerges is that any set of international standards for excellence in
teaching must take local conditions into account and that promotion committees
and divisional leaders must refine any set of general guidelines to suit the unique
environment of each university. But, if those standards and widely known and ac-
cepted and if the principle of excellence in teaching is accepted as a condition of
tenure and promotion to the point that it can function as the platform for promotion,
then a great service to higher education will have been done, and our colleagues will
feel vindicated in putting substantial effort into improving their teaching, as well as
pursuing their research. If clearly formulated, flexible international standards for
teaching competence and excellence could be defined and broadly accepted, then a
change in institutional culture could succeed, much to the benefit of all those who
recognize and celebrate the mission of universities to transmit and extend knowledge.

1
What follows in the next paragraphs contains material from an address I de-
livered at the Multinational Forum on Higher Education at the University of
Nottingham in 2006.
2
After my seven-year tenure of office, OTA was merged in 2009 with the
University’s Resource Centre for Academic Technology to form the Centre
Teaching Support and Innovation.
3
I and my colleagues are greatly indebted to that intern, Andrew Wade, a gradu-
ate student at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and his final report
for the information cited below.
 Gray Kochhar-Lindgren
University of Washington Bothell, USA

This chapter examines the emergence of the global artistic-entrepreneurial university,

the increasing importance of interdisciplinary and innovative pedagogies, and how
these new emphases are shaping institutional change. The first section analyzes the
global university as an “assemblage,” a process that gathers ideas, materialities,
digitized platforms, and human beings into a new form of higher education. Because
of the impacts on higher education of the flows of capital, technology, people, and
cultural practices in both the “East” and the “West,” this form of the university
transcends regional and national boundaries as it builds networks of learning around
the world. The second section of the chapter focuses on the increasing importance
of interdisciplinarity and developing active and integrative pedagogies organized
around fundamental skills and questions. In order to ground the discussion in
particular sites, the authors use examples from the University of Hong Kong’s new
Core Curriculum and from the University of Washington Bothell’s Discovery Core
for first-year students. In the final section, the chapter addresses what the next
steps might look like as institutions change themselves to fit a globalized context.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch022

Copyright ©2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
This section returns to the idea of the global university as a “hub of an ecology of
studio-labs” (Parks, 2005, p. 57) and suggest that the “managerial” university is
transitioning into a more flexible model of the “artistic-entrepreneurial” university
in order to prosper in an extremely competitive and generative global environment.

It’s recombinations; it’s random acts of assembling. It’s LEGOs and tinker-toys.
Metaphors; academic trainings and disciplines; different floorings in the chemistry
and the philosophy building, the architecture of computers, buildings, or of reason.
The logic of the dream.

~Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus

The contemporary university is an academetron, a complex flesh-machine shaped

by the planetary accelerator of modernity that tears apart the fabric of the traditional
university even as it reconfigures it into new forms of teaching, learning, scholar-
ship, and capitalist productivity. While continuing to maintain extremely important
ties with the nation-state, the university is nonetheless now being transformed by
globalization into a network of extra-national institutions, each of which is a “hub of
an ecology of studio-labs” (Parks, 2005, p. 57). It is this ecology that I will correlate
with the “assemblage,” a term, borrowed from Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guatarri,
by which I hope to highlight the complex combination of imagination, design ca-
pabilities, materialities, human beings, and meanings that are knotted together to
form the emerging university, as if it were a collaboratively constructed work of art.
We are all familiar with the proliferating signs of globalization. The University of
Hong Kong, for example, offers a joint business degree with the University College
of London and Columbia University. New York University and the Sorbonne, among
others, are headed for Abu Dhabi. New liberal arts curricula are being developed at
Sun Yat-Sen University and United International College in, respectively, Guang-
zhou and Zhuhai, China. Private colleges and online universities are popping up on
every street corner of the physical and digital world, while everyone everywhere is
hungry for students from other countries who can bring with them extra cash and
additional cultural diversity to the institution.
One condensed example of all of this is the cover of a Yale Alumni Magazine
that presents the “Singapore Spinoff: Yale’s Plan to Bet its Brand on a New College
in Asia” (2010, Nov/Dec). Yale will be partnering with the National University of
Singapore to offer degrees that will read “Yale-NUS College” on the diploma. The
hope is to bring liberal arts education to a very pragmatic social context, to give Yale
a clear presence in Asia, and to reinforce Singapore’s function as an educational hub
for internationalization. What is most revealing, though, is the cover image, which
depicts the skyline of Singapore against an evening sky on the top half of the page
and a blurred sketch of the Yale skyline in New Haven against the backdrop of a
blue and white diurnal sky on the bottom half. The two cities reflect each other,
but not symmetrically. One half is not the mirror-image of the other. The business
skyline of Singapore blends into the tower of Sterling Library, while, on the inside
of the magazine, the image is flipped. Both the asymmetrical reflectivity and the
inversion of images are indicative social indices as universities develop themselves
in conjunction with multiple partners across academia, industry, associations of
interests, and government bodies.
The material and ideological medium that enables, indeed demands, that such
differential reflections between the so-called East and the so-called West occur is
the “globalization” of economics, media, art, politics, labor, and education. This
turbulence is changing academic disciplines, graduate and undergraduate education,
methods of pedagogy, the goals of higher education, and the identity of institutions.
Technoscience, electronically driven capital, and cultural dynamics are all acceler-
ating and these changes impact everything we do in the classroom, in the archive
once known as the library, and in the studio-labs in which we work.
The university, as an assemblage of networks, is no longer a merely provincial,
urban, or even a national institution. Instead, it has become global, regardless of
where its primary node, its “main campus,” exists. This has been coming for a long
time, but now the tele- in all of its forms is ever more embedded in everyday experi-
ence. An assemblage is a modular plug-in construction made of different materials,
temporalities, spatialities, and ideas. Think of the museums of Frank Gehry or Daniel
Libeskind; the computer networks linking stock exchanges; the conjunction of art
studios and science labs into collaboratories; or the ways that e-readers are changing
the experience of reading. (How are your campus bookstores faring these days?) The
language of the assemblage moves us away from the old dichotomies of the body
and the mind, matter and spirit, fact and meaning, the university and its others and
toward the composition of a different university for different conditions of history.
An assemblage is “a multiplicity which is made up of heterogeneous terms and
which establishes liaisons, relations between them, across ages, sexes and reigns—
different natures. Thus the assemblage’s only unity is that of a co-functioning…”
(Deleuze & Parnet, 2002, p. 69). All the various units of the university “co-function”
together, but not without different parts operating according to different specs, against
different grains, and with different tolerances in the materials. The assemblage
simultaneously gathers and disperses individual and collective bodies with their
multiple discursivities constantly at work. As an always dynamic work-in-progress,
it is without any central agency that can totalize things and without central bureaus
of surveillance and accountability (although these tendencies certainly exist within
different parts of the system that are attempting to exert command-and-control).
The cluster of concepts, then, that govern the idea of the university is undergoing
a series of cultural shifts that, as Jean-François Lyotard argued three decades ago
in The Postmodern Condition, are no longer legitimated by the narratives of human
emancipation or by the self-development inherent in the idea of Bildung—although
we can still see traces of these everywhere—but by the demand for efficiency, of
performativity as measurable productivity, and by competition for human, financial,
and natural resources. The German Geist, in the form of either an individual Bildung
or of the education of the nation-state that the University of Berlin organized itself
around in 1810, has by the early 21st century blurred into a new form of network
(though this still exhibits an aspect of the uncanny that the contemporary techno-
scientific Geist brings along with it).
Instead of a small group of philosophers of the caliber of Schleiermacher, Fichte,
and Humboldt debating the meaning of the emerging university, however, we now
have corporate leaders and politicians playing major roles in its construction. Digitized
capital is merely one of the characteristics, producing a profound confusion about the
relationship between the liberal arts—with their emphasis on analytic, synthetic, and
creative thinking across domains—and the wish for a technologically well-trained
workforce. It is not, of course, that the two are mutually incompatible, but, rather,
that the relationship between the two is usually not sufficiently well articulated.

Just as the putative unity of the idea of the university is becoming reconfigured, so,
too, is the unity of the disciplines that have long been organized around the catego-
ries of the natural sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities. Although there
has long been a great deal of affirmative rhetoric around teaching across, between,
and to the side of traditional academic disciplines, there has also been a great deal
of hypocrisy and confusion about what such teaching might entail and how best to
include inter- and trans-disciplinarity in both the undergraduate and graduate cur-
riculum. The same can be said, if perhaps to a slightly less degree, about innovative
pedagogies as those that move away from the “sage on the stage”—the localization
of knowledge and authority in the place of the professor reciting or reading at the
lectern—toward different models of the plurality of knowledges that slide around,
within, and beyond, the classroom.

Hong Kong is a particularly fascinating site to watch the global university gain mo-
mentum, since all of the city’s public universities are shifting from three to four-year
undergraduate degrees in the fall of 2012. Until recently, university education in the
city primarily reflected a colonial British heritage combined with the priorities of
a Confucian Heritage Culture and the finance-centered practices of postindustrial
capitalism. Universities favored early specialization for students within a discipline
and invoked very few formalized conversations across disciplines. The 2012 shift,
however, along with reorganizations of disciplinary structures already occurring,
will provide a framework for specialized training to be complemented by more
integrative pedagogies and interdisciplinary knowledge content.
The decision by the Hong Kong government to change the entire system at once
is both a far-sighted and a pragmatic educational experiment, located as it is on a
critical and extremely complex series of boundaries between China and the West.
This decision to shift toward a new degree structure (which also includes a radi-
cal revision of the local secondary school curriculum to include Liberal Studies)
has been driven both by a desire to improve the well-being of the city’s citizens as
well as by multinational firms’ insistence that their employees need a new vision
of education that develops self-directed learning, hands-on research, multimedia
communication skills, and adaptive problem-solving.
The economic dynamism of Hong Kong is accelerating, and, as the Global Fi-
nancial Center Index (GFCI, 2011) notes, “there remains no significant difference
between London, New York and Hong Kong in the GFCI 9 ratings; respondents
continue to believe that these centres work together for mutual benefit. . . ”. The
multinational employers that drive this activity have a clear sense about the types
of graduates they prefer to hire (and this is also true, of course, globally). The new
curriculum, however, also emphasizes, with different foci at the different campuses
in the city, the historical and cultural links to mainland China and the development of
an ethic that can sufficiently address biopolitics, the devastation of natural resources,
the development of alternative habitats, and the ways in which an individual-within-
society develops a sense of meaning over the trajectory of a lifetime. These are
essential tasks, ones that cannot be adequately addressed by any single academic
discipline or, indeed, by any single sphere of learning such as “the sciences” or the
“humanities.” The very scale of the problems, at both the nano- and macro- levels,
requires that many disciplines work together and develop practices of collaboration
that require extensive and continuous training. This will, in and of itself, transform
the disciplines into a different form of organization than we have seen in the past.
In an article in Foreign Affairs (2010, May/June), Yale president Richard Levin
has noted that mainland Chinese leaders recognize that their universities lack
“multidisciplinary breadth and the cultivation of critical thinking” (Levin, 2010, p.
70), which is very often the sentiment of Hong Kong educational leaders as well.
These capacities take a long time to be nurtured; require a political background of
the freedom of research, thought, and speech and will necessitate interdisciplinary
curricular formations to work in a complementary fashion with the development of
expert knowledge within a major. These are not, of course, opposing enterprises,
for interdisciplinarity is always intellectually demanding and requires its own preci-
sion, while the major will always open out onto other fields and spaces of learning
outside of the campus walls.
At the University of Hong Kong, the institution in the city with which I am most
familiar, the primary learning goals of the new Core Curriculum Courses are to:
a) enable students to develop a broader perspective and a critical understanding of
the complexities and the interconnectedness of the issues that they are confronted
with in their everyday lives; b) cultivate students’ appreciation of their own culture
and other cultures, and the inter-relatedness among cultures; c) enable students to
see themselves as members of global as well as local communities and to play an
active role as responsible individuals and citizens in these communities; and d) en-
able students to develop the key intellectual skills that will be further enhanced in
their disciplinary studies. In order to accomplish these learning goals, and to devise
new courses, often team-taught, that might adequately address the different “areas
of inquiry,” the university has instituted a rigorous process of peer-reviewed course
creation and evaluation.
Interdisciplinarity, then, is occurring at a number of different scales and in a
number of different modalities of the plug-in university. At the University of Hong
Kong, such points of contact between the disciplines have become a requirement of
the new Core Curriculum Courses; exist as joint degrees between HKU and other
European, North American, and Asian universities; and are welling up from within
traditional disciplines such as English, Comparative Literature, Informatics, the Arts,
and Biology. Universities also continue to create centers or institutes that connect
work across disciplines, but these usually do not retain any of their own core fac-
ulty and often do not have sufficient, if any, core financial support. (These centers
will, in the U.S. at least, be under intense scrutiny as the forthcoming budgets are
developed in an atmosphere of severe contraction.)
There are also, however, universities that are embedding interdisciplinarity from the
ground up. As I have mentioned, all the universities in Hong Kong are developing
some form of General Education program that at least gestures in the direction of
interdisciplinarity. At the University of Washington, Bothell, which, along with the
central campus in Seattle and a sister campus in Tacoma comprises the University
of Washington system, has organized itself around interdisciplinarity from its in-
ception twenty years ago. Initially, this was simply the necessary logistics of a new
campus with only twelve founding faculty. At this stage, however, this campus is in
the midst of refining and expanding the meaning of interdisciplinarity as it intersects
with the world of 21st century work.
In 2006 we began for the first time accepting first year students—up to that
point we had been solely a transfer institution—and, to meet this need, designed
the Discovery Core, a curriculum focused on a year-long sequence of interdisci-
plinary courses that begins with a team-taught course, passes through a course that
focuses on undergraduate research, and concludes with the construction of a student
e-portfolio that reflects on the first year and looks ahead to the student’s next steps,
both educationally and vocationally. These courses are complemented by the usual
electives and pre-requisite sequences that prepare students for majors, but, by that
time, they will already have developed a modest expertise in thinking across methods
and fields of knowledge, toward complex issues, questions, and problems, as well
as across campus and non-campus based learning sites.
Our curricular decision, then, was to intertwine, from the very onset of their
university education, (inter)disciplines for all of our students. The School of In-
terdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, for example, has no departments, but rather
“curricular area working groups” and students move through an “Introduction to
Interdisciplinary Studies”—through various pathways that combine arts, humani-
ties, and social and natural sciences—toward a culminating e-portfolio. But even
though our small campus highlights interdisciplinary work, the different academic
units on campus think and act on this concept in very different ways and there is
always a relationship of hybridity between the (inter)disciplines.
There are, then, many different motivations for the creation of interdisciplinary
studies programs, including the desire of administrators to consolidate programs in
order to save money, the erosion of traditional disciplinary boundaries from both
within and without, and the need for new types of training—for collaboration, forg-
ing connections across knowledge domains to address problems close-at-hand and
far away, and for new ways of imagining individual and collective subjectivities—in
order to both serve and critique globalized technocapitalism. In addition to these
reasons, however, I also want to continue to reserve a space for an interdisciplinar-
ity that preserves a space for that voice which, while deeply respecting expertise,
also makes a claim for the modesty of the university as a human enterprise built to
face the unknown, not simply as a resource that will one day be known and thereby
used to fulfill human desire, but as a means of respecting the fundamental enigma
of the world in its own right. These are oases for thought that the emerging global
university will have to decide how, or whether, to accommodate.

As we move toward a globalized university organized around new forms of distrib-

uted knowledge, new pedagogical practices will need to accompany new structures
and goals for learning. This gives us all an enormous opportunity to invent projects,
presentations, inquiries, and other provisional forms of knowledge. It may be that,
as William M. Sullivan and Matthew S. Rosin have argued, that we are making a
turn toward “practical reason” that is:

Neither deduction from general principles nor induction from particulars to a uni-
versal concept. Instead, it requires moving back and forth between specific events
and the general ideas and common traditions that might illuminate them, in order to
interpret and engage the particular situation more fruitfully. . . . It promises to stir
and support the development of practical wisdom among students of all fields who
prepare for a wide variety of careers and callings (Sullivan & Rosin, 2008, p. xvii).

Although this claim embeds within itself an extremely complex history of

thought, let it suffice for the moment to note that such a pedagogical configuration
moves from theoria to phronesis, rearranges “subjectivity” and “objectivity,” and
reimagines the relationship between a university education and the preparation for
a “wide variety of careers and callings.”
In the specific context of mainland Chinese teacher education, Amy B.M Tsui
and Jocelyn L. N. Wong structure their argument for such an enlivened pedagogy
around the notion of the “third space” of boundary-crossings and transnational,
transcultural, and transdisciplinary flows. Citing Homi Bhabha’s well-known defi-
nition of the third space as a site where “even the same signs can be appropriated,
translated, and re-appropriated anew” (Tsui & Wong, 2009, p. 37)—and this is an
eloquent definition of the classroom as well as of interdisciplinary studies—these
authors note that “Learning (xue) is given centre stage in Confucian thinking. Love
of learning distinguishes the superior man (junzi) from the small man (xiaoren).
The word `learn’ in Chinese consists of two characters, (xue) `learn’ and (xi) `trying
it out’” (Tsui & Wong, 2009, p. 290). This concept of learning as a “trying out”
captures much of the experimentalism, pragmatism, play, rehearsal, and open pro-
visionality of learning in an inter- and trans-disciplinary context. This perspective
conflicts with the stereotypical notion of the “Chinese Learner” as only engaged in
rote learning and memorization, but all of the traditional structures are now being
turned inside-out.
This flexibility and experimentalism, which occurs in all labs and studios, creates
great anxiety for many professors functioning in traditional lecture theatres around
the world who have not been trained in collaborative facilitation and who are not
willing, or able, to give up a system of relations that identifies the symbolic posi-
tion of professor with the authority of knowledge. All of us who teach and research
must, of course, continue to become more expert in multiple areas of knowledge,
but all of us live in the space of globalized digitality, which shifts our tasks away
from being the sole repository of knowledge to knowing how to facilitate inquiry
practices and projects directed toward discovery.
Interdisciplinarity, as John Bruhn has said, is a “philosophy, an art form, an
artifact, and an antidote—it is a synchronicity of questions, of viewpoints, and
methods, focused on problems of common concern” (Bruhn, 2000, p. 65). Teach-
ing in this context always exhibits the de/territorialization of the assemblage and
the concomitant development of an ensemble of practices that is deeply aware of
both historical and the contemporary approaches. As Paul Hanstedt has observed,
many academics are often:

Slow to value integrative education—specific pedagogies that encourage students

to make connections between fields that research indicates help prepare them for
a changing workplace… [and] don’t see the necessity of asking students to think
about why a biology major should care about political science, why a social work
major should pay attention to chemistry, or who in their right mind would want to
study Victorian literature (Hanstedt, 2010, p. 20).

And while it is relatively common to hear faculty and administrators speak of

“caring about” interdisciplinary links, it is still far from common for instructors to
be enacting different “specific pedagogies” to embed such learning in and beyond
the classroom.
Interdisciplinary teaching creates a different kind of community of collabora-
tion in the classroom that entails attending to the affective tone, the formation of
relationships, polyphonous learning activities, the use of multimedia and reflection,
and the movement of the class as it connects with multiple sites of learning. Given
our technological resources, these might include the classroom, the campus, the
city or community in which a school is located, other countries, and both near- and
deep-space. We might engage with new media arts, students in another region,
medical robotics, COBE, and all sorts of sophisticated mapping techniques. And,
most often, these connections will lead not to exams and traditional research papers,
but to student projects facilitated by the expertise of the faculty and her collabora-
tors that actually produce new objects of knowledge that serve, however modestly,
as an intervention in the epistemological space of the university and its environs.
Interdisciplinary teaching, in other words, is another form of an assemblage
that occurs on a different scale than that of the university as a whole, and, as with
that larger process, we must engage with strategic and improvisational planning;
the predictability of the appearance of the unexpected; cross-pollination of ideas,
sounds, images, observations, styles of expression; multiple methodologies; and
a host of materialities, including, but not limited to, the technological. All of this
should actively assist students in making links and connections and toward the flex-
ible careers that they will, for the most part, encounter.

Assembling the global university as a flexible system of interdisciplinary studio-

labs whose primary function is innovation across the social domains has profound,
if often glacially moving (although in an era of climate change this metaphor loses
some of its strength), implications for the future practice of faculty, students, staff,
and administrators. We have already seen the need to develop new capacities for
interdisciplinary thinking and practice, as well as pedagogical tools that are much
more explicitly organized around facilitation and dialogic approaches than around
the one-way transmission of expertise. This will, more specifically, require both
administrators and faculty to learn more about how symbolic domains of law, busi-
ness, art, humanities, cultural studies, and science are constructed; how academic
projects can best cross boundaries into spheres beyond the campus; how best to evoke
and direct the affect always at work in the classroom; how to begin to train gradu-
ate students differently; and how best to evaluate criteria for tenure and promotion.
The fundamental image for the governance of the global university will be
shifting toward a skill set that includes not only management expertise, but a cul-
turally and historically informed diplomacy of higher education, and the capacity
to become epistemologically sophisticated artists of systems. As Sharon Parks ar-
ticulates it, these leaders will have to become accustomed to handling, emotionally
and conceptually, both “affirmation and resistance,” since universities are bundles
of competing agendas that do not all head in one direction. The university, today
more than ever, is a multiversity. The members of the new university must become
acclimated to “working on the edge” (Parks, 2005), for all knowledge-centers are
centripetal as well as centrifugal, and there are only, in a globalized technomediated
world, dynamic surfaces and their reflectively folded edges.
Faculty and senior leadership must, since the university is an assemblage, learn
a certain “interdependence with the mediums” in which they work. And, finally,
Parks recommends that every leader learn the fine arts of “improvisation,” for all
systems constantly sway and swerve. Improvisation, of course, first demands a
rigorous training so that university leaders, like artists, will have absorbed all the
hours of disciplined practice in order, occasionally, to perform the unexpected.
We all have to learn both strategic planning that depends on a variety of forms of
evidence, as well as to always be learning to think ever more lightly on our feet
(Parks, 2005, p. 209-214).
The rhizomatics of assembling the global university, then, will require “a map
and not a tracing…What distinguishes the map from the tracing is that it is entirely
oriented toward an experimentation in contact with the real…the map is open and
connectable in all of its dimensions; it is detachable, reversible, susceptible to
constant modification…” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 12). The artistic-entrepre-
neurial university will require just this “experimentation in contact with the real.”
The experience of higher education will be like a work of art that arises between
administrators, faculty, staff, and students to radically increase the capacity, both
individually and collectively, to engage series of intersecting activities, for these
abilities will “increase one’s capacities to affect and be affected, or to put it differ-
ently, increase one’s capacity to enter into novel assemblages, the assemblage that
the human body forms with a bicycle, a piece of solid ground, and a gravitational
field, for example” (Delanda, 2006, p. 50).
The new globalized networks of the university, then, will be dynamic ensembles
of desire, communities, histories, languages, circuitry, satellite, glass, carbon fiber,
and a willingness to ride along the edge of the unfamiliar to see what occurs, what
we might learn. We do not know, not quite, what structures, needs, and energies
will govern the artistic-entrepreneurial university, but we do know that in this age
of networks the nation-state will not be able to maintain a monopoly on knowledge-
formation; that there will be cultural, technical, capital, and globalized aspects of
all universities; that disciplines will co-evolve into new shapes, many of which are
completely unpredictable; and that each of us has a responsibility to deepen the
intellectual capaciousness and the social significance of those experimental designs
called a “university.”
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. London, UK: Polity.
Branch, M. A. (2010). Singapore spinoff: Yale’s plan to bet its brand on a new col-
lege in Asia. Yale Alumni Magazine, 74(2).
Bruhn, J. (2000). Interdisciplinary research: A philosophy, art form, artifact or anti-
dote? Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 35(1), 58–66. doi:10.1007/
BF02911166
DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social
complexity. London, UK: Continuum.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizo-
phrenia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gilles, D., & Parnet, C. (2002). Dialogues II. New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Hanstedt, P. (2010). Hong Kong’s experiment in integrative teaching and learning.
Liberal Education, 96(4), 18–23.
Levin, R. (2010). Top of the class: The rise of Asia’s universities. Foreign Affairs,
89(3), 63–75.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. In Theory
and History of Literature (Vol. 10). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press. doi:10.2307/1772278
Parks, S. (2005). Leadership can be taught: A bold approach for a complex world.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Sullivan, W. M., & Rosin, M. S. (2008). A new agenda for higher education: Shap-
ing a life of the mind for practice. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Wong, J. L. N. (2009). In search of a third space: Teacher de-
velopment in mainland China. In Chan, C. K. K., & Rao, N. (Eds.), Revisiting the
Chinese Learner: Changing Contexts, Changing Education (pp. 281–311). Hong
Kong, Hong Kong: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3840-1_10
Zyen. (2011). Global financial center index. Retrieved January 7, 2012, from http://
www.zyen.com/GFCI/GFCI%209.pdf
Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (2002). Ethics of inquiry:
Issues in the scholarship of teaching and
learning. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
and Learning.
Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa,
M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Quality assurance in
higher education: Trends in regulation,
translation and transformation. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer.
Academy of Medical Sciences. (2010).
Redressing the balance: The status and valu-
ation of teaching in academic careers in the
biomedical sciences. The Academy of Medi-
cal Sciences. Retrieved June 29, 2012, from
http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/p99puid181.html
ACODE. (2007). ACODE benchmarks. Re-
trieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.
acode.edu.au/benchmarks.php
Adams, D. (1998). Examining the fabric
of academic life: An analysis of three de-
cades of academic research on the percep-
tions of Australian academics about their
roles. Higher Education, 36(4), 421–435.
doi:10.1023/A:1003423628962
Ahmad, A. (2008). Interesting times for
teaching & learning and some reflections
about teaching philosophies and dossiers of
award winning teachers. Teaching Perspec-
tives, 9, 4–6.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned
behaviour. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro,
M., Lovett, M. C., Norman, M. K., & Mayer,
R. E. (2010). How learning works: Seven
research-based principles for smart teaching.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro,
M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010).
How learning works: Seven research-based
principles for smart teaching. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Amundsen, C., Saroyan, A., & Donald, J. G.
(2004). Analysis of course content. In Sar-
oyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (Eds.), Rethinking
Teaching in Higher Education: From a Course
Design Workshop to a Faculty-Development
Framework (pp. 33–51). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Anderson, D., & Johnson, R. (2006). Ideas Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a compre-
of leadership underpinning proposals to the hensive faculty evaluation system: A guide to
Carrick institute: A review of proposal from designing, building, and operating large-scale
the ‘leadership for excellence in teaching and faculty evaluation systems (3rd ed.). Bolton,
learning progra. Strawberry Hills, UK: The MA: Anker Publishing.
Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching
Atherton, J. S. (2009). Learning and teach-
in Higher Education Ltd.
ing: Bloom’s taxonomy. Retrieved from http://
Anderson, D., Johnson, R., & Saha, L. (2002). www.learningandteaching.info/learning/
Changes in academic work: Implications for bloomtax.htm
universities of the changing age, distribution
Attwood, R. (2009, December). Pedagogy
and work roles of academic staff. Canberra,
a poor second in promotions. Times Higher
Australia: Department of Education, Science
Education. Retrieved from http://www.
and Training.
timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?secti
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). oncode=26&storycode=409511
(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and
Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy
in education: The conceptual foundations for
of educational objectives. New York, NY:
research as a curricular imperative. New
Addison Wesley Longman.
York, NY: Routledge.
Angelo, T. (2012). Designing subjects for
Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1993).
learning: practical, research-based guidelines.
Concept mapping of high and average
In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University
achieving students, and experts. Euro-
Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Ap-
pean Journal for High Ability, 4, 180–195.
proach (pp. 93–111). Melbourne, Australia:
doi:10.1080/0937445930040207
ACER Press.
Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1994). The
Arai, K., Cech, T., Chameau, J.-L., Horn, P.,
use of concept mapping as an instructional
Mattai, I., Potocnik, J., & Wiley, J. (2007). The
strategy in college-level physics. Scientia
future of research universities: Is the model
Paedagogica Experimentalis, 31, 249–264.
of research-intensive universities still valid
at the beginning of the twenty-first century? Austin, L. B., & Shore, B. M. (1995). Us-
European Molecular Biology Organization ing concept mapping for assessment in
Reports, 8(9), 804-810. Retrieved August physics. Physics Education, 30(1), 41–45.
31, 2010, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ doi:10.1088/0031-9120/30/1/009
pmc/articles/PMC1973958/
Australian Awards for Teaching Ex-
Arendt, H. (1968). Men in dark times. New cellence. (2012). Website. Retrieved
York, NY: Harvest Books. from http://www.olt.gov.au/system/
files/2012AAUTNominationInfo1.pdf
Argyris, C. (1994, July-August). Good com-
munication that blocks learning. Harvard
Business Review, 77–85.
Australian Council for Educational Research.
(2012). How parents and partners can
support student engagement. Retrieved 18
January 2012 from http://www.acer.edu.au/
documents/aussereports/AUSSE_EG_Par-
ents_Partners.pdf
Australian Government. (2009). Transforming
Australia’s higher education system. Can-
berra, Australia: Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations.
Avital, M., Kalle, J., Lyytinen, K. L., Boland,
R. Jr, Butler, B., & Dougherty, D. (2006).
Design with a positive lens: An affirmative
approach to designing information and orga-
nizations. Communications of the Association
for Information Systems, 18, 519–545.
Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as
a clinical intervention: A conceptual and em-
pirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science
and Practice, 10(2), 125–143. doi:10.1093/
clipsy.bpg015
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teach-
ers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bamber, V., Trowler, P., Saunders, M., &
Knight, P. (2009). Enhancing learning,
teaching, assessment and curriculum in
higher education. Maidenhead, UK: Open
University Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory.
Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall.
Bardes, C., Gillers, D., & Herman, A. (2001).
Learning to look: Developing clinical obser-
vational skills at an art museum. Medical Edu-
cation, 35, 1157–1161. doi:10.1046/j.1365-
2923.2001.01088.x
Barker, M. (2012). Teaching international
students. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.),
University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-
Centred Approach (pp. 199–213). Melbourne,
Australia: ACER Press.
Barnett, R. (2007). A will to learn: Being a
student in an age of uncertainty. Maidenhead,
UK: SRHE / Open University Press.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching
to learning--A new paradigm for undergradu-
ate education. Change, 27(6), 12–25. doi:10.
1080/00091383.1995.10544672
Bass, R. (1999). The scholarship of teaching:
What’s the problem. Inventio, 1(1), 1–9.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Lon-
don, UK: Polity.
Beard, C., Clegg, S., & Smith, K. (2007). Ac-
knowledging the affective in higher education.
British Educational Research Journal, 33,
235–252. doi:10.1080/01411920701208415
Beddoe, A. E. (2004). Does mindfulness
decrease stress and foster empathy among
nursing students? The Journal of Nursing
Education, 43, 305–312.
Beers, S. E. (1986). Questioning and peer
collaboration as techniques for thinking
and writing about personality. Teaching of
Psychology, 13(2), 75–77. doi:10.1207/
s15328023top1302_6
Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethink-
ing pedagogy for a digital age: Designing
and delivering e-learning. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Bembenutty, H. (2009). Academic delay
of gratification, self-regulation of learning,
gender differences, and expectancy-value.
Personality and Individual Differences, 46,
347–352. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.028
Bembenutty, H. (2011). Self-regulation of
learning in postsecondary education. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126,
3–8. doi:10.1002/tl.439
Bennett, N., Harvey, J., Wise, C., & Woods,
P. (2003). Distributed leadership: A desk
study. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org.
uk/literature reviews
Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, sociocul-
turalism, and Popper’s world 3. Educational
Researcher, 23, 21–23.
Bergmann, J. (2011, May 5). The history of the
flipped class: How the flipped class was born.
The Flipped Class Blog. [Blog]. Retrieved
from http://blendedclassroom.blogspot.
co.uk/2011/05/history-of-flipped-class.html
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012, April 15).
How the flipped classroom is radically trans-
forming learning. The Daily Riff. Retrieved
from http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/
how-the-flipped-classroom-is-radically-
transforming-learning-536.php
Bernstein, D. J. (2008). Peer review
and evaluation of the intellectual work
of teaching. Change, 40(2), 48–51.
doi:10.3200/CHNG.40.2.48-51doi:10.3200/
CHNG.40.2.48-51
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic
control and identity: Theory, research, cri-
tique (revised ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Biesta, G. (2007). Towards the knowledge
democracy? Knowledge production and
the civic role of the university. Studies in
Philosophy and Education, 26(5), 467–479.
doi:10.1007/s11217-007-9056-0
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through
constructive alignment. Higher Education,
32, 1–18. doi:10.1007/BF00138871
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learn-
ing at university. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: As-
suring and enhancing the quality of teaching
and learning. Higher Education, 41, 221–238.
doi:10.1023/A:1004181331049
Biggs, J. B. (1987). The study process ques-
tionnaire (SPQ) users’ manual. Hawthorne,
Australia: Australian Council for Educational
Research.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice:
A cognitive systems approach. Higher Edu-
cation Research & Development, 12, 73–86.
doi:10.1080/0729436930120107
Biggs, J. B. (1996). Enhancing teaching
through constructive alignment. Higher
Education, 32(3), 347–364. doi:10.1007/
BF00138871
Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace.
Crows Nest, UK: Allen and Unwin.
Biology Scholars. (2012). Website. Retrieved
May 31, 2012, from http://www.biology-
scholars.org/
Birch, M., & Walet, N. (2008). An integrated
approach to encourage student-centred learn-
ing: A first course in dynamics. The Higher
Education Academy, 4, 21–26.
Bligh, D. A. (1998). What’s the use of
lectures?New York, NY: Intellect Books.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives, the classification of
educational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive
domain. New York, NY: McKay.
Boland, R., & Collopy, F. (2004). Manag-
ing as designing. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Bollmeier, G., Wenger, P. J., & Forinash, A.
B. (2010). Impact of online lecture-capture
on student outcomes in a therapeutics course.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Educa-
tion, 74(7), 1–6. doi:10.5688/aj7407127
Bolton, G. E. J. (2005). Reflective practice:
Writing and professional development (2nd
ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Bonk, C. (2009). The world is open: How web
technology is revolutionizing education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Bonk, C., & Graham, C. (Eds.). (2005). The
handbook of blended learning: Global per-
spectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA:
Pfeiffer Publishing.
Botstein, D. (2011, November). Why is teach-
ing good for research? ASCB Newsletter.
Retrieved January 18, 2012 from http://www.
ascb.org/files/1111Presidents.pdf
Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning:
Contradictory or complementary? In Knight,
P. (Ed.), Assessment for Learning in Higher
Education (pp. 35–48). London, UK: Kogan.
Boud, D., & Brew, A. (2012). Reconceptualis-
ing academic work as professional practice:
Implications for academic development.
The International Journal for Academic
Development, 1–14. doi:10.1080/136014
4X.2012.671771
Bowden, J. (1994). The nature of phenomeno-
graphic research. In Bowden, J. A., & Walsh,
E. (Eds.), Phenomenographic Research:
Variations in Method (pp. 1–16). Melbourne,
Australia: Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology.
Bowden, J., & Walsh, E. (2000). Phenom-
enography. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT
University Press.
Boyer Commission. (1998). Reinventing
undergraduate education: A blueprint for
America’s research universities. Stony Brook,
NY: Carnegie Foundation for University
Teaching and The State University of New
York at Stony Brook. Retrieved from http://
naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/673918
d46fbf653e852565ec0056ff3e/d955b61ffdd
d590a852565ec005717ae/$FILE/boyer.pdf
Boyer Commission. (2001). Reinventing
undergraduate education: Three years after
the Boyer report. Stony Brook, NY: Carnegie
Foundation for University Teaching and The
State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Retrieved from http://dspace.sunyconnect.
suny.edu/bitstream/1951/26013/1/Reinvent-
ing Undergraduate Education (Boyer Report
II).pdf
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship recon-
sidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Bradley, D. (2008). Review of higher educa-
tion discussion paper. Retrieved January
24, 2012, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/
HigherEducation/Review/Documents/PDF/
Higher%20Education%20Review_Title%20
page%20to%20chapter%202.pdf
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., &
Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher
education: Final report. Canberra, Australia:
Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations.
Bradwell, P. (2009). The edgeless university:
Why higher education must embrace technol-
ogy. London, UK: Demos.
Branch, M. A. (2010). Singapore spinoff:
Yale’s plan to bet its brand on a new college
in Asia. Yale Alumni Magazine, 74(2).
Brawer, J., Steinert, Y., St-Cyr, J., Watters, K.,
& Wood-Dauphinee, S. (2006). The signifi-
cance and impact of a faculty teaching award:
disparate perceptions of department chairs
and award recipients. Medical Teacher, 28(7),
614–617. doi:10.1080/01421590600878051
Breslow, L., Drew, L., Healey, M., Matthew,
B., & Norton, L. (2004). Intellectual curios-
ity: A catalyst for scholarships of teaching
and learning and educational development.
In Elvidge, E. M. (Ed.), Exploring Academic
Development in Higher Education: Issues of
Engagement (pp. 83–96). Cambridge, UK:
Jill Rogers Associates.
Brew, A. (1999). Research and teaching:
Changing relationships in a changing context.
Studies in Higher Education, 24, 291–301. do
i:10.1080/03075079912331379905
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research:
New relationships and their implications for
inquiry- based teaching and learning in higher
education. Higher Education Research &
Development, 22, 4–18. doi:10.1080/07294
36032000056571
Brew, A. (2007). Approaches to the scholar-
ship of teaching and learning. In Brew, A., &
Sachs, J. (Eds.), Transforming a University:
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
in Practice (pp. 1–10). Sydney, Australia:
Sydney University Press.
Brew, A. (2010). Imperatives and challenges
in integrating teaching and research. Higher
Education Research & Development, 29,
139–150. doi:10.1080/07294360903552451
Brill, J. M., & Galloway, C. (2007). Perils and
promises: University instructors’ integration
of technology in classroom-based practices.
British Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 38(1), 95–105. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2006.00601.x
Brodie, L. (2012). Problem-based learning. In
Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University
Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Ap-
proach (pp. 145–163). Melbourne, Australia:
ACER Press.
Brook, C., & Oliver, R. (2003). Online
learning communities: Investigating a design
framework. Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 19(2), 139–160.
Broughan, C., & Hunt, L. (2012). Inclusive
teaching. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.),
University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-
Centred Approach (pp. 182–198). Melbourne,
Australia: ACER Press.
Brownfield, G., & Oliver, R. (2003). Factors
influencing the discovery and reusability of
digital resources for teaching and learning. In
G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker, &
J. Baron (Eds.), Interact, Integrate, Impact:
Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of
ASCILITE, (pp. 74-83). Adelaide, Australia:
ASCILITE.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989).
Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2002). The world
café: Shaping our futures through conversa-
tions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Brown, S., & Race, P. (2002). Lecturing: A
practical guide. London, UK: Routledge.
Brown, S., & Race, P. (2012). Using effective
assessment to promote learning. In Hunt, L.,
& Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching
in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach (pp.
74–91). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Bruhn, J. (2000). Interdisciplinary research:
A philosophy, art form, artifact or antidote?
Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Sci-
ence, 35(1), 58–66. doi:10.1007/BF02911166
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of
instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belkapp Press.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A.
(2010). Getting ideas into action: Building
networked improvement communities in edu-
cation. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved
from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/
spotlight/webinar-bryk-gomez-building-
networkedimprovement-communities-in-
education
Bull, B., & Wittrock, M. (1973). Imagery in
the learning of verbal definitions. The Brit-
ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 43,
289–293. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1973.
tb02269.x
Burgess, R. (2007). Beyond the honours
degree classification: Burgess group final
report. London, UK: Universities UK.
Caffarella, R. S., & Zinn, L. F. (1999). Profes-
sional development for faculty: A conceptual
framework of barriers and supports. Inno-
vative Higher Education, 23(4), 241–254.
doi:10.1023/A:1022978806131
Camillus, J. (2008, May). Strategy as a wicked
problem. Harvard Business Review.
Campbell, G. M. (2011). Degrees of confi-
dence. The Chemical Engineer, 842, 52–54.
Campbell, G. M., Blunden-Ellis, J., & Mani-
sta, F. (2010). Encouraging engineers to read:
A book-based final year assessment. Educa-
tion for Chemical Engineers, 5, e87–e99.
doi:10.1016/j.ece.2010.08.002
Campbell, G., Demetriou, L. A., & Ar-
nett, T. R. (2010). Virtual histology in the
classroom and beyond. Medical Educa-
tion, 44, 1117–1147. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2923.2010.03828.x
Campbell, G., Holt, J. K. L., Shotton, H.
R., Anderson, P. N., Bavetta, S., & Lieber-
man, A. R. (1999). Spontaneous axonal
regeneration after optic nerve injury in the
adult rat. Neuroreport, 10, 3955–3960.
doi:10.1097/00001756-199912160-00042
Campbell, G., Hutchins, K., Winterbottom, J.,
& Grenningloh, G., A. R., & Anderson, P. N.
(2005). Upregulation of activating transcrip-
tion factor 3 (ATF3) by intrinsic CNS neurons
regenerating axons into peripheral nerve
grafts. Experimental Neurology, 192, 340–
347. doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2004.11.026
Campbell, G., & Lieberman, A. R. (1985).
The olivary pretectal nucleus: Experimental
anatomical studies in the rat. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London.
Series B, Biological Sciences, 310, 573–609.
doi:10.1098/rstb.1985.0132
Campbell, G., & Shatz, C. J. (1992). Synapses
formed by identified retinogeniculate axons
during the segregation of eye input. The
Journal of Neuroscience, 12, 1847–1858.
Candib, L. M. (2005). Medicine and the fam-
ily: A feminist perspective. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Carew, A., Lefoe, G., Bell, M., & Armour,
L. (2008). Elastic practice in academic
developers. The International Journal for
Academic Development, 13(1), 51–66.
doi:10.1080/13601440701860250
Carusetta, E. (2001). Evaluating teaching
through teaching awards. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 88, 31–40.
doi:10.1002/tl.35
Challis, D., Holt, D., & Rice, M. (2005).
Staff perceptions of the role of technology
in experiential learning: A case study from
an Australia university. Australian Journal
of Educational Technology, 21(1), 19–39.
Chalmers, D., & Partridge, L. (2012). Teach-
ing graduate attributes and academic skills. In
Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University
Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Ap-
proach (pp. 56–73). Melbourne, Australia:
ACER Press.
Chandler, P. (2004). The crucial role of cogni-
tive processes in the design of dynamic visu-
alizations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3),
353. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.009
Chan, L. C. (2008). The role of a PBL tu-
tor: A personal perspective. The Kaohsiung
Journal of Medical Sciences, 24(3), S34–S38.
doi:10.1016/S1607-551X(08)70092-5
Cheng, M. (2010). Audit cultures and quality
assurance mechanisms in England: A study
of their perceived impact on the work of aca-
demics. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3),
259–271. doi:10.1080/13562511003740817
Chichekian, T., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Con-
cept maps provide a window onto preservice
elementary teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge in the domain of mathematics.
Unpublished.
Chichekian, T., Hua, O., & Shore, B. M.
(2012). Chemistry professors’ perceptions
of learning in undergraduate education.
Unpublished.
Chichekian, T., Savard, A., & Shore, B.
M. (2011). The languages of inquiry: An
English-French lexicon of inquiry terminol-
ogy in education. LEARNing Landscapes,
4(2), 93–109.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987).
Seven principles for good practice in under-
graduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7),
3–7.
Chism, N. V. (2007). Peer review of teaching:
A sourcebook (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Anker
Publications.
Chism, N. V. N. (2006). Teaching awards:
What do they award? The Journal of Higher
Education, 77(4), 589–617. doi:10.1353/
jhe.2006.0031
Chism, N. V. N., & Szabo, B. (1997). Teach-
ing awards: The problem of assessing their
impact. In DeZure, D. (Ed.), To Improve the
Academy: Yearbook of the Professional and
Organizational Development Network in
Higher Education (pp. 181–199). Stillwater,
OK: New Forums Press.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011).
The innovative university: Changing the DNA
of higher education from the inside out. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Christensen, C., & Carlile, P. (2009). Course
research: Using the case method to build and
teach management theory. Academy of Man-
agement Learning & Education, 8(2), 240–
251. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2009.41788846
Christie, M., & Asmar, C. (2012). Indigenous
knowers and knowledge in university teach-
ing. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.),
University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-
Centred Approach (pp. 214–232). Melbourne,
Australia: ACER Press.
Cicco, G. (2009). Online versus in-class
courses: Learning-style assessment as an
advisement tool. International Journal on
E-Learning, 8(2), 161–173.
Clarke, A., & Erickson, G. (2004). The na-
ture of teaching and learning in self-study.
In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K.
LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and
Teacher Education Practices (pp. 41–68).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-
6545-3_2doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3_2
Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on
learning from media. Review of Educational
Research, 53(4), 445–459.
Coaldrake, P., & Stedman, L. (1999). Aca-
demic work in the twenty-first century: Chang-
ing roles and policies. Canberra, Australia:
DETYA.
Coates, H., Dobson, I., Edwards, D., Fried-
man, T., Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, L.
(2009). The attractiveness of the Australian
academic profession: A comparative analysis.
Melbourne, Australia: ACER.
Coates, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2012). Re-
casting the academic workforce: Why the at-
tractiveness of the academic profession needs
to be increased and eight possible strategies for
how to go about this from an Australian per-
spective. Higher Education, 64(6), 875–889.
doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9534-3
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2004).
Practitioner inquiry, knowledge, and univer-
sity culture. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Ham-
ilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.),
International Handbook of Self-Study of
Teaching and Teacher Education Practices
(pp. 601–650). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cohen, P. (2008). The embodied conductor:
Concert pianists, diaper dancers, and the fine
art of creative variability in performance. In
Shore, B. M., Aulls, M. W., & Delcourt, M. A.
B. (Eds.), Inquiry in Education: Overcoming
Barriers to Successful Implementation (pp.
165–206). New York, NY: Routledge.
Colbeck, C. L. (2002). Balancing teaching
with other responsibilities: Integrating roles
or feeding alligators. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association. Philadelphia, PA.
Colbeck, C. L. (1998). Merging in a seamless
blend--How faculty integrate teaching and
research. The Journal of Higher Education,
69, 647. doi:10.2307/2649212
Collins, J. B., & Pratt, D. D. (2011). The
teaching perspectives inventory at 10 years
and 100,000 respondents: Reliability and
validity of a teacher self-report inven-
tory. Adult Education Quarterly, 61(4),
1–18. doi:10.1177/0741713610392763d
oi:10.1177/0741713610392763
Collins, R., & Palmer, A. (2004). Percep-
tions of rewarding excellence in teaching:
Carrots or sticks? Retrieved from http://
www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/
id394_perceptions_of_rewarding_excellence
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A.
(1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making
thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3),
6–11, 38–46.
Conklin & Weil. (1998). Wicked problems:
Naming the pain in organizations. Retrieved
from http://www.accelinnova.com/docs/
wickedproblems.pdf
Copley, J. (2007). Audio and video podcasts of
lectures for campus-based students: Production
and evaluation of student use. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 44(4),
387–399. doi:10.1080/14703290701602805
Costello, C. (2005). Professional identity
crisis: Race, class gender and success at pro-
fessional schools. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt
University Press.
Courneya, C.-A., Pratt, D. D., & Collins,
J. (2008). Through what perspective do
we judge the teaching of peers? Teach-
ing and Teacher Education, 24(1), 69–79.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.009doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2007.01.009
Courneya, C. A. (2009). Heartfelt images.
University of Alberta Health Sciences Jour-
nal, 5, 13–17.
Courneya, C. A. (2011). White coat warm
art. Ars Medici, 8, 81–85.
Cousin, G. (2009). Researching learning in
higher education: An introduction to contem-
porary methods and approaches. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Cox, M. (2004). Introduction to faculty learn-
ing communities. New Directions for Teach-
ing and Learning, 97, 5–24. doi:10.1002/
tl.129doi:10.1002/tl.129
Coyne, R. (2004). Wicked problems revisited.
Design Studies, 26, 5–17. doi:10.1016/j.
destud.2004.06.005
Crawford, K. (2010). Influences on aca-
demics’ approaches to development: Voices
from below. The International Journal for
Academic Development, 15(3), 189–202. do
i:10.1080/1360144X.2010.497669
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., &
Prosser, M. (1994). Conceptions of mathemat-
ics and how it is learned: The perspective of
students entering university. Learning and
Instruction, 4, 331–345. doi:10.1016/0959-
4752(94)90005-1
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., &
Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different
experiences of learning mathematics at uni-
versity. Learning and Instruction, 8, 455–468.
doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00005-X
Crawley, A. L. (1995). Faculty development
programs at research universities: Implica-
tions for senior faculty renewal. In E. Neal
(Ed.), To Improve the Academy. Retrieved
from http://www.podnetwork.org
Crisp, G., et al. (2009). Peer review of teaching
for promotion purposes: A project to develop
and implement a pilot program of peer review
of teaching at four Australian universities.
Retrieved December 2010, from http://www.
adelaide.edu.au/clpd/peerreview
Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., &
Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engag-
ing students one-on-one, all at once. In E. F.
Redish & P. Cooney (Eds.), Research-Based
Reform of University Physics. College Park,
MD: American Association of Physics Teach-
ers. Retrieved September 18, 2012 from http://
mazur-www.harvard.edu/email/download.
php?YnJ1Y2Uuc2hvcmVAbWNnaWxsLm
Nh&NTM3
Cubberley, E. P. (1920). The history of edu-
cation: Educational practice and progress
considered as a phase of the development
and spread of western civilization. New York,
NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Deal, A. (2007). Teaching with technology
white paper: Podcasting. Educause CON-
NECT. Retrieved from http://www.cmu.edu/
teaching/technology/whitepapers/Podcast-
ing_Jun07.pdf
Dearden, H. (2009). Judgement call. The
Chemical Engineer, 814, 18–19.
Dee, F. R. (2009). Virtual microscopy
in pathology education. Human Pathol-
ogy, 40, 1112–1121. doi:10.1016/j.hump-
ath.2009.04.010
DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of
society: Assemblage theory and social com-
plexity. London, UK: Continuum.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand
plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Min-
neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Demetry, C. (2010). Work in progress-An
innovation merging “classroom flip” and
team-based learning. In Proceedings of the
40th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference. IEEE Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education:
An introduction to the philosophy of educa-
tion. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2002). Awards for
teaching excellence: intentions and realities.
Paper presented in 2002 Annual Conference
of Australian Association for Research in
Education. Brisbane, Australia.
Dinham, S., Aubusson, P., & Brady, L. (2006).
Distributive leadership through action learn-
ing. Paper presented at the 15th International
Educational Leadership Conference. Wol-
longong, Australia.
Doherty, I. (2010). Aiming for systemic
change through an embedded continuing
professional development initiative. In Steel,
C. H., Keppell, M. J., Gerbic, P., & Housego,
S. (Eds.), Curriculum, Technology and
Transformation for an Unknown Future (pp.
305–309). Queensland, Australia: University
of Queensland Press.
Doherty, I. (2010). A learning design for aca-
demic engagement with online professional
development modules. Journal of Learning
Design, 4(1), 1–14.
Donald, J. G. (2002). Learning to think: Elen, J., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Clement,
Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco, M. (2007). Faculty development in research-
CA: Jossey-Bass. intensive universities: The role of academics’
conceptions on the relationship between
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in
research and teaching. The International
the design process: Co-evolution of problem-
Journal for Academic Development, 12(2),
solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.
123–139. doi:10.1080/1360144070160494
doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
8doi:10.1080/13601440701604948
Ducharme, L., & Martin, J. (2000). Unreward-
Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with forks:
ing work, coworker support and job satisfac-
The triple bottom line of 21st century busi-
tion. Work and Occupations, 27(2), 223–243.
ness. Oxford, UK: Capstone.
doi:10.1177/0730888400027002005
Ellis, C. (2008). You can’t do that in a class-
Dunkin, M. J., & Precians, R. P. (1992).
room! How distributed learning can assist in
Award-winning university teachers’ concepts
the widespread adoption of hybrid learning
of teaching. Higher Education, 24, 483–502.
strategies. Paper presented at Hybrid Learning
doi:10.1007/BF00137244
and Education. New York, NY.
Dunne, D. (2011). User-centred design and
Embi, P. J., Biddinger, P. W., Goldenhar, L.
design-centred business schools. In Cooper,
M., Schick, L. C., Kaya, B., & Held, J. D.
R., Junginger, S., Lockwood, T., Boland, T.,
(2006). Preferences regarding the computer-
& Chung, K. (Eds.), The Handbook of Design
ized delivery of lecture content: A survey of
Management. London, UK: Berg Publishers.
medical students. In Proceedings of the AMIA
Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design Annual Symposium, (pp. 916). AMIA.
thinking and how it will change manage-
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at
ment education: An interview and discus-
work: Toward an activity theoretical reconcep-
sion. Academy of Management Learning
tualization. Journal of Education and Work,
& Education, 5(4), 512–523. doi:10.5465/
14(1), 133–156.
AMLE.2006.23473212
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Un-
Dunn, L., Iglewicz, A., & Moutier, C. (2008).
derstanding student learning. London, UK:
A conceptual model of medical student well
Croom Helm.
being: Promoting resilience and preventing
burnout. Academic Psychiatry, 32, 44–53. Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the work-
doi:10.1176/appi.ap.32.1.44 place. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2),
247–273. doi:10.1080/158037042000225245
Economist. (2011, September 17). Elec-
tronic education: Flipping the classroom. European Award for Teaching Excellence.
The Economist. Retrieved from http://www. (2012). Website. Retrieved from http://20.
economist.com/node/21529062 ceu.hu/teaching-award
Feather, D. (2011). Never mind the quality,
take a seat! Research in Post-Compulsory
Education, 16(4), 435–450. doi:10.1080/13
596748.2011.626981
Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Unwin, L., Ashton,
D., Butler, P., Lee, T., & Walters, S. (2004).
Applying the survey method to learning
at work: A recent UK experiment. Paper
presented to the European Conference on
Education Research (ER). Crete, Greece. Re-
trieved from http://www.guidance-research.
org/vetnet/ecer2004/24sept/Session9c/473/
documents/afelstead_ECER_473/attach/
afelstead_ECER_473.pdf
Felton, P., & Finley, A. (2013). Motivating
teaching excellence: Lessons from U.S. teach-
ing awards. In Salter, D. J. (Ed.), Cases in
Quality Teaching Practices in Higher Educa-
tion. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Fenton, E. (1967). The new social studies. New
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc.
Feynman, R. P., & Leighton, R. (1985). Surely
you’re joking Mr Feynman. New York, NY:
W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Flint, N. R. A., & Johnson, B. (2011). Towards
fairer university assessment: Recognizing
the concerns of students. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Flood, J., Heath, S. B., & Lapp, D. (Eds.).
(1997). Handbook of research on teaching
literacy through the communicative and vi-
sual arts. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster
Macmillan.
Forrester, G. (2011). Performance manage-
ment in education: Milestone or millstone?
Management in Education, 25(1), 5–9.
doi:10.1177/0892020610383902
Frame, P., Johnson, M., & Rosie, A. (2006).
Reward or award? Reflections on the initial
experiences of winners of a national teach-
ing fellowship. Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, 43(4), 409–419.
doi:10.1080/14703290600974016
Francis, J. B. (1976). An evaluation of pro-
grams to recognize and reward teaching
excellence. Buffalo, NY: State University of
New York at Buffalo.
Fraser, A. B. (1999). Colleges should tap
the pedagogical potential of the world-wide-
web. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
45(48), B8.
Friedman, V. J. (2008). Action science: Creat-
ing communities of inquiry in communities of
practice. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.),
Handbook of Action Research: The Concise
Paperback Edition (pp. 131–143). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Friedman, D. B., Crews, T. B., Caicedo, J. M.,
Besley, J. C., Weinberg, J., & Freeman, M.
L. (2010). An exploration into inquiry-based
learning by a multidisciplinary group of higher
education faculty. Higher Education, 59,
765–783. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9279-9
Fry, P. (2012). Post-colonial criticism.
AcademicEarth. Retrieved October 22, 2012,
from http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/
post-colonial-literary-criticism
Furedi, F. (2011, March). Our job is to judge.
Times Higher Education, 34-38.
Gannaway, D., Hinton, T., Berry, B., &
Moore, K. (2011). Review of dissemination
strategies used by projects funded by ALTC
grants scheme. Sydney, Australia: ALTC.
Gibbs, G. (1981). Twenty terrible reasons for
lecturing. Oxford, UK: Educational Methods
Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.
Gibbs, G., & Habeshaw, T. (2003). Recognis-
ing and rewarding excellent teaching. Milton
Keynes, UK: Centre for Higher Education
Practice, Open University.
Gilles, D., & Parnet, C. (2002). Dialogues II.
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff,
G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evalua-
tion of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Goldschmid, M. L., & Shore, B. M. (1974).
The learning cell: A field test of an educa-
tional innovation. In Verreck, W. A. (Ed.),
Methodological Problems in Research and
Development in Higher Education (pp.
218–236). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional
intelligence. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Goodstein, D. L., & Neugebauer, G. (1995).
Special preface. In Feynman, R. P. (Ed.), Six
Easy Pieces: The Fundamentals of Physics
Explained. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Gosling, D. (2009). Educational develop-
ment in the UK: A complex and contra-
dictory reality. The International Journal
for Academic Development, 14(1), 5–18.
doi:10.1080/13601440802659122
Gunn, C., & Lefoe, G. (2011). Evaluating
action-learning and professional networking
as a framework for educational leadership
capacity development. The International
Journal for Academic Development. doi:10.
1080/1360144X.2011.613996
Haldane, J. (2010). The value of a university.
Paper presented at Lord Dearing Memorial
Conference. Nottingham, UK.
Hamilton, P. W., Wang, Y., & McCullough,
S. J. (2012). Virtual microscopy and digital
pathology in training and education. Acta
Pathologica, Microbiologica et Immu-
nologica Scandinavica, 120, 305–315.
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0463.2011.02869.x
Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond,
P. (2004). Evaluating our peers: Is peer
observation a meaningful process? Stud-
ies in Higher Education, 29(4), 489–503.
doi:10.1080/0307507042000236380d
oi:10.1080/0307507042000236380
Hanbury, A., Prosser, M., & Rickinson, M.
(2008). The differential impact of UK ac-
credited teaching development programmes
on academics’ approaches to teaching. Stud-
ies in Higher Education, 33(4), 469–483.
doi:10.1080/03075070802211844
Hanstedt, P. (2010). Hong Kong’s experiment
in integrative teaching and learning. Liberal
Education, 96(4), 18–23.
Harman, G. (2003). Australian academics and
prospective academics: Adjustment to a more
commercial environment. Higher Education.
Management and Policy, 15(2), 105–122.
Harris, K.-L., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin, M.,
& James, R. (2008). Peer review of teaching
in Australian higher education: A handbook
to support institutions in developing and
embedding effective policies and practices.
Sydney, Australia: Australian Learning and
Teaching Council.
Harris, A. (Ed.). (2009). Distributed lead-
ership – Different perspectives (Vol. 7).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9
Harris, J., Winskowski, A., & Engdahl, B.
(2007). Types of workplace social support
in the predication of job satisfaction. The
Career Development Quarterly, 56, 150–156.
doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2007.tb00027.x
Harris, T., Leaven, T., Heidger, P., Kreiter, C.,
Duncan, J., & Dick, F. (2001). Comparison of
a virtual microscope laboratory to a regular
microscope laboratory for teaching histology.
[New Anatomy]. The Anatomical Record, 265,
10–14. doi:10.1002/ar.1036
Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J.
(2007). Learner control, cognitive load and
instructional animation. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 21(6), 713–729. doi:10.1002/
acp.1345
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. (1996). The relation-
ship between research and teaching: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 507–542.
Healey, M. (2000). Developing the schol-
arship of teaching in higher education:
A discipline-based approach. Higher
Education Research & Development, 19(2),
169–189. doi:10.1080/072943600445637d
oi:10.1080/072943600445637
Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and
teaching to benefit student learning. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 29, 183–201.
doi:10.1080/03098260500130387
Heidger, P. M., Dee, F., Consoer, D., Leaven,
T., Duncan, J., & Kreiter, C. (2002). Inte-
grated approach to teaching and testing in
histology with real and virtual imaging. [New
Anatomy]. The Anatomical Record, 269,
107–112. doi:10.1002/ar.10078
Hemmings, B., & Kay, R. (2008). Lecturer
self efficacy, research skills and publication
output. In P. L. Jeffery (Ed.), AARE 2008 Inter-
national Educational Research Conference,
(pp.1-15). Canberra, Australia: The Australian
Association for Research in Education.
Hendry, G. D., Lyon, P. M., & Smart, C. H.
(2007). Teachers’ approaches to teaching and
responses to student evaluation in problem-
based medical program. Assessment & Evalu-
ation in Higher Education, 32(2), 143–157.
doi:10.1080/02602930600801894
Heppner, F. (2007). Teaching the large col-
lege class. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2006).
Authentic learning environments in higher
education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An in-
structional design framework for authentic
learning environments. Educational Technol-
ogy Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.
doi:10.1007/BF02319856
Higher Education Academy and the Genetics
Education Networking for Innovation and
Excellence (GENIE) Centre for Excellence in
Teaching and Learning. (2009). Reward and
recognition in higher education: Institutional
policies and their implementation. Retrieved
July 15, 2012 from http://www.heacademy.
ac.uk/assets/documents/rewardandrecog/
RewardandRecognition_2.pdf
Hogan, C. (1999). Facilitating learning:
Practical strategies for college and uni-
versity. Melbourne, Australia: Eruditions
Publications.
Hoy, W. K. (2002). An analysis of enabling and Hughes, A. (2009). Higher education in a web
mindful school structures: Some theoretical, 2.0 world. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol.
research and practical considerations. Journal
Hugo, G., & Morriss, A. (2010). Investigating
of Educational Administration, 41(1), 87–108.
the ageing academic workforce: Stocktake.
doi:10.1108/09578230310457457
Canberra, Australia: Universities Australia.
Hua, O., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Chemistry
Hunt, L. (2011). There’s still an act of teach-
professors’ perceptions of learning in under-
ing – Many of them. In Proceedings of the
graduate education. Unpublished.
Enhancing Learning Conference. Sarawak,
Hubball, H., & Albon, S. (2007). Faculty Malaysia: Miri.
learning communities: Enhancing the schol-
Hunt, L., & Peach, N. (2009). Planning for
arship of teaching, learning, and curriculum
a sustainable academic future. In iPED Re-
practice. Journal on Excellence in College
search Network (Eds.), Academic Futures:
Teaching, 18(2), 119–142.
Inquiries into Higher Education and Peda-
Hubball, H., & Clarke, A. (2010). Diverse gogy, (pp. 1-14). Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK:
methodological approaches and consider- Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
ations for SoTL in higher education. Canadian
Hunt, L., Hartle, T., Brodie, L., & Danaher, P.
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
(2010). SoTTL on SoTTL: An evidence-base
Learning, 1(1).
approach to promoting the scholarship of ter-
Hubball, H., & Clarke, A. (2011). Schol- tiary teaching and learning. Paper presented
arly approaches to peer-review of teaching: at the ISSoTL10 Conference. Liverpool, UK.
Emergent frameworks and outcomes in a
Hunt. (2012). Audiovisual productions. Re-
research-intensive university. Transformative
trieved 19 January 2012, from https://sites.
Dialogues Journal, 4(3).
google.com/site/lynnehuntsite/audio-visual-
Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Poole, G. (2010). productions
Ten-year reflections on mentoring SoTL
Hunt, L. (2006). A community development
research in a research-intensive university.
model of change: The role of teaching and
The International Journal for Academic
learning centres. In Hunt, L., Bromage, A.,
Development, 15(2), 117–129. doi:10.1080
& Tomkinson, B. (Eds.), The Realities of
/13601441003737758doi:10.1080/1360144
Change in Higher Education: Interventions to
1003737758
Promote Learning and Teaching (pp. 64–77).
Huber, M. T. (2006). Disciplines, pedagogy, London, UK: Routledge.
and inquiry-based learning about teaching.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
107, 63–72. doi:10.1002/tl.246doi:10.1002/
tl.246
Hunt, L., Chalmers, D., & Macdonald, R.
(2012). Effective classroom teaching. In
Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University
Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Ap-
proach (pp. 21–37). Melbourne, Australia:
ACER Press.
Hunt, L., Hammer, S., & Sankey, M. (2012).
Getting the context right for good assessment
practice. In Clouder, D. L., Broughan, C.,
Jewell, S., & Steventon, G. J. (Eds.), Improv-
ing Student Engagement and Development
through Assessment. London, UK: Routledge.
Hunt, L., Huijser, H., & Sankey, M. (2011).
Learning spaces for the digital age: Blending
space with pedagogy. In Keppell, M., Souter,
K., & Riddle, M. (Eds.), Physical and Virtual
Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Con-
cepts for the Modern Learning Environment
(pp. 182–197). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-114-0.ch012
Hunt, L., & Potter, M. (2006). What gets in the
way of quality teaching? A critical perspec-
tive. In Critical Visions: Thinking, Learning
and Researching in Higher Education. Perth,
Australia: University of Western Australia.
Hunt, L., & Trotman, J. (2002). Claremont
cameos. Perth, Australia: Edith Cowan
University.
Hurwitz, B. (2003). Medicine, the arts and
humanities. Clinical Medicine, 3(6), 497–498.
Hu, S., Kuh, G. D., & Gayles, J. G. (2007).
Engaging undergraduate students in research
activities: Are research universities doing a
better job? Innovative Higher Education, 32,
167–177. doi:10.1007/s10755-007-9043-y
Hu, S., Scheuch, K., Schwartz, R., Gayles, J.
G., & Li, S. (2008). Reinventing undergradu-
ate education: Engaging college students in
research and creative activities. ASHE Higher
Education Report, 33(4).
Husman, P. R., O’Loughlin, V. D., & Braun,
M. W. (2009). Quantitative and qualitative
changes in teaching histology by means of
virtual microscopy in an introductory course
in human anatomy. Anatomical Sciences
Education, 2, 218–226. doi:10.1002/ase.105
Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A.
(2011). The scholarship of teaching and learn-
ing reconsidered: Institutional integration
and impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hyland, T. (2009). Mindfulness and the
therapeutic function of education. Journal
of Philosophy of Education, 43(1), 119–131.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00668.x
Ingram, D., & Gilding, A. (2003). Centralised
decentralised professional development
models: Leadership, identification and nego-
tiation. Paper presented at the 26th Annual
Higher Education Research and Development
Society of Australasia (HERDSA) Confer-
ence. Christchurch, New Zealand.
Irving, J. A., Dobkin, P. L., & Park, J.
(2009). Cultivating mindfulness in health
care professionals: A review of empirical
studies of mindfulness-based stress reduction
(MBSR). Complementary Therapies in Clini-
cal Practice, 15(2), 61–66. doi:10.1016/j.
ctcp.2009.01.002
Jackson, M. (2006). Great classroom teach-
ing and more: Awards for outstanding
teaching evaluated. International Journal of
Educational Management, 20(4), 261–278.
doi:10.1108/09513540610665388
Jaikumar, V. (2011, February 18). BYOD to
work but be prepared for remote wipes and
legal holds, says Unisys. Computerworld.
Retrieved from http://blogs.computerworld.
com/17847/byod_to_work_but_be_pre-
pared_for_remote_wipes_and_legal_holds_
says_unisys
James, N. (2007). The learning trajectories
of old-timers: academic identities and com-
munities of practice in higher education. In
Hughes, J., Jewson, N., & Unwin, L. (Eds.),
Communities of Practice: Critical Perspec-
tives (pp. 131–142). London, UK: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/NOE0415364737.ch11
Jayashree, P., Shen, K., & Lefoe, G. (2011).
Strategic change through distributed leader-
ship. Paper presented at the 25th Conference
of Australian and New Zealand Academy
of Management. Wellington, New Zealand.
Jenkins, A., Blackman, T., Lindsay, R., &
Paton-Saltzberg, R. (1998). Teaching and
research: Student perspectives and policy
implications. Studies in Higher Education,
23, 127–141. doi:10.1080/0307507981233
1380344
Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2005). Institutional
strategies to link teaching and research. York,
UK: The Higher Education Academy.
Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2012). Research-
led undergraduate curricula. In Hunt, L., &
Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in
Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach (pp.
128–144). Melbourne, Australia: ACER
Press.
Jenkins, R. (2008). Social identity. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Jiao, Q. G., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1997). An-
tecedents of library anxiety. The Library Quar-
terly, 67(4), 372–389. doi:10.1086/629972
Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory
of problem solving. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.
doi:10.1007/BF02300500
Jones, S. E. (2007). Reflections on the
lecture: Outmoded medium or instru-
ment of inspiration? Journal of Further
and Higher Education, 31(4), 397–406.
doi:10.1080/03098770701656816
Jones, S., Ladyshewsky, R., Oliver, B., &
Flavell, H. (Eds.). (2009). Leading courses:
Academic leadership for course coordinators
final report. Sydney, Australia: Australian
Learning and Teaching Council.
Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., & Ryland,
K. (2012). Distributed leadership: A col-
laborative framework for academics, execu-
tives and professionals in higher education.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 34(1), 67–78. doi:10.1080/13
60080X.2012.642334
Jovic, E., Wallace, J., & Lemaire, J. (2006).
The generation and gender shifts in medicine:
An exploratory survey of internal medicine
physicians. BMC Health Services, 6, 55.
doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-55
Justice, C., Rice, J., & Warry, W. (2009).
Academic skill development--Inquiry semi-
nars can make a difference: Evidence from
a quasi-experimental study. International
Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learn-
ing, 3(1), 1–23.
Justice, C., Rice, J., Warry, W., & Laurie, I.
(2007). Taking inquiry makes a difference-
-A comparative analysis of student learning.
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching,
18(1), 57–77.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2009). Full catastrophe living:
Using the wisdom of your body and mind to
face stress, pain, and Illness. New York, NY:
Bantam Dell.
Kalman, C. S. (2007). Successful science
and engineering teaching in colleges and
universities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kalman, C. S. (2008). Successful science and
engineering teaching: Theoretical and learn-
ing perspectives. New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6910-9
Kanuka, H. (2011). Keeping the scholarship
in the scholarship of teaching and learning.
International Journal for the Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning, 5(1). Retrieved
December 2010, from http://www.georgia-
southern.edu/ijsotl
Karabenick, S., & Dembo, M. (2011). Un-
derstanding and facilitating self-regulated
help seeking. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 126, 33–43. doi:10.1002/tl.442
Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation: Les-
sons in creativity from Ideo, America’s lead-
ing design firm. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation
of the research in academic’s conceptions of
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255–
275. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X
Kember, D. (1998). Teaching beliefs and
their impact on students’ approach to learn-
ing. In Dart, B., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (Eds.),
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
(pp. 1–25). Melbourne, Australia: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations
to teaching and their effect on the quality
of student learning. The Journal of Higher
Education, 65, 59–74. doi:10.2307/2943877
Kember, D., Ma, R., & McNaught, C. (2006).
Excellent university teaching. Hong Kong,
China: Chinese University Press.
Kember, D., & McNaught, C. (2007). Enhanc-
ing university teaching: Lessons from research
into award-winning teachers. London, UK:
Routledge.
Kemmis, S. (2009). Action research as
a practice-based practice. Education-
al Action Research, 17(3), 463–474.
doi:10.1080/09650790903093284
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2001). Par-
ticipatory action research. In Denzin, N., &
Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative
Research (2nd ed., pp. 567–605). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kennedy, D., Hyland, A., & Ryan, N. (2006).
Writing and using learning outcomes: A
practical guide. In Froment, E., Kohler, J.,
Purser, L., & Wilson, L. (Eds.), EUA Bologna
Handbook – Making Bologna Work. Berlin,
Germany: Raabe Verlag.
Keppell, M., O’Dwyer, C., Lyon, B., & Childs,
M. (2010). Transforming distance education
curricula through distributive leadership.
ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology,
18(3), 165–178. doi:10.1080/09687769.20
10.529112
Kift, S. (2012). First year in higher education
centre. Retrieved 7 October 2012, from http://
www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/
Kift, S. (2004). Between a rock and several
hard places: Where does a faculty learning
and teaching sub-dean sit and what is that
role? HERDSA News, 1(3), 8–11.
Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the
web. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to
guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1),
30–35. doi:10.1080/87567555.1993.9926781
Knapper, C., & Wright, A. W. (2001). Us-
ing portfolios to document good teaching:
Premises, purposes, practices. New Direc-
tions for Teaching and Learning, 88, 19–29.
doi:10.1002/tl.34
Knight, P. T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). De-
partmental leadership in higher education.
Buckingham, UK: SRHE & Open University
Press.
Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A
neglected species (4th ed.). Houston, TX:
Gulf Publishing.
Kolb, D. (1981). Learning styles and disci-
plinary differences. In Chickering, (Eds.),
The Modern American College: Responding
to the New Realities of Diverse Students and
a Changing Society. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How
leadership differs from management. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Why transformation
efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 61,
59–67.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The
leadership challenge: How to get extraor-
dinary things done in organizations. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Krasner, M. S., Epstein, R. M., Beckman, H.,
Suchman, A. L., Chapman, B., Mooney, C.
J., & Quill, T. E. (2009). Association of an
educational program in mindful communi-
cation with burnout, empathy, and attitudes
among primary care physicians. Journal of
the American Medical Association, 302(12),
1284–1293. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1384
Krause, K. (2012). A quality approach to
university teaching. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers,
D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A
Learning-Centred Approach (pp. 235–252).
Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence, teach-
ing expertise and the scholarship of teaching.
Innovative Higher Education, 27(1), 5–23.
doi:10.1023/A:1020464222360
Krippendorf, B. B., & Lough, J. (2005). Com-
plete and rapid switch from light microscopy
to virtual microscopy for teaching medical
histology. [New Anatomy]. The Anatomical
Record, 285B, 19–25. doi:10.1002/ar.b.20066
Kumar, R. K., Freeman, B., Velan, G. M., &
De Permentier, P. (2006). Integrating histol-
ogy and histopathology teaching in practical
classes using virtual slides. [New Anatomy].
The Anatomical Record, 289B, 128–133.
doi:10.1002/ar.b.20105
Kumar, R. K., Velan, G. M., Korell, S. O.,
Kandara, M., Dee, F. R., & Wakefield, D.
(2004). Virtual microscopy for learning
and assessment in pathology. The Journal
of Pathology, 204, 613–618. doi:10.1002/
path.1658
LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of
self-study and its theoretical underpinnings.
In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K.
LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International
Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and
Teacher Education Practices (pp. 817–869).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academ-
ic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-
3_21doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6545-3_21
Lamont, M. (2009). How professor think: In-
side the curious world of academic judgement.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Land, R. (2012). Discipline-based teaching.
In Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), Univer-
sity Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred
Approach (pp. 38–55). Melbourne, Australia:
ACER Press.
Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful educa-
tion. Educational Psychologist, 28, 43–50.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2801_4
Langer, E. J. (2000). The construct of mindful-
ness. The Journal of Social Issues, 56, 1–9.
doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00148
Laufgraben, J. L., & Shapiro, N. S. (2004).
Sustaining & improving learning communi-
ties. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university
teaching: A framework for the effective use
of educational technology. London, UK:
Routledge.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university
teaching: A conversational framework for
the effective use of learning technologies
(2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge/Falmer.
doi:10.4324/9780203304846
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university
teaching: A conversational framework for the
effective use of learning technologies. London,
UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203304846
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situ-
ated learning: Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511815355doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511815355
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learn-
ing: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815355
Lee, J., & Graham, A. (2001). Students’
perception of medical student stress and their
evaluation of a wellness elective. Medical
Education, 35, 652–659. doi:10.1046/j.1365-
2923.2001.00956.x
Lefoe, G., & Parrish, D. (2009). Enabling lead-
ership capacity through authentic learning:
The faculty scholars program. In Proceedings
of the 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference,
(pp. 263-272). Darwin, Australia: HERDSA.
Lefoe, G. (2010). Creating the future: Chang-
ing culture through leadership capacity devel-
opment. In Ehlers, U. D., & Schneckenberg, D.
(Eds.), Changing Cultures in Higher Educa-
tion: Moving Ahead to Future Learning (pp.
189–204). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer
Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03582-1_15
Lefoe, G., & Parrish, D. (2008). The GREEN
report: Growing • reflecting • enabling •
engaging • networking: A report on the de-
velopment of leadership capacity in higher
education. Wollongong, Australia: University
of Wollongong & Australian Learning and
Teaching Council.
Levin, R. (2010). Top of the class: The rise
of Asia’s universities. Foreign Affairs, 89(3),
63–75.
Liaw, S. (2004). Considerations for devel-
oping constructivist web-based learning.
International Journal of Instructional Media,
31, 309–321.
Lilly Endowment, Inc. (2012). Education.
Retrieved June 4, 2012, from http://www.
lillyendowment.org/education.html
Lomas, L., & Kinchin, I. (2006). Developing
a peer observation program with university
teachers. International Journal of Teaching
& Learning in Higher Education, 18(3),
204–214.
Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic
visualization during learning. Learning and
Instruction, 14(3), 257–274. doi:10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2004.06.003
Ludwig, D. S., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (2008). Mind-
fulness in medicine. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 300(11), 1350–1352.
doi:10.1001/jama.300.11.1350
Lujan, H., & DiCarlo, S. (2005). First year
medical students prefer multiple learning
styles. Advances in Physiology Education,
30, 13–16. doi:10.1152/advan.00045.2005
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern con-
dition: A report on knowledge. In Theory
and History of Literature (Vol. 10). Minne-
apolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
doi:10.2307/1772278
MacDonald, E., & Shirley, D. (2009). The
mindful teacher. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Machell, J., & Saunders, M. (2007). An
exploratory evaluation of the use of the na-
tional student survey (NSS) results dissemi-
nation website. Higher Education Academy.
Retrieved July 15, 2012 from http://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/nss/
web0274_national_student_survey_full_re-
port.pdf
Mann, S., & Robinson, A. (2009). Boredom
in the lecture theatre: An investigation into
the contributors, moderators, and outcomes
of boredom amongst university students.
British Educational Journal, 35, 243–258.
doi:10.1080/01411920802042911
Marbach-Ad, G., McAdams, K. C., Benson,
S., Briken, V., Cathcart, L., & Chase, M.
(2010). A model for using a concept inven-
tory as a tool for students’ assessment and
faculty professional development. CBE Life
Sciences Education, 9, 408–416. doi:10.1187/
cbe.10-05-0069
Marbach-Ad, G., Volker, B., Frauwirth, K.,
Gao, L. Y., Hutcheson, S. W., & Joseph, S. W.
(2007). A faculty team works to create content
linkages among various courses to increase
meaningful learning of targeted concepts of
microbiology. CBE Life Sciences Education,
6, 155–162. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0212
Marshall, S. J., Adams, M. J., Cameron, A.,
& Sillivan, G. (2000). Academics’ percep-
tions of their professional development needs
related to leadership and management: What
can we learn? The International Journal
for Academic Development, 5(1), 42–53.
doi:10.1080/136014400410097
Martin, E., & Balla, M. (1991). Conceptions
of teaching and implications for student learn-
ing. Research and Development in Higher
Education, 13, 298–304.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning
and awareness. Hoboken, NJ: Lawerence
Erlbaum Associates.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative
differences in learning: Outcome and process.
The British Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 46, 4–11. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.
tb02980.x
Maudsley, R., Wilson, D., Neufeld, V., Hen- Merkt, M., Weigand, S., Heier, A., & Schwan,
nen, B., DeVillaer, M., & Wakefield, J. (2000). S. (2011). Learning with videos vs. learning
Educating future physicians for Ontario: with print: The role of interactive features.
Phase II. Academic Medicine, 75, 113–126. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 687–704.
doi:10.1097/00001888-200002000-00005
Middleton, S. (2005). Disciplining the subject:
Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When The impact of PBRF on education academics.
learning is just a click away: Does simple user New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies,
interaction foster deeper understanding of 40(1/2), 131–156.
multimedia messages? Journal of Educational
Monrouxe, L. (2010). Identity, identification
Psychology, 93(2), 390. doi:10.1037/0022-
and medical education: Why should we care?
0663.93.2.390
Medical Education, 44, 40–49. doi:10.1111/
McDonald, J., & Star, C. (2006). Designing j.1365-2923.2009.03440.x
the future of learning through a community of
Naftulin, D. H., Ware, J. E. Jr, & Donnelly, F.
practice of teachers of first year courses at an
A. (1973). The doctor fox lecture: A paradigm
Australian university. In R. Philip, A. Voer-
of educational seduction. Journal of Medical
man, & J. Dalziel (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Education, 48, 630–635.
First International LAMS Conference 2006:
Designing the Future of Learning, (pp. 65- Naghshineh, S., Hafler, J., Miller, A., Vlanco,
76). Sydney, Australia: LAMS Foundation. M., Lipsitz, S., & Dubroll, R. (2008). Formal
art observation training improves medical
McGarr, O. (2009). A review of podcasting
students’ visual diagnostic skills. Journal
in higher education: Its influence on the
of General Internal Medicine, 23, 991–997.
traditional lecture. Australasian Journal of
doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0667-0
Educational Technology, 25(3), 309–321.
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher
McKinney, K. (2007). Enhancing learning
Education. (1997). Higher education in the
through the scholarship of teaching and learn-
learning society. London, UK: HMSO. Re-
ing: The challenges and joys of juggling. San
trieved July 15, 2012 from http://www.leeds.
Francisco, CA: Anker Publishing.
ac.uk/educol/ncihe/
McNaught, C., & Anwyl, J. (1992). Awards
National Teaching Fellowship Scheme.
for teaching excellence at Australian universi-
(2012). Website. Retrieved from http://www.
ties. Higher Educational Review, 25, 31–44.
heacademy.ac.uk/ntfs
McWilliam, E. (2008). Unlearning how
Network, P. O. D. (2012). Welcome. Retrieved
to teach. Innovations in Education and
May 28, 2012, from http://www.podnetwork.
Teaching International, 45(3), 263–269.
org/
doi:10.1080/14703290802176147
New Zealand Government. (2010). Tertiary
Menges, R. J. (1996). Awards to Individuals.
education strategy 2010-2015. Wellington,
In Svinicki, M. D., & Menges, R. J. (Eds.),
New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Honoring Exemplary Teaching: New Direc-
tions for Teaching and Learning. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ng, T., & Sorenson, K. (2008). Toward a
further understanding of the relationships
between perceptions of support and work
attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group & Or-
ganization Management, 33(3), 243–268.
doi:10.1177/1059601107313307
Northedge, A. (2005). Rethinking teaching in
the context of diversity: Supporting social par-
ticipation in a knowledge community. In Shaw,
G. (Ed.), Tertiary Teaching and Learning:
Dealing with Diversity (pp. 13–31). Darwin,
Australia: Charles Darwin University Press.
Norton, L. S. (2005). Pedagogical action
research (PAR): An evaluation of its effec-
tiveness in engaging busy academics with
SOTL. Paper presented at the 2nd Confer-
ence of the International Society for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (IS.
SOTL). Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved July
15, 2012 from http://www.issotl.org/meet-
ings_files/2005abstracts.pdf
Norton, L. S. (2009). Action research in
teaching and learning: A practical guide to
conducting pedagogical research in universi-
ties. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Norton, L. (2009). Assessing student learn-
ing. In Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall,
S. (Eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education (pp. 132–149).
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Norton, L. S., Norton, B., & Shannon, L.
(2012). The impact of UK university teaching
programs on lecturers’ assessment practice:
A case for pedagogical action research. In
Simon, E., & Pleschová, G. (Eds.), Improving
Teaching in Higher Education: The Chal-
lenges of Creating Effective Instructional
Development Programs. Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and
using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative
tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. (Eds.). (2005).
Faculty priorities reconsidered: Encouraging
multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann,
A. (2009). Faculty careers and work lives:
A professional growth perspective: ASHE
higher education report. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
OECD. (2010). Trends shaping education
2010. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from www.
oecd.org/edu/
OECD. (2011). Programme for international
student assessment: PISA 2009 country pro-
files. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from
http://www.pisa.oecd.org
Oliver, R. (2006). Ronline: Mediating arte-
facts to support technology-facilitated learn-
ing. In A. Bunker & I. Vardi (Eds.), Critical
Visions: Thinking, Learning and Researching
in Higher Education, (pp. 259-267). Milperra,
Australia: NSW, HERDSA.
Oliver, R. (2007). Using mobile technolo-
gies to support learning in large on campus
university classes. In Proceedings of ASCI-
LITE Singapore 2007. ASCILITE. Retrieved
from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/
singapore07/procs/oliver.pdf
Oliver, R., & Luca, J. (2007). Using mobile
technologies and podcasts to enhance learning
experiences in lecture-based university course
delivery. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.),
Proceedings of Ed-Media World Conference
on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia
and Telecommunications, (pp. 3385-3394).
Ed-Media.
Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (1996). Teaching and
learning with the WWW in the undergraduate
multimedia program at ECU. In R. Debreceny
& A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of AusWeb
96: The Second Australian World Wide Web
Conference, (pp 293-297). Lismore, Australia:
Southern Cross University Press.
Oliver, R., Herrington, J., & Omari, A. (1996).
Creating effective instructional materials for
the world wide web. In R. Debreceny & A.
Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of AusWeb 96: The
Second Australian World Wide Web Confer-
ence, (pp 485-492). Lismore, Australia:
Southern Cross University Press.
Oliver, R., Omari, A., & Knibb, K. (1997).
Creating collaborative computer-based learn-
ing environments with the world wide web.
In R. Kevill, R. Oliver, & R. Phillips (Eds.),
What Works and Why: Proceedings of the
14th Annual Conference of the Australian
Society for Computers in Tertiary Education,
(pp. 444-449). Perth, Australia: Academic
Computing Services.
Oliver, R. (1989). The impact of computers
on the training needs of teachers. Australian
Educational Computing, 3(2), 25–31.
Oliver, R. (1995). Interactive information
systems: Information access and retrieval.
The Electronic Library, 13(3), 187–194.
doi:10.1108/eb045360
Oliver, R. (1995). An investigation of skills
transfer between hypermedia systems. Journal
of Microcomputers for Information Manage-
ment, 12(3), 201–214.
Oliver, R. (1996). Measuring user perfor-
mance with interactive information systems.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12(2),
89–102. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.1996.
tb00041.x
Oliver, R. (2001). Seeking best practice in
online learning: Flexible learning toolboxes in
the Australian VET sector. Australian Journal
of Educational Technology, 17(2), 204–222.
Oliver, R. (2007). Engaging first year students
using a web-supported inquiry-based learning
setting. Higher Education, 55(3), 285–301.
doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9055-7
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (1995). Devel-
oping effective hypermedia instructional
materials. Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 11(2), 8–22.
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2001). Teaching
and learning online: A beginners guide to
e-learning and e-teaching in higher educa-
tion. Perth, Australia: CRITAC, Edith Cowan
University.
Oliver, R., & Kerr, T. (1993). The impact
of word processing on assignment grades
in tertiary studies. Higher Education, 26(1),
103–110.
Oliver, R., & Oliver, H. (1996). Informa-
tion access and retrieval with hypermedia
information systems. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 17(1), 33–44.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1996.tb00141.x
Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (1999). Using on-line
technologies to support problem-based learn-
ing: Learners’ responses and perceptions.
Australian Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 15(1), 58–79.
Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (2001). Exploring
student responses to collaborating and learn-
ing in a web-based environment. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 34–47.
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2001.00157.x
Oliver, R., Omari, A., & Herrington, J. (1997).
Exploring student interactions in collaborative
world wide web learning environments. In
Muldner, T., & Reeves, T. (Eds.), Educational
Multimedia/Hypermedia and Telecommuni-
cations 1997 (pp. 812–817). Charlottesville,
VA: AACE.
Olson, T., & Roxå, T. (2008). Evaluating
rewards for excellent teaching – A cultural ap-
proach. Paper presented in 2008 International
Conference of Higher Education Research
and Development Society of Australasia
(HERDSA). Rotorua, New Zealand.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructiv-
ist perspectives on teaching and learning.
Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345
Palmer, A., & Collins, R. (2006). Perceptions
of rewarding excellence in teaching: Motiva-
tion and the scholarship of teaching. Journal
of Further and Higher Education, 30(2),
193–205. doi:10.1080/03098770600617729
Paradis, Z., & McGaw, D. (2007). Naked
innovation. Retrieved from http://trex.id.iit.
edu/~zacharyp/Naked_Innovation.html
Parks, S. (2005). Leadership can be taught:
A bold approach for a complex world. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Parrish, D., LeFoe, G., Smigiel, H., & Al-
bury, R. (2008). The green resource: The
development of leadership capacity in higher
education. Wollongong, Australia: University
of Wollongong.
Patrick, B. C., Hisley, J., & Kempler, T.
(2000). What’s everybody so excited about?
The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student
intrinsic motivation and vitality. Journal of
Experimental Education, 68(3), 217–236.
doi:10.1080/00220970009600093
Paulsen, F. P., Eichhorn, M., & Bräuer, L.
(2010). Virtual microscopy – The future
of teaching histology in the medical cur-
riculum? Annals of Anatomy, 192, 378–382.
doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2010.09.008
Peirce, C. (1903). Pragmatism as a principle
and method of right thinking. In Turrisi, P.
A. (Ed.), The 1903 Harvard Lectures on
Pragmatism. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Perzylo, L., & Oliver, R. (1994). An investiga-
tion of children’s use of CD-ROM multimedia.
Australian Library Review, 11(2), 145–156.
Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and education.
London, UK: Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Powis, D. (2008). Selecting medical students.
The Medical Journal of Australia, 188,
323–324.
Pratt, D. (1997). Reconceptualizing the evalu-
ation of teaching in higher education. Higher
Education, 34(1), 23–44. doi:10.1023/A:100
3046127941doi:10.1023/A:1003046127941
Pratt, D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching
in adult and higher education. Malabar, FL:
Krieger Publishing Company.
Prensky, M. (2011). New issues, new answers:
A huge leap ahead for the classroom. Educa-
tional Technology, 51(6), 63.
Prosser, M. (2012). The four year degree in
HK: An opportunity for quality enhancement.
In Gordon, G., & Land, R. (Eds.), Quality
Enhancement in Higher Education: Interna-
tional Perspectives. London, UK: Routledge
International.
Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., Trigwell, K., &
Martin, E. (2003). Dissonance in experience
of teaching and its relation to the quality of
student learning. Studies in Higher Education,
28, 37–48. doi:10.1080/03075070309299
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Rela-
tions between perceptions of the teaching
environment and approaches to teaching. The
British Journal of Educational Psychology,
67, 25–35. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.
tb01224.x
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Under-
standing learning and teaching: The experi-
ence in higher education. Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2006). Con-
firmatory factor analysis of the approaches
to teaching inventory. The British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 76, 405–419.
doi:10.1348/000709905X43571
Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994).
A phenomenographic study of academics’
conceptions of science learning and teach-
ing. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217–231.
doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90024-8
Proulx, K. (2008). Experiences of wom-
en with bulimia nervosa in a mind-
fulness-based eating disorder treatment
group. Eating Disorders, 16(1), 52–72.
doi:10.1080/10640260701773496
Quality Assurance Agency. (2012). Sub-
ject benchmarking statements: Sociology.
Retrieved 7.10.2012 from http://www.qaa.
ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuid-
ance/Pages/Subject-benchmark-statement-
Sociology.aspx
Race, P. (1993). Never mind the teaching
feel the learning. SEDA Paper 80. London,
UK: Staff and Educational Development
Association Ltd.
Race, P., Brown, S., & Smith, B. (2005). 500
tips on assessment (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Routledge Falmer.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in
higher education. London, UK: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203413937
Ramsden, P., & Martin, E. (1996). Recogni-
tion of good university teaching: Policies
from an australian study. Studies in Higher
Education, 21(3), 299–315. doi:10.1080/03
075079612331381231
Ramsden, P., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K.,
& Martin, E. (2007). University teachers’
experiences of academic leadership and
their approaches to teaching. Learning and
Instruction, 17(2), 140–155. doi:10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2007.01.004
Rayner, S., Fuller, M., McEwen, L., &
Roberts, H. (2010). Managing leadership
in the UK university: A case for research-
ing the missing professoriate? Studies
in Higher Education, 35(6), 617–631.
doi:10.1080/03075070903243100
Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2012).
Designing online and blended learning. In
Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University
Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Ap-
proach (pp. 112–127). Melbourne, Australia:
ACER Press.
Regehr, G. (2010). It’s not rocket science:
Rethinking our metaphors for research
in health professions education. Medical
Education, 44(1), 31–39. PubMeddoi:10.1
111/j.1365-2923.2009.03418.xdoi:10.1111/
j.1365-2923.2009.03418.x
Rehak, D., & Mason, R. (2003). Keeping the
learning in learning objects. In Littlejohn, A.
(Ed.), Reusing Online Resources: A Sustain-
able Approach to eLearning (pp. 20–34).
London, UK: Kogan Page.
Reynolds, M. (2011). Reflective practice:
origins and interpretations. Action Learning
Research and Practice, 8(1), 5–13. doi:10.1
080/14767333.2011.549321
Richlin, L., & Cox, M. (2004). Developing
scholarly teaching and the scholarship of
teaching and learning through faculty learning
communities.New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 97, 127–136. doi:10.1002/
tl.139doi:10.1002/tl.139
Richlin, L., & Cox, M. D. (2004). Develop-
ing scholarly teaching and the scholarship of
teaching and learning through faculty learning
communities. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 97, 127–135. doi:10.1002/
tl.139
Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). Life in
the mindful classroom: nurturing the disposi-
tion of mindfulness. The Journal of Social
Issues, 56(1), 27–47. doi:10.1111/0022-
4537.00150
Rittel, H., & Weber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in
a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences,
4, 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730
Robertson, J., & Bond, C. (2005). The
research/teaching relation: A view from
the edge. Higher Education, 50, 509–539.
doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6365-x
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection:
Another look at John Dewey and reflective
thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4),
842–866. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00181
Rostan, M. (2010). Challenges to academic
freedom: Some empirical evidence. European
Review, 18(1), S71–S88. Retrieved July 15,
2012 from http://journals.cambridge.org/
action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=74513
56&jid=ERW&volumeId=18&issueId=S1
&aid=7451348&bodyId=&membershipNu
mber=&societyETOCSession=
Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional
identity: Competing outcomes. Journal
of Education Policy, 16(2), 149–161.
doi:10.1080/02680930116819
Salomon, G. (1979). Media and symbol
systems as related to cognition and learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2),
131–148. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.131
Salter, D. (2011). Practical strategies from
award winning teachers. Hong Kong, Hong
Kong: University of Hong Kong.
Salter, D., Pang, M. Y. C., & Sharma, P. (2009).
Active tasks to change the use of class time
within an outcomes based approach to curricu-
lum design. Journal of University Teaching
& Learning Practice, 6(1). Retrieved from
http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol6/iss1/4
Salter, D., Pang, M., & Sharma, P. (2009).
Active tasks to change the use of class time
within an outcomes based approach to curricu-
lum design. Journal of University Teaching
& Learning Practice, 6(1), 4.
Salter, D., Richards, L., & Carey, T. (2004).
The ‘T5’ design model: An instructional
design model to support the integration of on-
line and campus based learning. Educational
Media International, 41(3), 207–218. doi:10
.1080/09523980410001680824
Salwak, D. (2008). Teaching life: Letters from
a life in literature. Iowa City, IA: University
of Iowa Press.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992).
Conceptions of teaching held by teachers.
Higher Education, 24, 93–112. doi:10.1007/
BF00138620
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Re-
visiting academic beliefs about teaching and
learning. Higher Education, 41, 299–325.
doi:10.1023/A:1004130031247
Sankey, M. D. (2008). Program revitalisation
- Technology enhanced learning and flexible
delivery project: ACODE benchmarking.
Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://
www.usq.edu.au/~/media/USQ/learnteach/
ADS/ACODEBMprojectreportDeakinFi-
nalpdf.ashx
Sankey, M. D., & Lawrence, J. (2008). I’m
not alone: First year course leaders helped
through communities of practice. In D. Orr,
P. A. Danaher, G. Danaher, & R. E. Harreveld
(Eds.), 5th International Lifelong Learning
Conference: Lifelong Learning: Reflecting
on Successes and Framing Futures, (pp. 348-
353). Yeppoon, Australia: Central Queensland
University.
Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Gyles, P. D. T., Shore, Scott, G. (2005). Accessing the student voice:
B. M., & Bracewell, R. J. (2012). Student Using CEQuery to identify what retains stu-
outcomes in inquiry: Students’ perspectives. dents and promotes engagement in produc-
Unpublished. tive learning in Australian higher education.
Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem-
www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/
based learning: An instructional model and
publications_resources/profiles /access_stu-
its constructivist framework. Educational
dent_voice.htm
Technology, 35(5), 31–37.
Scoville, S. A., & Buskirk, T. D. (2007).
Schermerhorn, S. M., Goldschmid, M. L., &
Traditional and virtual microscopy compared
Shore, B. M. (1975). Learning basic principles
experimentally in a classroom setting. Clini-
of probability in student dyads: A cross-age
cal Anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 20, 565–570.
comparison. Journal of Educational Psychol-
doi:10.1002/ca.20440
ogy, 67, 551–557. doi:10.1037/h0077001
Scutter, S., Stupans, I., Sawyer, T., & King,
Schoeberelin, D., & Sheth, S. (2009). Mindful
S. (2010). How do students use podcasts to
teaching and teaching mindfulness: A guide
support learning? Australasian Journal of
for anyone who teaches anything. Boston,
Educational Technology, 26(2), 180–191.
MA: Wisdom.
Seldin, P., et al. (2006). Evaluating faculty
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflec-
performance: A practical guide to assessing
tive practitioner: Toward a new design for
teaching, research, and service. Boston, MA:
teaching and learning in the professions. San
Anker Publishing.
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Semali, L., & Fueyo, J. (2001). Transme-
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner:
diation as a metaphor for new literacies in
How professionals think in action. London,
multimedia classrooms. Retrieved from http://
UK: Temple Smith.
www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_in-
Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2008). Mo- dex.asp?HREF=semali2/index.html
tivation and self-regulated learning: Theory,
Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art
research, and applications. Hoboken, NJ:
and practice of the learning organization. New
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.
Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2008).
Serrat, O. (2009). The five whys technique
The American faculty: The restructuring of
knowledge solutions. Asian Development
academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD:
Bank. Retrieved from http://www.adb.org/
Johns Hopkins University Press.
knowledgesolutions
Shaffer, C. R., & Anundsen, K. (1993). Cre-
ating community anywhere: Finding support
and connection in a fragmented world. New
York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc.
Shanafelt, T. D., Bradley, K. A., Wipf, J. E., &
Back, A. L. (2002). Burnout and self-reported
patient care in an internal medicine residency
program. Annals of Internal Medicine, 136(5),
358–367.
Shapiro, J., Nguyen, V., Mourra, S., Ross,
M., Thai, T., & Leonard, R. (2006). The
use of creative projects in a gross anatomy
class. Journal for Learning through Arts, 2.
Retrieved from http://repositories.cdlib.org/
clta/Ita/vol2/iss1/art20
Shapiro, N. S., & Laufgraben, J. L. (1999).
Creating learning communities: A practical
guide to winning support, organizing for
change, and implementing programs. San
Francisco, CA: Taylor & Francis.
Shapiro, S. L., Schwartz, G. E., & Bonner, G.
(1998). Effects of mindfulness-based stress
reduction on medical and premedical stu-
dents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 21(6),
581–599. doi:10.1023/A:1018700829825
Shapiro, S., Astin, J., Bishop, S. R., & Cor-
dova, M. (2005). Mindfulness-based stress
reduction for health care professionals:
Results from a randomized trials. Interna-
tional Journal of Stress Management, 12(2),
164–176. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.2.164
Shields, M., & Shields, M. (2003). Working
with generation X physicians. Physician
Executive, 29, 14–18.
Shore, B. M., Aulls, M. W., & Delcourt, M.
A. B. (Eds.). (2008). Inquiry in education:
Overcoming barriers to successful implemen-
tation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shore, B. M., Birlean, C., Walker, C. L.,
Ritchie, K. C., LaBanca, F., & Aulls, M.
W. (2009). Inquiry literacy: A proposal for
a neologism. LEARNing Landscapes, 3(1),
139–155.
Shore, B. M., Delcourt, M. A. B., Syer, C.
A., & Schapiro, M. (2008). The phantom of
the science fair. In Shore, B. M., Aulls, M.
W., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (Eds.), Inquiry in
Education: Overcoming Barriers to Success-
ful Implementation (pp. 83–118). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Shore, B. M., Pinker, S., & Bates, M. (1990).
Research as a model for university teaching.
Higher Education, 19, 21–35. doi:10.1007/
BF00142021
Shulman, L. (2011). The scholarship of
teaching and learning: A personal account
and reflection. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1).
Retrieved February, 2011, from http://www.
georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Shulman, L. (2004). Teaching as community
property: Essays on higher education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies
in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
doi:10.1162/0011526054622015
Sibbald, B. (2010). White coat warm heart.
Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182,
E586–E588. doi:10.1503/cmaj.100905
Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The gen-
erative power of transmediation for learning.
Canadian Journal of Education, 20, 455–475.
doi:10.2307/1495082
Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial
(3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of
management decision. New York, NY: Harper
and Row. doi:10.1037/13978-000
Skelton, A. (2004). Understanding “teaching
excellence” in higher education: A critical
evaluation of the national teaching fellow-
ships scheme. Studies in Higher Education,
29(4), 451–468. doi:10.1080/03075070420
00236362
Skelton, A. (2005). Understanding teaching
excellence in higher education: Towards a
critical approach. London, UK: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780203412947
Smigiel, H. (2008). Sustaining distributive
leadership in learning and teaching: Cascade
and perpetual effectiveness of the faculty
scholar model. Retrieved from http://www.
altc.edu.au/project-sustaining-distributive-
leadership-flinders-2007
Smigiel, H., Pannan, L., Szorenyi-Reischl, N.,
& Donnan, P. (2011). Final report: Sustaining
distributive leadership in learning and teach-
ing: Cascade and perpetual effectiveness of
the faculty scholar model. Sydney, Australia:
Flinders University and Australian Learning
and Teaching Council Ltd.
Sorcinelli, M. D., & Davis, B. G. (1996).
Honoring exemplary teaching in research
universities. In Svinicki, M. D., & Menges,
R. J. (Eds.), Honoring Exemplary Teaching:
New Directions for Teaching and Learning
(pp. 71–76). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Southwell, D., & Gilding, A. (2004). Cen-
tralised decentralised professional develop-
ment models: The CATLyst network. In
Proceedings of the Online Learning and
Teaching Conference: Exploring Integrated
Learning Environments, (pp. 167-174). Bris-
bane, Australia: TALS, QUT.
Southwell, D., Gannaway, D., Orrell, J.,
Chalmers, D., & Abraham, C. (2005). Strat-
egies for effective dissemination of project
outcomes. Brisbane, Australia: University of
Queensland & Flinders University.
Sparks, S. D. (2011). Schools “flip” for lesson
model promoted by Khan Academy. Educa-
tion Week, 5, 1–14.
Speca, M., Carlson, L. E., Goodey, E., &
Angen, M. (2000). A randomized, wait-list
controlled clinical trial: the effect of a mind-
fulness meditation-based stress reduction
program on mood and symptoms of stress in
cancer outpatients. Psychosomatic Medicine,
62(5), 613–622.
Spelling, M. (2006). A test of leadership:
Charting the future of U.S. higher education:
A report of the commission appointed by
Secretary of Education Margaret Spelling.
Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://
www.web.virginia.edu/iaas/news/spelling-
sreport.pdf
Stake, R. E., & Cisneros-Cohernour, E. J.
(2000). Situational evaluation of teaching
on campus. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 83, 51–72. doi:10.1002/
tl.8305doi:10.1002/tl.8305
Stele, H. (1976). Stress in health and disease.
Reading, MA: Butterworths.
Sterman, J. (2002). All models are wrong:
reflections on becoming a systems scientist.
System Dynamics Review, 18(4), 501–531.
doi:10.1002/sdr.261
Stes, A., Gijbels, D., & van Petegem, P.
(2008). Primary title: Student-focused ap-
proaches to teaching in relation to context and
teacher characteristics. Higher Education, 55,
255–267. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9053-9
Stewart, M. (2012). Understanding learning:
Theories and critique. In Hunt, L., & Chalm-
ers, D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus:
A Learning-Centred Approach (pp. 3–20).
Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of
qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sturm, H. (1984). Wahrnehmung und fern-
sehen: Die fehlende halbsekunde. Media
Perspektiven, 1(84), 58–65.
Sullivan, W. M., & Rosin, M. S. (2008). A
new agenda for higher education: Shaping a
life of the mind for practice. San Francisco,
CA: Josey-Bass.
Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback
and student self-assessment in summative
assessment tasks: Towards transparency for
students and for tutors. Assessment & Evalu-
ation in Higher Education, 26(6), 605–614.
doi:10.1080/02602930120093922
Taylor, J. (2001). Fifth generation distance
education. Paper presented at the 20th ICDE
World Conference. Düsseldorf, Germany.
Taylor, J. W., Atwood, C. H., & Hutchings,
P. A. (2000). Why are chemists and other sci-
entists afraid of the peer review of teaching?
Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 239–
243. doi:10.1021/ed077p239doi:10.1021/
ed077p239
Taylor, K., & Schönwetter, D. (2002). Faculty
development as institutional leadership: A
framework for meeting new challenges. Paper
presented at the Quality Conversations, the
25th HERDSA Annual Conference. Perth,
Australia.
Taylor, J. (1981). Learning to look: A handout
for the visual arts. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Taylor, M. Z. (2009). Podcast lectures
as a primary teaching technology: Re-
sults of a one-year trial. Journal of Po-
litical Science Education, 5(2), 119–137.
doi:10.1080/15512160902816249
TED. (2011). Salman Khan: Let’s use video
to reinvent education. [Video]. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/talks/salman_khan_
let_s_use_video_to_reinvent_education.html
Thompson, C. (2011, August). How Khan
Academy is changing the rules of educa-
tion. WIRED. Retrieved May 1, 2012, from
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/
ff_khan/all/1
Thompson, T., Lamont-Robinson, C., &
Younie, L. (2010). Compulsory creativity:
Rationales, recipes, and results in the place-
ment of mandatory creative endeavour in a
medical undergraduate curriculum. Medical
Education Online, 15.
Times Higher Education World University
Rankings. (2010). World reputation rankings
2011. Retrieved from http://www.timeshigh-
ereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/
Toto, R., & Nguyen, H. (2009). Flipping
the work design in an industrial engineering
course. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in
Education Conference, 2009. IEEE Press.
Trigwell, K. (2000). A phenomenographic
interview on phenomenography. In Bowden,
J., & Walsh, E. (Eds.), Phenomenography
(pp. 47–61). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT
University Press.
Trigwell, K. (2010). Judging univer-
sity teaching. The International Journal
for Academic Development, 6, 65–73.
doi:10.1080/13601440110033698
Trigwell, K. (2012). Primary title: Relations
between teachers’ emotions in teaching and
their approaches to teaching in higher educa-
tion. Instructional Science, 40(3), 607–621.
doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9192-3
Trigwell, K. (2012). Scholarship of teach-
ing and learning. In Hunt, L., & Chalmers,
D. (Eds.), University Teaching in Focus: A
Learning-Centred Approach (pp. 253–267).
Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating
learning approaches, perceptions of context
and learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22,
251–266. doi:10.1007/BF00132290
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congru-
ence between intention and strategy in univer-
sity science teachers’ approaches to teaching.
Higher Education, 32, 77–87. doi:10.1007/
BF00139219
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994).
Qualitative differences in approaches to teach-
ing first year university science. Higher Edu-
cation, 27, 75–84. doi:10.1007/BF01383761
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse,
F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ ap-
proaches to teaching and students’ approaches
to learning. Higher Education, 37(2), 57–70.
doi:10.1023/A:1003548313194
Triola, M. M., & Holloway, W. J. (2011).
Enhanced virtual microscopy for collaborative
education. BioMed Central (BMC). Medical
Education, 11, 4.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Wong, J. L. N. (2009). In
search of a third space: Teacher development
in mainland China. In Chan, C. K. K., & Rao,
N. (Eds.), Revisiting the Chinese Learner:
Changing Contexts, Changing Education (pp.
281–311). Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3840-1_10
Uelzhoffer, J., & Ascheberg, C. (1999).
Transnational consumer cultures and social
milieus. Journal of the Market Research Soci-
ety. Market Research Society, 41(1), 245–268.
UNESCO. (2012). Open educational resourc-
es, useful resources/repositories. Retrieved
from http://oerwiki.iiep.unesco.org/index.
php/OER_useful_resources/Repositories
University of British Columbia. (2009). Guide
to reappointment, promotion and tenure
procedures at UBC for 2009/10. UBC Press.
University of British Columbia. (2009).
Report of the UBC working group on peer
review of teaching. UBC Press.
University of British Columbia. (2010). Place
and promise: The UBC plan. Retrieved Oc-
tober 2010 from http://strategicplan.ubc.ca/
University of British Columbia. (2010). UBC
peer review of teaching initiative. Retrieved
January 2011 from http://ctlt.ubc.ca/about-
isotl/programs-events/ubc-peer-review-of-
teaching-initiative/
University of Maryland. (2012). Website.
Retrieved May 31, 2012, from http://www.
provost.umd.edu/announcements/Blend-
edLearning2011.cfm
University of Maryland. (2012). Website.
Retrieved May 28, 2012, from http://cte.umd.
edu/programs/faculty/STI/index.html
University of Maryland. (2012). Website.
Retrieved May 31, 2012, from http://cte.umd.
edu/programs/graduate/UTLP/index.html
University of Maryland. (2012). Website.
Retrieved May 28, 2012, from http://www.
gened.umd.edu/
University of Maryland. (2012). Website.
Retrieved May 31, 2012, from http://www.
gened.umd.edu/i-series/iseries.php
University of Maryland. (2012). Website.
Retrieved June 4, 2012, from http://www.
marqueecourses.umd.edu/
USQ. (2012). Guidelines for good teaching.
Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://
www.usq.edu.au/learnteach/qualpolplan/
qual/teachguidelines
USQ. (2012). Scholarship of teaching and
learning (SoTL) summit. Retrieved January
24, 2012, from http://www.usq.edu.au/learn-
teach/learnres/summit/sottlsummit
USQ. (2012). Visiting scholars program.
Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.
usq.edu.au/learnteach/learnres/vsarchive
USQ. (2012). How to flyers. Retrieved Janu-
ary 24, 2012, from http://www.usq.edu.au/
learnteach/learnres/howtoflyers
USQ. (2012). Communities of practice. Re-
trieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.
usq.edu.au/cops/
USQ. (2012). Teaching exemplars. Retrieved
January 24, 2012, from http://www.usq.edu.
au/learnteach/learnres/exemplars
USQ. (2012). Assessment. Retrieved Janu-
ary 24, 2012, from http://www.usq.edu.au/
learnteach/topics/assess
USQ. (2012). University of South Africa.
Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://
www.usq.edu.au/learnteach/learnres/vsar-
chive/unisa
USQ. (2012). Quick tips. Retrieved Janu-
ary 24, 2012, from http://www.usq.edu.au/
learningcentre/tips
Vajoczki, S., Watt, S., Marquis, N., & Hol-
shausen, K. (2010). Podcasts: Are they an
effective tool to enhance student learning?
A case study from McMaster University,
Hamilton, Canada. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19(3), 349–362.
Vincent, A. (2011). Ideology and the univer-
sity. The Political Quarterly, 82(3), 332–341.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in
society: The development of higher psycho-
logical processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Role
diversification in inquiry education: Link-
ing role theory and social constructivism.
Unpublished.
Wals, A. E. J., Walker, K. E., & Blaze Corco-
ran, P. (2004). The practice of sustainability
in higher education: A synthesis. In Blaze
Corcoran, P., & Wals, A. E. J. (Eds.), Higher
Education and the Challenge of Sustain-
ability: Problematics, Promise and Practice
(pp. 347–348). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/0-
306-48515-X_27
Warren, R., & Plumb, E. (1999). Survey
of distinguished teacher award schemes
in higher education. Journal of Further
and Higher Education, 23(2), 245–255.
doi:10.1080/0309877990230208
Washburn, E. R. (2000). Are you ready for
generation X? Physician Executive, 26, 51–57.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centred teach-
ing: Five key changes to practice. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice:
A brief introduction. Retrieved February 16,
2012 from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/
communities_of_practice_intro.htm
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M.
(2002). Cultivating communities of practice:
A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:
Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.
(2002). Cultivating communities of practice:
A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
West-Burnham, J. (2004). Building leadership
capacity – Helping leaders learn: An NCSL
thinkpiece. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.
org.uk/media/F7B/92/randd-building-lead-
capacity.pdf
West, G. B. (1999). Teaching and technology
in higher education: Changes and challenges.
Adult Learning, 10.
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don‘t students
like school. San Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass.
World Bank Participation Sourcebook.
(1996). Website. Retrieved January 24,
2012, from http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/
external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/
IB/1996/02/01/000009265_3961214175537/
Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf
Yorke, M. (1999). Leaving early: Un-
dergraduate non-completion in higher
education. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.
doi:10.4324/9780203209479
You Tube. (2009). Edward said: Orientalism
April 16, 2003. Retrieved from http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=JncXpQQoZAo&fea
ture=youtube_gdata_player
Zahorski, K. J. (1996). Honoring exemplary
teaching in the liberal arts institution. In Sv-
inicki, M. D., & Menges, R. J. (Eds.), Honor-
ing Exemplary Teaching: New Directions for
Teaching and Learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/tl.37219966515
Zimmerman, B. (1998). Academic study-
ing and the development of personal skill:
A self-regulatory perspective. Educational
Psychologist, 33(2/3), 73–86.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action research in
higher education: Examples and reflections.
London, UK: Kogan Page.
Zyen. (2011). Global financial center index.
Retrieved January 7, 2012, from http://www.
zyen.com/GFCI/GFCI%209.pdf

Willis, D. (2009). Disciplines, institutions and

the performance based research fund: The
scholarship of teaching and learning from
a New Zealand perspective. International
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 3(2).
 Diane Salter, PhD, MSc, BSc, currently lives in Canada and is a consultant in
higher education. Her previous positions include: Associate Professor and Aca-
demic Staff Development Program Lead, Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching
and Learning (CETL), at the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, PRC; Dean of
the Centre for Curriculum and Faculty Development at Sheridan Institute for Tech-
nology and Advanced Learning, Ontario, Canada; Assistant Research Professor at
the University of Waterloo in the Centre for Leaning and Teaching with Technol-
ogy, Canada; Assistant Professor University of Toronto, Canada. She has taught
extensively internationally in curriculum development including conducting work-
shops and consulting in Australia, Austria, USA, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Macau, Hong
Kong, and China. Diane was a co-recipient of the Ron Harden Innovation in Med-
ical Education (RHIME) Award, for the curriculum developed for the special study
module, ‘Pen, Brush and Camera’ (with Prof. Li Chong Chan and Dr. Julie Chen).
Diane has over 20 years of experience in teaching and academic development in
international institutions. Dr Salter has published over 75 items including book
chapters, journal articles, and conference proceedings.

***

Arshad Ahmad, Associate Professor, Department of Finance, John Molson

School of Business, Concordia University, Canada. Dr. Ahmad is President of the
Society for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education (STLHE) in Canada. STLHE
strives to be the pre-eminent national voice, and a world leader, for enhancing
teaching and learning in higher education. He is also Vice-President of the Inter-
national Consortium for Educational Development which includes networks from
16 countries around the world. In 1992, Dr. Ahmad was recognized with a lifetime
3M National Teaching Fellowship, a program he subsequently coordinated for 10
years. Dr. Ahmad has authored three textbooks and has consulted widely in both
public and private organizations. He is known for his ability to design creative
and student centered learning environments and to lead collaborative projects that
enhance student learning.
 Kenneth Bartlett, Professor of History and Renaissance Studies, Professor of
History and Renaissance Studies, Department of History, Faculty of Arts and Sci-
ence, University of Toronto, Canada. Professor Bartlett was the first director of U
of T’s Office of Teaching Advancement (2002-2009). He was editor of Renaissance
and Reformation/Renaissance et Réforme and president of the Canadian Society
for Renaissance Studies, has authored The Civilization of the Italian Renaissance,
The English in Italy: A Study in Culture and Politics, and three video series, and
was the founding director of the University of Toronto Art Centre. He has received
an inaugural President’s Teaching Award, an Arbor Award, and in 2005, he was
awarded the prestigious 3M National Teaching Fellowship.

Spencer Benson, Director, Centre for Teaching Excellence, Department of Cell

Biology and Molecular Genetics; University of Maryland, US, CASE-Carnegie
Maryland Professor of the Year, American Society for Microbiology Carski Teaching
Award, 2008 Fulbright Fellow to Hong Kong. As Director of the Center for Teach-
ing Excellence, Dr. Benson oversees more than 20 programs directed at enhancing
teaching and student learning including seven faculty and graduate student learning
communities. Dr. Benson has organized local, national, and international meetings
on science education, E-learning, Scholarship in Teaching and Learning (SoTL)
and faculty development.

Grant Campbell, Reader in the School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical

Science at The University of Manchester, UK. Dr. Campbell has diverse teaching
experience across the full scope of undergraduate and postgraduate courses, includ-
ing lectured courses, laboratory practicals, design projects, and research projects.
He is also research active in the area of grain process engineering. Formerly the
School’s examinations secretary and currently External Examiner at Nottingham,
he also has substantial experience in assessment. His teaching has been recognized
by the award of the Institution of Chemical Engineers’ Frank Morton Medal for
Excellence in Chemical Engineering Education.

Gregor Campbell, Principal Teaching Fellow, Department of Cell and Devel-

opmental Biology, Division of Biosciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University
College London, UK. Dr. Gregor Campbell, Recipient of 2008 UCL Provost’s
Teaching Award in Experienced Academic Staff Category and 2009 UCL Medical
School’s David Jordan Award, is the Principal Teaching Fellow in Department of
Cell and Developmental Biology, Division of Biosciences, Faculty of Life Sciences,
University College London. His research interests are on education of microscopic
anatomy particularly in relation to innovative methods involving e-learning for
medical and science undergraduates.
 L. C. Chan, Chair Professor, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine,
University of Hong Kong, SAR, People’s Republic of China. Prof. Chan Li Chong
is a Chair Professor of the Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, the Uni-
versity of Hong Kong. He is also Co-Director of the Centre for the Humanities and
Medicine, the University of Hong Kong, and Co-Director of the Medical Humani-
ties and Ethics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, the University of Hong Kong. He has a
special interest in Problem Based Learning and curriculum development. He is the
recipient of a 2008 Outstanding Teacher Award at the University of Hong Kong.

Tanya Chichekian holds a BEd from McGill University, was a Secondary

Mathematics Teacher in Montreal, and Co-Coordinator of Academic Advising at
Dawson College in Montreal. She completed her MA in Educational Psychology
with a specialization in the Learning Sciences in the Department of Educational and
Counselling Psychology and is completing her PhD. Her research interests include
mathematics and science education, inquiry-based teaching and learning in general,
and in the International Baccalaureat, and the development of learners’ and teachers’
identity, knowledge, skills, and motivation as inquirers.

Anthony Clarke, Professor, Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Faculty

of Education; Co-Director, Centre for the Study of Teacher Education, Faculty of
Education, University of British Columbia, Canada. Tony spent a number of years
as a classroom teacher in Australia before coming to Canada to work with beginning
teachers, classroom teachers, and university instructors at UBC. He is involved in a
number of projects, including the CITE elementary teacher education initiative at
UBC. His work also involves self-study of teacher education practices (e.g., co-chair
of UBC’s Investigating Our Practices), the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
(informed by his work with the Faculty Certificate Program at UBC), and mentoring
in practicum settings (e.g., www.mentoringprofile.com).

Carol-Ann Courneya, Associate Professor, Department of Cellular and Physi-

ological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia (UBC),
Canada. Carol-Ann Courneya is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Medicine
at the University of British Columbia. She holds a UBC Killam Teaching Award
and a 3M National Teaching Fellowship. Her textbook Cardiovascular Physiology,
is used as a standard for teaching clinically relevant CV physiology. She founded
(2001) and directs two annual Art Projects, one at UBC Medicine called “Heart-
felt Images” and one at Patan Academy in Nepal called “My Heart My Art” that
celebrate cardiac-inspired art. Dr. Courneya founded and co-directs a national art
exhibit called White Coat Warm Art that showcases art created by health sciences
students, residents and faculty from across Canada.
 Elliott Currie, Associate Professor, Department of Business, College of Man-
agement & Economics, University of Guelph, Canada. Elliott Currie has been at the
University of Guelph since 1998 teaching in the various areas and level of accounting
and financial management. Currently Elliott is also involved in teaching management
accounting and tax at the undergraduate level and occasionally business strategy.
The primary focus of Elliott’s scholarly endeavours is in the areas of small business
management, interdisciplinary and new product development and the competitive-
ness of the Ontario Agri-Food chain. Another role Elliott plays is that of Academic
Advisor to the Bachelor of Commerce Accounting at the University of Guelph.

Iain Doherty, Director, eLearning Pedagogical Support Unit, The Centre for
the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, The University of Hong Kong, SAR,
People’s Republic of China. Dr. Iain Doherty is the Director of the eLearning Peda-
gogical Support Unit in the Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning
at the University of Hong Kong. Iain is responsible for leading in the implementa-
tion of The University of Hong Kong’s eLearning Strategy. This means that he is
proactive in operational leadership, operational management, managing change,
designing and developing professional learning opportunities for academic staff
and in working collaboratively to develop a supportive eLearning community at
the University of Hong Kong.

David Dunne, Adjunct Professor of Marketing, Joseph L. Rotman School of

Management, University of Toronto; Senior Fellow, Beedie School of Business,
Simon Fraser University; 3M National Fellow, Canada; President’s Teaching Award
and Teaching Academy, University of Toronto. Prof. Dunne is an award-winning
management educator, author, and consultant. His passion is teaching customer
experience design. Marrying international business experience in marketing and
advertising with an outstanding record as an academic, he teaches creative problem
solving, design and marketing throughout the world. He works as a volunteer to
foster higher education in the poorest countries.

Cath Ellis, Head of Combined Honours, School of Music, Humanities and Media,
University of Huddersfield, UK. Cath Ellis took up her post at Huddersfield in 2005
having moved to the UK from Australia, where she had taught at the University of
Wollongong and the University of New England. She has led two multidisciplinary
degree courses and a Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund (TQEF) project supporting
others to experiment with innovative teaching and learning. Her disciplinary area
is postcolonial literary and cultural studies. Cath was awarded a National Teach-
ing Fellowship in 2010 and is currently leading a JISC funded project evaluating
Electronic Assessment Management.
 David Eubanks, Associate Director of College Park Scholars, University of
Maryland, USA. Dr. Eubanks coordinates assessment efforts, pedagogy enhance-
ments, and faculty development for College Park Scholars’ eleven living-learning
programs. He previously served as Assistant Director and Interim Director of the
University of Maryland Center for Teaching Excellence, where he developed and
collaborated on efforts to enhance undergraduate teaching and learning across cam-
pus. He has delivered workshops and presentations across campus and at regional,
national, and international conferences and has taught courses in US literature,
pedagogy, writing, and research.

Peter Felten, Assistant Provost for Teaching and Learning, Director of the Center
for Engaged Learning, Executive Director of the Center for the Advancement of
Teaching and Learning, and Professor of History at Elon University, USA. Dr. Felten
is a past president of the POD Network, the professional association for teaching
and learning centers in the U.S. Peter’s recent scholarship focuses on student-faculty
partnerships and on faculty mentoring communities.

Ashley Finley, Senior Director of Assessment and Research at the Association

of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the national evaluator for the
Bringing Theory to Practice (BTtoP) Project. Through her work with both AAC&U
and BTtoP, Dr. Finley helps colleges and universities to develop, implement, and
communicate meaningful assessment strategies that facilitate depth of learning at
the student, faculty, and institutional levels. Before joining AAC&U, she was an
Assistant Professor of Sociology at Dickinson College.

Olivia (Liv) Hua, BA, BEd, PhD candidate of Prof. Bruce Shore. Olivia (Liv)
Hua has a B.A.(honours) in psychology from the University of Waterloo and an MA
in Educational Psychology from McGill University. She is currently completing a
PhD in Educational Psychology (Learning Sciences Concentration) at McGill. Her
research interests include gifted education (secondary school level), inquiry-based
science teaching (higher education), undergraduate mentorship, and university
leadership.

Harry Hubball, Senior Advisor for Teaching and Learning pro-tem, Director,
Institute for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, pro-tem; Associate Profes-
sor, Faculty of Education, Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, University
of British Columbia, Canada. Harry Hubball is a 3M National Teaching Fellow.
His research and practice focus on the scholarship of curriculum and pedagogy in
diverse university, programme, and disciplinary contexts.
 Lynne Hunt, Emeritus Professor, University of Southern Queensland, Adjunct
Professor, University of Western Australia, Adjunct Professor (Global Learning
Division, University of Southern Queensland). Professor Hunt won the 2002 Prime
Minister’s Award for Australian University Teacher of the Year and an Australian
Executive Endeavour Award (2009). She has co-edited two books: The Realities
of Change in Higher Education: Interventions to Promote Learning and Teaching
(2006) and University Teaching in Focus: A Learning Centred Approach (2012).
Professor Hunt was a member of the Board of the Australian Learning and Teaching
Council and she has served internationally in external review roles for the University
of Pretoria and the University of Botswana.

Gray Kochhar-Lindgren, Associate Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Learn-

ing, University of Washington, USA. Prof. Kochhar is a Professor of Philosophy,
Literature, and Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Washington, Bothell,
and the Honorary Professor of the Centre for the Humanities and Medicine in Uni-
versity of Hong Kong from 2010 to 2013. The author of Narcissus Transformed,
Starting Time, TechnoLogics, Night Café, and Philosophy, Art, and the Specters
of Jacques Derrida, he is currently working on TransPacific Cities, Global Noir,
Bioregional Curriculum Design, and the Global University. Gray, a recipient of two
teaching awards, has taught in Switzerland, Germany, and the United States, and,
in 2009-10, served as a Fulbright Scholar in General Education at the University
of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong American Center.

Geraldine Lefoe, Associate Professor, Academic Development Unit, University

of Wollongong, Australia. Dr. Lefoe was a recipient of 2009 Australian Learning
and Teaching Council (ALTC) Citation for Outstanding Contribution to Student
Learning and Associate Professor, Academic Development Unit, CEDiR, University
of Wollongong, Australia. Her research interests include distributed leadership in
higher education, pedagogical use of educational technologies to enhance learning
and teaching; improving outcomes for sessional staff; and the role of co-teachers in
transnational education. She was awarded life membership of Australasian Society
for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ascilite) in 2010 to recognize
her significant contribution towards the leadership and strategic activities of the
ascilite community.

Roger Moore, Professor Emeritus, St. Thomas University, NB, Canada. A spe-
cialist in Early Modern (Golden Age) Spanish Literature, Dr. Roger Moore is an
award-winning poet, short story writer, film maker (NB Film Coop), and academic
researcher, as well as a recipient of two major teaching awards, the 3M National
Teaching Fellowship (2000) and the Association of Atlantic Universities’ Distin-
guished Teacher’s Award (1997). Author of more than 20 books and chapbooks,
90 articles, and 70 reviews, Roger currently sits on 9 editorial boards ranging from
specialized Hispanic journals, through reviews devoted to education, translation,
and literature. He is currently the Editor of the STLHE Newsletter and an Associate
Editor of the STLHE Green Guides for Teaching.

Lin Norton, Emeritus Professor of Pedagogical Research, Liverpool Hope Uni-

versity, UK. Lin Norton is a UK National Teaching Fellow and Emeritus Professor of
Pedagogical Research at Liverpool Hope University, England, where she is actively
pursuing her interests in lecturers’ beliefs and experiences. Until December 2010,
she was the Dean of Learning and Teaching at Hope. For ten years, Lin developed
pedagogical action research within the University and was the originator and found-
ing editor of the in-house journal, PRIME (Pedagogical Research In Maximising
Education). Currently, Lin is an associate editor for the journal Psychology Learning
and Teaching (PLAT) and is on the editorial board of Innovations in Education and
Teaching International.

Ron Oliver, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning), Edith Cowan Univer-

sity, Australia. Ron Oliver has used emerging technologies throughout his thirty-year
teaching career to engage and motivate his students. He has actively researched in
this area and has experience in the design, development, implementation, and evalu-
ation of technology-facilitated learning materials. Ron has won many awards for his
innovative teaching and research with learning technologies at both the institutional
level and beyond. These include an Australian Award for University Teaching (1997)
and an Australian Learning and Teaching Council Fellowship (2006).

Tessa Owens, Principal Lecturer in Learning & Teaching, Director for the
Centre for Pedagogy, Award Director of Masters in Academic Practice, Liverpool
Hope University, UK. Dr. Tessa Owens is a Director for the Centre for Pedagogy
at Liverpool Hope University, England. Tessa’s research interests are in problem-
based and technology enhanced learning. Tessa has taught at Hope for twelve years,
firstly in the Business & Management School and subsequently in the Faculty of
Education and now has a particular remit for staff development across the university,
most notably as the Award Director for the Masters and Postgraduate Certificate
in Academic Practice.

Dominique Parrish, Senior Lecturer, Director Learning, Teaching and the

Student Experience, Faculty of Health & Behavioural Sciences, University of Wol-
longong, Australia. Dr. Dominique Parrish has over 25 years experience working in
the education sector and a wealth of practical experience in adult education in both
government and non-government agencies. In 2004, Dominique founded Learning
Achievements and Solutions, a business that has delivered services including policy
and resource development, online learning and web-based training, project man-
agement, organizational research such as staff and client satisfaction and strategic
planning. In August 2011, Dominique took up a full time position with the Faculty
of Health and Behavioural Sciences at the University of Wollongong as the Director
of Learning, Teaching, and the Student Experience.

Daniel Pratt, Professor, Department of Education Studies, Faculty of Education;

Senior Scholar, Centre for Health Education Scholarship, Faculty of Medicine, Uni-
versity of British Columbia, Canada. Dan Pratt is Professor of Educational Studies
with a cross-appointment to the Faculty of Medicine at the University of British
Columbia. He served for five years as the Director of Clinical Educator Fellowships
in Medical Education in the Centre for Health Education Scholarship (CHES) and
is currently a Senior Scholar within CHES. He is a member of the International
Adult & Continuing Education Hall of Fame and in 2008 received Canada’s highest
university teaching award—the 3M National Teaching Fellowship. His four grand
children know nothing of any of this, but simply enjoy him as ‘Papa Dan’.

Mike Prosser, Honorary Professor, The University of Hong Kong, Honorary

Professor, The University of Sydney, Australia. Michael Prosser recently retired as
Executive Director, Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, The
University of Hong Kong. His academic interests are in student learning and its
relationship to teaching in higher education. He has published widely, including co-
authored book, and over 90 journal articles and book chapters. He has been elected
a life member of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Aus-
tralasia for distinguished contributions to teaching and research in higher education
and of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning for
leadership in the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Michael Sankey, Senior Lecturer, Learning Technologies Office of PVC Learn-

ing Teaching and Quality, University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Michael
is currently the Program Manager, Learning Technologies and Environments at the
University Southern Queensland. He specializes in elearning pedagogies, multimodal
design, visual, and multiliteracies. He has worked in Higher Education for over 21
years and is particularly interested in how constructively aligned and aesthetically
enhanced learning environments can better transmit concepts to students, particularly
those from diverse backgrounds.
 Bruce M. Shore, Emeritus Professor, Professor of Educational Psychology, De-
partment of Educational and Counselling Psychology, Faculty of Education, McGill
University, Canada. Bruce M. Shore is Emeritus Professor of Education at McGill
University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and is a licensed teacher and psycholo-
gist. For 21 years, he was jointly appointed in McGill’s teaching-development unit.
He has also served as Department Chair, President of the McGill Association of
University Teachers, and Dean of Students. Awards include National Association
for Gifted Students Distinguished Scholar and three from McGill -The Faculty of
Education Distinguished Teaching Award, the David Thomson Award for Graduate
Supervision and Teaching, and the Principal’s Prize for Excellence in Teaching. He
is an elected Fellow of the American Educational Research Association.

Ann C. Smith, Assistant Dean in the Office of Undergraduate Studies, Uni-

versity of Maryland, USA. Dr. Smith works with curriculum and assessment for
general education including supporting innovative STEM courses aimed at non-
science majors (the Marquee Courses in Science and Technology). She is involved
in discipline based science education work leading the Host Pathogen Interaction
Teaching Team with whom she has had several peer-reviewed publications and re-
ceived support from the National Science Foundation. Ann is recipient of the UMD
Center for Teaching Excellence Celebrating Teachers Award, UMD Teaching with
Technology Award, The College of Life Sciences Teaching and Course Development
Award, Founding Editor of the American Society for Microbiology Atlas-Protocol
Collection, and a Faculty 21 member of Project Kaleidoscope. She is a member of
the American Society for Microbiology Biology Scholars. Ann received her Ph.D.
in Microbiology at the University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

Denise Stockley, Associate Professor, Education, Queens University, Canada. Dr.

Denise Stockley completed her Doctorate in the Psychology of Education (2002) at
Simon Fraser University. She joined the Centre for Teaching and Learning at Queen’s
University in January 2001 and is an Educational Developer and an Associate Pro-
fessor of Education. Denise has extensive experience for both classroom-based and
online learning and has taught, consulted, and provided educational development
leadership since 1993 within the college, university and corporate sectors. She is
also the Principal Investigator of several research grants, including those from the
Tri-Council (SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR).

abductive reasoning 62
academic development 3, 8, 18, 23, 37,
122, 209, 245, 257-258, 287, 291,
298, 301-302, 354
academic judgement 304, 310, 321, 323-
329
academic skill 178
Annual Performance Reviews (APRs) 287
Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI)
4, 6, 32
art-making 106, 108-110, 115-116
Australian Learning and Teaching Council
(ALTC) 240, 242
authentic learning 39-40, 42, 51, 79, 82,
92, 152, 244, 258-259
aviation instruction 97
award-winning teacher 5
behavioral control 284, 287
blended learning 46, 55, 92, 218, 262, 272
Blended Learning Initiative-FLC (BLI-
FLC) 218
blog 12, 15, 163, 273, 348
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning 312-313,
315
Bringing Theory to Practice project 230
Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) 216
Centre for Teaching, Learning and Tech-
nology (CTLT) 193
classroom response system 96, 101, 104
cognitive engagement 85
cognitive load 79, 341, 349
cognitive mindset 123
commitment to assessment 307
Communities of Practice (COP) 152, 270
community-engaged research 51
compulsory creativity 108, 118
connectivity 78-79, 89
Course and Program Management System
(CPMS) 275
creativity 58, 69-70, 74, 106, 108-109,
115-116, 118
critical thinking 39-40, 42-43, 45, 47, 49,
125-126, 166, 338, 371
culture of teaching 196, 228, 230-231,
235-237
curriculum alignment 39, 44
curriculum design 24, 34, 40, 42, 46, 94,
330, 333, 335
deductive reasoning 62
deep learning 41, 76, 80-81
development opportunity 270, 362
digital slides 131, 138-139, 143
discipline-based teaching 39, 41-43, 55
distributed leadership 21, 239-240, 243,
247-248, 250, 255-258, 283
Educational Professional Development
(EPD) 281
emotional intelligence 106-107, 117
engaging students 57-58, 61, 126, 174, 178
ePortfolio 272, 281, 283, 285-287
faculty development 22, 209, 214, 227,
229, 236, 240, 244, 260, 354-355,
361-364
faculty learning communities (FLCs) 214
Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences
(FMHS) 280
faculty work 229
flexible learning 76, 87, 93, 262
Genetics Education Networking for In-
novation and Excellence (GENIE)
292, 302
globalisation of education 272
Higher Education Academy (HEA) 305
Host Pathogen Interactions (HPI) 217
human service 266, 276
hypotheses 44, 59, 62-64
inductive reasoning 62
information retrieval 333
inquiry based learning 146
Institute for the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning (ISoTL) 193
institutional change 225, 227, 261-262,
366, 375
institutional leadership 21, 225, 240, 260
institutional rewards 232-233
institutional reward structures 228-229,
231
institutional strategy 198
interactive multimedia 78
interactive pedagogies 366
interdisciplinarity 366, 371-374
international graduate student 222
job satisfaction 228, 230, 233, 235-236,
238
knowledge democracy 332-333, 349
knowledge economy 332
knowledge monopoly 332
knowledge production 332, 349
Kolb cycle 63
leadership capacity 239-244, 246, 256,
258-260, 283, 289
Leadership Capacity Development Frame-
work (LCDF) 241, 243, 246
learner-centred teaching 95
Learning and Teaching Week 269
learning community 86, 92, 189, 208-210,
212-226
learning design 76, 81, 86, 91, 272, 289
Learning Managements Systems (LMS) 46
learning outcome 164, 318-320
Learning Technologies Opportunity
Framework 79-80, 90
learning technology 76-77, 79-80, 90-92,
274, 289, 350
lecture capture 96-97, 99, 104
lecture capture technology 96-97
linguistic barriers 98
managerialist domination 299
medical education 106, 108, 115-120, 127,
131, 140, 143, 145, 172, 179, 210
Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction
(MBSR) 120
mindfulness techniques 122, 124
mindfulness training 120-123, 126, 128
mobile learning 76
mobile technology 77, 79, 93
multimedia 78, 84, 87, 93-94, 105, 118,
138, 218, 350, 370, 374

National Teaching Fellowship 23, 182-184,
187-189
networking 75, 78, 241, 246, 258-259, 292,
298, 302, 348
neuroscience teaching 131
New Academics Programme (NAP) 305
normative belief 287
Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT)
242
Office of Teaching Advancement (OTA)
356
on-demand learning 330, 344, 348
on-demand resources 330, 334, 339, 341,
344-346, 352
organizational change 240
participatory action research 239, 259
Pedagogical Action Research (PAR) 292,
294, 303
Pedagogical Research in Higher Education
(PRHE) 295
Pedagogical Research in Maximising Edu-
cation (PRIME) 295
pedagogy 3, 39-40, 42-43, 46, 51-52, 91,
125, 148, 155, 209, 223, 228, 232,
277, 299, 301, 330, 337, 361, 368,
373
Peer Review of Teaching (PRT) 191
perceptions of teaching 1, 30
Performance Reviews of Teaching 192
podcast 11, 87, 105
postindustrial 370
problem-based learning (PBL) 125
professional commitment 233-234
professional development 3, 8, 18, 23, 196-
197, 205, 221-222, 226, 244, 257-258,
260-261, 265, 267, 269-271, 280-281,
283, 288-289, 294, 298, 301, 353
Program Revitalisation Project (PRP) 274
promotion and tenure 1, 16, 19-21, 211,
232, 234, 354-357, 359
PRT Context 198
PRT Planning 199
quality assurance 21, 26-27, 42, 55, 211,
241, 275-276, 293, 301, 306, 310, 314
quality student learning 26-27, 31, 33, 35,
41
rapid prototyping 63
reflective problem solving 57, 59, 61
scholarly teaching 20, 210, 212, 224, 226-
227, 235
screen capture software 99, 104
second language 97-99, 221
selection criteria 70, 184
self-regulated learner 64
self-regulation 64, 73
social constructivism 146, 148, 154, 157,
180, 244
social science 39-40, 42, 48, 206, 292
Society for Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education (STLHE) 182
sociology 39-40, 42-52, 55
staff development 1, 3, 5, 15-17, 244, 291-
293
student-centred approach 2
student-centred learning 44, 88, 328, 330
student engagement 39, 44, 53-54, 97, 104,
123, 199, 201-202, 223, 277, 295, 348
Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) 32, 35
subjective norm 284
Summative PRT 192, 195, 197-198, 200-
203, 205-207
Summer Technology Institute-FLC (STI-
FLC) 217
surface learning 41, 80
sustaining change 283
systemic change in universities 280
taxation 96-99, 103, 362
teaching award 19-20, 22, 35, 140, 142,
182-184, 232-233, 236, 238, 268, 358
teaching context data 200
teaching excellence 5, 20, 22-24, 34, 182-
184, 189-190, 216-217, 219-220, 223,
228, 236-237, 261, 265, 268, 280-281,
284, 286, 291, 306, 354-356, 358,
360-361
Teaching Learning Canada (TLC) 187
Teaching Orientation Questionnaire (TOQ)
32
teaching outcome data 200
teaching portfolio 39, 184, 222-223, 286
teaching process data 200
teaching-research nexus 146-147, 149,
151-152, 175
teaching tool 139
technology-enhanced learning 272
technology-supported learning 86, 89
technology use 1, 5, 11-12, 86, 90-91
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) 284
threshold concept 42-43
transactional curriculum inquiry 40
transmediation 106, 111-113, 118
tutorial 77-78, 126-127, 134, 143
University College London (UCL) 131-132
University of British Columbia (UBC)
191-192
University of Hong Kong (HKU) 34, 127
University of Maryland (UMD) 214
University Teaching and Learning Program
(UTLP) 222
user-centred design 60-61, 65, 74
videoconference 87, 253
Vimeo 332-333
visual literacy 106-107
Web 2.0 79, 272, 289
wicked problems 59-60, 67-68, 73-74
wiki 163, 273, 351
World Wide Web (Web) 78
YouTube 12, 330-333, 344, 347, 351