Gains to the lecturer of a project-based model of professional development
by
Manda Page
School of Natural & Rural Systems Management, the University of Queensland
and
Terrie Ferman
LRDU - TEDI, the University of Queensland
1. Background to the project
In 1998, a lecturer at The University of Queensland was given the task of developing a new subject,'Protected Area Management and Operations' (NR217), for delivery to distance and internal Gatton campus students. The subject is offered to Associate Diploma students with a conservation major and to Bachelor of Applied Science students in the School of Natural and Rural Systems Management. It is a recommended second year subject. The intention was to incorporate the new subject with some previously offered material ('National Park Management, Fire and Protection Biology) which needed substantial updating.
The lecturer involved in this project was fresh from completing her PhD the previous year, had limited teaching experience and no experience at all in developing distance study material. She was instructed to combine existing material without making any substantial changes to the content. This task needed to be completed within a very tight timeline.
The lecturer subsequently approached an educational designer (from the Learning Resources Development Unit, TEDI) for assistance with this task of producing the core learning resource for distance students. The lecturer's expressed aim was to include as many interesting activities as possible as a means of making the content more accessible and interesting to students. Given the lecturer's newness to her position, the explicit instructions which she had received and the extremely tight timelines, there was no intention to depart from a quite traditional study guide format. The resulting study guide is a conventional example of its kind, consisting of text input, activities and readings. A small innovation was the inclusion of (optional) web site work.
The study guide was produced and implemented. It was then evaluated with a particular emphasis on the learning activities. Three different questionnaires were developed - one for the students; one for the lecturer and her tutor colleague; and a slightly different version for the educational designer. As the educational designer does not possess the relevant content knowledge, the section of the questionnaire concerning the appropriacy of the readings was not included in her version of the questionnaire.
2. Theoretical Overview
In order to carry out the project, a model of professional development (PD) was used which was based on one-to-one collaboration and included an action research approach.
brief overview of existing models of PD
Various kinds of professional development currently exist: workshops, seminars,
short courses, personal individual work (including reading the literature);
interacting with colleagues formally and informally; conference attendance;
peer teaching and mutual observation etc. (Brown and Teague, 1998).
While all these methods of PD have their place and fill different purposes, none provides everything needed by university lecturers to become expert in their role. This is not surprising given that 'professional development is a complex journey' (Butler, 1996:274).
If learning is most effective when it is just-in-time, related to a specific context and customised to suit particular needs (Chalmers and Murray, 1998), this project had sound foundations. It used a needs-based model of PD to meet an immediate purpose, incorporated high levels of collaboration and reflective practice and was driven by the particular context of an individual academic.
needs-based one-to-one collaboration
The importance of collaboration is widely recognised (for instance, Chalmers
and Murray,1998; Biggs and Telfer, 1987; Laurillard, 1993 in Brown and Teague,
1998).
This project involved close on-going collaboration, with the lecturer taking responsibility for the content of the study guide and both lecturer and educational designer being involved in all other aspects of the project. One of the strengths of collaboration is that it involves an equal relationship among participants which is important to successful PD as is the need for 'appropriate action ...(to be) negotiated and mediated between them' (Slater, 1991:86). The project reported here was driven entirely by the lecturer's expressed immediate needs.
This needs-based approach was helpful in creating the all-important sense of ownership of both the process and the outcomes (Kember, 1998). Such ownership is appropriate, indeed necessary, since 'the ultimate guardians of excellence are not external forces, but internal professional responsibilities' (Ramsden, 1992; 221 in Butler, 1996). Since educators 'are ultimately the experts in determining their professional needs' (Jones and Lewis, 1991:53), it is crucial that they set the agenda as occurred during this project.
To economic rationalists a one-to-one model of PD will appear extravagant. Not so. The one-to-one time spent with one academic has ripple effects in that the skills gained in designing one subject will be transferred to the design of other subjects. In this way, the learning opportunities of hundreds of future students will be improved within a few semesters. Failure to recognise the on-going benefits of individualised collaboration suggests a false sense of economy, since a view exists that conventional generic, conference style workshops may be largely ineffective (Meacham, 1982 in Slater, 1991; Slater, 1991; Gibbs, 1995 in Kember, 1998; Butler, 1996).
The crucial role of one-to-one work was highlighted in a report on a project where considerable time was spent assisting staff on a one-to-one basis. The one-to-one assistance offered was seen by novice users as critically important (92.8% of participants) (Jones and Lewis, 1991).
reflection and action research
The need for continuous learning is a feature of modern life and academics,
like others, need to do more than react in short-term, short-sighted ways.
A long-term strategic approach is needed, one that goes beyond a mere training
model as 'organisations have found that training is not enough to meet the
demands of continuous learning' (Watkins & Marsick, 1992:288 in Butler, 1996:266).
One powerful way to meet the needs of lifelong learning is to reflect (Butler, 1996). Reflection provides insights as 'the greatest leverage in the development of professional practice is the reading of one's own actions.' (Butler, 1996:269). It takes the novice along the road to the state of expert and is crucial to development. (Butler, 1996). Given the novice state of the lecturer as learning resource designer at the beginning of the collaboration, reflection was clearly always going to be critical.
As well as driving lifelong learning, reflective practice is the cornerstone of action research. Thus, in using on-going reflection, the collaboration reported here was strongly marked by elements of action research. The project explicitly incorporated an action research approach in its evaluation phase in having the lecturer as researcher and evaluator of her own work.
the relationship of PD to the work of the educational designer
Contrary to findings by Allen (1996 in Kember, 1998)1, the view of the educational designer involved in this project
is that staff (or professional) development is a crucial element of educational
design (referred to by Allen as 'instructional design')2 and that professional development is not separate from, but
occurs through, educational design activity. While Allen's findings indicated
'that staff development is hardly the prime driving force behind the work
of instructional designers' (1998:50) the view which informs this paper is
that staff development is in fact the driving force which impels the
work of educational designers.
3. Process of the project
The phases of the project
The project consisted of three distinct phases - the design, implementation
and evaluation of the study guide. Within the final phase (evaluation), there
were three steps - design of the evaluation instrumentation (questionnaires);
implementation of the evaluation; and analysis, reflection and action following
the evaluation.
The design of the study guide phase
The collaboration was initiated by the lecturer. At the first meeting, her
needs and preferences were clarified and an overall approach agreed. She expressed
a preference for interactive teaching, did not want too much teacher-centredness
and was also interested in using formative as well as summative assessment.
She identified the major need as being the inclusion of interesting learning activities in the study guide. In order to design appropriate activities that would reflect the stated objectives of the subject, we began by examining the objectives and, where necessary, refining or re-writing them. This was done within the overall organising framework of a subject plan (See Appendix 1-Subject Planner).
Once the objectives were made more precise, the lecturer matched them to the compulsory content (topics) for the subject. The next step was to consider a range of activities which might be appropriate to the content and objectives. The emphasis was on the need for the activities to be compatible with and facilitating of the objectives. There was also an emphasis on the need for activities to be engaging and, where possible, to call on students' prior knowledge.
The subject planning document began to take shape, module by module3. Regular meetings between the collaborators were held to discuss progress.4 Once a match was achieved between content, objectives, learning activities and selection of resources, attention was focussed on assessment. In fact, the lecturer required very little guidance with this element of the subject design. Once compatibility had been achieved between learning objectives and activities, appropriate assessment emerged quite logically.
During this phase, reflection was on-going. It was made more formal when the educational designer interviewed the lecturer about her perceived gains to date. (More details in 'Gains' below).
The implementation of the study guide phase
The study guide was distributed to distance students as their key learning
resource.
The evaluation of the study guide phase
design of the evaluation instrumentation (questionnaires)
In addition to the on-going reflection which occurred during the design phase, further reflection occurred during the evaluation process. The development of the evaluation instruments was, in itself, an interesting process with several iterations of the questionnaires occurring prior to finalisation. The lecturer found the co-development of the questionnaires particularly valuable, commenting that she found this activity considerably more useful than simply using an existing instrument; she learned through doing. The shared design of the evaluation instruments was compatible with the participant relationship essential to successful collaboration. It was decided to use slightly different versions of the questionnaire for the lecturer (and tutor) and the educational designer. Since the latter did not possess content specific knowledge, her version of the questionnaire did not include the section on appropriacy of the readings. Otherwise, the questionnaires completed by the lecturer and the educational designer were identical.
The evaluation instrument given to the students was considerably briefer than that used by the academics. Both the lecturer and the educational designer were conscious of the need to respect the busy schedules of students and thus took maximum care to design as sparse a questionnaire as possible, without running the risk of losing important data.
implementation of the evaluation
Questionnaires were posted to students. Unfortunately, but also not uncommonly, the response rate was quite low (about 15%). Nonetheless, useful data was obtained. The academics (lecturer, tutor and educational designer) completed their questionnaires.analysis, reflection and action following the evaluation
The process of analysing and interpreting the data was quite enlightening. Different parts of this task were undertaken by the lecturer and the educational designer who then met to integrate their findings. Several of the responses triggered quite wide-ranging reflections and discussion. In this alone, the whole exercise was extremely valuable.Decisions were made collaboratively about which student suggestions should be incorporated in the planned revised version of the study guide. Given the low response rate, we faced a dilemma. Should an alteration suggested by only one or two students be implemented? By what criterion should an activity be omitted or adapted in the light of conflicting comments by the tutor, lecturer and educational designer? In the end, a combination of evaluation responses and professional judgment was used.
4. The gains to the lecturer
introductory comments
Given that this project incorporated a systematic approach to the development
and evaluation of a key learning resource and that it featured strong elements
of reflective practice and was tailored to a specific, immediate and context-driven
need, it was anticipated that several benefits would result. This was indeed
the case. As well as current students having their opinions valued and future
students being set to benefit from an improved learning resource, there were
gains to the educational designer in being able to trial this particular model
of PD. There were also wide-ranging gains to the lecturer which is the focus
of this article.
Data relating to the PD benefits to the lecturer was gathered throughout the project both informally through discussions with the educational designer and more formally by means of two interviews (held mid-way and towards the end of the collaboration). During the first interview the lecturer was asked to rate her skills in six specific areas both retrospectively and currently. (See Appendix 2). The second interview took place after the evaluation phase and adopted a different focus. (See Appendix 3).
The reported gains can be divided into the categories of: subject writing skills, teaching skills, affective gains, reflective practice, evaluation skills and procedural skills.
subject writing skills
The lecturer now feels confident in her ability to structure a study guide.
She feels more equipped to determine the important and relevant elements of
a subject, having gained greater familiarity with the subject material, an
important consideration since learning tasks are not designed in a content-free
vacuum.
Well defined learning purposes are crucial to all effective teaching and the lecturer reports improved understanding in developing clear learning goals and in writing specific and concise objectives. An early difficulty which she experienced was in unpacking the various possible meanings of 'understanding', a common problem among beginning lecturers.
She now more clearly understands the need for well defined objectives and for the need for there to be a match between those objectives and resulting content selection and activities. She also reports increased skill in using learning objectives to guide the design of assessment items
The lecturer feels more confident using objectives to structure learning material and to design engaging learning activities. She expresses increased insights into the role of activities, recognising them as useful learning tools. Her view is that it is desirable to include a variety of activities as a means of retaining student interest and thus facilitating learning. Additionally, she feels more able to evaluate the quality of the activities she designs. She is more able to think critically about what's involved in an activity. This constructively critical approach to the quality of different learning activities is an asset with transfer benefits across all her teaching, both face-to-face and distance.
improved teaching skills
The lecturer was responsible for both the distance and face-to-face delivery
of the subject which was the focus of this project. She found that the skills
which she gained from the experience of developing the study guide for distance
students had flow-on benefits for the quality of her face-to-face teaching.
The success of this is reflected in the extremely positive TEVALs from internal
students5. While not a trained teacher, the lecturer reports that this project
has given her some understanding of learning techniques and styles. She feels
more able to stimulate learning, to be creative and to communicate more clearly.
Crucially, she has developed the habit of thinking about what is important
to students. She now gives more thought to various elements of teaching (particularly
learning activities) and to the things that motivate students. She has acquired
a broader repertoire of ideas for tutorial activities (for internal students)
and is more focussed on getting students to understand and interpret rather
than simply regurgitate information.
The lecturer feels that she now has greater rapport with students. She attributes this to their being aware (via the evaluation process) of her commitment to improvement. Her understanding of her students has been enhanced in that she now knows, more specifically, what their needs are and what kinds of learning experiences students view as useful or not. She is also using this information to directly inform changes to her teaching practice.
While the focus of the project reported here concerned distance students, internal students have also benefitted. Various topics related to teaching practice emerged and thus discussions on activities useful to both large classes and small groups provided extra insights.
affective gains
Towards the end of the project, the lecturer reported improved confidence
as the single greatest benefit of the project. (This is interesting since
at about the mid-way point, she nominated an understanding of the subject
writing process as the greatest gain. Perhaps this indicates that confidence
is not something that develops quickly but rather emerges over time). She
feels more assured in her teaching skills, in her ability to write for students
and in both the subject material per se and in how she presents that material.
Additionally, she has developed greater confidence with her peers, particularly
through co-developing the evaluation instrument with the educational designer.
To the lecturer, the whole process has been extremely motivating. This is extremely important as professional development is a learning activity and the crucial role of motivation in all kinds of learning has been well established (for example, McMeniman, 1989; Paris and Winograd, 1990).
development of reflective practice
Given the key role of reflective practice in effective teaching, perhaps the
most important gain of all is that the lecturer has become reflective and
critical of her own work in a systematic and constructive way. This is demonstrated
in her practice of revisiting, reviewing and updating material in order to
improve the learning resource. The lecturer commented that she found the experience
of co-developing the evaluation instrument to be extremely useful because,
when she was writing the study guide, there was enormous time pressure to
just finish it. However, having the chance to later reflect on the study guide
from a different perspective (that of evaluator rather than writer) gave her
the opportunity to think about how students would react to the study guide.
She appreciates the value of adopting another's perspective as a means of
enriching one's own practice. As well as being able to compare her view of
the learning material with the judgments of students, the lecturer has also
had the opportunity to compare her opinions with those of a colleague (the
tutor) and an educational designer.
evaluation skills
In addition to the professional benefits acquired by developing the study
guide, the lecturer also found there were benefits from the analysis and evaluation
phases.
In co-developing the evaluation instrumentation (with the educational designer), the lecturer learned how to structure a student feedback survey, a skill of on-going professional relevance. This was the first time she had participated in such an activity. Her view is that being a co-developer of the questionnaires was preferable to just being handed one that had been designed by someone else in that she felt a sense of ownership. In participating in the design of the evaluation instrument, she learned by doing.
development of procedural skills
One important gain reported by the lecturer was learning how to follow a structured,
systematic process when designing a learning resource. Approximately half
way through the collaboration, the lecturer commented that, at the time, the
most significant gain to her had been learning to follow a structured, systematic
process. She found it extremely useful to set goals within set timelines.
She found the step by step process helpful because each individual step of
itself was manageable and thus she could see a way of reaching the end of
the whole development process. An initial feeling of being rather over-whelmed
was dispelled by having a systematic procedure to follow. Put bluntly, having
an overall procedure helped her to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Taking the gains to the future
It is clear from the tangible outcomes of this project that the whole process
has proved to be a valuable tool for professional development. The intention
is to implement the revised study guide and to evaluate it during next semester.
It will be interesting to see how students evaluate the refined version.
As a result of this collaboration, the lecturer has developed an interest in educational theory and feels encouraged to do more research into how learning is designed and developed and how it can be improved. She is interested in finding out what other people think.
More broadly, the whole experience has made her keen to continue to work with educational designers. The view of the educational designer is that the lecturer, having moved some distance along the road to autonomy, will benefit from a different kind of collaboration, having moved beyond a novice state.
Concluding comment
From gaining greater familiarity with the subject material to feeling that
she now communicates more clearly, the gains to the lecturer have been profound
and wide ranging. The process provides a valid and valuable model for lecturer/educational
designer collaboration.
References
Allen, M. 1996, A profile of instructional designers in Australia, Distance Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 7-32.
Biggs, J.B. and R. Telfer, 1987. The process of learning. 2nd edition, Sydney, Prentice-Hall.
Brown, A. and Teague, M. 1998, Technology choices in higher education: what's the best fit? Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Open Learning, pp. 357-360.
Butler, J. 1996, Professional development: Practice as text, reflection as process, and self as locus. Australian Journal of Education, vol. 40, no. 3, pp.265-283.
Chalmers, M. and Murray, C. 1998, Flexible delivery of professional development Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Open Learning, pp. 193-5.
Gibbs, G. (1995). Models of staff development. The New Academic. vol 4, no.3, pp. 15-17. In Kember, D. (1998), Action research; Towards an alternative framework for educational development. Distance Education. Vol. 19, No. 1; pp. 43-63
Jones, P. and Lewis, J. (1991), Implementing a strategy for collective change in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 16, no.1; pp. 51-61.
Kember, D. (1998), Action research; Towards an alternative framework for educational development, Distance Education, vol. 19, no. 1; pp.43-63.
Laurillard, D. 1993, Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London, Routledge. In Brown, A. and Teague, M. 1998, Technology choices in higher education: what's the best fit? Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Open Learning pp. 357-360.
McMeniman, M. 1989, Motivation to Learn. In P. Langford (eds.). Educational psychology - an Australian perspective pp.215-237. Melbourne, Longman.
Meacham, E.D. 1982, Distance Teaching: innovation, individual concerns and staff development, Distance Education vol.3, pp.244-254.
Paris, S.G. and P. Winograd. 1990, How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B.F. Jones and L. Idol (eds.). Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, Erlbaum.
Ramsden, P. 1992, Learning to teach in higher education, London, Routledge.
Slater, G.R.L. 1991, Staff Development Programmes in Universities: A Curriculum Proposal, Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 10, no.1, pp.79-91.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. 1992, Towards a theory of informal and incidental learning in organisations. International Journal of Lifelong Education. vol.11, no.4, pp.287-300. In Butler, J. 1996, Professional development: Practice as text, reflection as process, and self as locus. Australian Journal of Education, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 265-283.
APPENDIX 1 - Subject Planner
| TOPIC | OBJECTIVES | ACTIVITIES | RESOURCES |
APPENDIX 2 - Interview 1
On a scale of 1-4 (4 being the highest), how would you rate your skills in the following:
| Subject writing skills | Prior to the collaboration |
6 months later |
| writing objectives (Originally, the lecturer had trouble with the word 'understanding' and what it actually meant) |
3 | 3 |
| designing a study guide | 1 | 3 |
| writing text for study guide | 2 | 3 |
| selecting resources | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| designing assessment tasks (Improvement has occurred because she can now relate assessment to objectives) |
1 | 3 |
| designing activities | 1 | 3 |
APPENDIX 3 - Interview 2
Summary of an interview of Dr. Manda Page (lecturer) by Terrie Ferman (educational designer) concerning the development of instrumentation to evaluate a study guide
1. How was the experience of co-developing the evaluation instrument
for you?
Useful; when I was writing the study guide, it was just a matter of getting
it done in the time; now I have the chance to reflect on the study guide from
a different perspective; I can think about how the students would look at
it; and I can think about it from a learning point of view.
It's been fun; it hasn't seemed like a big chore; it's new and interesting.
2. Had you ever co-developed an instrument like this before?
No.
3. Any surprises?
Not really.
4. The negatives or problems?
The only negative was finding time; other than that, nothing major. I worried
a bit about how students would react to the study guide. I find the idea of
having peer review (my colleagues evaluating the study guide) scary; but I'm
quite proud of it.
5. The positives?
See no. 1.
6. What did you learn?
See no. 1. I've learned how to reflect; I've thought more about what would
be useful in terms of learning techniques; I learned about putting this kind
of thing together; looking at things from another perspective. [This was a
recurring theme throughout the interview].
7. HOW did you learn?
Through consultation and discussion with you (the educational designer). Bouncing
ideas off each other and getting quite a bit of steering and guidance from
you. Being involved in the whole process was good; having a choice about what
happened and what we produced through the drafts and 'our wonderful emails'.
I learned by having something to focus on and going and doing it; having the
task of developing the evaluation instrument resulted in my gaining a different
perspective.
This was better than just being presented with a questionnaire. Quite a contrast to the TEVALs (The university's in-house evaluation instruments)which I find of limited use; they tell me that students like me and that I scored above average ratings but I haven't learned much from them; they don't tell you how to improve. But this collaboration will. The TEVALs are not specific to my subject and they don't pinpoint what's right and what's wrong.
(in co-developing evaluation instrument for the academics) - I learned by doing; with lots of guidance; better to do it yourself; you learn more; it's been confidence building for me - 'you've given me confidence'
(re developing the student questionnaire) - I wanted students to have a say and know their opinion mattered.
8. Will this experience (of co-developing this instrument) be of use
to any part of your professional practice in future?
'It better! That's the whole idea.'
I've gained an understanding of the value of review - have gained useful skills
in that way, in looking at something from a different perspective. It's encouraged
me to do more research, investigation into how things are developed and how
they can be improved and finding out what other people think.
I have confidence with my peers. (Manda is in her 2nd year of lecturing).
It's been a first step than can go further
. It's encouraged me to work more with 'people like you' (educational designer);
in future, I'll take more advantage of your support and encourage others to
also
In relation to distance mode (this subject is being taught both externally and internally) - in terms of other distance subjects, I can judge my activities better and can think critically about what's involved in an activity. I now think more about these elements of teaching and the things that can motivate students [she seems very committed to motivating students]; I've got more ideas for tutes and now focus more on getting students to understand and interpret rather than just regurgitate.