Higher Education Review Process

Striving for Quality: Learning, Teaching and Scholarship

6. future challenges and ways forward

• c. constructions of academic work and the quality of teaching and learning
  • broader notions of academic work
  • all academics are not the same
  • appropriate valuing and rewarding of teaching
  • professionalising higher education teaching

c. constructions of academic work and the quality of teaching and learning

…teaching is often viewed as a routine function, tacked on, something almost anyone can do. (Boyer, 1990, p.23)

231 Teaching and learning were once the dominant functions of the university, and thus the academic. In more recent years, however, there has been a relative diminution of the role of teaching and learning. Research seems to have placed teaching in the shadows of university and popular preoccupations. 

232  Before the nineteenth century, universities were primarily places for teaching and scholarship, where very little scientific research was conducted. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, private non-professional institutions for the study of science such as the Accademia Secretorum Naturae (Naples), the Academie Royale des Sciences (Paris) or the Royal Society (London) were the locus of scientific research. The importance of the nexus between research and teaching did not take hold until the Humboldtian idea of a research oriented university developed in the nineteenth century. Moses (1987) has argued that until the 1950s, all Australian higher education institutions were primarily teaching institutions, and that it is only since the building of postgraduate degree programmes at that time, that an expectation that all academics be involved in teaching and research emerged. 

233 The positioning of teaching as an apparently less valued element of a hierarchy of academic work has serious implications for ensuring the quality of teaching and learning. It is coupled with a belief held by many in the higher education community that to be a ‘true’ academic one must be actively engaged in, and productive in, both teaching and research. 

broader notions of academic work

The Committee recommends a much more flexible approach than at present towards the teaching/scholarship/research nexus…All excellent contributions should be recognised – whether they be in teaching research, professional and community service or management and administration – and promotion must not be based on research alone. (West, 1998, p.5)

234 There has been ongoing debate in Australian higher education about whether all university teachers need to do research. A Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) paper in the late 1980s affirmed the nexus between teaching and research but noted that:

…it is inevitable that there will be variations in an academic’s time priorities at different stages of a career, the most productive or promising must be given preference in taking up research opportunities. It is not a question of an academic staff member being involved in either teaching or research (although that may occur), but what mix of teaching and research is appropriate for a given person in a given set of circumstances. (CTEC, 1986, 4.104)

235  In the early 1990s, Ernest Boyer argued that the priorities of the professoriate needed to be re-examined (Boyer, 1990). In what Ramsden (1998, p.19) has described as a “near-Copernican revolution in thinking about academic work”, Boyer reminded the higher education community of the centrality of ‘scholarship’ to the academic role, mindful of the way in which teaching had been challenged by research in terms of status and academic commitment. To counter the dominance of research in the traditional academic triumvirate of teaching, research and service, he proposed a broadened conception of scholarship, focused on discovery, integration, application and teaching. There have since been developments of the ‘scholarships’ that have led to application being replaced by engagement, and teaching expanded to include learning (Glassick, 2002). 

236 The ‘four scholarships’ stimulated a much-needed conversation in higher education about the nature of academic work. Glassick et al (1997) describe the potential influence of a broader definition of scholarship on institutional missions: 

Although the full range of scholarship could flourish on a single campus, every college and university should find its own special niche. This may mean that an institution, while recognizing all types of scholarly work, may choose to stress teaching, or application or integration, or research. Whatever the scholarly emphasis, the approach deserves dignity and respect, insofar as it is performed with distinction. Excellence must be the only yardstick. (1997, p.10)

237 Skilbeck (2001) reinforces this view in relation to the individual academic’s role: 

The main value of this analytic device seems to have been its assistance in enabling institutions to shape their missions and academics to identify themselves as performing more than one and less other of the roles connoted by the process. (2001, p.74)

238  One Australian university, the University of Ballarat, adopted the Boyer scholarships in the mid 1990s, as a framework for its vision and structure, however, recent indications seem to suggest that this approach may not be sustained (Maconachie, 2002). There has not been the revolution in academic work that Boyer’s work may have presaged. The dominant conceptions of academic work, as reflected in promotion systems and academic perceptions, continue to give research a higher status than teaching and service. Many academics feel that whilst there is a strong reward system for good research, effective teaching is not recognised and rewarded (Ramsden and Martin, 1996). 

top

all academics are not the same

The picture painted of the higher education system is of an incredibly complex environment – student demand, regional necessities, international pressures, changing workplaces. It’s impossible to have one template of an academic within an assemblage of such differential pressures. There in lies the rub. Most academics still tend to think that we’re all roughly the same. In general, we think that we all teach and try to research within a climate of limited resources. But, at the coalface, we’re not the same at all. (Probyn, 2002) 

239  Academics are not the same. It is necessary to take a broader conception of academic work and the validation of alternative career paths. Academics demonstrate different strengths and varied performance in each of the three elements of academic work – research, teaching and service or leadership. They express varied interests and needs at different stages of their careers. In short, academics are a dynamic and diverse group of people. There are those who remain wedded to a conception of the academic role in which all academics are expected to have the same scholastic priorities. In this model, all academics need to engage both in teaching and research. These functions are seen as inseparable, and their nexus, immutable. University teaching, it is contended, must be research-based. 

240  Yet empirical evidence suggests that research-based teaching may be more rhetoric than substance. A number of studies emphasise the variability of academic performance, particularly in research. In an investigation of research productivity in Australia, Ramsden (1994) found that academics had a median output of about five refereed articles in the previous five years, and 75 per cent of respondents in the older universities published no books, 60 per cent no book chapters and 20 per cent no articles during the period. Ramsden concludes:

These findings do not suggest very high levels of average output and contradict the view that academics are generally very prolific publishers. The reality of research productivity is that a small proportion of staff produce most of the work. (Ramsden, 1998, p.21)

241  According to the most recent DEST figures, in 2000, 9798 academic staff generated research income and 19,106 academic staff generated publications (DEST, 2002b). In that same year, there were 36,999 full-time equivalent academic staff employed in Australia's higher education institutions.

242  Thus, whilst the current rhetorical framework maintains that Australian academics should be engaged in research as part of their academic role, the reality is that many academics do not translate that into publications. The result is an academic culture in which many academics are frustrated by their incapacity to meet expectations that they perform as researchers. Should all teaching academics be expected to engage in research? What is gained by forcing an expectation that all academics should engage in teaching and research? Should the conception of an ‘academic’ be extended to someone who is ‘teaching-only’ or who engages with their discipline in other ways – for example, by consulting to industry or the government, undertaking professional practice or participating in the creative arts? 

243  Very few institutions have accepted an academic career path that does not involve an expectation of performance in research or professional practice. However, in a bold move, Central Queensland University (CQU) in its Academic Staff Enterprise Agreement 1997, created a new classification of academic staff – the teaching scholar: 

The designation of teaching scholars will be introduced for existing academic staff and existing staff may apply to be designated as teaching scholars subject to approval from the Dean of the Faculty. Agreed changes will be made to the promotion criteria in order to provide a career structure between levels A to D no less favourable than that for staff involved in teaching and research. The parties agree that the criteria for promotion of teaching scholars will be based upon the demonstration of the scholarship of teaching rather than course coordination and administration activities. (Central Queensland University, 1997, Section 18)

244  It seems timely to challenge the assumptions of the academic model of much of the past century, and validate alternative academic career paths. Some academics may choose to specialise in teaching, and become ‘teaching-only’ academics. Some academics may choose to specialise in research. Some academics may choose to be actively engaged and productive in both teaching and research. The argument for validating a career path in academe for teaching-only academics does not mean that there would not be an expectation that academics would have initial research training or some research experience. The Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) argues that:

…all HE teachers should have been engaged in research at some stage in their careers, so that they can bring a critical analytical faculty to bear on the subject. (HEFCE, 2000, p.5)

245 The question that remains is whether ‘teaching-only’ academics would improve the quality of teaching and learning in higher education. While such changes in themselves may not produce improvements, if accompanied by a renewed focus on scholarship in teaching and a professionalisation of teaching practice, considerable improvements may be achieved. 

246 The concept of scholarship is a complex one. Although it is related to research, it can be distinguished from research. HEFCE defines and frames scholarship in the following manner: 

We believe that scholarship is an activity that teachers in higher education need to carry out, that can be distinguished from research, and that researchers also need to carry out in order to inform their teaching. Individual research can be specialised, whereas scholarship is considered to be the linking and synthesis of general developments in a subject, using the insights gained from well-developed powers of critical appraisal. We consider that all teaching in HE should be underpinned by scholarship… (HEFCE, 2000, p.5) 

247  Sutherland (2002) argues that the notion of scholarship is more than keeping up-to-date with one’s discipline, it is also a matter of being able to show students “where the likely changes and expansion of that field are to be found” (2002, p.32). The AVCC outlines their view of the role of scholarship in teaching: 

As scholars, university teachers need to contribute to their disciplines or at least be in touch with current research and scholarship, and to integrate into their teaching the knowledge and understanding which they or others create. (AVCC, 1993, p.2)

248 There is an acceptance of scholarship in a discipline or field of study, but is there acceptance within the academic community of a scholarship of teaching? The Dearing Committee noted: 

Academics are all committed to keeping abreast of the latest research and ideas in their discipline, but few of them have the opportunity to keep at the forefront of developments in how to teach their subject. (NCIHE, 1997, 3.40)

249 The academic teacher is a dual professional who should have a well-developed knowledge base in both their subject or discipline area and in education. Lee Shulman, the current president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, has argued that:

Each of us in higher education is a member of at least two professions: that of our discipline, interdiscipline or professional field…as well as our profession as educator. In both of these intersecting domains, we bear the responsibilities of scholars – to discover, to connect, to apply and to teach. As scholars, we take on the obligation to add to the core of understanding, scepticism, method and critique that defines our fields and their ever-changing borders. We also assume the responsibility for passing on what we learn to discern and act, through teaching, social action, and through exchanging our insights with fellow professionals. (Shulman, 2000, p.49) 

250 To Shulman, the scholarship of teaching is the highest form of Boyer’s scholarships, because unlike the other forms, it necessarily includes all of the others. He has argued for a distinction to be drawn between scholarly teaching and a scholarship of teaching:

Scholarly teaching is teaching that is well-grounded in the sources and resources appropriate to the field…We develop a scholarship of teaching when our work as teachers becomes public, peer-reviewed and critiqued, and exchanged with other members of our professional communities, so they, in turn, can build on our work. (Shulman, 2000, p.50) 

251 To facilitate the development of the scholarship of teaching, the Carnegie Foundation’s Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (CASTL) and the American Association for Higher Education formed the Campus Program, which invites:

…campuses to undertake a public process of stock-taking and planning for ways they can support knowledge-building about teaching and learning. (Hutchings and Shulman, 1999)

top

appropriate valuing and rewarding of teaching

252  The quality of teaching is likely to reflect the status of teaching within the academy. If teaching is a valued activity, in which effective performance is rewarded and acknowledged, then academics will aspire to the challenge of performing at high levels.

253  Over the past decade, most Australian universities have embarked on significant strategic initiatives to enhance teaching and learning and the status of teaching. Institutions have taken seriously the challenge of raising the quality of learning and the status of teaching. Whilst there is evidence of strong institutional commitment, gaps remain between institutional rhetoric and practice when it comes to rewarding and acknowledging effective teaching. 

254  There is a perception shared by many academics that achievement in research is what leads to advancement in an academic career. Commitment to teaching is less important. The recent follow-up to the 1998 Boyer review of undergraduate education in U.S. research universities, found that despite a change in emphasis on teaching in tenure and promotion decisions: 

…faculty members still do not believe that teaching is as important as scholarship [research] in decisions on tenure and promotion. (Wilson, 2002, p.A12)

255  In their report of a survey of the time allocation of academic economists in Australian universities, Guest and Duhs found that: 

The lack of incentives to improve teaching is perhaps captured most starkly by the result that 29% of university economics teachers in our sample believed they would receive no reward at all if they significantly improved their teaching, while only 11% believe they might be promoted. (2001, p.6)

256  Both the Dearing and West reviews identified the need to raise the profile and status of teaching (NCIHE, 1997, 14.7; West, 1998, p.147). The AUTC submission similarly argues for an increased national focus on:

Identifying and rewarding good teaching at a time when, despite the gains that have been made in recent years, university teaching still does not match research in terms of status. (AUTC, 2002)

257  Most Australian universities have promotion criteria based on establishing performance in teaching, research and a third category normally related to service or leadership. Some institutions have adopted promotion criteria that allow an academic to weight teaching, research and a third category in accordance with their academic profile. The University of Queensland, for example, allows academics to nominate a weight for each, where the minimum weighting is 30 per cent for teaching and research and 20 per cent for service (University of Queensland, 2002). 

258  Some institutions have recognised that in many disciplines, recognition of contributions to professional practice is more appropriate and realistic than focusing on achievements in research. Charles Sturt University (2002b) has minimum weightings for three areas of activity – for promotion to lecturer, teaching must be weighted a minimum of 40 per cent; research/scholarship/professional consultancy 30 per cent and contribution to the University and the community 10 per cent; for promotion to associate professor the weighting is teaching 20 per cent; research/scholarship/professional consultancy 40 per cent and academic administration/leadership/community service 30 per cent. The University’s Faculty of Arts also has a ‘Professional Practice Policy’ that outlines the expectations of academic staff: 

All academic staff are expected to undertake activities which enable them to maintain currency in their disciplines or fields of practice and to contribute to the evolution of those fields. Whilst in many academic disciplines and fields research is the best means of meeting this expectation, there are disciplines and fields in which continuing professional practice is not only an appropriate alternative to research but even a better and more valuable means. There are also fields in which a combination of research and professional practice is the best approach to meeting this expectation. Professional practice includes the application of theory to practice, the development and refining of practice skills and protocols and the generation of new practices and applications. It also includes an understanding of organisations and their cultures relevant to undertaking effective practice. (Charles Sturt University, 2002a)

259  The most revealing benchmark of the treatment of teaching is at the point of promotion to professor. It is very difficult for an academic to progress to this level of the career path without evidence of excellence in research. Despite their acknowledgement of professional practice at Levels A to C, promotion to professor at Charles Sturt University still requires applicants to be “eminent scholars in a particular field of knowledge” and they must address three criteria, including one which requires “outstanding scholarship and research” (italics added) (Charles Sturt University, 2002c). Similarly, at the University of Adelaide, there are four criteria for promotion to all levels – teaching; scholarship/research/creative pursuits/contract research; leadership in and service to the University; and professional activity. Greater weight is given to the first two categories. However, for promotion to Level E, an “international reputation in research and high quality teaching are essential” (italics added) (The University of Adelaide, 2002, Section 5). 

260  Many Australian universities have made changes to their promotion processes to ensure that contributions to teaching are acknowledged and rewarded, including requirements that applicants submit a teaching portfolio. However, the criteria for promotion used in most institutions reinforce the notion that academics should be both teachers and researchers.

top 

professionalising higher education teaching

It is ironic that academics – the professionals who nurture all other professionals in every field of human endeavour – continue to eschew professional qualifications for themselves. (West, 1998, p.147)

261  It may seem self-evident, but whilst the quality of teaching and learning hinges on a range of factors, a fundamental determinant must be the quality of academic staff engaged in the teaching and learning process: 

The quality of a university, of course, is crucially dependent on the quality of its academic staff, who perform the research and teach and interact with students. (Wilson, 1996, p.156)

262 The quality of teachers in higher education institutions will depend on many factors, including their motivation, commitment and level of teaching expertise. The conventional pathway to an academic position is completion of a doctorate, which focuses on preparation to become a researcher, not a teacher. There is currently no widely accepted form of formal education or preparation to become a teacher in higher education. As recognised by Dr Kym Fraser: 

That’s not to say that many academics aren’t wonderful teachers, but I think what we're recognising is that many people come into the sector with no teaching qualifications or teaching experience and many find it a struggle. (Quoted in Madden, 2002)

263 Formal preparation for tertiary teaching and the accreditation of tertiary teachers are issues that have attracted considerable attention here and in other countries over the past two decades. In the United Kingdom, the Dearing Committee (1997) arrived at the conclusion that:

…the necessary recognition of teaching in higher education will only be achieved through a national scheme of teacher accreditation to which all institutions voluntarily commit, with strong support from the bodies which represent higher education institutions and academic staff. (NCIHE, 1997, 8.59). 

264 The Committee recommended that: 

…institutions of higher education begin immediately to develop or seek access to programmes for teacher training of their staff, if they do not have them, and that all institutions seek national accreditation of such programmes from the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (NCIHE, 1997, Recommendation 13). 

265 They also recommended that over time it should become the:

…normal requirement that all new full-time academic staff with teaching responsibilities …[be] required to achieve at least associate membership of the ILT, for the successful completion of probation. (NCIHE, 1997, Recommendation 48). 

266  In Australia, the Williams Report on Education, Training and Employment (1979) recommended the establishment of a national award for university teachers, the completion of which would be a condition of service for all new academics. There was some follow-up to this recommendation by a working party established by the AVCC, but no national award was created. 

267  A decade later, the West Committee (1998) recommended that the Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development play a role in encouraging “institutions generally to appoint new academic staff on probation until they have completed a qualification in teacher training.” (West, 1998, p.38) The West report noted that the:

…attitude that exists within academe that one doesn’t train to teach will not be possible in the future. University teaching is quite different from school teaching. If academics are to enjoy the freedom to develop their own courses and control their examination and assessment methods, they must be properly qualified to do so. (West, 1998, p.57) 

268  With respect to the training and accreditation of academics as professional teachers, higher education lags behind. In the vocational education and training sector, by contrast, a ‘Registered Training Organisation’, whether public or private, must ensure that a person who delivers training has:

…all the competencies in the Certificate IV from the Training Package for Assessment and Workplace Training (or as demonstrated the equivalent competencies) and is able to demonstrate vocational competencies at least to the level of those being delivered. (ANTA, 2001, 7.4)

269  In 2001, the Commonwealth commissioned a research project to examine the current approaches to tertiary teacher preparation and professional development adopted by Australian institutions (Dearn et al, 2002). Most Australian universities have responded to the identified need for some form of preparation for tertiary teachers by establishing formal courses. These courses or programmes are based on a range of philosophical and pedagogical perspectives, and are of varied duration, content, mode of delivery and timing. Some universities have made such courses mandatory for new academic staff and sought to encourage staff to participate with financial inducements. Other institutions have created courses which result in a formal qualification such as a graduate certificate or diploma, and some offer short induction programmes with a component focusing on tertiary teaching. 

270  However, whilst many institutions offer such courses, it seems that only a small proportion of academics have actually completed them. This is ironic given that many students would probably believe that the most influential ingredient in the quality of their learning experience is the quality of teaching provided. Given substantial public expenditure in universities, the broader community might expect that those who teach at university, like those who teach in schools or TAFE institutions, are professionally trained. Most are not. 

271  This leads to a number of questions. Should Australia establish a national approach to the accreditation of higher education teaching, requiring all academic teachers to complete a teacher preparation course of some kind? If so, what sort of approach would be most appropriate? A one year course, a one semester course or competency-based training? A UK approach with a central government body created to accredit suitable courses and subsequently accredit teachers? A professional body for higher education teachers such as that recently announced in New South Wales for school teachers (Institute of Teachers) that would act as a ‘gatekeeper’? What can be done to ensure that teachers in all higher education institutions have the expertise and skills to perform as teachers? 

272  Appropriate qualifications and preparation for higher education teachers are aspects of a broader endeavour to improve the expertise of academics in teaching. Some argue there is an equal need for those engaged in teaching to be engaged in continuing professional development in teaching and learning issues. Whilst most institutions have dedicated teaching and learning centres with staff providing professional development opportunities in teaching and learning issues, it would appear that only a small proportion of teaching academics take part in their programmes. Professional development for academics is not generally accredited. It is possible that this adversely influences the uptake of such development activities, as staff would seem less motivated to engage in professional development without direct personal reward.

273 There is one group of academic staff deserving of special mention in this discussion – sessional, part-time, or casual teaching academics. Between 1991 and 2000, the share of full time equivalent academic staff employed full-time decreased from 81 to 74 per cent, while the fractional full-time share increased from 6 to 7 per cent. Casual staff, as a proportion of total staff, increased from 13 to 19 per cent. Academic staff increased by 15 per cent over the period. Full time academics increased by 4 per cent, while the number of fractional full-time academics increased by 41 per cent, and casual academic staff increased by 66 per cent. 

274  Given that this group of academics is heavily involved in teaching, their professional development is a significant issue. The part-time or sessional academic is paid by the hour and very few institutions pay sessional staff to attend professional development opportunities. One of the few is the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). In 2002, QUT established a Casual Academic Staff Teaching and Learning Development Program, which remunerates staff $110 for attendance at the four-hour programme. The AUTC has recognised the significance of sessional teachers and commissioned a project that will focus on strategies and practices to promote the management, training and support of sessional teachers and the development of policies and support mechanisms for sessional teachers within Australian universities (see http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/largeclasses/).

top

Return to the Top of the Page

Any comments or queries should be sent to: highered@dest.gov.au
This page was last updated on Monday, 04 August 2008

Department of Education, Science and Training
Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia
DEST Web Site Privacy Statement
Disclaimer