University College Dublin
Quality Assurance / Quality Improvement
Review Group Report
Centre for Teaching and Learning
Academic Year 2002/2003
April 2003
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
Contents
1
Centre for Teaching and Learning – General Description......................................................... 1
1.1
History and Development .................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Staff...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3
Courses and Programmes..................................................................................................... 2
1.4
Location of CTL .................................................................................................................. 4
2.
The Departmental Self-assessment ............................................................................................... 5
2.1
The Co-ordinating Committee ............................................................................................. 5
2.2
Methodology Adopted ......................................................................................................... 5
3.
The Site Visit................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1
Timetable for the QA/QI Site Visit to CTL ......................................................................... 7
3.2
Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.3
General Comments .............................................................................................................. 8
4.
The Review...................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1
The Review Group Members ............................................................................................... 9
4.2
Sources Used ....................................................................................................................... 9
4.3
Review Group's View of the Self-assessment Report........................................................ 10
5.
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group............................................................. 13
5.1
General Comments ............................................................................................................ 13
5.2
Working Environment ....................................................................................................... 13
5.3
Centre Planning and Organisation ..................................................................................... 14
5.5
Taught Programmes ........................................................................................................... 19
5.6
Research and Scholarly Activity........................................................................................ 21
5.7
Customer Perspective ........................................................................................................ 21
5.8
Resource Management ....................................................................................................... 22
5.9
Overall Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................................... 22
6.
Overall Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Concerns ............................. 23
6.1
Strengths ............................................................................................................................ 23
6.2
Weaknesses ........................................................................................................................ 23
6.3
Opportunities ..................................................................................................................... 23
6.4
Threats / Concerns ............................................................................................................. 24
7.
Recommendations for Improvements ........................................................................................ 25
7.1
In relation to UCD ............................................................................................................. 25
7.2
In relation to CTL .............................................................................................................. 26
8. Response of CTL Staff to the Review Group Report…………………………………………...27
i
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
1
Centre for Teaching and Learning – General Description
1.1
History and Development
The initial step in the establishment of today’s Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL) was
taken in June 1997, when in response to a proposal by UCD's University Teaching Committee
(UTC) and the Standing Committee on Teaching and Learning (SCTL), Dr Miriam Kennedy
was appointed as a full-time Teaching Development Officer (TDO). This was a college
lecturer post. Subsequent staff developments include the following:








1.2
Dr Kennedy was granted administrative support when Ms Valerie Hughes was employed
as a half-time Executive Assistant.
Dr Kennedy was on sick leave from November 1997 until December 1998 and Ms Hughes
was responsible for the "creation, development, and improvement of the schedule of
courses run by the Unit". Ms Hughes operated in accordance with the terms set by Dr
Kennedy's "Teaching Development Unit (TDU) Five-Year Development Plan," the
Registrar, and the UTC / SCTL.
Dr Kennedy returned to the Unit in January 1999 and Mr Paul Brown was employed as a
TDO. In addition, another half-time Executive Assistant, Ms Fran Malone, was hired.
CTL moved to Woodview on the UCD campus at Belfield in February 2000.
In December 2000, Dr Kennedy took a career break and will not be returning to the Unit.
Mr Brown began a three-year sabbatical and is due to return to the Unit in January 2004.
In September 2001, Dr Geraldine O'Neill was appointed as Senior Lecturer and Head of
the Unit. Dr Tim McMahon was appointed as College Lecturer and TDO in June 2002.
In response to the growing administrative workload, Mr Brown's salary was used to fund a
one-year "Executive Assistant" post in September 2002. Ms Donna Carter-Leay was
employed.
In December 2002, Ms Hughes and Ms Malone were promoted to the grade of "Senior
Executive Assistant" posts, effective from January 2003.
In addition, HEA funding was given to a one-year staff and curriculum development
project with the Faculty of Agriculture. Mr Martin Walters was employed on a two-day
week basis. He is due to complete his work in December 2003.
Staff
Teaching Development Officers –Permanent Positions – Active
Dr Geraldine O’Neill
College Lecturer
(Head of Centre)
Dr Tim McMahon
College Lecturer
Teaching Development Officer
Mr Paul Brown
Career Break - Due to return: January 2004
Educational Consultant
Mr Martin Walters
HEA-funded pilot scheme working with the Faculty of Agriculture on curriculum and staff
development from January 2003 to projected completion in December 2003. (0.4 position)
Senior Executive Assistant – Permanent Position – Currently “job-sharing”
Ms Valerie Hughes
Leave of Absence - December 2002 onwards
Ms Fran Malone
Administration – One-year Contract Post (Administration)
Ms Donna Carter-Leay (position funded by unused salary from Mr Brown’s post)
Reporting and Advisory Structure
 The Head of CTL reports directly to the Registrar of the University.
 The University Teaching Committee/Academic Council Standing Committee on Teaching
and Learning act as an advisory body to CTL.
Centre for Teaching and Learning—General Description
1
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
1.3
Courses and Programmes
 CTL offers courses under four separate headings: “Main Programme,” “Induction
Programme,” “Postgraduate Programme,” and “Faculty-Specific Course.”
 In addition, CTL is planning to introduce a “Higher Diploma in Teaching and Learning”
during the academic year 2003-04.
1.3.1
Main Programme - Programmes and Courses for Academic Staff, 2002-03
 Embracing Disability Conference 2002: Inclusive Teaching and Learning and the
Employment of People with Disabilities in UCD
 Use of Student, Peer- and Self-Assessment
 Improving Your Teaching and Learning through Action-Research
 The Use of Learning Objectives in Third-Level Teaching and Assessment
 Introduction to Problem-Based Learning
 Multiple-Choice Examinations: Improving Validity
 Developing a Teaching Portfolio
 Numeracy-Based Subjects: Encouraging Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
 Evaluating your Teaching and Courses
 Curriculum Design
 Key Aspects of Teaching and Learning in Languages
 How to Get Published
 Learning-Journals to Improve Students’ Learning and Reflective Skills
 Qualitative Methodologies in Teaching and Learning Research
1.3.2
Induction Programme
 The Reflective Practitioner and the Teaching Portfolio
 Small-Group Teaching Skills
 The Dynamics of Effective Communication when Lecturing to Large Groups
 Information Technology Applied to Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
1.3.3
Postgraduate Programme
 Teaching Practical Classes Module 1
 Tutor Training Programme
 Seminar Presentations
 Teaching Practical Classes Module 2
 Developing a Teaching Portfolio
 How to Get Published
1.3.4
Faculty Specific Course
 Improving the Learning Experience of the Student and Supervisor in Postgraduate
Supervision
1.3.5
Other Events
 President’s Teaching Awards Forum and Ceremony
 President’s Teaching Grants Forum and Presentations
Centre for Teaching and Learning—General Description
2
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
1.3.6
April 2003
Higher Diploma in Teaching and Learning
 Module 1 (The Reflective Practitioner: Induction Course)
o
o
o
o
o
o
The Reflective Teacher and Developing a Teaching Portfolio
Teaching in Small Groups
Teaching in Large Groups
Information Technology applied to Teaching
Individual Portfolio Advice with Teaching Development Officer
Portfolio Work on Effectiveness of your Teaching

Module 2 (Mentoring, Evaluating and Reflecting on your Teaching)
o Using a Learning Contract to Evaluate and Reflect on your Teaching
o Introduction to Evaluating and Researching Teaching and Learning
o Four Mentoring Sessions with a Peer (Includes two Peer-Observations of Teaching)
o Collecting Student-feedback on your Teaching: Questionnaire, focus group

Module 3a (CTL’s contribution—AVC teaches Module 3b)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Module 4 (Theories of Teaching and Learning through Small-group Discussion to
Investigate and Discuss the Various Theories of Teaching and Learning)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Student Assessment: Course/Curriculum Design
Setting Effective Examination Questions
Building Life-long Learning Skills into the Curriculum
Introducing Activity-based Learning
Improving Students’ Learning Skills
Philosophy of Education
Inclusive Teaching and Learning
Evaluating Teaching
Teaching First-year Classes
Problem-based Learning: An Introduction, Level 1
Problem-based Learning: Level 2
Setting Learning Objectives
Educational Philosophy
Theories of Education
Surface versus Deep Learning
Student- and Teacher-oriented Learning
Learning Style
Curriculum Design
Life-long Learning
Module 5 (Elective Topic)
o Introduction to Module and Assessment
o Selection of Specialised Topic Area in Student Learning to Investigate, eg., Use of
Video to Enhance Teaching
o Adult Education
o Distance Learning
o Students with Disabilities/Difficulties
o Information Systems in the Library
Centre for Teaching and Learning—General Description
3
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
1.4
April 2003
Location of CTL
CTL shares a building with the Quality Assurance Office and the Credit Union. CTL’s section
of the building consists of three offices:



The front office is currently shared by the full-time Teaching Development Officer (TDO)
and the two-day temporary contract Educational Consultant.
The two “job-share” Senior Executive Assistants (SEA) share the second office with the
one-year contract Executive Assistant (EA).
The third office, smaller than the other two, is that of the Head of CTL.
The toilet and kitchen are shared with the other offices in the building.
CTL and the Quality Assurance Office (QAO) jointly own a general workroom. This houses a
photocopier, over-head projector, and an optical mark-reading scanner (includes a computer
and printer). The optical-mark reader is the property of the QAO. In addition, various
machines, used for binding and laminating of materials, are stored in this workroom. Finally,
the Resource/Library collection of CTL is shelved here for general consultation.
Since its establishment in 1997, the Unit/Centre has never had a dedicated teaching space. In
short, CTL has no teaching space and no room to expand.
Centre for Teaching and Learning—General Description
4
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
2.
The Departmental Self-assessment
2.1
The Co-ordinating Committee
Due to the size of CTL, the Co-ordinating Committee of the Quality Assurance review
consisted of the complete staffing complement. Martin Walters, who works two days a week
in the Centre on a specific project, was only recently employed and was therefore not involved
in the Self-assessment or on the Co-ordinating Committees.
Co-ordinating Committee
2.2
Dr Geraldine O’Neill
CTL
(Chair)
Ms Donna Carter-Leay
CTL
Member
Ms Valerie Hughes
CTL
Member
Ms Fran Malone
CTL
Member
Dr Tim McMahon
CTL
Member
Methodology Adopted
The preparation for the Quality Assurance Self-assessment report (SAR) commenced shortly
after the Head of the Centre, Dr Geraldine O’Neill, was appointed in September 2001. All
CTL were actively involved in the preparation of the SAR.
A pre-assessment group appointed by the QAO met with the Head of Centre twice in April
2002. Following these pre-assessment meetings, CTL set themselves a timetable for the tasks
to be performed. The Centre then set aside some specific QA meetings to discuss the overall
strategic plan of the Centre including a ‘day-out’ meeting.
Pre-assessment meetings
Dr Caroline Hussey
Registrar
Professor Don McQuillan
QAO
Dr Geraldine O’Neill
CTL
Dr Bairbre Redmond
Social Policy and Social Work
Professor Michael Monaghan Large Animal Clinical Studies Department
Mr Pearse Colbert
Accountancy Department
Professor Aidan Moran
Department of Psychology
These meetings primarily addressed the problems of assessing a Centre which is technically a
service provider, but in practice serves an academic function. The Committee agreed to collate
questions from the “Self Assessment for Academic Departments” and the “Self-Assessment
for Service Centres” in order to create suitable guidelines for the special functions of CTL.
Schedule of Meetings
Wednesday
28 November 2001
Staff Meeting
Tuesday
2 April 2002
Pre-Assessment Group
Thursday
25 April 2002
Pre-Assessment Group
Wednesday
12 June 2002
Staff Meeting
Wednesday
19 June 2002
Staff Meeting
Monday
15 August 2002
Staff Meeting
Tuesday
17 September 2002
Meeting: Head of CTL with Head of QA
Wednesday
9 October 2002
Full-Day Meeting (off Campus)
The Departmental Self-assessment
5
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
Wednesday
16 October 2002
Questionnaires sent to Academic Staff, Deans,
and International Centres for Teaching and
Learning
Tuesday
12 November 2002
Meeting with Facilitator, Dr Ron Callan
Wednesday
8 January 2003
Staff Meeting
Friday
24 January 2003
Meeting with Facilitator, Dr Ron Callan
Wednesday
5 February 2003:
Meeting with Facilitator, Dr Ron Callan
Preparatory Courses and Conferences Attended
The Head of CTL, Dr O’Neill, has attended courses / conferences run by QAO, in preparation
for the review and CTL’s continued commitment to quality improvement. Dr McMahon also
attended the Quality Improvement Conference.
Tuesday
5 November 2001
Quality Assurance for Heads of Academic
Departments in UCD (full-day)
Monday/Tuesday
7/8 January 2002
Best Practice
from QA/QI, Athlone
Friday
22 November 2002
Bologna and the Quality Assurance and
Quality Improvement Process in Ireland
(full-day)
Friday/Saturday
7/8 February 2003
Quality Improvement in Irish Universities
Conference, Cork (2-day)
Allocation of Tasks
Chapter One
Chapter Two
Chapter Three
Chapter Four
Chapter Five
Chapter Six
Chapter Seven
Chapter Eight
Departmental Details
Department Planning
and Organisation
Functions, Activities
and Processes
Taught Programmes
Research and
Scholarly Activities
Customer Perspective
Resource Management
Overall Analysis and
Recommendations
Ms Hughes
Dr McMahon, Dr O’Neill and Ms Hughes
Dr O’Neill
Ms Malone, Ms Carter Leay, and Dr O’Neill
Dr O’Neill and Dr McMahon
Dr O’Neill and Dr McMahon
Ms Malone and Dr O’Neill
Dr O’Neill and Dr McMahon
Level of Communication
The SAR required an exceptional level of commitment from all staff. Because of CTL’s size,
the Co-ordinating Committee included all staff members. The co-operation shown was
remarkable throughout the process at a time when CTL was developing new systems and
strategies in response to the recent academic and administrative appointments. As the
timetable above shows, there were regular meetings in line with QAO recommendations. In
addition, Dr O’Neill attended five courses/conferences organised by the QAO and Dr
McMahon attended one of the conferences.
In addition, each member of staff assisted in the compilation of the Report in general terms by
offering help in specific areas of expertise not included in their particular tasks associated with
the production of a chapter or chapters.
The Departmental Self-assessment
6
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
3.
The Site Visit
3.1
Timetable for the QA/QI Site Visit to CTL
All meetings were held in Meeting Room 1 & 2, The Student Centre
Tuesday, April 8
17.00-19.00
19.30
RG met at Hotel
Dinner hosted by the Registrar and Vice President for Academic
Affairs
Wednesday, April 9
08.45 – 09.15
09.15 – 10.00
10.00 – 10.30
10.30 – 10.50
10.50 – 11.15
11.15 – 11.30
11.30 – 12.00
12.00 – 12.20
12.20 – 12.40
12.45 – 13.45
13.45 – 15.00
15.00 – 15.15
15.15 – 15.35
15.35 – 15.55
15.55 – 16.15
16.15 – 16.35
16.35 – 16.55
17.00 – 17.30
19.00 –
RG meeting
RG met staff of CTL
RG met Head of CTL
RG meeting
RG met the Chair of the President’s Teaching Awards Committee and
the Secretary of the President’s Teaching Awards and leader for
“Small Group Teaching” seminars on CTL induction course
Coffee
RG met the Registrar and Chair of the Telematics Committee
RG met a past recipient of President’s Teaching Award and holder of a
Higher Diploma in University Teaching and Learning
RG met a representative of the Standing Committee on Teaching &
Learning and a past recipient of President’s Teaching Award
Working lunch, RG only
RG viewed facilities of CTL
Coffee
RG met an Induction Group representative
RG met Main Programme representatives
RG met Postgraduate students on Tutors/Practical courses.
RG meeting
RG met, a representative of an encouraging-active-learning-in-smallgroup-teaching project in the new Quinn School of Business
RG meeting
RG only, working dinner
Thursday, April 10
08.45 – 09.05
09.05 – 09.30
09.30 – 09.50
09.50 – 10.20
10.20 – 10.40
10.40 – 11.00
11.00 – 11.20
RG met a joint presenter of Blackboard Course, Induction Course
RG meeting
RG met representatives of the Faculty of Agriculture Pilot Curriculum
Project
Break
Private individual staff meeting
RG met a representative of the Standing Committee on Teaching and
Learning
RG met the Dean of the Veterinary Faculty, which has an Associate
Dean for Teaching and Learning
The Site Visit
7
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
11.20 – 11.40
11.40 – 12.00
12.00 – 12.20
12.20 – 13.30
13.13 – 14.30
14.30 – 15.30
15.30 – 16.00
16.30 – 17.30
April 2003
Private individual staff meeting
Private individual staff meeting
Private individual staff meeting
RG work on RG Report and exit presentation
Working lunch, RG only
RG work on RG Report and exit presentation
RG met with Head of CTL
Exit presentation to all staff of CTL
Note: Each CTL member was offered an opportunity to meet on their own with the RG.
3.2
Methodology
 The RG worked together on all aspects of the review. The visiting experts, Dr Martens
and Dr Hellberg, were given the roles of leading questions for all sessions. RG Chair, Mr
Weinberger, encouraged full participation from all members of the RG. Dr Martens was
asked to summarise the findings for the “Exit Presentation.”
 The documentation provided to the RG (as set out in the next Section), the broad range of
interests, experience, and expertise represented in the interviews conducted by the RG,
and the visit to CTL offices were the basis for the RG report.
3.3
General Comments
 The two-day timetable afforded insufficient time to enable the RG individually to reflect
and then discuss as a group much of what they heard and learned while they were
together. The second day of what the RG understood was normally a three-day process
was significantly influenced by the importance that attached to providing a meaningful
“Exit Presentation” within the time constraints.
 The RG was well prepared for the Site Visit as each member had read the SAR and
Appendices carefully prior to the visit. The respective disciplines of the members of the
RG, their insights and their contributions complemented each other well. However, an
additional day, and more specifically, an additional evening would have been invaluable
in allowing for reflection, discussion, and writing.
 In terms of CTL itself, there was a clear sense of an enthusiastic and committed
workforce. Dr O’Neill’s colleagues expressed loyalty and support for her and she
presented a very positive view on CTL staff.
 However, individually and collectively CTL staff also conveyed a sense of recurring
uncertainty about where CTL “fits” into UCD and what the commitment of UCD is to
CTL; and in particular to its plans and staffing-related needs. In other words the
impression formed by the RG was that CTL do not feel that they are receiving the support
they deserve. Those outside of CTL may be less aware of these issues.
 While there is a good response to the work of CTL, there was some criticism voiced to the
RG.
 It quickly became clear to the RG that CTL must be defined in more focused terms (aims,
objectives and work practices) so that its general role and functions within the University
can be better understood and utilized.
The Site Visit
8
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
4.
The Review
4.1
The Review Group Members
April 2003
Name
Dr Jan Hellberg
Affiliation
Lund University
Role
Extern
Dr Erika Martens
La Trobe University
Extern
Mr Jeff Weinberger
Director of Corporate Planning
University College Dublin
Director of Adult Education Centre
University College Dublin
Department of English
University College Dublin
Chair
Ms Bairbre Fleming
Dr Ron Callan
Cognate
Rapporteur
Allocation of Roles
Each member of the RG was initially allocated one or more broad areas of responsibility.
These divisions were not intended to exclude (nor did they) members from contributing a
great deal to each aspect of the Report
Departmental Details
Dr Ron Callan
Ms Bairbre Fleming
Mr Jeff Weinberger
Dr Erika Martens
Dr Erika Martens
Dr Jan Hellberg
Dr Erika Martens
Ms Bairbre Fleming
Dr Jan Hellberg
Dr Erika Martens
Dr Jan Hellberg
Dr Ron Callan
Mr Jeff Weinberger
Dr Ron Callan
Departmental Planning and Organisation
Functions, Activities, and Processes
Taught Programmes
Research and Scholarly Activity
Customer Perspective
Resource Management
4.2
Sources Used
The SAR
 The SAR was a detailed and a very helpful primary source for the RG. It was presented in
two volumes; the SAR itself and a separate, bound collection of Appendices. The
Appendices contained the following:
o “Minutes of the Co-ordinating/Staff Committees Meetings”
o “The Structure of the Self-assessment for CTL”
o “Timetable of QA”
o “Minutes of Meeting in Stillorgan Park” (Staff, full-day meeting)”
o “TDU Five-Year Development Plan”
o “Details of the Faculty of Agriculture Pilot Programme”
o “Senior Lecturer Benchmarks”
o “University Teaching and Learning Policy”
o “UCD Strategic Development Plan”
o “Survey of Teaching and Learning Centres”
o “Role of Teaching and Development Officers”
The Review
9
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
“CVs of Academic Staff”
“Role of Administrative Staff”
“CVs of Administrative Staff”
“Terms of Reference for SCTL”
“Minutes of the UTC/SCTL Meetings”
“Statutes of the President’s Teaching Awards”
“Web Page”; “Higher Education Authority Special Initiatives Grants”
“Terms of Reference: Telematics Committee”
“Higher Diploma in University Teaching and Learning”
“Blackboard Courses”
“CTL Budget Applications”
“All-Ireland Society for Higher Education”
“The Conference on ‘Embracing Disability’”
“Course Brochures”
“CTL/TDU Course Evaluations”
“Survey of UCD Staff Training Needs by Kennedy and Brown”
“Influences on Student-Focused and Teacher-Focused Approaches to Teaching”
“Email from a representative of the Faculty of Agriculture Pilot Curriculum Project
re: ‘Agriculture Workshop’”
o “Copy of Questionnaire to Academic Staff”
o “Reports of other Positive Impacts of the Courses”
o “2001-02 Feedback Scores”
o “Minerva Application”
o “Statistics and Analysis of Academic Feedback”
o “Suggestions for Improving the Service”
o “Questionnaire to Deans”
o “CTL Budget 7272, 2002”;
o “Overview of Induction and Postgraduate Costs”
o “HEA Training of Trainers Funding”
The RG interviewed the staff of CTL.
The RG interviewed a broad range of staff in UCD associated with CTL in a number of
contexts.
The RG interviewed a number of participants on CTL courses.
The RG visited the premises housing CTL.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o




4.3
Review Group's View of the Self-assessment Report
Overview
The RG acknowledges the energy and effort put into the report. In general terms the SAR is an
ambitious and thorough attempt to document the work of CTL. The SAR was 162 pages long
and had an additional seven full sections of appendices (see above for details):
The factual information in the SAR and appendices, presents a comprehensive overview of the
activities of CTL. It is clear (and noteworthy) that all members of staff were involved in its
preparation. The layout of the SAR is clear and logical in its sequencing
The Review
10
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
General Comments
 Overall the SAR was a conscientious and thoughtful account of important aspects of CTL.
It helped to set the context for a great deal of the work of the RG and also identified many
significant issues.
 A strength of the SAR was that it comprehensively captured and catalogued the various
University mission, vision and strategic forces that largely define its strategic
environment. CTL then attempted pragmatically to distil these into a comprehensive set of
operational priorities.
 The value of this was somewhat diminished by largely framing the recommendations
almost always in the context of being necessary “in order to maintain the current level of
activity.” In effect, CTL did not take the opportunities to assess itself more critically, to
question itself as to the scope and the priority of its activities, other than as related to the
impact of limited resources.
 Interestingly CTL staff and University staff recognise that “CTL has great potential to
develop in many different ways”. Exploration of some of these different ways would have
been helpful, especially if done in conjunction with questioning existing activities.
Specific Issues
 The RG acknowledges the apparent need for extra staff and resources, although with
exceptions subsequently set out (See 5.4.2, 6.3, 7.2) would not initially support securing
additional CTL staff until the future role of CTL is clarified.
 The section on planning caused some difficulties for the RG, as there were so many
sources of input with too many objectives.
 The approach in the SAR appears to be one in which CTL accepted as legitimate and
necessary, all and any strategic “University” statements as policy with which it had to
comply, though some of these strategic inputs were not developed as a coherent body of
thinking.
 This is partially illustrated by representative questions set out below that the RG feel
should have been addressed in a more probing, self-reflective manner in the SAR. The
RG’s questions are rhetorical at this point.
o Are Level “A” UCD principles Teaching and Learning policy (P1-6) meant to guide
the development of strategies? If not why not?
o Level “B” UCD operational targets (T1-6) do not entirely relate to the principles. For
example, what happened to inclusivity? Why have they not been used to develop
priorities for CTL?
o To what extent do Level “C” Action points by Vice-President for Faculty Planning &
Development (A1-8) need to be heeded by CTL? Why have they not been used to
develop the operational priorities? Why are they not questioned, and evidence
presented for a counter view?
o Who developed Level 1 CTL Mission Excellence & Innovation (M1-6)? It is very
“staff skill-based” and not focussed on changing staff’s understanding of Teaching
and Learning and thereby emphasising the students’ learning outcomes.
o What standing does Level 2 Vision statement re T&L at UCD have in relation to the
development of actions and strategies? This is equally based on changing staff skills
and actions, not on the students’ learning.
o Level 3 CTL’s Strategic goals seem to impose an “unrequested” standard on CTL
which adds to the considerable pressure to achieve current goals.
o Have Level 4 CTL’s Operational priorities (1-16) been signed off by the Registrar?
Are they to be addressed / fulfilled each year? What is their relationship to the action
points from the Registrar?
The Review
11
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning



April 2003
The SAR lacked sufficient critical analysis of the taught programme.
o It was felt that the taught programme, while pivotal in the evolution and continued
development of CTL, seemed to proceed in a relatively unmonitored manner. There
was only one illustration of how a course was adapted within the programme.
o There was little evidence of Training Needs Analyses, reviews of, or feedback on the
courses.
o There was little evidence of quality controls in place.
o There was no description of how teachers are sourced for the courses, or how they are
remunerated for their teaching.
o There was no description on how courses are either designed, or modified in the SAR.
In relation to the question of research, there was a lack of detailed analysis of what
research should be conducted, and how that might be different from the research areas
currently undertaken or planned in other departments or units on campus.
The limited responses in the International Review (three e-mail responses), was
disappointing. It was felt that this was an area that could have yielded great potential for
comparison and discussion, and, as such, a missed opportunity.
Conclusions
 The RG admired the effort and energy that was clearly expended in collating evidence to
document the essence and the extent of the CTL.
 The RG formed the impression that the process of producing the SAR will have ongoing
beneficial effects for the CTL.
 The RG’s comments in this report seek to emphasise the directions in which the issues
presented in the SAR might be questioned and extended to be used for future planning and
development.
 The RG recognises that the CTL is a relatively new Centre and that many of the
challenges it faces are partially attributable to that fact. In that context, it may appear that
a QA/QI process is somewhat premature in this case; equally so, the RG Report is an
opportunity to focus attention on some significant issues as CTL plans its development.
The Review
12
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
5.
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group
5.1
General Comments
 The RG found that CTL is a valuable resource for UCD and the academic community has
identified the need for such a unit within the University to develop programmes related to
teaching and learning.
 It is not clear to the RG that CTL, at this relatively early stage of its organisational
development, can provide the necessary leadership in the progress of teaching and
learning activities in UCD. CTL recognises this in the SAR.
o CTL makes two leadership-related recommendations in response to the “leadership”
issue. The first is to create leadership capacity within CTL, through the appointment
of a Professor of Teaching & Learning. The second is to seek a leadership role at
University level by having a dedicated senior person with teaching and learning
responsibility for the whole of the university.
o At least two senior academics were more explicit in this regard, strongly suggesting
that the appointment of a Vice President for Teaching and Learning be carefully
considered.
o Furthermore, CTL and some of the other interviewees also have a vision of a more
comprehensive teaching and learning infrastructure at faculty level. What is envisaged
is that people would be appointed who had leadership- and planning-related
responsibilities, and others would be appointed with faculty-specific teaching and
learning support responsibilities.
o The view of the RG is that the appointment of TDOs for each faculty seems in the
short term a less effective option than that which promotes the creation of “Associate
Deans for Teaching and Learning” within each faculty. To institute both in the short
term will double-up duties and confuse more than clarify an already difficult decision.
 At this stage of its young development the CTL is in effect trying to be all things to all
people, with all of the problems attendant to that, namely insufficient resources, increasing
frustration of staff, and a sense of isolation and defensiveness about what it seeks to do.
 In spite of fairly active planning, CTL largely “plans” to do everything that it did before,
plus more. The promotion of an active self-analysis by CTL should be prioritised and
facilitated by the University.
Recommendations
 UCD should prioritise the formulation of a leadership and infrastructural framework
which will enable it to achieve its institutional teaching and learning objectives, and in so
doing, clarify the role of CTL.
 A “root-and-branch” examination of the internal operation and the external relationships
of CTL to the University and its teaching and learning objectives should be instituted as a
matter of urgency.
5.2
Working Environment
CTL is poorly located at present as Woodview stands in the midst of building sites. However,
Woodview may well become a good location when the construction work in the area is
completed. It has the advantage of not being associated with a particular faculty and would
give CTL a physical independence within UCD. However, a critical issue for CTL is the lack
of space available to them.
Recommendations
 Woodview should be seriously considered as a permanent home for CTL, but that urgent
consideration is given to the re-housing of QAO or the Credit Union to provide extra
offices for CTL. (Re-housing QAO and/or the Credit Union within a faculty would not
have the implications it would for CTL.)
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group
13
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning

5.3
5.3.1
April 2003
Urgent consideration is given to the use being made of the “Meeting Room” in
Woodview. The “Meeting” room, which houses CTL library and the equipment shared
with QAO, is overcrowded, serves far too many functions, offers a poor library space, and
presents a non-professional image to callers who might be seeking to use one or other of
the services.
Centre Planning and Organisation
CTL and the University
This focuses on CTL’s relationship with UCD at academic and administrative levels. In
developing the changes suggested below, the University would recognise CTL’s unique role
on campus and the special benefits which would accrue from a Centre which can offer a
University-wide service in terms of research, support and training in teaching and learning.
Recommendations
 The RG supports the need for CTL to remain a “free-standing” unit. In being so, it was
felt that CTL will serve the faculties in UCD most efficiently. Should this status change,
the University should address the considerable disadvantages for CTL in such a
development.
 A clear system should be instituted to reflect CTL’s status within the administrative
structures of UCD, to ensure that CTL has ready access to Deans of Faculties, and to
guarantee that promotion prospects for CTL staff is on a par with other UCD staff.
 Special provisions should be made to allow CTL to develop postgraduate courses in
accordance with its new non-Faculty status.
 The inclusion of the Head of CTL on UCD senior committees (for example, the Academic
Council as a “non-voting member” to begin), given that CTL’s current status is not
technically constituted as an “Academic Centre.”
 The title “Teaching Development Officer” should be deemed redundant and that CTL’s
academic staff be termed “Lecturers in Educational Development” or some equivalent
which is acceptable to the staff.
 The RG notes the University’s policy on the rotation of the Heads of Department.
However, RG recommends that the duration of the headship should be extended to
maintain the continuity of recent developments and planning in the Centre.
5.3.2
Administration of CTL
The RG recognises the unique role played by the administrative staff in the development of
CTL in terms of the organisation and presentation of courses. This has led to the creation of
one full-time administrative position and one full-time contract position.
Recommendations
 The work of the current administrative positions should be assessed and defined as a
matter of urgency to ensure against excessive workloads.
 Both administrative positions are clearly needed and full-time contract position should
continue to be funded for the immediate future.
 The work of the administrators should be carefully assessed in a longer-term review of the
aims and objectives of CTL, and particularly in any consideration given to a
rationalisation of current courses.
5.3.3
CTL and SCTL
The RG was impressed by the work and interests of the “Standing Committee for Teaching
and Learning” (SCTL). The SCTL members offered a clear account of their work during the
site visit and the RG sees it as an important part of any development of CTL and of teaching
and learning in UCD. The RG acknowledges the relatively junior status of its membership, but
is certain that this does not necessarily hamper the committee’s effectiveness.
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group
14
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
Recommendation
 The RG again stresses (under this heading) that the Head of CTL be invited to join
committees such as the Academic Council in order to offset criticism of the “junior” status
of SCTL, and to ensure the representation of CTL’s interests at the highest levels so that
change can be effectively and speedily introduced.
5.3.4
President’s Teaching Awards
The RG supports CTL’s interest in increased involvement in the President’s Teaching
Awards. How this is achieved should be carefully assessed and developed. Currently there is a
great deal of confusion and a loss of efficiency in all aspects of the award process in relation
to CTL. There is an urgent need to have CTL’s role in these awards assessed in relation to the
concerns being expressed by the Centre.
Recommendations
 The promotion of a more active role (in terms of the work of CTL) from President’s
Teaching Award winners on return from their leave. Each should be involved in
mentoring, lecturing and writing in areas related to their award.
 CTL should have a significant role in establishing and monitoring this development.
5.3.5
Registrar
The RG recognises the valuable relationship between the Registrar and CTL in promoting the
work of CTL since its inception. The RG also notes the Registrar’s support for CTL
throughout its development. The RG recommendations seek to develop this relationship for
the benefit of CTL and the University.
In addition, the RG recognises the importance of the relationship between the office of the
Registrar, the SCTL and CTL. Its significance is one that cannot be underestimated and the
RG is keen to see its effectiveness maximised.
Recommendations:
 Meetings with the Registrar (approximately one every two months) be held more often.
 The relationship between the Registrar, SCTL, and CTL be re-assessed to define clear
lines of responsibility.
 The relationship between the Registrar, SCTL, and CTL be examined to minimise
duplication.
 The relationship between the Registrar, SCTL, and CTL be developed in ways to promote
the progress of CTL.
5.3.6
Staff Meetings
It is felt that the aspiration for a “fortnightly staff meeting” is much too high.
Recommendations
 Time-tables for staff meetings should be rationalised.
 A system should be considered to allow input from staff in setting the agenda.
5.4
Functions, Activities and Processes
5.4.1
General Comments, Findings and Recommendations
Chapter 3 of the SAR is structured around the 16 Operational Priorities (OPs) of CTL. This
approach appeared to limit the scope of what was described:


The relative importance of any one priority is not discussed, nor is the development of and
selection process for these priorities addressed.
It is difficult to assess the OPs singly or as a group. In saying so, the RG acknowledges
that it must have been a demanding process to arrive at these 16 points from the range of
(sometimes contradictory) statements of aims and strategies.
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group
15
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003

The breadth and obviously unrealistic scope of the 16 OPs is undoubtedly owing to this
situation.
The overall impression given is:
 CTL is involved in too many quite diverse activities in too many areas of the University
system. It is a credit to the staff’s commitment and enthusiasm that they decided to
attempt so much on so many fronts. It is not surprising, however, that they have not
always accomplished what they set out to achieve.
Findings
The SAR adopts a defensive position in response to some perceived shortcoming in each OP.
The dominance of this stance may have prevented a more positive and proactive approach to
the design as well as to the assessment of functions and activities in the SAR. The RG offers
the following general and specific responses to the OPs.
In general terms, the RG felt that the OPs should be aligned to the general aspirations of the
University. For example, the RG would like to see:
 A clear link being developed between CTL and the Registrar in relation to the
development and expression of OPs.
 A means to assess and address OPs on a annual basis.
 A system by which OPs are signed-off each year.
 The use of OPs to build critical analysis into the planning and development of taught
programmes.
5.4.2
Recommendation
 A narrower, better defined and clearly planned range of activities, which leaves room for
developments and scope for expansion later, should be considered as a matter of urgency.
This should create a more positive attitude (drawn from goals which have been attained),
and act as a counter to the self-defensive “feel” clearly evident in parts of the SAR.
Comments and Recommendations – Operating Priority Specific
Operating Priorities not discussed in this section are discussed either directly or indirectly in
other sections of this report.
OP5
Provide advice, assistance, and feedback to departments and faculties with regard to teaching
and learning activities. In particular, to be ready to provide bespoke professional development
activity for staff and to help faculties to design, provide and evaluate study, communication
and time management skills development programmes for students.
Comment
 The consulting process is described as under-utilised (SAR p.47). However, no number of
consultations is presented and no attempt seems to have been made to expand this side of
the service. The explanations about the under-utilisation are vague and based on
assumptions. No data from the staff survey seems to be available on this topic. The RG’s
discussions with staff did not clarify this issue.
OP6
Collect and disseminate information regarding best practice in teaching and learning.
Comment
 The library housed in Woodview is seen to be limited by lack of resources (librarian,
library space) and under-utilised for the same reasons.
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group
16
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
Recommendations
 The staff of CTL should use this collection and implement some of the findings derived
from their usage in their meetings with UCD staff. This resource may then be perceived as
valuable and well used. This would, in turn, strengthen the case for better library facilities.
 A librarian is not required, nor is a new reading room if the current multi-purpose usage of
the room is re-considered in order to prioritise CTL’s requirements.
 Dissemination has been implemented by publishing information and advice on the Webpage. This could be expanded to include interactive list-serves (list-serves allow
subscribers to share information and participate in discussions through email lists),
brochures, placards, bookmarks, advertisements and newsletters.
 The effect of the Web-page should be closely monitored. An abundance of Web-based
material is now available on these topics world-wide and the benefits of writing extensive
material for a Web-page as distinct from having face-to-face discussions with groups of
staff in the institution needs to be carefully assessed.
OP7
In co-operation with the Educational Technology Officer and Computer Services Department,
provide support for academic staff in the application of telematics and other new technologies
in teaching and learning.
Comments
 The responsibility for supporting high quality online teaching and learning is an important
issue and the staff shortage in this field within CTL has been addressed by utilising the
expertise of a staff member from the AVC. This seems to work successfully and has the
support of both directors.
 Any future expansion of the use of eLearning will necessitate a close and co-operative
relationship between CTL, the AVC, Computer Services and the Library.
Recommendations
 Consideration might be given to ways in which this relationship might be formally
structured in order to clarify responsibilities.
 The RG does not recommend any merger of CTL, AVC and/or Computer Services. These
are distinct and valuable resources in UCD and should be allowed to develop as cooperative but independent centres and services.
 The RG suggests that such competency and expertise evident in the work of an
Educational Technologist would be a significant and important addition to the
development of CTL. The RG recommends that serious consideration be given to creating
such a position within CTL. Such a move would add substantially to the profile of CTL’s
courses and services, as it will inevitably help CTL to develop further as a centre for
teaching and learning.
OP10
Ensure that those responsible for academic strategic development, academic resource
allocations and academic promotions are fully informed as to the conclusions to be drawn
from current research and, in particular, what constitutes good practice in teaching and
curriculum design.
Comments
 The phrasing here is remarkably directive, narrow and non-developmental. To “Ensure”
something is a very tricky task in the current higher education sector.
 It is difficult to clearly define what is meant by the phrases “what conclusions to be drawn
from current research” and “what constitutes good practice in teaching and curriculum
design.”
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group
17
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning


April 2003
The discussions around OP10, both in the SAR and during the interviews, suffer
somewhat from CTL’s defensive attitude mentioned above. For each one of the three
areas, “strategic development”, “resource allocation” and “promotions”, a negative
approach is adopted.
o The emphasis on the lack of a professorial position and a Senior University Officer
dedicated to teaching and learning limits the focus on the possibilities of more
proactive alternatives to the current situation in relation to “strategic development.”
o Under “resource allocation” the process of funding of CTL is criticised.
o Similarly, under “promotions” the lack of a streamlined policy relating to teaching and
promotion is stressed and here the positive recommendations to address the system are
immediately undermined by the reference to time limitations for already stretched
staff.
It is the evaluation of University objectives and the process to be followed in relation to
this OP that will be significant in determining necessary CTL staffing levels, something
that cannot be assessed at this point.
Recommendations
 Consideration should be given to a “Senior Development Programme” to examine the
management of high quality Teaching and Learning for departmental heads.
 A workshop should be initiated for the Promotions Committee which would examine the
interpretations of “good teaching.”
 CTL should contribute to the development, implementation and monitoring of such
innovations.
 RG supports the thrust of this OP while recommending that it has to be seen within a
careful reassessment and prioritisation of all activities of CTL.
OP12
Provide support for quality assurance and quality improvement, career development and
academic promotions within the University.
Comments
 The activities described are important institution-wide responsibilities, which need to be
developed in conjunction with University policies and their implementation.
 Once these policies are instituted, their implementation should be deemed necessary by
the University and proper funding should be made available.
 CTL will be a significant asset in assisting in the implementation of such policies.
 It would be unwise for the institution to expect CTL in its current form to be able to do
more than point to the necessity for the institution to take responsibility for these
processes.
Recommendations
 The ad hoc and case-by-case approach used so far has been very well managed by CTL,
but is in RG’s view untenable in the future.
 CTL should also, with support from the Personnel Department, develop a programme for
senior managers and heads of departments to support them in relevant areas of
responsibility. This would provide a good opportunity to deal with OP16 (Develop a
closer working relationship with the Personnel Office) in order to:
o Co-ordinate the provision of courses and programmes on teaching and learning with
wider staff development activities for academic staff.
o Seek ways to enable support professionals to engage more effectively with the
teaching, learning and processes of the University. By developing a closer cooperative relationship with the Personnel Department in the area of training and
teaching, issue of overlapping services will be addressed.
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group
18
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
OP13
Develop a national and international reputation as a Centre able to support excellence in
teaching and learning.
Comment
 These activities are incidental for a well-run centre. They should not for their own sake
take up energy or resources as these should flow directly to the institution itself as it
develops within UCD, unless CTL is under pressure to become financially self-sufficient.
This is clearly not the case for CTL.
OP14
Develop a national and international reputation as a centre of research into teaching and
learning.
Comment
 RG assessed this as a premature and somewhat unrelated matter to the other priorities. The
reputation of a Centre will develop according to the quality of the work and research
achieved by the people in it. However, the RG notes that relationship between a scholarly
approach to academic development and research and the consequential development of an
international reputation for CTL might need to be discussed in some detail by CTL’s staff.
Recommendations
 CTL should undertake an extensive analysis of the direction and extent of existing
research programmes in order to address this important issue.
 A research focus, which takes up a “gap” defined in recent literature, might be best
identified and developed if linked to areas of teaching expertise. (Such planning and
development should lead to a research focus and attract research students and grants).
5.5
5.5.1
Taught Programmes
General Comments
 The taught programmes appear generally well related to the needs of the staff of UCD,
which CTL has documented in various ways. As not all activities are delivered by CTL
staff, the fluctuation in quality and the possible contradiction in approach are issues that
might need to be addressed. Some overlap of topics (“How to get published”, “Seminar
presentations”), which would normally be the responsibility of a higher degree or research
office, should be reviewed.
 Overall the Taught Programme seems a well-anchored core activity for CTL into which a
large amount of its resources go. If this is what CTL has decided or if it is something
which simply happened is unclear.
 As the Induction Programme is the only mandatory element, it suggests that CTL decided
to add or maintain the other two parts. The mandatory nature of the Induction course
obviously limits what CTL can do with the remaining resources.
 Directly or indirectly, many of the OPs are addressed via the Taught programme.
However, the effort expended to cover all 16 OPs by the Taught programme initiatives
seems counterproductive unless CTL wishes to limit its activities to the Taught
programme. As this is not the case, RG recommends a careful review of the OPs and the
Taught programme.
 There is a need for the University to evaluate critically what role it wishes for CTL,
especially considering that no additional resources were made available for it in 2001
when the University decided to make the Induction programme mandatory for all staff.
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group
19
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
5.5.2
April 2003
Findings
Taught Programme (Academic)
Comment
 The Taught Programme was generally well received by UCD staff, though there was
considerable discussion with regard to discipline/faculty specific training needs that were
not fully met.
Recommendations
 It might be prudent to include some basic topics such as “What is student learning”,
“Course Design”, “Assessment” and “Small and Large Teaching Situations” in the Main
programme for staff who want to update their approaches to teaching. “Assessment” and
“Course Design” seem obvious omissions from the Induction programme considering it
takes four full days and is designed for beginners.
 A system should be instituted whereby critical evaluations given by participants should be
taken into consideration for the next teaching round, in relation to topic choice and
approach.
Taught Programme (Postgraduate Diploma)
Recommendations
 The new Higher Diploma is intended to be a critical part of the future of CTL. It is
ambitious to introduce a significant additional programme without having resolved the
resource-related issues that are of such great concern to CTL.
 The current CTL teaching programme should be completely modularised and delivered
both as stand-alone single units and as parts of the Higher Diploma.
 In order to link both programmes, the Diploma’s conceptual framework should be
developed and the depth and range of the current programme should coincide with the
range and levels offered for graduate diplomas in higher education elsewhere.
Taught Programme (Administrative)
Comments
 The RG notes the inefficient arrangements which CTL encounters in booking rooms. In a
small unit such as CTL these issues can become overly time-consuming. The RG notes the
efficiency and commitment of the administrative staff in dealing with this difficult system.
The RG is confident that these issues will become less important as better ways of dealing
with them are put in place. However, it is clear that valuable resources in terms of time
and money could be saved if CTL had access to suitable teaching rooms. In addition,
every effort should be made to make developments in administrative software and training
available for staff as they become accessible.
 As CTL is not part of a Faculty, booked teaching spaces may be cancelled at the last
minute should the Faculty require the room. This is not ideal for the establishment of
reliable courses. In response,
o CTL adopted the strategy of paying for the hire of the facilities of UCD’s Industry
Centre (UIC) or Students’ Union (SU) should they want to hold events on campus. It
has, however, frequently proved difficult to get refreshments and lunches provided at
campus locations.
o CTL has, since 2000, mainly used the conference facilities of hotels for running
courses that have received outside funding.
o CTL continues to hire the UIC or the SU Centre’s meeting rooms for non-funded
courses.
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group
20
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
Recommendations
 Administrative side of the Taught Programme should be assessed to ensure that training
opportunities and access to software packages are available to administrative staff.
 More should be done to improve the efficiency of the booking process in terms of
procedures and room allocations.
 The lack of a dedicated seminar room is particularly problematic for small developmental
type projects, follow-up sessions, etc. after courses, or for more informal ad hoc meetings.
5.6
Research and Scholarly Activity
Comment
The RG recognises that this is an important chapter for CTL. Indeed the very length of the
chapter indicated its significance. The RG notes that a research-based element is important for
the development of CTL.
Recommendations
 The RG considers that research should not be prioritised nor should it be set aside at this
stage of the development of CTL. With so much to do in terms of CTL’s place within
UCD, the Taught Programme, and the general examination of the aims and objectives of
the Programme, it was felt that CTL should develop its role in terms of a strict and
practical set of achievable priorities.
 RG suggests that the obvious limitations of the current status of research in CTL should be
recognised officially at University level as a consequence of being under resourced.
 RG suggests that it should be recognised officially at University level that CTL academic
staff have the ability and desire to promote research within the field.
 RG suggests that a programme of research should be promoted within the terms existing
in CTL at present.
5.7
Customer Perspective
Comments
 Customer Perspective suggests that there has been a good deal of success for CTL to date
and that the Centre is generally progressing to good effect. However, a more critical selfassessment is urgently required to match resources to ambitions, and to evaluate the
development of the programme to date.
 The RG notes the potential significance of CTL working directly with the Faculty of
Agriculture to meet faculty-specific needs. This is a pilot programme initiated by
Agriculture. If the programme is judged a success by the Faculty of Agriculture, it should
facilitate CTL in developing/supporting other faculty-specific programmes. Certainly the
RG was made aware of different perspectives on the progress of the project to date. It is
clear that this is a difficult role for CTL to undertake, given that the needs of a particular
faculty require tailor-made responses. RG notes the potential evident in such programmes
as it points to the need for careful evaluation of the process to maximise the value of the
experience for CTL and to shape the development of any future faculty-specific
initiatives.
Recommendation
 A careful assessment of customer evaluations should be undertaken. These evaluations
will be critical to any re-evaluation of the work of CTL. In broad terms, it was clear to RG
that CTL offers too many courses and asks too much of itself given its current staffing
levels. RG recommends that any response to customer evaluations should be predisposed
to cut some of the existing programme. Such decisions should be made on what CTL
considers are the important priorities for such a Centre in UCD and on responses to the
priorities evident in customer evaluations. A more focussed and limited programme
should improve staff's opportunities to advance their careers in significant ways, develop
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group
21
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning

5.8
April 2003
the services being offered in a systematic way, and add to CTL's reputation in UCD and
abroad.
CTL's programme with the Faculty of Agriculture should become the basis of a thorough
review of the process by which this scheme was initiated, developed and finalised by
CTL. The RG is particularly keen to see how CTL's future involvement with faculties can
maximise the use of its expertise in response to the particular needs of a faculty. This will
only happen if the current scheme is subject to a particularly rigorous examination.
Resource Management
Comments
 The SAR provided a great deal of detailed data about University accounting procedures
and aspects of CTL budget and how it operated. Nevertheless the RG found much of this
less than clear.
 It was not clear though whether the University funding of CTL is related to the mission
and activities of CTL, or whether it is arrived at by a more general formulaic allocation of
resources.
 There appears to be gaps in the funding of core activities of CTL which may be crosssubsidised by third-party funding (secured for other purposes). For example, the RG was
unclear as to the use being made of fee-bearing, non-mandatory programmes. Is this a step
towards self-funding? How is this income used?
 The overall impression is one of over complexity in a unit which does not, but should
have financial autonomy.
Recommendations
 Regardless of the decisions made about what activities CTL should undertake in the
future, CTL should be provided with financial planning assistance to enable it to prepare
activity-based budgets (which in turn may inform the financial assessment of the activities
that CTL actually does).
 The financial planning of CTL should embrace the non-University funded activities as
well and then be combined in an integrated management information system that enables
CTL to manage the revenue and expenditure of all of its major categories of activity
discretely and collectively.
o It will be necessary, for example, to be able to distinguish between courses with fees
and those without fees to determine whether fees “support” other activities.
5.9
Overall Analysis and Recommendations
Findings
 The SWOT analysis (SAR pp. 151-52) concentrates too much on Resources and loses
sight of the importance of Activities.
 The focus on Resources tends to emphasise their limitations.
 Recommendations rely heavily on external forces (need for additional staff, promotions,
appointments to University committees, extra rooms) when internal factors might have
been given extended consideration (strategic planning in relation to current resources to
account for current and projected activities). Such focus and planning could help CTL to
establish itself more firmly within UCD and develop its future in a more practical and
realisable way.
 CTL developed a comprehensive framework of recommendations that are consistent with
enabling it to achieve its aims and objectives generally and its OPs more specifically.
However as the RG is broadly critical of the assumption that CTL should continue to do
what it is currently doing without a more strategic assessment of its activities, only some
of the recommendations are supported in the short term.
Findings and Recommendations of the Review Group
22
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
6.
April 2003
Overall Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Concerns
Comment
 CTL is a lively centre with committed staff, engaged in work of considerable importance
to UCD, but hampered by its place in the institution and by its own limited success in
matching ambition to the practicalities of its current position in UCD.
6.1
Strengths
 Staff have abilities and skills matched by energy and commitment to the work of the
Centre.
 CTL has achieved a great deal in promoting the importance of teaching and learning
within UCD.
 In general, customer responses have been good and supportive of the work of CTL.
 CTL clearly has achieved enough to be very confident that it has the potential to develop
into an excellent academic centre within UCD.
 The wide range of activities that were attempted and achieved by CTL has exposed the
staff to a good range of experiences and approaches. Most of the activities have been
successful, even if they are not perceived as such by CTL’s staff.
 Staff know their strengths and have worked extremely hard to develop them.
6.2
Weaknesses
 CTL is inadequately housed at present. CTL needs to be housed in offices which allow it
to complete its work in some comfort and to present a professional image to customers
who visit the Centre.
 CTL tends to retain the existing training suite of programmes while seeking to add to
them. The RG was not aware of any active process of programme review to identify
programmes to possibly be dropped or to allocate resources more effectively. Such tactics
are not helpful to a developing Centre. The limited willingness to match resources to
ambitions will continue unless there is a great deal of self-reflection and self-criticism.
 The current placement of CTL in the administrative organisation of UCD does not lend
itself to the advancement of teaching and learning in UCD nor does it encourage the levels
of self-reflection required by CTL.
 CTL staff are not represented on key University committees, e.g. Academic Council, New
Courses Approval.
 The ill-defined role of research in CTL is a matter which requires urgent attention as it
will remain a difficulty for a staff who have unfulfilled research objectives.
 CTL has drifted into a defensive attitude as it seeks to address its ambitions in relation to
the resources being made available to it in UCD. The RG felt that CTL sought to maintain
its current programmes and introduce new ones in spite of acknowledged limited
resources and at the expense of a more analytical approach to planning and development.
 CTL’s defensive viewpoint tends to obscure the successes, strengths and the positive
outcomes of the Centre.
 This defensive perspective also appears to limit CTL’s ability to examine issues which
could be improved within the current resource levels.
 The absence of focussed visible leadership in the area of teaching and learning from a
senior position in the University’s hierarchy has made CTL’s attempt to establish itself
within the institution much harder than it should be.
6.3
Opportunities
 CTL has already achieved excellent areas of expertise and interest for itself within UCD
as it has established a keen customer base.
 Given the interest expressed in teaching and learning in UCD, there will be many research
opportunities specific to UCD.
Overall Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Concerns
23
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning





6.4
April 2003
The evidence is clear that CTL will be expanded in the years ahead.
CTL has already shown its willingness to develop technological expertise within the
Centre. This should be encouraged and implemented at the soonest opportunity.
A more active planning activity by CTL in conjunction with faculties and departments
should help the University to identify the budgetary needs to support CTL and may also
inform considerations as to where, and by whom some of those activities may most
effectively be provided.
The wide range of activities and their positive outcomes have equipped CTL with an
impressive array of experiences and resources.
RG sees a significant opportunity to focus CTL more narrowly and to assign its resources
more strategically in the future in order to maximise its contribution to UCD and to the
broader academic community.
Threats / Concerns
 There is clear evidence that continued levels of work may cause exhaustion for staff.
 Unless there are clear links between ambition, resources and achievement, staff will
inevitably become despondent in their work.
 The continued development on too many fronts will certainly precipitate exhaustion and
despondency.
Overall Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Concerns
24
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
7.
April 2003
Recommendations for Improvements
RG recommendations are reported initially in the findings sections of this report. This final
section of the report contains both summarised recommendations and copies of the more
material recommendations.
7.1
In relation to UCD
As the nature and the scope of the activities within the province of CTL are potentially of such
fundamental importance to the University achieving its mission, the RG felt that it was
appropriate to make some recommendations at University level.

UCD should prioritise the formulation of a leadership and infrastructural framework
which will enable it to achieve its institutional teaching and learning objectives, and, in so
doing, clarify the role of CTL.
o The RG agrees with the statement in the SAR that “CTL has great potential to develop
in many different ways.”
o The work that CTL has done in connection with the SAR, particularly in tabulating
the wide array of related (but not necessarily coherent) strategic objectives/priorities,
is potentially helpful to university-level considerations.
o The CTL delineation of its set of Operating Priorities should also be helpful, as are its
own views on leadership and infrastructural considerations.
o CTL should be active participants in institutional considerations.
o The underlying premises of the RG are that change is needed at both the institutional
level and the operating level that is CTL; and that decisions needed at institutional
level are of a higher order and should contribute to a more precise determination of
the activities of the CTL, the scale of the operations, and the resourcing of CTL.
o This latter point is not to suggest that the RG thinks that the creation of a
professorship or a senior University Officer with dedicated Teaching and Learning
responsibility will automatically improve matters. What is implied is that a root-andbranch review of UCD objectives should be carried out, one aspect of which would be
to create a leadership framework for Teaching and Learning in the University.
The following recommendations are more specific and follow implicitly from the above
recommendation and would be informed by the decisions ensuing from it.
 UCD should fund, accommodate and staff CTL to a level adequate for the responsibilities
assigned to it. See 5.8
 CTL should remain a free-standing, academic and service centre. See 5.2, 5.3.1, 5.4.2
 UCD should engage with CTL to develop a strategic plan which may include the hiring of
extra staff to address the future development of CTL's work. See 5.4.2
 The current administrative staffing levels should be confirmed while a review of CTL’s
workloads is initiated. See 5.3.2
 UCD should review the ways in which CTL has access to senior management and
committees within the University. CTL should have clearly defined roles on and/or access
to senior University management and committees. See 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.5, 5.4.2, and 6.2
 While noting that there are a variety of approaches to providing dedicated leadership for
the teaching and learning activity at institutional level, the RG favour the appointment of
an Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning for each faculty.
o Such a position should be formally linked to CTL to ensure continuity in the
development of teaching and learning across the University. See 5.1 Overall
 CTL involvement with the President's Teaching Awards and Grants should be reviewed to
make better use of CTL's expertise. See 5.3.4
 UCD should initiate a “Senior Development Programme” to examine the management of
high quality teaching and learning for departmental heads and a workshop for the
Promotions Committee which would explore interpretations of “good teaching.”
Recommendations for Improvement
25
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
o



7.2
CTL (and the Personnel Department) should contribute to such examinations and
committees. See 5.4.2
The title “Teaching Development Officer” should be deemed redundant and that CTL’s
academic staff be termed “Lecturers in Educational Development” or some equivalent
which is acceptable to the staff. See 5.3.1
Woodview should be considered as a permanent home for CTL, but extra space should be
granted to CTL, and consideration should be given to the re-location of the Quality
Assurance Office or the Credit Union. See 5.2.
CTL should be provided with access to teaching rooms (at least one of which is dedicated
to CTL) and adequate software systems for the organisation of the teaching function of the
Centre. See 5.5.2
In relation to CTL
Many of these recommendations are subordinate to the top level recommendation, but can be
read to be immediately relevant and applicable if one assumes that CTL is going to continue
largely unchanged with reference to the scope of its activities.











CTL should extend the duration of the current headship in order to maintain the continuity
of recent developments and planning, and in the light of RG recommendations for the
initiation of a self-analysis of such developments and planning. See 5.3.1
CTL staff should remain committed to research but should be patient in setting such
ambition in relation to other important aspects of its work at present. See 5.1, 5.7, 6.2
In the immediate future, CTL should consider limiting its range of courses to suit its
resources. In one scenario mandatory courses should be prioritised over all else. This is
especially important given CTL's immediate commitment to a Higher Diploma in
Teaching and Learning. Regardless of which is prioritised it would appear that one
element of CTL’s work will be hindered—the implications of which would need to be
specified, and perhaps alternative (non-resource heavy approaches be sought). See 5.5.1,
5.5.2, 6.2
CTL should continue to develop good working relationships with AVC, Computing
Services and other training units, while remaining a free-standing Centre. See 5.4.2
CTL needs strong arguments to make its case: feedback, reviews, self-criticism/analysis
will be vital in establishing its arguments. Such work should be prioritised within the
Centre as a matter of urgency. See 5.7, 6.2
CTL should seek to develop and almost redefine the identity of the unit to take account of
its abilities, skills, ambitions, and resources. This new sense of the unit is required as a
matter of urgency. See 6.2
Links to faculties (in programmes similar to that undertaken with the Faculty of
Agriculture) should be very carefully planned and assessed in order to address the
particular needs of the faculty. While external funding may be available for such
innovative programmes (HEA, etc.), care should be taken that such programmes are
tailored to suit CTL's own strategic planning and development as they serve the faculty
and University. See 5.7
The appointment of an Educational Technologist to CTL should be considered, regardless
of the broader leadership and infrastructural model that may emerge. The RG is of the
view that academic competencies in this area are very significant to an academic teaching
and learning service unit. See 5.4.2, 6.3
Web development should be carefully planned and managed. See 5.4.2
CTL should develop a well-structured quality-assurance cycle for all parts of the Taught
Programme which takes participants’, presenters’ and CTL’s views into consideration and,
importantly, implements enhancements before each teaching cycle. See 5.4.1, 5.5.1, 5.5.2
CTL should develop (and continue to assess) short-term, medium-term and long-terms
goals and strategies. See 4.3, 5.4
Recommendations for Improvement
26
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
8. Response of CTL Staff to the Review Group Report
The Staff of the Centre welcome the report of the Review Group from the QA exercise on the
Centre for Teaching and Learning. The Report acknowledges and appreciates much of work done
in the Centre to date. Many of the recommendations / ideas of the Centre have been supported by
the Review Group, such as, the need for:




CTL to be both a free standing and Academic Centre within the University.
The head of CTL to be a member of the Academic Council.
The appointment of an Educational Technologist to the Centre.
The Centre to adopt a narrower focus.
All of which have been achieved in the six months between the visit and the production of the
Review Group’s Report.
The Review Group also support the following, as yet, unrealised aspirations:









More office space for the Centre.
A dedicated teaching room for the Centre.
The temporary Executive Assistant post to be made permanent.
Transparency in the resource allocation to the Centre.
A Comprehensive Review of the Teaching and Learning structure across the University.
An Educational Technologist to be based in the Centre permanently.
The title “Educational Development Officer” to be replaced by that of “Lecturer in
Educational Development”.
A Review of the Centre’s role in the President’s Teaching Awards.
Associate Deans for Teaching and Learning to be appointed within each Faculty.
Several of the comments made in the Report, however, are inaccurate and / or suggest a lack of
understanding or appreciation by the Review Group of the actual work of the Centre. In particular,
we are concerned about the following:
The Comment that we did not Question the Scope and Priorities of our Actions.
We find this the most surprising of the inferences drawn by the Review Group. Our intention,
clearly signalled in the SAR, is that the predominant focus of the centre change from a supply-led
provider to a demand-led facilitator of professional development activities. This vision is set out
on pages 23, 82 and 152 – 154 and involves increasing the number of collaborative activities with
Faculties and Departments – hence the proposal of Faculty-linked Teaching Development
Officers. Moreover, that many UCD staff support this vision is indicated from the feedback given
on pages 120 – 127. Having consulted with current users of our service (see, inter alia, pp 73 –
81), however, CTL recognises the value of the current portfolio of workshops and, therefore,
couched this re-positioning in terms of expansion rather than replacement. In the light of this, the
Review Group’s comment that they would not support an expansion in staff until the role and
function of the Centre is clarified seems not only regrettable but also inappropriate in its logic. (It
would have been appropriate for the RG to say that they disagreed with this vision and, therefore,
would not support an expansion. To imply, however, that the vision is not there, does not seem to
be a reasonable response to the SAR.) Whilst we all agree that the Centre needs to become more
focussed in its activities, the Review Group’s seems not to acknowledge the steps already taken by
the Centre to this end. The Self-Assessment Report (SAR) concludes by identifying those
Operational Priorities on which it plans to focus. The Review Group suggests that the Centre
“accepted as legitimate and necessary, all and any strategic University statements as policy with
which it had to comply”. This is not quite correct. We certainly accepted them as “legitimate” and,
as such, requiring a response. For this reason we list them all and indicate where we have, and
where we have not, been able to address them. However, the purpose of this was precisely to show
Response of CTL Staff to the Review Group Report
27
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
not only the need for a narrow focussing but also that, at the time, we had already gone some
considerable way towards prioritising targets and narrowing our focus. (Of course, in the six
months since the visit there has been further progress.) To have undertaken a prioritising without
considering all the strategic inputs would, we feel, have been unprofessional. The Review Group
incorrectly questions whether the Operational Priorities and Mission of the Centre were “signed
off” by the Standing Committee on Teaching and Learning and by the Registrar.
The Comment there was little Evidence of Training Needs Analyses, Feedback or Critical
Analyses on the Courses.
As indicated on page 64 of the SAR, the Centre conducted a comprehensive review of needs in
2001 and between then and the time of the visit in April 2003, regularly and systematically
collected feedback on its courses to ensure that needs were being addressed effectively. Page 64 of
the SAR also contains a description of six methods that are and have been used to carry out this
monitoring. There is, we believe, considerable evidence in the SAR of changes being made as a
result of this review process. Many of the courses have been altered and some of these changes are
mentioned on pages 66,67,73,75 of the SAR. The comments of the Review Group that the taught
programme proceeded “in a relatively unmonitored way” and “there was little evidence of…
reviews of, or feedback” are unjust given the content of pp 73 – 82 of the SAR. The inaccurate
suggestion that the Centre does not carry out systematic review and revision could be damaging
given that the Centre is in the role of suggesting to others in UCD that this is good practice. The
Review Group report then contradicts itself on page 19 when it states that 'the taught programme
appear to be well related to the needs of the staff, which the CTL has documented in various
ways'.
The Many Comments that we were Defensive throughout the SAR.
This is a particularly pernicious way of framing a criticism, since it is impossible to ‘defend’
without appearing to confirm the original judgement. However, the point needs to be answered.
The comment is first made on page 11 where the Review Group recognise that our SAR
“comprehensively captured and catalogued” those forces that define our strategic environment
distilling them into “comprehensive” (ibid) priorities but then go on to say, “the value of this was
somewhat diminished by largely framing the recommendations almost always in the context of
being necessary ‘in order to maintain the current level of activity’”. Had they had time to reflect
on our document (a need they, themselves identified on page 8), they might have seen that we
structured recommendations so as to identify that which would be necessary to continue our
current activities (including the expansions already planned for 2003/04 viz. the introduction of
the Higher Diploma and the Research Forum and our increased participation in national and
international fora on teaching and learning.) The resource implications for additional expansion (in
particular, that associated with our planned move to a more demand-oriented service) were then
identified separately. This seemed, and still seems, to us to be a sensible way of setting out
resource needs as it informs resource providers of the practical effects of strategic decisions. The
RG interprets this as failing to take the “opportunities” (sic) to question the “scope and priorities”
of our actions. Again, this is a inaccurate reading of our document which clearly indicates that we
have reviewed our activities and sets out a new vision for the centre. (See above.) It is true we
arrived at this vision by reference to the current research on teaching and learning1 rather than by
way of critique of existing UCD policy statements – but, arguably, this is the more rigorous
academic approach. The constant references to the Centre as being 'defensive' (Review Report
p.16 (twice), p18 (twice), p23 (three times)), have caused us considerable concern. We believe that
the use of such attitudinal language to describe the Centre is inappropriate to the point of being
unprofessional. It is also misleading. We acknowledge that, at times, the restrictions on the
1
c.f Knight, R, T. & Trowler, P.R.2000 Department-level Cultures and the Improvement of Learning and
Teaching Studies in Higher Education 24 pp 169 – 183 and Neumann, R. Parry, S, & Becher, T. 2002 Teaching
and Learning in their Disciplinary Contexts: A Conceptual Analysis Studies in Higher Education 27 pp 405 –
417.
Response of CTL Staff to the Review Group Report
28
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
Centre's activities have been related by the CTL to external factors such as resources etc, and that
not all difficulties can be blamed on these factors. However, the use of 'defensive' is not an
accurate reflection of the extremely positive attitude of the staff of the Centre who have been very
open to trying out different ideas within the current resources. 'Defensive' by its definition implies
we are not open to criticism and implies a lack of openness to moving forward. We object to the
use of this word used throughout the Report, in describing the Centre. We believe the point made
by the Review Group of the need to cope with current resources in a more proactive systematic
way may have some validity, however it should have been put forward in a less attitudinal, less
derogatory manner.
The Attitude of the Review Group to Research as a Central Component of CTL Activities.
The Review Group suggests that our desire to develop a national and international research profile
is “premature” and “somewhat unrelated to the other priorities” (Page 19). As with their comments
on our being defensive and not having considered the scope and relative priority of our activities,
this suggests a lack of reflection or understanding or both. Whilst the Review Group
acknowledges what they call “the relationship between a scholarly approach to academic
development and research” (Ibid.) and the need for a “research-based element” in the
development of CTL (our emphasis), they seem not to share, or even appreciate, our vision of
research-led approach to the improvement of teaching and learning. Such a lack of appreciation
can also be seen in the comment that “there was little detailed analysis of what research should be
conducted, and how that might be different to the research areas currently undertaken or planned
in other departments” (Page 12). Perhaps the members of the Review Group do not share our
understanding of the concept of the reflective practitioner as requiring engagement in small-scale
research as part of their own professional development with consequential improvements in
teaching and learning arising from individual and collaborative action-research. We, however,
envision CTL conducting, collaborating in and supporting, such practitioner research projects
throughout the University.2 Further, as most research into teaching and learning has been
conducted in other countries, the Review Group’s lack of support for research-led (as opposed to
merely research-based developments) seems to ignore the need for a consideration of, and
investigation into, the Irish cultural context of teaching and learning development. We believe this
to be a serious omission as it would be difficult to over-emphasise the contextual importance of
educational interactions and the concomitant problems of generalising from one culture to another.
The Lack of Recognition of the Innovative Nature of the New Higher Diploma.
The Review Group seem not to have understood the plans for the new Higher Diploma. They
regard the introduction of the Higher Diploma as “ambitious… without having resolved the
resource-related issues”. (Page 20.) Unfortunately, they seem not the have grasped that Diploma is
structured so as to be self-financing for the Centre. Similarly, they “recommend” that “the current
CTL teaching programme should be completely modularised and delivered both as stand-alone
single units and as parts of the Diploma.” (Ibid.) This has been the intention from the beginning
and the programme is already structured in this way. Their final suggestion for the Higher
Diploma is that its “conceptual framework should be developed and the depth and range of the
current programme should coincide with the range and levels offered for graduate diplomas in
higher education elsewhere”. (Ibid.) It is not, and never has been our intention to provide a
Diploma that mirrors that which is available elsewhere. On the contrary, our intention was to
develop an innovative and groundbreaking programme that truly followed the reflective
practitioner model and was grounded in the idea of individual professional responsibility for selfdevelopment and which deliberately enabled differential approaches by candidates to assessed
tasks. The structure of our new Diploma has attracted much attention and admiration from other
higher education providers within Ireland and it is seen by them as a pilot for a new generation of
c.f.Mason, J. 2003 “Practitioner Research as an Extension of Professional Development”, in Holden, I. (Ed.),
Utvikling av Matematik kundervisning I Samspill mellom Praksis og Forskning, Skriftserie for Nasjonalt Senter
for Matematik I Opplaeringen (1), Trondheim p181-192.
2
Response of CTL Staff to the Review Group Report
29
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
Diplomas genuinely rooted in the theory of reflective practice. We recognise, of course, the need
to carefully monitor and evaluate the implementation of such an innovative programme; but were
disappointed that the RG failed to recognise and comment on its trailblazing nature.
The Lack of Recognition of the Success of the Centre’s Web-Site.
The comments the RG make on the Web-site are limited to the need to expand the use of listserves and email lists (with which we agree); and an admonition to closely monitor its effects
since there is “an abundance of Web-based material… now available… (and) the benefits of
writing extensive material for a Web-page as distinct from having face-to-face discussions with
groups of staff… needs to be assessed.” Our judgement was that producing the web-site
represented an efficient and cost-effective use of resources given the relative numbers of teaching
staff in the University as a whole and the Centre. The web-site was never intended to replace oneto-one consultations. Indeed, experience has shown that it prompts a greater number of requests
for consultations. We now frequently receive call from colleagues who have seen something on
the web-site and want to discuss it further. We also get similar calls from outside the University.
One of our intentions in going for such a high-quality web-site was to establish an international
presence and, in this, we seem to have succeeded beyond our aspirations. We frequently get
contacted by people from throughout the world (including the UK, Canada, the US, Australia,
South Africa, Zimbabwe) who have been impressed by our web-site, many of whom have asked
for additional advice or information. We feel that a critical comparison between our web-site and
the “abundance” of others would have discovered the production of a site of such high quality is
both an effective method of internal communication and a way of establishing a national and
international presence.
The Comment that the Mission Statement is too Skills-based and does not Focus enough on
Changing Members of Staff’s Understanding of Teaching and Learning.
Section 1 of the Mission Statement indicates that the Centre seeks to promote excellence and
innovation in teaching by, “Assisting Faculties to foster active, reflective and inclusive student
learning by helping academic staff to continually develop and improve theirs skills and knowledge
in the areas of teaching and curriculum development.” (Page.19 SAR) Section 2 (Pp 19 & 20)
confirms our commitment to enabling teachers to become reflective practitioners. Perhaps the
members of the Review Group do not share our understanding of the concept of the reflective
practice as transformation of understanding through structured critical review of one’s own
actions.
The Comment that the Appointment of Faculty-specific Teaching Development Officers is a
less Effective Option than the Creation of Associate Deans for Teaching and Learning.
Perhaps we were not sufficiently clear in the way we explained our recommendations on this
matter. In any event, the Review Group seem to have misunderstood or become confused between
these proposals. The Review Group suggests the creation of both posts would lead to confusion. In
our proposal, these posts were seen as having very different responsibilities. The Associate Deans
would have a Faculty strategic management role concerned with the championing of teaching and
learning issues in the strategic level decision-making process. As with the need to develop a
University-wide leadership position with regard to teaching and learning (such as Vice President),
we saw the need for a similar leadership focus within each Faculty. The proposal for Facultyspecific Teaching Development Officers, on the other hand, envisioned a development and
delivery role with regard to teaching and learning. (A detailed model of this role is given on pages
154 – 155 of the SAR.)
The Recommendation that the Duration of the Headship be Extended.
This recommendation is made without any supporting argument and with no limitations as to the
extent of the extension. Nonetheless, it produced an interesting debate within the Centre. On the
one hand, we all feel that a period of continuity is essential – given the history of staff changes
within the Centre leading to uncertainty of direction. On the other hand, we see rotating headships
Response of CTL Staff to the Review Group Report
30
Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement
Review Group Report—Centre for Teaching and Learning
April 2003
as a great strength of the UCD system. They play an important part in the maintenance of the
University as a collegial academy. To argue that an extension of a headship is necessary to
preserve continuity per se is to abandon the collegial approach and adopt the more top down
management style of, for example, much of the UK and Australian systems. In the collegial
approach, implementation of change (developments) can be more effective precisely because they
are owned and supported by all (or, at least, most) of the staff. No evidence is presented as to how
an extension of the headship in such a context would help maintain continuity. This is a primarily
a question of culture. A shift in culture such as that proposed, requires evidence to support it,
otherwise ‘cultural dissonance’ is likely to damage rather than support continuing effective
development. Our view is that continuity is best established by the generation of a plan that, being
collegially and collectively developed, is supported by all. We feel that the Centre now works as a
team and that a rotating headship creates a milieu wherein commitment to the team is
strengthened. We, therefore, reject the Review Groups idea that an extension is necessary for the
continuity of recent developments. We do feel, however, that because of the newness of both
currently serving academic full-time members of staff and the extended leave of absence of the
third, that there is a case for a limited one-year extension to enable each to concentrate on current
team generated commitments.
The Six-Month Waiting Period for the Review Group’s Report.
We feel that the delay in presenting us with the report shows a certain lack of concern for the
effects such a wait have on members of staff and, by extension, a lack of respect for those staff.
The visit was completed on 10th April 2003 but we did not receive the report until 21st October
2003. We all found it de-motivating to have to wait over six months for the report.
We would appreciate clarification on the unfinished statements that:
 “While there was a good response to the work of CTL, there was some criticism voiced to
the RG”. (Page 8.) We could find no trace of this being addressed by the RG.
 “Certainly the RG was made aware of different perspectives on the progress of the
(Agriculture) project to date.” (Page 21). It would be useful to have more details here to
inform our ongoing monitoring and evaluation processes.
Geraldine O’Neill
Tim McMahon
Fran Malone
Donna Carter-Leay
Martin Walters
Response of CTL Staff to the Review Group Report
31