STRENGTHS and Weaknesses of the various foundations programmes:
STRENGTHS:































Centralised program gives institutional cohesion and community
Provide core message
Symbolic statement on T&L Policy
Link to academic role and progression
Programs are designed and facilitated by people with solid foundation in T&L – high quality
Sharing core resources ensures quality (how to collate, distribute ??)
Time release
Beyond T&L to include policy and how it impacts on T&L practice (policy – copyright, misconduct,
diversity)
Multiple resources included eg. Learning skills, library
Grading of assessment work –
 Encourages taking course seriously
 Provides “student” experience
 Matches participants expectations/ wants for feedback
 Challenges assessment assumptions
Relationship between Foundation course and Grad Cert
 Flexibility of patterns of advanced standing
 Funded as part of Grad Cert
Relationship between Foundation course and Grad Cert
 Discipline cohorts within generic program
 Foundations “feeds into” Grad Certificates
 Using graduate attributes to frame Grad Cert (Adelaide)
External review of programmes
Exp staff/ “grads” take future workshops or present their research to the next cohort at the 1 st session.
Support from Uni administration/management (eg. Scholarships for Grad Cert participants)
Vision for future – coherent framework for all programs
Paying sessional staff to attend
Relevance of content/topics/investigations/projects
Cross-disciplinary networking
Differentiate between scholarship (and evaluation) of teaching, not of teachers
Mandatory nature of programme
University support
Team approach to the teaching of the programme – reflexive, modelling good practice
Umbrella nature of Grad Cert – 3 different groups with different outcomes in one program
Articulation between/from Foundations program to Grad Cert (more theoretical)
Multi-disciplinary representation
Institutional support, recognition across the University
7 days not mandatory (Foundations Program)
People are willing to be involved – communities formed
Reflection built in
Grad Cert organisers/overseers are from across the faculties – facilitates/ensures content
appropriateness
WEAKNESSES:
 Acknowledgement of time release
 Credit for Grad Certs
 Financial support for Grad Certs
 Sponsership of discipline-based person (head of school etc.)
 Funded support for sessional staff
 Needs to be built into policy – value systems



























Inadequate funding for attendance
Mandatory
Links with disciplines
Staff feedback
Risk
Positioning of program
Different impact across Uni’s
Different framework across Uni’s
No link to progression
Probation, tenure, promotion
(Missing?) link to institutional good teaching practice/principles (AVCC eg.)
Lack of focus on disciplinary context
Capacity of centres to provide everything for all (wide variety of needs)
Making sure curriculum design is coherent, developmental, sequential, not repetitive (mapping
needed)
Not having a wholistic approach towards research and teaching
Lack of institutional support
No opportunity for PhD, Masters
Need to work hard to get people to follow through
Timing - very little “downtime” for academics – when is best time to offer programs
Workload issues for academic staff developers
Lack of support in schools
Absence of special program for tutors
Superficial nature
Keeping the momentum going
Lack of cohesion/communication between different units/programmes (eg. HR, Faculty of Ed., ADU)
Lack of wider Uni support for teaching
Grading of assessment work buys into a questionable paradigm (including power dimensions)
POSSIBILITIES:


Exchange – let’s visit each other to witness how things are done in different places
Collaborate and share materials, programs etc.
Dilemma: Theory/practice balance and level of explication
 Participants may want practical tips