Factors influencing the pedagogic development of
novice university lecturers: findings from
research.
Dr Angela Pickering,
School of Languages, University of Brighton
a.pickering@bton.ac.uk
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11-13 September 2003
Abstract
This paper presents the findings from a research project which I conducted between
1999 and 2002. This project was organised around case studies of four novice
university lecturers who were enrolled on a one-year in-house teaching development
programme. The aim of the study was to enhance understanding of the pedagogic
beliefs of novice university lecturers and of the process of pedagogic change and
influences for change, specifically inner influences [e.g. beliefs] and external
influences [e.g. colleagues, students, university systems], and so to contribute to the
wisdom of teaching development practices in the university context. Data was
collected from the four lecturers by means of loosely-structured interviews,
observation of teaching, stimulated recall interviews, and the analysis of reflective
writing.
The paper briefly outlines the rationale for the study, the process by which data was
gathered and analysed, and focuses in particular on the conclusions which have
emerged from the analysis. Conclusions support the theorising of pedagogic
knowledge as a thinking/acting phenomenon which is mediated by the individual's
inner world of beliefs, and of pedagogic change as a process which is informed by the
dynamics of individual beliefs systems and by the dialogic relationship between inner
and external worlds, through which dialogue the individual's pedagogic beliefs and
taken-for-granteds are interrogated and options for change are defined. On the basis of
these conclusions, a number of implications are identified for teaching development in
the university context.
1
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
Introductory remarks
This paper is based on Doctoral research conducted between 1999 and 2002.
For a full version of the research study and its conclusions I refer the reader to
Pickering [2002]. The research was based on case studies of four novice
lecturers following a university in-house teaching development programme
and explored the degree to which the beliefs and practices of the four
lecturers changed [or not] during the life of the development programme. In
this way the study aimed to contribute to an understanding of the process of
pedagogic change and influences for change, particularly social influences
[e.g. colleagues and students], cultural influences [e.g. pedagogic norms
within disciplines] and individual influences [e.g. beliefs and taken-forgranteds]. I did not seek to compare details of practices, but sought to
compare beliefs about practices and so to tease out differences and similarities
in the lecturers' pedagogic approach [e.g. beliefs and taken-for-granteds about
the best ways to teach, learning imperatives, the role of the lecturer, students'
responsibilities, and the nature of learning], pedagogic perspective [the
individual's sense of what was possible, plausible and desirable] and the
experiences of the lecturers. Overall, and out of the rich and fascinating
accounts of the four novice lecturers, the study has led to a number of
potentially significant insights into the pedagogic beliefs of the cases and the
nature and process of pedagogic change.
I begin this paper by briefly outlining the need to explore university teaching
development interventions, particularly their impact upon novice lecturers.
The bulk of the paper is, however, devoted to an account of the study itself,
and in the final and most substantial part of the paper I focus on the
conclusions which have emerged from the study.
I end the paper by raising a number of implications and discussion points for
those interested in or involved in teaching development in the university
context.
The changing landscape of university life
As major players in the so-called "knowledge economy" [Blunkett, 2000],
universities have become increasingly under pressure to be both competitive
and "excellent" in research and teaching, in other words to demonstrate and
be accountable for a "double professionalism" [Beaty, 1998] through such
mechanisms as the Research Assessment Exercise [for research] and the move
towards formalised training of university teachers. An important consequence
2
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
of the latter focus [which inevitably impinged on the former] was the move by
universities, throughout the 1990's, to establish in-house teaching
development units and development programmes, programmes which were
often mandatory for new lecturing staff [Bourner et al., 2000] and are set to
become so in 2006. I assumed that such programmes were inevitably
underpinned by specific understandings of the nature of pedagogic
knowledge, of best practice and of the way in which we learn about teaching,
and so it was a matter for concern to me that such assumptions seemed to be
under-articulated.
An aspect of the drive towards "double professionalism", and an important
influence on the design of my research study, was the politically-inspired
move to set up an overseeing body to promote both the training and
accreditation of university lecturers as teachers, that is the Dearing-inspired
Institute for Learning and Teaching [ILT], set up in 1999 [NCIHE, 1997]. I
would argue that the ILT, rather than being a solution to a problem, has
become part of the problem of our approach to the teaching quality issue by
tending to promote, through its discourse, a number of orthodoxies. Firstly its
technicist approach to pedagogic practice has tended to represent pedagogic
knowledge as generic, implying that best practice can be freely transferred
across teaching and learning contexts. Secondly, the emphasis on notions of
threshold competencies and checklists of best practice has tended to position
academics as "objects" rather than "subjects" [Nicholls, 2001] and failed to
engage with teacherly qualities such as acting according to principles and
values, or reflecting on dilemmas [Rowland, 2000] or with the complexity and
subjectivity of the learning/teaching relationship. Thirdly, the foregrounding
of "operational" competencies, which are outcome-oriented rather than
process-oriented [Barnett, 1994; Nicholls, 2001] has tended to decontextualise
teaching and learning and lead to a further emphasis on a generic and a
reductionist understanding of teaching and teaching development.
While not subscribing to the notion that the climate within higher education is
one of insecurity, competition and surveillance [Dummett, 1994], I felt [and
still feel] that this is a destabilised and disempowering world in which the
discourse of innovation, expansion and quality assurance has become the
equivalent in academic discourse of 'four legs good', and as such is not being
reflected on critically enough, particularly in relation to the benchmarking of
teaching standards, and the setting up of interventions designed to enhance
lecturers' teaching performance. I was, and still am, concerned that the
impetus for improvement in teaching quality [and for the training of novice
lecturers] in higher education is not sufficiently informed by a critical
dialogue which situates teaching in relation to influences for change. It is also
a concern that the process by which lecturers develop their teaching practice
3
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
has not been sufficiently investigated or theorised, and it is to this issue that I
now turn.
A research shortfall
Knowledge about teaching and learning in higher education has been based
on a rapidly expanding body of research which has increased our
understanding of many areas, such as, student perceptions of effective
teaching [Evans & Abbott, 1998; Ramsden, 1991] and the effect of the higher
education environment and political context on the learning and teaching
process [Lueddeke, 1997]. However, research on the development of teaching
and the impact of teaching development programmes within universities is
limited. The recent literature on teaching development interventions has
tended to serve the function of information gathering and sharing, perhaps
understandably given the immense changes that universities have had to deal
with. For example, commentators have examined the organisational
implications of accreditation [e.g. McKeachie, 1997], have surveyed existing
custom and practice [Bourner et al., 2000], and have documented best practice
[Beaty, 1998]. Others have examined the comparative outcomes of teaching
development interventions [e.g. Gibbs, 2001; Hannon, 2001]. Relatively little
empirical enquiry has been undertaken, however, in the context of university
teaching, into the process [as opposed to outcome] of pedagogic change, the
norms against which judgements of best practice or changes in practice are
made [or not], or in-depth enquiry into differential response to influences for
change [see Rowland & Skelton, 1998 for an examination of this].
I move now to an account of the study itself, and by way of introduction, I
summarise exactly what I set out to do.
The research study
The aims of the study
The study followed four novice university lecturers from different
disciplinary areas through a mandatory in-service development programme
which ran from September through to July [2 cases from 1999-2000 and 2
cases from 2000-2001]. The enquiry aimed to:
1. Enhance understanding of the pedagogic beliefs and practices of novice
lecturers.
To address this issue I analysed data from individual cases and built
up from the analysis a rich picture of the experiences of the novice
4
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
lecturers, taking account of individual stories and highlighting
elements common the cases.
2. Analyse the degree to which such beliefs and practices changed [or not] during
the life of the development programme.
To address this issue I analysed data from individual cases and came to
conclusions about the degree and nature of change exhibited by each
case. On the basis of these findings I came to conclusions about the
degree and nature of change overall.
3. Contribute to an understanding of pedagogic change and influences for
change, specifically internal and external influences.
To address these issues I analysed data from individual cases and came
to conclusions about the dynamic of each individual's belief system
and the nature of the internal and experiential influences which had
impacted on changes in pedagogic understandings. I also came to
conclusions about common elements of these processes and shared
influences for change.
4. Contribute to the 'wisdom' of university teaching development practices.
To address this issue I came to conclusions based on the experience of
the cases, the views of the lecturers on being and becoming a lecturer
and the nature of the teaching development programme on which they
were enrolled, and my analysis of those elements of the change process
which were common to the cases.
The cases
My research was structured around case studies of four novice lecturers who
were attending a one year development programme within my own
university, a post 1992 'new' university. I felt that the environment of the
programme [the Post-Graduate Certificate in Academic Practice or PGCAP]
offered a naturally bounded home for a study of change, and an opportunity
for insights into the individual lecturer's relationship with a development
programme. There were many issues and problems associated with the
researching of my peers as an insider in my home institution. These impacted
on the ethical design of the study and measures adopted to maximise
trustworthiness, and I refer the reader to Pickering [2002] for a discussion of
these.
The four cases were purposefully selected from a population of
approximately 30 lecturers, with the aim of achieving a mixture of
disciplinary interests, a mixture of gender, and to include at least one example
of a non-traditional discipline [in this case from Health Studies]. The decision
to opt for a total of four cases was partly pragmatic and partly
methodological. I felt that an in-depth study of more than four cases would be
difficult in the time available, and felt that limiting the number of cases would
5
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
allow me to concentrate on both specific instances and interactive processes
which might have been hidden in a larger study, allowing me to address the
issue of "complex singularity" [Sanger, 1996].
The cases are referred to here [using pseudonyms] as Tom, a lecturer in
Environmental Sciences, Simon, a lecturer in Physiology, Hannah, a lecturer
in Physiotherapy and Peter, a lecturer in Civil Engineering. All cases were in
their first or second year of university teaching.
Data gathering
Data was gathered by means of interviews and observation of teaching events
and the analysis of reflective writing [see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 for a summary of
data-gathering]. Data was gathered during two consecutive years of the
PGCAP, with two cases being followed during each year. During this time I
attended the PGCAP workshops at fortnightly intervals as a participantobserver.
STAGE 1 [semester 1]
Oct./Nov.
Dec.
INTERIM
[1]
Semi-structured interview
[2]
Teaching observation [s]
[3]
Teaching observation [videoed]
[4]
Stimulated recall interview
[5]
Loosely-structured interview
Beliefs accounts sent to informants.
STAGE 2 [semester 2]
May/June
STAGE 3
[6]
Teaching observation [s]
[7]
Teaching observation [videoed]
[8]
Stimulated recall interview
July
[9]
Loosely-structured interview
Oct.-
[10]
Examination of PGCAP portfolios
Fig. 1: Data gathering calendar
6
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
Conclusions
It is not possible within the parameters of this paper to give a detailed account
of the beliefs, practices and experiences of the four lecturers, or to quote
extensively from the data I have gathered. However, I have summarised what
I take to be three significant findings: firstly, I describe a number of key and
core pedagogic beliefs which were common to the four lecturers; secondly, I
give an account of experiential influences common to the cases; and thirdly, I
outline my conclusions concerning the dynamic of pedagogic change.
It appeared to me that the four lecturers had not made any significant changes
in their pedagogic practices throughout the course of the study. However, I
have concluded that they were nevertheless engaged in a change process. This
was a process which was long-term, and in which options for change were
mediated by the dialogue between individual beliefs systems and the
individual's relationship with the world. I have theorised this dialogic process
as having the potential to lead to an interrogation of pedagogic beliefs and
taken-for-granteds, through which an individual's options for change are
defined. In this 'version' of events pedagogic knowledge is taken to be
embedded within contexts, is a thinking/acting phenomenon [Freeman, 1992],
and is a "piece of the person" [Richardson, 1990].
My conclusions relate to three connected phenomena: pedagogic knowledge,
pedagogic change and the pedagogic change process.
Firstly, it was possible to group the beliefs of the cases as clusters which
operated dynamically, in the sense that beliefs were more or less core and
more or less stable, where core beliefs informed the individual's pedagogic
perspective [that is, their sense of what was possible, plausible and desirable]
and were therefore part of what a lecturer ‘knows’. For example, common to
the cases' beliefs systems were core beliefs about the expert field, which
influenced beliefs about learning, teaching, the role of the lecturer, the
responsibilities of students, and relationships with colleagues. A significant
aspect of this dynamic was a belief in pedagogy as discipline-led.
A second phenomenon is related to the nature of change, specifically the way
in which pedagogic change is defined, that is both in terms of changes in
pedagogic practices and practical understandings, as well as also the potential
for innovations in practice and for changes in understandings.
7
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
A third phenomenon related to the way in which external influences and the
individual's dialogue with the world informed their pedagogic perspective
either positively [e.g. by opening up possibilities for action, empowering or
building confidence] or negatively [e.g. by threatening confidence,
circumscribing options or positioning the individual as dependent]. This
dialogue was seen to inform the individual cases’ sense of options for action
and for change. I comment on the first of these phenomena under the
umbrella of inner influences for change, and give an account of the second and
third in my discussion of external influences for change and the dialogic change
process.
Inner influences for change: the significance of core beliefs
My interpretation of the lecturers' beliefs systems suggested a dynamic in
which core beliefs relating to the expert field influenced their sense of
themselves as lecturers, their pedagogic taken-for-granteds and pedagogic
perspectives [albeit in a dialogic process in which beliefs had the potential to
be shaped by experience]. This relationship is represented in Fig.3.
THE EXPERT FIELD AND
SELF AS EXPERT
SELF AS LECTURER
TEACHING/ ASSESSMENT
LEARNING
Fig. 3: The dynamic of core beliefs
The expert fields of the cases were Physiotherapy [Hannah], Ecology [Tom],
Physiology [Simon] and Civil Engineering [Peter], and these fields were
characterised by the cases as having epistemological givens, norms of
practice, and distinctive discourses, and were worlds in which the cases saw
themselves as powerfully positioned. Such core beliefs were, in effect, a way
of seeing the world, and intimately related to the cases' beliefs about
themselves as lecturers, the nature of learning, in particular the role of the
8
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
lecturer, the lecturer/student relationship, and to beliefs about discipline-led
pedagogy. I consider these below.
Beliefs about discipline-led pedagogy
Beliefs about the expert field were important epistemological and pedagogic
references for the cases. The expert world was seen to operate on the basis of a
hierarchy of knowledge in which concepts were more or less fundamental,
more or less relevant, more or less complex, and in which modes of delivery
of such knowledge were to an extent circumscribed by such epistemologies,
by associated academic and professional skills [e.g. solving design problems,
looking holistically at a patient, being able to judge the adequacy of a
scientific proof], and by the norms and discourses of the expert world [e.g.
written genres, communication networks, the use of specialist jargon].
The cases saw pedagogy as being discipline led and pedagogic knowledge as
non-generic. The nature and qualities of their discipline was relevant, for
example, to such decisions as whether to use lectures or seminars, decisions
about lecture content, degrees of student choice, degrees of student-initiated
activity, the appropriacy of teaching which included opportunities for debate,
the degree to which the knowledge-transfer model was appropriate, and the
degree to which students should be given opportunities for knowledge
application. As Simon commented:
I mean when I'm teaching or when I'm delivering a very knowledgerich subject I can't see that I can challenge people's ideas or views or
make them think more broadly… In Physiology there's not a lot of
scope for that.
Beliefs about the expert field also influenced the cases' understanding of
learning and learning imperatives. There tended to be a close correlation
between beliefs about the epistemology and characteristics of a specific
discipline and the qualities the cases cited as being important in the learning
of a related subject.
Beliefs about the role of the lecturer
Expert identities were the essence of the 'face' the novice lecturers preferred to
present to the world. Tom, Simon and Peter believed the university lecturer to
be [ideally] a scholar and researcher and felt that this identity was an
important part of their professional identity. Hannah's sense of her lecturer
role focused less on her research identity, but she emphasised the need to be
seen as an expert clinician who maintained her "currency" in the field. The
cases saw themselves as 'knowers' and scholars, and saw these expert-related
identities as a source of credibility both within the university and within the
wider community.
9
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
The informants believed the expert world was characterised by almost
immutable qualities, and the body of specialists which inhabited this world
were seen as a distinctive "type" [Tom], with preferences, discourses, norms
and standards. Simon described his own world thus:
[We] look at things logically and scientifically and break it down
in a step by step in an orderly fashion and try and understand it
in that way… rather than in a jumbled ad hoc confused not very
clear vague simplistic or imprecise way.
Consistent with this sense of the specialist world and themselves as members
of this community of practice, was the understanding of the lecturer as scholar.
Reference to research findings, whether one's own or others', [although
preferably one's own for Tom, Peter and Simon] was felt to make teaching
relevant, interesting, and to increase the lecturer's credibility in the eyes of
students.
These understandings meshed with a sense of higher education as an
environment in which students were inducted into field-specific practices,
which the lecturer modelled to their students, and in which relevant
knowledge and expertise were transferred to the student. The 'knowledge
transfer' model was particularly central to the beliefs of Tom, Simon and
Peter, but was also represented by Hannah's sense of being responsible for
transferring to her students a body of 'knowledge-as-theory' about
Physiotherapy.
The informants believed in education for a purpose [or purposes] which
included both the pleasure of learning about a discipline and of learning
about its applications. As educators of Scientists, Engineers or
Physiotherapists, they saw it as their responsibility to encourage practices
which were related to an external professional world [e.g. autonomous
problem-solving], and to ensure the maintenance of professional and
academic standards. The lecturers felt disappointed and frustrated when
students did not have clear professional objectives, or when students were
interested only in gaining a qualification rather than pushing the boundaries
of their own knowledge.
Beliefs about the lecturer/student relationship
University was seen as a place for motivated specialists who were committed
to study and enjoyed engaging with relevant theory or practice, and who
were able to work autonomously and be self-motivated. Within this model,
the lecturer was seen largely as being responsible for the transfer and
identification of relevant knowledge, for the motivation of their students
through the clarity and enthusiasm with which they presented such
10
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
knowledge, and for the modelling of professional practices. The nature of this
support was, however, a site of struggle, and each case identified different
solutions to this 'problem'. However, a common belief was in the relationship
between successful learning and the students' active commitment to learning,
through wanting to learn about something not only because it was useful, but
also because it was of interest. Tom described his ideal student in the
following way:
The students that I enjoy having in groups are the ones which are
fundamentally interested in the subject and want to know about the
subject and find the qualification they will hopefully obtain at the end
of it is perhaps almost coincidental to the learning experience. The
students that I have least time for and I find not troublesome but
troubling are those which simply want a qualification and have very
little commitment to the particular field of study they've taken.
External influences for change: workplace dimensions
The picture which emerged from the data was of experiences which could be
said to be typical of many lecturers' lives, whether novice or experienced.
Hannah described her first year as a "rollercoaster" and talked of having to
"juggle" responsibilities, a feeling which Peter described as "fire-fighting".
Hannah described her first year thus:
When someone compared life in Higher Education as a roller coaster, I
would not have really understood. Even to date, there have been peaks
and troughs that I have experienced but nothing I haven't survived. It
has been difficult making the transition from expert practitioner to
novice lecturer.
Other metaphors used to describe the experience of the year referred to
feelings of "sinking or swimming", of barely "surviving", of "just keeping your
head above water" [Simon], and also of having to "play two games" [Tom] of
teaching and research.
However, I felt that the cases' stories indicated that, where experiences were
typical of the lecturer experience, there was a qualitative difference in the
degree to which the 'highs' and 'lows' of the "rollercoaster" affected the
equilibrium and perspective of the novices. It appeared that the newness of
the lecturers' experiences, and the sense in which they felt they were often
positioned within these experiences as novices, but at the same time
positioning themselves and being positioned as experts within a disciplinary
field, had the potential to impact on the severity of the pressures of the novice
world.
This was a scenario in which the novice world was in some sense the major
player. The version of this world which the cases presented appeared to be
11
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
one of powerful constraints and potentials, which impacted both positively
and negatively on their sense of themselves as lecturers, and on their
pedgagogic perspective, in which the overriding constraint was the world
itself, that is: workload, competing responsibilities, the balance between
teaching, administration, research and development opportunities and
responsibilities, and the degree to which the cases felt they were "lost" within
the university systems.
I give a flavour of such experiential influences through brief accounts of the
cases' encounters with students, the teaching development programme, and
my research study.
Encounters with students
All four lecturers seemed to enact a kind of symbiotic relationship with their
students. All of the cases actively sought feedback from students on their
teaching, by means of direct questioning and questionnaires. However, it was
in the nature of student response [as opposed to feedback] where the
symbiosis seemed most significant. The use by students of spontaneous
questioning, free response to questions, active listening, regular attendance or
regular non-attendance, talking though lectures, taking notes, being available
or unavailable outside of timetabled teaching time, and so on, were used by
the lecturers as markers by which they judged the abilities, preferences and
commitment of the students. When students worked hard, were available,
were interested, and showed commitment the lecturers were inclined to show
a similar level of commitment and interest. When this did not happen they
felt deflated [Hannah], frustrated [Simon and Tom] and confused [Peter].
Student response and the message that the informants picked up from the
students about motivation and interest seemed to have a powerful effect on
the degree to which the cases felt they could [or desired to] affect student
learning. Simon talked graphically about the degree to which student
response affected his own practice. For example:
The class looked absolutely dead. I find it hard to lecture when I get
that feeling coming off the group.
The PGCAP
During the year of my study, the most significant formal context for the
informants to 'be learners' was the PGCAP programme. The cases varied in
their feelings about the usefulness of this experience. Hannah and Tom were
the most positive at the start of the year, Hannah in particular seeing her
involvement in the programme as conferring some kind of credibility on her
as a lecturer, through the acquisition of the theory of teaching. All of the cases,
however, felt that the workload of the course impinged negatively upon their
other responsibilities, and that the theory they encountered was not useful. I
12
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
found it significant that the cases perceived the PGCAP as projecting an ethos
based upon norms of best practice. For example, Peter was particularly
concerned about the sense he had that lecturing and other delivery methods
he used frequently were frowned upon.
I found that all of the cases seemed able to reflect eloquently on their teaching
and pedagogic perspectives in the course of interviews. Tom, Peter and
Simon, however, found that written reflection came less easily to them, and
was of questionable relevance to their development as lecturers. Peter was
adamant that discussing his teaching was more useful than writing about it.
I just simply don't find [writing about my teaching] useful. I've tried it
and I don't find it useful. It's not because I'm lazy. It's just I've tried it
and it doesn't help at all. What helps me is discussing.
All of the cases found the contact they gained from Action Learning Sets [see
Endnote] useful and satisfying, particularly the emotional and practical
support from fellow novices. There was a sense in which relationships with
colleagues on the PGCAP were viewed as an alternative community of
practice. Hannah spoke of sharing her problems, of discussing norms and
solutions to problems, and of her sense of achievement when she was able to
help others. Common problems and themes had meant that Hannah and
Peter felt less "isolated". However, Peter, Simon and Tom in particular felt
that, although mixing with a range of specialists [as was the case in both
PGCAP workshops and Action Learning Sets], that their real learning about
teaching their subject emerged from encounters with those lecturers who
were specialists in similar areas to themselves.
My research study
The cases were invited to comment at several points throughout the study on
the experience of being part of my research. They chose largely to comment
on the process of the stimulated recall interviews, which they found
developmentally positive. These interviews were seen as a form of
collaborative reflection, with the video of their teaching an objective jumping
off point for reflection and self-criticism. Peter, for example, felt that the
professional conversation aspect of the process had been enlightening [as
compared with reflections on his teaching in his portfolio], but above all the
conversations had been "relevant", largely because they were directly related
to his own teaching context.
In a similar vein, Hannah presented her experience of being videoed and
watching herself on video as a useful development exercise, more useful than
peer observation. When observing colleagues Hannah tended to be polite and
supportive, as she found her colleagues were with her, but when watching
13
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
herself on video she felt she could be self-critical. While watching themselves
on video, the cases all tended to comment on aspects of presentation skills,
but did so at a distance, almost as if they were seeing with the eyes of the
students, a point made strongly by Hannah and Peter.
The nature of the individual lecturer's dialogic relationship with experiential
influences, through the medium of the beliefs system, is an important context
for my conclusions concerning the process of change. I give an account of this
theorisation in the section which follows.
14
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
The process of pedagogic change: the dialogue between inner and external
influences
experiences
pedagogic
perspective
interrogation of
beliefs and takenfor-granteds
beliefs
options
beliefs
options
Fig. 4: The interrogation of beliefs and taken-for-granteds and
realisation of options for action and for change
Within the beliefs systems of Hannah, Tom and Peter I identified a number of
tensions which appeared to offer insights into the process of change and the
nature of the individual's response to experience.
I have taken the interrogation of beliefs which is presented in Fig. 4 to be a
significant window on the process of pedagogic change. Firstly, tensions
within individual beliefs systems told me a story about the concerns and
preoccupations of each lecturer. Secondly, since tensions appeared to relate to
the lecturers' interrogation of their pedagogic taken-for-granteds and a
changing sense of what was possible, plausible and desirable, I came to
theorise the existence of such tensions as indicative of a type of productive
problematisation. This was productive in the sense that the resulting
disjuncture [or the point at which different beliefs are situated in opposition]
was seen to give rise to alternative options for action and pedagogic
15
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
pathways. In this way, tensions between beliefs could be said to inform a
modelling of alternative opinions and scenarios, and to help form a sense of
options for change [including change in the longer term].
I found it interesting that informants were preoccupied by a number of
common tensions, specifically the tension between expert and novice
identities [Hannah], supported and self-motivated learning [Tom], the tension
between maintaining a formal or informal relationship with students [Simon],
and the tension between knowing a discipline as an expert and understanding
it sufficiently to teach it [Peter].
To illustrate the nature of these tensions I comment briefly on beliefs relating
to supported and self-motivated learning which characterised Tom's
understanding of his students' learning. Tom's encounters with his students
appeared to be a site for change and were associated with an ongoing tension
in Tom's beliefs system between a continuing core belief in learning as
fundamentally self-motivated, and a growing sense of the diverse needs of his
student population and the need to support learning in different ways. This
particular tension remained unresolved for Tom, but appeared to be linked to
the interrogation of a number of taken-for-granteds relating to his own role as
a lecturer and the way he could or should support student learning and the
degree to which students should be responsible for their own learning. The
interrogation of such taken-for-granteds and beliefs, as a response to
experiences, informed Tom's realisation of options for action and for change,
although they appeared not to influence his practice in the short term. I give a
flavour of this interrogation below.
If people are enthusiastic and they're willing to meet me half way then
I'm only too happy to convey my enthusiasm and help them
appreciate why I'm so enthusiastic about a subject. But if they're not
interested then I have no interest in flogging my subject just for the
sake of filling up time. If they don't enjoy what I'm doing I'm not
willing to put the effort in.
And later, in a discourse of imperatives,
But I have to put the effort in because the product we have to at the
end of it I have to find ways of making them interested. It's not as
voluntary as it seems… I have to have a good pass rate so I have to
make it interesting. If they're there to listen to what I say and to
participate when I give them the option to participate.
Implications for teaching development in the university context
My analysis of the beliefs and experiences of Tom, Hannah, Simon and Peter
led me to theorise the process of change as one in which options may be
16
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
modelled, but may not 'translate' into practice, in which the interrogation of
options may both confirm an existing pedagogic perspective or lead to
changes in that perspective, and as a phenomenon in which differences in
beliefs and in the individual's dialogue with the world are defining factors.
In the final part of this paper, I discuss a number of the implications which
have emerged from my study and make some recommendations for teaching
development in the university context.
Firstly, conclusions concerning pedagogic change and the dialogue between
inner and external influences for change indicated the advisability of casting
the net wide when defining what the lecturer "knows" and how change
could be defined or achieved. Secondly, conclusions concerning common
core beliefs relating to the expert field, and the degree to which there was a
common core belief in non-generic pedagogy seemed highly significant to the
cases’ pedagogic perspective. Thirdly, the exploration of the novice world
highlighted a number of contexts for learning about being a lecturer, and also
the degree to which the individual’s relationship with those contexts could
circumscribe their sense of options for action and for change. The relative
influence of different encounters with specific workplace dimensions, in
which the cases could position themselves or be positioned as experts or
novices, also appeared to be a crucial influence affecting the degree and
nature of pedagogic change. Fourthly, conclusions relating to the cases'
experience of the teaching development programme and my research study
provided insight into the novice lecturers' expectations, perceived needs and
developmental preferences.
The fragmented nature of the experience of the cases appeared to indicate a
need to see the lecturer's job holistically. Driving metaphorical "wedges"
[Rowland, 2001] between elements of the lecturer's job did not reflect a
context in which all aspects of experience seemed to be inter-dependent, and
in which teaching, most importantly was only one part of the 'puzzle' of being
a university lecturer.
The cases I studied were experts within their own disciplines and appeared to
be competent teachers whose students were positive about their teaching. The
cases all showed an interest in the pedagogic norms of their colleagues, but all
rejected the notion that there was a 'right' way to teach, opting instead for a
more individual understanding of the notion of pedagogy, which was nongeneric, and where pedagogic taken-for-granteds and preferred practices
were closely aligned to the imperatives of the expert world and were
underpinned by the notion of scholarship in relation to this world. Practices
17
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
were also underpinned by the cases' sense of their own personal style, by
pragmatisms and by moral and political viewpoints about the nature of
higher education.
In considering what the four novice lecturers who were the subject of my
study needed to learn about being a lecturer I came to the conclusion that this
question should be balanced by a consideration of an equally important
question, which is "What is it that the novice lecturer already knows?"
Rowland and Skelton [1998] have highlighted the need for teaching
development programmes to address the degree to which they are able to
challenge the existing assumptions of the lecturers. I would say that such
attempts would need more importantly to engage with those assumptions, as
well as with the potential influence of lecturers' expertise, their allegiance to
the process of learning through scholarship, and their core beliefs.
The world of the novice lecturer was one in which lack of information about
university systems and norms were sources of frustration, and in which
perceived developmental needs were largely to do with aspects of the job that
were related to learning about systems. In the light of this, a further question
might be "How can each novice lecturer be enabled to develop the means of
learning about being a lecturer?"
Throughout the study the informants were participants on a teaching
development programme. Two out of the four cases found their experience
almost entirely irrelevant to their perceived needs. The other two felt they had
learned a number of teaching "tips" and developed a support network which
had been practically and emotionally rewarding. All cases had felt negative
about the programme's workload, the reflective diary requirement which was
felt to be a "chore", and aspects of the PGCAP ethos. It was interesting to note
that the occasions on which the cases were positioned as experts within the
development programme, for example tutoring each other in the use of
powerpoint or relaxation techniques, I as an observer found the change in
atmosphere was palpable.
If we ask, therefore, "How can each novice lecturer be enabled to develop the
means of learning about being a lecturer? the following considerations would,
I feel, be useful.
Recommendations
Acknowledging the expert identity
18
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
The subject world of the informants represented an alternative reality through
which teaching and learning imperatives were defined, and in terms of which
they defined their own identity as a lecturer. This disciplinary identity
appeared to be particularly strong in the case of the novice lecturer, who
comes to university teaching with a high level of expertise in his or her subject
area. Teaching and learning orthodoxies which decontextualise teaching
methods, or which seek to over-generalise the needs of lecturers and students,
would in this respect fail to engage with the specific needs and beliefs of
individual novice lecturers. Equally, the degree to which this subject identity
is recognised and engaged with could lead to the kinds of affective and
pragmatic developments which might help the novice lecturer to relate
subject-specific needs to general frameworks. Also, a recognition that the
positioning of the novice lecturer as either novice [negative] or expert
[positive] could have an effect on the realisation of options for change would
imply the advisability of an approach which attempted to do the latter.
Acknowledging expertise
Novice lecturers begin their career in university teaching as experts of sorts.
The informants spoke at length of their identity and expertise as specialists.
The teaching development 'orthodoxies', by foregrounding the need for
innovation, would seem to be operating according to a deficit view of
teaching development, which could be said to devalue the strengths of
individuals. It is often the case that teacher developers learn from novices and
novices learn from each other. In the light of this, it is interesting that the
informants felt most comfortable when given the opportunity to contribute to
teaching development workshops as 'knowers'.
Engaging with beliefs
I have discussed the ways in which the beliefs that a novice brings with them
to university teaching can be said to inform their pedagogic perspective and
their dialogue with the university world. The opportunity to engage with
those beliefs, for example, in relation to expectations, preferences, task
definition, and management of learning, would appear therefore to be crucial
for development. However, beliefs are often implicitly held, and can be
contradictory. In the light of this, teaching development programmes should
consider how they address the needs of the non-reflective practitioner, and
how they facilitate and enable reflection on practice when the lecturer is an
inexperienced teacher. I present some thoughts on this below in a discussion
of methods.
Recognising the world of the novice lecturer
The experience of the novice lecturer is certainly stressful. There is a great
deal to learn about university systems, colleagues to get to know, and
19
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
pressure to perform well with students. If teaching development orthodoxies
emphasise innovation in practice, this can result in another source of stress.
There should perhaps be an equal emphasis on the examination and
legitimisation of existing practice, which might be done through peer
observation within discipline-related communities of practice. Engagement
with the limitations on innovation would also be helpful, as a sense of what is
possible could help to build confidence, which in turn could leave the
individual more open to opportunities for innovation.
A holistic approach
The novice lecturer has a variety of responsibilities. The majority of their time,
as with most lecturers currently, is spent with non-"front-stage" activities
[Goffman, 1969]. Of course, teaching development initiatives aim to address
the issue of quality of teaching and learning, but it is doubtful that teaching
and learning can in reality be separated out from the context of the lecturer's
experience in general. The novice lecturer has a great need for information
about systems, processes, contacts and norms. Teaching development,
therefore, should ensure that it casts its net widely, to include those areas of
the lecturer's life which impact on the front-stage roles.
Making use of experience
My interpretation of the cases' experiences within a number of workplace
dimensions indicated that experience was a powerful teacher, but that some
experiences were more powerful than others [see Hannon, 2001 for research
on the value of experiential learning]. Encounters with students, for example,
informed the lecturers' sense of what it meant to be a lecturer generally and
within specific contexts, and appeared to influence the interrogation of
pedagogic beliefs and taken-for-granteds. Participation in a teaching
development programme did not appear [and I must hedge this claim] to be
equally powerful.
Encouraging membership of a variety of communities
I highlight here the importance of professional grouping [whether formal or
informal] which provide support, information and a sense of what is possible
and plausible within specific contexts, and within which the individual can
contribute to the creation of standards and systems. One of the positive
aspects of the PGCAP was the opportunity to get to know lecturers from a
range of disciplines. This aspect of the experience was highlighted by Tom
and Hannah as continuing to be positive a year after they had completed the
PGCAP programme. This 'community' was both an emotional and practical
support, but particularly the former. However, particularly in the short-term,
the informants derived most support from their immediate colleagues within
20
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
subject-related teams [interestingly at least two of the cases also found
members of these teams problematic]. Such a community should, perhaps,
become more systematically involved in the induction of new lecturers.
A consideration of method
I conclude with a consideration of method. My thoughts on this relate
particularly to the fact that three of the cases found written reflection on their
teaching problematic, but warmed to the notion of collaborative development.
All of the cases commented on the usefulness and relevance of the process of
watching a video of themselves teaching their own classes in their own
environments, and of reflecting on the video with a colleague [in this case
myself]. They spoke of the way in which such collaborative reflection was
more authentic [and collegial] than the experience of writing a reflective
diary, and of the degree to which they felt that they could be more critical of
themselves than others [for example, peer observers]. The cases felt that they
could learn more from watching themselves on video than being peer
observed, and by being forced [through collaborative reflection] to confront
difficult questions and also through being helped through dialogue to notice
[Mason, 2002]. They also spoke of the sense of empowerment they felt from
watching how expertly they handled some situations, or presented
information clearly, and how interesting it was to see themselves from the
perspectives of the students.
My impression was that the experience of collaborative reflection based
around the videoing of a real teaching event addresses the problem facing
teachers without a body of teaching experience to reflect on, by giving them a
concrete example of their own practice to use for discussion. It also addresses
the preference for teaching development processes which are targeted to
specific needs and contexts. And finally, my own sense is that the process of
collaborative reflection, based on specific pedagogic context, to some extent
mirrors my theorisation of change potential as residing partly in the
individual's dialogue with events.
The use of video as a teaching development 'tool' has been discussed by
Whitehead [1989]. Whitehead's 'take' on educational theory as being a "living"
phenomenon and of the visual record as a crucial part of the creation of such
theory, is relevant here. If indeed educational values are embodied in practice
and emerge through practice, and if indeed the visual record can be seen as
part of the individual's dialogue with such values [and beliefs] then surely it
offers a practical solution to the question of how teaching development can be
encouraged in the long term.
21
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
Through the use of video-tape the teachers can engage in
dialogues with colleagues about their practice. They can show
the places where their values are negated… The kind of theory I
have in mind forms part of the educational practices of the
individuals concerned. It is not a theory which can be
constituted into a prepositional form. It is an explanation of
practice which is part of the living form of the practice itself.
[Whitehead, 1989: 45-46]
It is interesting to consider at this final point a thought-provoking discussion of
university teaching development programmes and the types of knowledge it
can draw on [Rowland, 1999]. Rowland has identified three types of knowledge
which underpin his approach to university teaching. these are publicly-owned
knowledge which is subject to challenge through reason: private and personal
knowledge which can be shared through stories; and shared knowledge which
is constructed through dialogue with others. These knowledges are said to
interact dynamically with each other, and it is through this interaction that
knowledge is related to the practice of teaching and learning.
This holistic model of the knowledge base of the lecturer contains within it the
notion of both internal and external influences for change, and recognises the
developmental importance of the individual's disciplinary identity, of
individual agency, and of dialogue about teaching and learning. It was clear
from my own experience of a teaching development programme which was
built around opportunities for private and shared reflection, that teaching
development programmes had the potential to be influential. However, it may
be that the university community needs to systematise other influences and
sites for change [e.g. teaching teams, information systems, shadowing] which
could address the needs of the novice lecturer in relation to their holistic
development as a lecturer, and would highlight the notion that change in
pedagogic practice may be an outcome but is not a defining factor of
professional progress.
Endnote
Action Learning Sets
Participants of the PGCAP met with five or six colleagues fortnightly together
with a Set advisor. The Sets were designed to provide support and guidance
for professional development and peer assessment of learning.
References
Barnett, R. [1994] The Limits of Competence: Knowledge, higher education and
society. Buckingham: SRHE/The Open University Press.
22
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
Beaty, L. [1998] The Professional Development of Teachers in Higher
Education: Structures, Methods and Responsibilities. IETI. Vol. 35, No. 2,
99-107.
Blunkett, D. [2000] Modernising Higher Education: Facing the global
challenge. Speech at the University of Greenwich, 15 Feb., London: DfEE.
Bourner, T., France, L., Atkinson, A. [2000] Preparing and Developing
University Teachers: An Empirical Study. University of Brighton Education
Research Centre. Occasional Paper. December 2000.
Dummett, M. [1994] Too many cooks and a capitalist flavour. Tablet.
Educational Supplement. No. 71, 1268-1269.
Evans, L., Abbott, I. [1998] Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Cassell,
London and New York.
Gibbs, G. [2001] Does training university teachers make any difference?
http://www2.open.ac.uk/cehep/cbarceGG.html [9/01]
Goffman, E. [1969] The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Hannon, A. [2001] Changing Higher Education: teaching, learning and
institutional cultures. A paper prepared for the Annual Conference of the BERA,
University of Leeds, 13 Sep., 2001.
Kerlinger, F.N., Lee, H.B. [2000] Foundations of Behavioural Research. Fort
Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. [1985] Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lueddekke, G. [1997] Preparing Academics for Teaching in Higher Education:
Towards an Institutional Model of Professional Practice. Reflections on
Higher Education. Vol. 9, 51-75.
Mason, J. [2002] Researching Your Own Practice: The Discipline of Noticing.
Routldege Falmer: London & New York.
Maykut, P., Morehouse, R. [1994] Beginning Qualitative Research: A
Philosophical and Practical Guide. The Falmer Press.
McKeachie, W.J. [1997] Critical elements in training university teachers. IJAD.
Vol. 2, No. 1, 67-74.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. [1994] Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
NCIHE [1997] Higher Education in the Learning Society. Crown Copyright.
Nespor, J. [1987] The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of
Curriculum Studies. Vol. 19, 317-328.
Nicholls, G. [2001] Professional Development in Higher Education. Kogan Page
Ltd.
Pickering, A.M. [2002] Becoming a university lecturer: an exploration of the
pedagogic beliefs and practices of four novice university lecturers enrolled
on an in-service teaching development programme. Unpublished EdD
Thesis, King's College, University of London, 2002.
23
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
Ramsden, P. [1991] A Performance Indicator of Teaching Quality in Higher
Education: the Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher
Education. Vol. 16, No.2, 129-150.
Rowland, S. [1999] The Role of Theory in a Pedagogical Model for Lecturers in
Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education. Vol. 24, No. 3, 303-314.
Rowland, S. [2000] The Enquiring University Teacher. SRHE/The Open
University.
Rowland, S., Skelton, A. [1998] Med in teaching and learning for university
staff: survey of course participants. MIMEO, University of Sheffield.
Sanger, J. [1996] The Compleat Observer? The Falmer Press.
Strauss, A., Corbin, J. [1990] Basics of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.
Whitehead, J. [1989] Creating a Living Educational Theory from Questions of
the Kind 'How do I Improve my Practice?' Cambridge Journal of Education.
Vol. 19, No. 1, 41-52.
24
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering
STAGE 1 Oct. 1999 – Jan. 2000/Oct. 2000 – Jan. 2001
PURPOSE
To contextualise and ground discussions in working [not
To lend the study a three-dimensional context.
To familiarise informant with the experience of being ob
DATE GATHERING EVENT
observation of teaching event
DATA TYPE
field notes
loosely-structured interview
sound recording [transcribed and sent to
informant with invitation to comment]
observation of teaching event
video recording
field notes
sound recording [transcribed and sent to
informant with invitation to comment]
sound recording [transcribed and sent to
informant with invitation to comment]
stimulated recall interview
loosely-structured interview
DATA GATHERING EVENT
informants sent a beliefs account
based on analysis of data from
stage 1 and invited to annotate
and return to me
DATA GATHERING EVENT
observation of teaching event
loosely-structured interview
DATA GATHERING EVENT
examination of informant’s
PGCAP portfolio containing
reflective diary, Statements of
Relevance, Action Learning Set
accounts.
To find out more about informant e.g. their responsibiliti
To give informant an opportunity to ask me questions ab
To help set their mind at rest about such issues as confid
To provide me with a preliminary taste of informant’s vi
To use the video as the basis for a stimulated recall inter
To have a grounded discussion of a shared experiential e
practices out of which beliefs might emerge.
To further explore issues which had emerged from previ
To allow informant the opportunity to raise issues emerg
To arrange the schedule for our encounters in Stage 2.
INTERIM PERIOD
DATA TYPE
PURPOSE
narrative account of beliefs written in 3rd
To allow informants the opportunity to comment on aspe
person annotated by informant
at, agreed with or disagreed with.
To act as an additional data source by allowing informan
or amplify comments made in the interviews.
STAGE 2 Feb. 2000 – July 2000/Feb. 2001 – July 2001
DATA TYPE
PURPOSE
video recording
To use the video as the basis of a stimulated recall interv
field notes
sound recording [transcribed and sent to
To further explore issues which had emerged from previ
informant with invitation to comment]
To explore informant’s perceptions of their own develop
feelings about their experiences.
STAGE 3 Dec. 2000/Dec. 2001
DATA TYPE
PURPOSE
written document
To gain an extra perspective on informant’s day-to-day e
To triangulate my interpretation of informant’s key belie
Fig. 2: Data gathering process
25
BERA Heriot-Watt University 12 September 2003/ Dr. A. Pickering