Accrediting university teachers: Contrasting the
intended and experienced curriculum.
James J Watters and Carmel M Diezmann
j.watters@qut.edu.au & c.diezmann@qut.edu.au
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of
Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005
This paper is a reflective analysis of the philosophy, focus and outcomes of a Graduate
Certificate in Higher Education (GCHE) course implemented in a large Australian University.
The reflections of both the coordinator and a student provide salient information about the
educational and corporate value of the course. Formal and informal evaluation collected by the
coordinator suggests the course provides a rich educational experience providing several
outcomes. The course enables students to benchmark their practices against advocated practices;
it provides a theoretical foundation to explain certain practices; it extends the skills and
knowledge of students and provides credibility through qualifications. At a local level, the
experiences of one academic provide insights into the particular benefits and relevance of the
course for her professional growth. Collectively, these perspectives provide the means for
exploring the alignment of the intended and experienced curriculum and provide insights to the
accreditation of university teachers nationally and internationally.
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
Background
If universities are to remain relevant in a knowledge society, they must not just be sites of
knowledge production but also be effective knowledge disseminators though their service and
teaching activities. Contemporary society is seeking innovative, self-directed, and creative
individuals who can contribute effectively to society (Candy, 2000). Central to this goal is the
quality of teaching. Thus all institutions of higher and further eduction must enhance the status and
quality of the teaching and learning experiences they provide for students in the context of a more
market-oriented environment of mass higher education.
Attempts to define, recognise and enhance the quality of teaching in higher education gained
momentum during the 1990s following Boyer’s (1990) conceptualisation of the Scholarship of
Teaching (Aylett & Gregory, 1996; Ramsden, Margetson, Martin, & Clark, 1995). These ideas
illuminated the scholarly legitimacy of teaching in higher education and elevated the debate
advocating formalised teaching qualifications among university teachers. Given that teaching
academics are usually selected on the basis of their disciplinary knowledge and not that of teaching
qualifications, formal teacher education and qualification has been argued to be an essential aspect
of academic staff development (Daly, 1994; Gaff & Lambert, 1996; Jones, 2003; Travis, Outlaw, &
Reven, 2001). In response, courses designed for university teaching staff have proliferated in a
number of countries.
This paper analyses the philosophy, focus and outcomes of one Graduate Certificate in Higher
Education (GCHE) course that was introduced early in the 1990s in a large Australian university.
The paper is written in the spirit of reflective practice and analyses the development of the course
and the extent to which it addresses the needs of teaching academics in higher education through the
voices of the course coordinator and a graduating student. This course is designed to meet the needs
of those teaching in Higher Education and related tertiary education settings.
Methodology
Learning through reflection is deemed an important tool to analyse deliberate human action, and
hence, forms a methodological approach to understanding practice. Several strategies have been
proposed to guide reflective practice and much has been written about the models and problems
associated with reflection (Boud & Walker, 1998; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Moon, 2000; Zeichner,
1986). This study draws upon the notions of Reflection-on-Action (Schön, 1983) to provide an
account of the role played by a formalised course for teaching in higher education. In particular, we
adopt the frameworks of Kreber (1999) and Watson and Wilcox (2000). Kreber’s framework
provides a structure, which emphasises what should be reflected upon. Drawing on the work of
Mezirow (1991) he proposes that individuals who learn about teaching engage in content, process
and premise reflection. Content reflection in this context helps us describe our beliefs about what
we know and should be teaching. In essence, we are asking ourselves whether the course and what
constitutes the body of knowledge that informs the course is appropriate. By engaging in process
reflection, we seek to validate what we do. To achieve this, we focus on collecting data from
students on how they engaged in the course, and the professional benefits and outcomes for them.
Finally, engaging in premise reflection requires us to reconceptualise the issues and justify the
approaches taken or suggest alternatives. Juxtaposed on this approach is Watson and Wilcox’s
(2000) framework for reflection that also encapsulates three elements. Firstly, they describe
reflection-on-action in terms of “quick reading”, which provides a wholistic impression of the issue.
Secondly, they argue for a “zooming in”, which provides a close analysis of a particular aspect of
the issue. Finally, they advocate a “zooming out” to contextualise and critique the issue, and
suggest changes.
1
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
The reflections are provided from the perspective of the coordinator (JJW) of the course who has
taught within the course for seven years and has coordinated for four years. The focus participant is
a recent graduate of the course whose disciplinary background is education.
A three-phase approach to data collection and analysis is used in this paper to accommodate Kreber
(1999) and Watson and Wilcox (2000)’s frameworks. Phase 1 focuses on Content. This phase
comprises (a) a “quick read” of the literature; (b) “zooming in” through a document analysis,
feedback from university stakeholders and course participants, descriptions of artefacts, and
reflections from the focus participant; and (c) a “zooming out”, which contextualises the emergent
content issues. Phase 2 focuses on Process. This phase consists of (a) a “quick read” of course
delivery approaches and course alignment with institutional priorities; (b) “zooming in”
encompassing a description of university processes and alignment of the course with these, a
description of course participants, and feedback from university stakeholders and course
participants, and a reflection from the focus participant; and (c) a “zooming out”, which
contextualises the emergent process issues. Collectively, Phases 1 and Phase 2 provide a situational
analysis or reality check of the accreditation of university teachers in our institution. Phase 3
focuses on Premises and presents a summary of the status quo as a prelude to the articulation of a
set of premises related to the advancement of knowledge about the accreditation of university
teachers. This phase is also reported at three levels, namely, a “quick read”, “zooming in” and
“zooming out”.
Participants
There are three types of participants in this study. Firstly, there are university stakeholders. This
group comprises Assistant Deans of Teaching and Learning from each Faculty, who oversee course
development, teaching and quality management within each faculty, and members of a Staff
Development Network, who comprise members representing Human Resources Staff Developers,
Teaching and Learning Support Services and Information Technology Services. Each of these latter
groups is responsible for some aspect of staff training and development, for example, staff induction
and career development, use of online teaching facilities and introduction to teaching support
mechanisms, and specific technology competencies associated with software applications and
specialist hardware. Secondly, there are course participants. These students enrolled in the course
between 2002 and 2004. Finally, there is the focus participant (CMD), who enrolled in the course
in 2003 and graduated in 2004.
Data Sources
The data sources consist of documents, survey responses, written reflections and artefacts.
Documents consist broadly of the literature and specifically of Course documentation. Survey
Responses were obtained from university stakeholders and course participants. University
stakeholders were invited to contribute information related to relevance of the units, value and
impact on teaching and learning in various faculties, and how the course might be strengthened.
Course participants were sent a questionnaire that addressed issues of relevance, appropriateness,
effectiveness and efficiency of the content and delivery processes. The questionnaire included ten
open-ended questions some of which comprised specific sub-questions. The full questionnaire was
sent to a cohort of students who enrolled in 2002 (n=30) and a shortened questionnaire that
focussed on relevance, and appropriateness was sent to those enrolled in 2004 (n=54). Follow-up
invitations were sent to students and a book voucher was raffled as an inducement to respond.
Written reflections during the course were obtained from the focus participant. She also provided
further reflections through her contributions to this paper. Artefacts comprise assignments and
publications prepared by the focus participant. Publications are an especially important artefact
because they provide evidence that the teacher is fully engaged in the process of scholarship (e.g.,
Boyer, 1990). That is, the teacher investigates the relevant literature, is reflective about his or her
teaching; and contributes to professional thinking through publication.
2
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
Data analysis
The primary focus of the data analysis was to identify emergent themes. The various data sources
provided the opportunity to explore these themes. The document analysis encompassed a historical
analysis and a contemporary analysis. The historical analysis provides a backdrop to examine the
literature that comments on the development and purposes of GCHE type courses. The
contemporary analysis explored information from course websites of Australian Universities and
provided the details of current practices and scope of content taught. Course materials in the form of
Unit Outlines provided a more detailed profile of content and teaching processes. The survey
responses provided insight into the key issues identified by University stakeholders and Course
participants. The primary focus of the analysis was on the congruence between the intended and
experienced curriculum. The written reflections of the focus participant provide an in-depth look at
the congruence between the intended and experienced curriculum and one student’s expectations.
The artefacts provide an additional insight into the learning of the focus student because they
provide a synthesis of the learner’s knowledge.
Reflections
The reflection on this course will explore Content, Process and Premises integral to the course using
the reflective tool of Watson and Wilcox (2000).
Content
A quick read: In order to reflect on the content and focus of the course we explore four sources of
information that provide direction: the historical purpose of universities, the international response
to calls for professionalism of teaching, the literature on what constitutes food teaching, and finally,
the structure of the course.
The role of universities tends to flow in cycles. In the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, universities
taught the trivium, a curriculum that comprised rhetoric, logic and grammar as the basic preparation
for entry into all the professions. The role of the university, right up until the end of the nineteenth
century, was to provide a well-rounded education for those people (usually men) who could afford
it. Through a study of these areas students were able to pursue a career in the clergy, education or
law. The English and, more particularly, the Scottish model of university education became the
basis of Australian universities. In this model, universities provided college accommodation for
their students, who were ascribed a tutor responsible for their learning and offered the “traditional”
disciplines of medicine, science, arts, law and engineering. Similarly, the first American universities
were largely concerned with teaching and focused on educating their students for future civic and
religious leadership (Beattie, 2000). However by the 19th Century a research orientation had grown
up in the German universities, which influenced those scholars who spent their formative years
there. Post World War II, a dramatic change in academic life occurred. The focus on scientific
research and training in universities increased substantially and scholars began to identify their
research and teaching with their disciplines rather than with the academy as a whole. As in most
western countries, university education has undergone unprecedented expansion enabling a greater
number of people to attend university many as mature aged students. In Australia, numbers of
students has escalated over fifty years from 30 000 in 1955 to close to one million in 2005.
Accompanying this expansion has been increased policy intervention in the operation of universities
by Federal Government. In the Australian context, Universities — almost all of which are public
institutions — are established under state government legislations. However, federal intervention in
the management of Australian universities has become pervasive in the last 20 years influenced by
international neo-liberal principles (Marginson, 2003) and implemented through fiscal policies.
A major area of policy focus in the past decade has been on enhancing the quality of teaching in
higher education. What has been done to achieve this goal? In the United States Lederman and
3
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
Niess (1999) cite one W. B Pitkin who, writing in 1909 in the Popular Science Monthly, argued for
specialist doctoral training in education for university and college teachers. By the 1990s training of
graduate teaching assistants in educational principles had become widespread (Druger, 1997; Wulff
& Austin, 2004) and indeed includes higher studies as Doctor of Arts (Travis, Outlaw, & Reven,
2001). In Germany and other European countries, pedagogical training has been aligned with the
nature of the institution. Research universities have provided little opportunity for pedagogical
training whereas polytechnic colleges have required teaching staff to undertake such training
(Leitner, 1998). Although policy declarations appear to favour pedagogical training, the uptake of
programs in higher education has been slow. A similar situation existed in Australia in the early
1990s, which prompted strong criticism of Australian universities by Ramsden, Margetson, Martin,
and Clarke, (1995) who argued that Australian universities needed to enhance the
professionalisation of teaching.
We now examine what issues and content should be addressed in such courses. Other than general
principles of adult education there is little literature to guide what would constitute worthwhile
courses for university teacher training. Reports on quality teaching focus on enhancing studentteacher relationships (Bain, 2004; Sander, Stevenson, King, & Coates, 2000), the capacity to be a
good explainer (Soenksen, 1992) or the level of content expertise (Sears, 2002) or strength to
manage complexity with confidence (McArdle & Coutts, 2003). In terms of teacher knowledge, we
can extrapolate from the work of Shulman (1987) to argue personal expertise across content and
pedagogy. However, few consider broader discourses and actions about educational practices
(Nicoll & Harrison, 2003). Perhaps one exception is the rationale provided by Rowland (1999) who
attempts to argue that the guiding theoretical framework draws upon the individual understandings
of teaching and learning in higher education. Each practitioner brings with him or her perspectives
that are drawn from their own disciplines in an attempt to transfer to the context of educational
practice. Given the relative lack of deep understanding of educational theory, practitioners operate
from within their comfort zone co-creating educational theory applicable to their contexts.
Although many formal teacher professional development courses emerged during the 1990s,
evidence of the effectiveness of these formal programs is limited. Some suggest that they do
increase scores on learning experience questionnaires of academics who have had full training
(Coffey & Gibbs, 2000). Uptake has been slow possibly because, as Macdonald (2001) has pointed
out, courses are problematic for managers and teaching staff alike, “as they require expensive time
release, and/or inconvenient disruption to teaching and research commitments” (p. 154). He also
critiques short courses endorsing their ineffectiveness but suggesting they satisfy the need to be
seen to be doing something. Clearly, if staff are to provide richer input into the lives of the students
they teach, universities need to provide appropriate courses and staff need to engage in learning
experiences beyond their specialist disciplinary knowledge. Although some advocate planning such
courses around deficits (Martínez, Gros, & Romaña, 1998) others are advocating community or
collaborative learning strategies (Macdonald, 2001; Prushiek, McCarty, & Mcintyre, 2001 ).
Writing at a time when formal courses were being developed, Ryan (1996) described the mixed
motivation for these courses:
4
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
The Graduate Certificates in many Australian universities grew out of these shorter courses,
and, I would suggest, from mixed motives: a recognition that staff operating in a culture which
revolves around the possession of paper qualifications might prefer their staff development
activities recognised in an accreditation; that a focussed course which blended a theoretical
component with practice would induce long-term change more than one-off workshops; that
the peer group approach would permeate institutional culture via a ripple effect by bringing
together staff from across the organisation; and perhaps more strategically, to bolster the
academic credibility of staff development units with real EFTSU (Equivalent Full-time
Student Unit).(p. 1)
There are 39 universities in Australia. All but four offer some graduate certificate course designed
to provide formal instruction for academic and professional staff in universities and related to
teaching and learning in higher education. This situation contrasts with the US where only 19
institutions were reported to offer similar programs (Travis, et al., 2001). Of the four that do not
offer their own course, one has a relationship with another university for its staff to undertake that
institution’s course. A summary of the structure, mode of delivery and responsible organisational
unit is provided in Table 1. Most courses are highly focussed on teaching and learning in higher
education with some scope for broader consideration of teaching in other tertiary settings or
educational institutions such as seminaries, or hospitals. The majority of institutions adopt a model
comprising four subjects or units of study, delivered through a Faculty of Education, in a face-toface mode. The model we describe in this paper is similarly a four-unit course delivered through a
Faculty of Education but primarily in an online mode with some face-to-face elements.
Table 1: Models of delivery of Graduate Certificate in Higher Education Courses
Number of
subjects
comprising
course
2
Number of
Institutions
adopting
model
2
3
5
4
25
5
1
6
8
1
1
Organisational
unit responsible
for course
Specialist Higher
Education Unit
Faculties of
Education or
equivalent
Combined
specialist unit and
Faculty
Other faculties
(e.g. engineering
and health)
External body
Number of
Institutions
adopting
model
9*
Mode of
delivery
Face-to-Face
Number of
Institutions
adopting
model
17
21
Online
3
3
Mixed
online/faceto-face
15
2
1
*Note: In most instances the Degree is conferred through a Faculty of Education or similar. The information
in this table was drawn from Course Websites as of April 2005.
Zooming in: In describing and analysing what is happening at a more detailed level, we focus on (a)
the Course offered at Queensland University of Technology [QUT], (b) feedback from University
stakeholders; (c) feedback from Course participants; and (d) reflections and artefacts of a focus
participant.
A. Course: QUT is one of the largest universities in the country with over 40000 students. It offers
courses in the professions from Law to Nursing as well as Science, Engineering, Information
Technology and the Creative Industries. The QUT course’s stated aims are to develop leadership
and management skills at an advanced level and to enhance professional standing (Course website:
5
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
http://olt.qut.edu.au/ED61-HE). Completion of four one-semester units is required. The alignment
of these aims with content is difficult to judge given that individual teaching staff adopt and adapt
to circumstances. However, examples of the recommended readings and the assessment tasks
provide a broad insight into the areas of content addressed in specific units as shown in Table 2.
The literature provides limited guidance on what constitutes essential content in these areas.
B. University Stakeholders: One Assistant Dean argued that many older staff saw little relevance in
the course. She noted that those older staff who had a very strong discipline focus were sceptical
about general teaching approaches and did not accept that “a general approach is transferable across
disciplines”. This theme was taken up by another Assistant Dean who argued the importance of
ensuring “the course is flexible and integrated into the workplace so that assists staff in what they
are doing rather than seen as more work”. A Staff Development Network stakeholder extended
theses comments by advocating a broader content base and one that addresses more than issues of
teaching and learning. Another echoed the need to align content with contemporary national and
institutional policy directions. These themes reinforce a belief that content needs to be closely
aligned with the disciplinary styles and experiences of staff and encompass a broad recognition of
the professional needs of staff within a university.
C: Course Participants: Feedback from students and stakeholders provided commentary on the
value of the content. Most students reflected positively on the course drawing attention to a range of
issues, such as the development of a theoretical framework to interpret practice. The relevance of
the course to each student’s context was also acknowledged. For example,
The course met all my expectations in terms of providing a theoretical underpinning
for my teaching practice and an understanding of the socio-political context in which
we must work.
It has succeeded in exposing me to a large body of theory which has supported critical
reflection and changes in my own teaching practices.
I did not expect as much contextual study as there was – but this has turned out the
most interesting (emphasis in original).
D. Focus Participant: The fine-grained analysis of the focus participant revealed enhanced
conceptual understanding of the units’ content. This is evident in reflections undertaken as part of
each unit and publications on four content themes that correspond to the four selected units studied
by the participant.
Theme 1: Learning And Teaching In Higher Education (EDN626)
This unit encouraged participants to review their own teaching situations and determine how to
improve their teaching. The following reflection is an extract from one of the assignments in this
unit in which I compared and contrasted my undergraduate and graduate teaching and determined
how to improve my postgraduate teaching. Whilst suggesting key issues that impact on teaching in
higher education, the background literature also provided a caution that, although teaching and
learning are related, an improvement in teaching does not necessarily result in a corresponding
improvement in learning.
6
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
Table 2: Alignment of Course aims with Core Content and Assessment Tasks
Unit and Aims
EDN626: Learning And Teaching In Higher
Education
Acquire an understanding of, and become, a
critically reflective practitioner.
Assessment
1. A critical review preferred teaching style incorporating
literature relevant to your preferred teaching and learning
theories.
2. Plan and implement a collaborative action research
project
EDN627: Contexts And Issues In Higher Education
Analyse current issues in higher or post-secondary
education through advanced study and demonstrate
an advanced level of knowledge in the area of
higher education and post-secondary education.
1. A reflective portfolio addressing contemporary press
materials, policy documents, commentary and media
reports of issues of concern to higher education.
2. An issues paper in which you undertake an analysis of an
issue and produce a reasoned set of recommendations or
conclusions for further
1. Essay task based on an interview of an experienced
supervisor. 1500-2000 word critical analysis and
reflection.
2. Report on a research activity that you have designed,
planned and implemented to investigate your own and/or
your faculty's approach to postgraduate supervision.
3. Participate in an online discussion forum
1. Outline the significant contexts and issues that must be
considered in deciding on appropriate delivery modes in
further or higher education.
2. Develop a portfolio of Learning Materials that reflects
your design, development, implementation and
evaluation considerations for a module of work with a
student cohort.
1. Using a situational analysis as a framework, review the
contexts, constructs, pedagogies and practices of a higher
education curriculum project with a view to proposing a
curriculum renewal project.
2. Design a curriculum renewal project based on sound
curriculum thinking, reflection on practice and a critique
of the literature in the area.
EDN628:Postgraduate Research Supervision
Acquire an understanding of, and become, a
critically reflective practitioner.
EDN629: Presentation and Delivery Modes in
Higher Education
Develop competencies in applying relevant
educational theory to practices.
EDN630: Higher Education: Curriculum Design,
Assessment and Evaluation
Develop a commitment and confidence to being
responsive educational leaders who have an
understanding of the issues confronting teaching in
post-secondary settings.
7
Example Readings
Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality
learning at university: What the student
does. Buckingham, England &
Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research
into Higher Education & Open University
Press.
Jarvis, P. (2001) Universities and corporate
universities: The higher learning industry
in global society, London: Kogan Page.
Holbrook, A. & Johnston, S. (Eds.),
Supervision of postgraduate research in
education, Review of Australian
Research in Education, No. 5,
Coldstream, Victoria, AARE.
Laurillard, D. (2001) Rethinking University
Teaching: A framework for the effective
use of educational technology (2nd Ed.).
Routledge: London.
Mestenhauser, J. & Ellingboe, B. (1998).
Reforming the higher education
curriculum. Boston: Oryx Press.
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
This critical review has revealed that of my two teaching situations, I am more satisfied with
the opportunities for deep learning for my undergraduates than my postgraduates. These
student groups are similar in terms of their unit or course content and their presumed
capability. However, the substantive difference between these groups is the community
orientation. Hence, the establishment of a community ethos amongst postgraduates is where
my teaching could be improved. Ramsden (1992) cautions however, that the learner’s reaction
to the teaching environment influences but does not cause high quality learning outcomes.
Thus, it is to be expected that despite the best efforts of teachers in higher education, studentlearning outcomes will not always meet expectations. (See Table 2, EDN626, Assignment Task
1)
This unit also provided the opportunity for me to undertake an Action Research project on a
teaching and learning situation of relevance in my context (See Table 2, EDN626, Assignment Task
2). Due to my role to support staff in our Research Centre, I elected to focus on staff learning about
grantsmanship. The literature review for this project provided the background for identifying
various profiles of researchers and the strategies that should support each of these types of
researchers. I have profiled staff and implemented these strategies and am awaiting the outcomes of
the 2005 external research grant round to finalise a paper tentatively titled Learning about
educators learning about grant writing. Thus, this unit provided me with the means to adopt a more
strategic approach to supporting staff learning.
Theme 2: Contexts And Issues In Higher Education (EDN627)
The content that was valued in this unit went beyond teaching and learning with which I was
already familiar due to my background in school and tertiary education. The following reflection is
extracted from a portfolio about this unit, in which I have applied my understanding of the context
of higher education to my discipline area.
My reflections have resulted in an appreciation of the role of universities within the educational
sector and the broader marketplace, and the substantial implications that flow from the move
towards corporatisation of universities. Within my discipline of Education, there is a need for
major reform to align Education with the research goal of a modern university. Many existing
staff still need to adjust their work roles to reflect their shift to university status rather than
teachers’ college status. The limited research by many staff is a glaring problem. These staff
may lack the capacity to address this issue; hence, there may be a need to address this issue
through differentiated teaching-research workloads. (See Table 2, EDN627, Assignment Task
2)
My thinking about the mismatch between the expectations of contemporary universities and the
research capability of staff led me to explore this issue in greater detail in another assignment (See
Table 2, EDN627, Assignment Task 1). The outcomes of this exploration are reported in the draft
paper titled The contemporary research work role: Implications for Faculties of Education. An
acting managerial role has provided me with the opportunity to explore the applicability of my
conceptualisations of workload in an authentic context. Following a review of the theory in action
and after any modifications, the paper will be submitted for publication.
Theme 3: Postgraduate Research Supervision (EDN628)
This unit raised my awareness of various issues in postgraduate supervision. For example, my
appreciation of how the higher education context impacts on supervision practices was articulated
in one assignment.
My reflection revealed the need to undertake research supervision with an awareness of the
political context. It has also provided a rationale for my support of timely completion, and
8
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
publication during doctoral studies. The identification of the characteristics of Education
students has implications for the doctoral curriculum, which should address flexibility in
thinking, problem finding skills, autonomous working, and strategies that proactively support
female students. My reflections also uncovered the role of history in doctoral supervision and
the need for an investigation of the matching of students and supervisors to capitalise on staff
expertise. Furthermore, my reflections have highlighted the need for a better understanding of
the relationship between members of a supervisory team, and a dilemma that can occur when a
more expert supervisor assumes an authoritarian stance. (See Table 2, EDN628, Assignment
Task 1)
Another assignment in this unit afforded me the opportunity to focus on a topic of particular interest
in postgraduate supervision (See Table 2, EDN628, Assignment Task 2). I selected scholarly
writing due to many students’ difficulty in writing theses and journal articles and undertook a
retrospective analysis of my higher degree students’ writing capabilities. The content of this unit
shifted my thinking about student writing from providing ad hoc support to a clearer perspective on
the various types of writing difficulties that students might experience and how to support these
students to improve their writing. It also highlighted for me the responsibilities of students in this
process. A paper on this study has been accepted for publication (Diezmann, in press).
Theme 4: Higher Education: Curriculum Design, Assessment and Evaluation (EDN630)
This was the first unit that I studied and the content was immediately applicable to an innovative
research-oriented undergraduate unit that I taught. For example, the following extract from
Assignment 2 (See Table 2, EDN630) identifies the applicability of some of the literature from this
unit to the undergraduate unit: “Some of the literature sourced for this paper also has relevance for
Pathway students. For example, students could use Toohey’s (1999) curriculum frameworks in
analysing their own practice [scholarly teachers] or the practices of others [educational researcher].
The content of this unit and the associated assignments also provided the impetus for an article on
how to foster research capability in undergraduates and to enhance university teaching through
practioner reflection (Diezmann, 2005).
Collectively, the content of these units have provided me with an insight into the higher education
context, and how this context impacts on teaching and learning. The units have also equipped me
with the skills and self-awareness to continue to improve my own practice.
Zooming out: In standing back and reflecting on the content of the course several features emerge.
The course is congruent with national and international directions in providing a well-grounded
introduction to teacher education for university academics that blends theory and practice. The
intention was (a) to provide a context sensitive program which acknowledges the existing
theoretical and disciplinary frameworks of students and (b) to support them to engage in discourse
about, not just teaching and learning, but ways of accommodating broader issues of planning and
understanding social and political contexts. These intentions appear to have been achieved.
A consideration of the context highlights the almost universal acceptance of the need for
accreditation and formal course work in university teaching. On one hand the changing nature of
universities and the student body has increased participation by more part-time staff, staff with less
teaching experience, and in an economic context where institutions are competing for students and
reputation. Many institutions in the UK, Australia, Canada, Europe and the US have responded by
instigating post graduate Certificate level courses that focus on the professional development of
students through a blend of theory and practical knowledge. Notably absent in the literature is
evidence that these courses are either mandatory at a university wide level or departmental level.
Indeed, the dominant impression is one of professional engagement at a voluntary level in ways that
integrate the formal learning with routine duties.
9
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
The course described integrates a number of important conceptual areas encompassing, reflective
practice, planning and appreciation of political and professional issues.
The underlying theoretical framework has echoes of Gibbons Mode II knowledge (Gibbons, et al.
1994). Developing expertise to teach in higher education requires a recognition that academics draw
from their own disciplinary knowledge but will accommodate educational discourse when and
where it makes sense and provides best explanations of practice. However, functioning within
higher education needs an appreciation of the context and power plays that are beyond the
management of individual practitioners.
Process
In reflecting on process, we address both the process of delivery and the processes associated with
the alignment of the course to institutional priorities.
Quick read: Two issues feature in the delivery of courses on higher education in the Australian
context, namely who delivers and how is it delivered. The majority of courses are delivered through
a partnership arrangement between a Faculty of Education or equivalent and a specialist staff
development or higher education teaching and learning unit. The dimensions of this arrangement
are wide with some institutions’ teaching and learning units totally responsible for teaching and the
Faculty awarding the qualification to models where the specialist unit is embedded in the Faculty.
At QUT, the course has operated for over 10 years. Until 2001, it was delivered by the Academic
Staff Development Unit but within the Faculty of Education’s broader Graduate Certificate course.
A restructure in 2001, brought the coordination of the course into the faculty but the teaching of at
least one unit was still undertaken by a teaching support staff member.
The mode of delivery in the majority of Australian courses involves face-to-face delivery of content
with varying degrees of support through distance or on-line facilities. Although a range of subjects
is offered, the normal duration of the course in all institutions is 12 months part-time. Changes in
technology and in the academic workplace are making it increasingly possible to use on-line
learning opportunities for course delivery. However, in a study of 31 institutions across the UK and
Australia, Kandlbinder (2003) concluded that in most contexts on-line facilities were considered
more useful for the administrative rather than the educational needs of academic staff. Indeed, the
majority of courses are primarily face-to-face or adopt a blended approach. The QUT course
emerged from a blended face-to-face and distance education mode where paper-based materials
were sent to students to a blended on-line model towards the end of the 1990s. Indeed, the course
pioneered online delivery strategies at the institution. It has subsequently moved to essentially an
online course with negotiated and infrequent face-to-face meetings. This model has appealed to one
other institution which has negotiated to support its staff undertake the QUT course. A number of
staff from a range of institutions enrol in the course suggesting that the online model has appeal to
some academics.
The QUT course is aligned it with the Master of Education to enable students to receive credit for
continued study. Approximately 10% of students have completed units within the Graduate
Certificate Course and articulated to the Masters of Education. A similar number of students
enrolled in the Master of Education have chosen Higher Education Strand.
Zooming in: A more intensive read of the Course and processes adopted is provided by (a) student
demographics, (b) assessment practices, and (c) feedback from University stakeholders; (d)
feedback from Course participants; and (e) reflections and artefacts of a focus participant.
A. Student Demographics: At any one time, approximately 25 students are enrolled in one or more
of the units making up the Course. The bulk of students are drawn from staff working in higher
10
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
education. An arrangement exists with the University of South Australia which sponsors staff.
Enrolments annually from University of South Australia [Uni SA] are approx 10. Staff enrol from a
range of Universities including University of Queensland, Griffith, Canberra and the University of
the Sunshine Coast as well as from TAFE, and Hospital Training Groups. Up to 40% of QUT staff
who participate are part-time, sessional teaching staff. A small number (2-3) are library staff from
QUT or Uni SA. However, the bulk of students would appear to come from Engineering, Nursing,
Health Sciences, Science and Business. Participation by Faculty of Education staff is relatively low.
At some Universities, including QUT, the course is supported by a Bursary which is available on a
semester basis to any staff member, full-time or sessional, engaged in teaching on the
recommendation of their Head of School. The clients for such courses are diverse. Students range
from highly experienced teachers to novice sessional staff seeking induction into the specific
structures and practices of a particular institution. In tandem, students range from those with
educational qualification in non-tertiary settings to those without any formal educational
qualifications.
B. Assessment Practices: If we assume that assessment is aligned with the aims of the course then
the assessment strategies should provide both a sense of content but more significantly should
contribute to and represent the processes of learning endorsed by the course designers. The social
and educational assumptions underlying student learning should be manifested in the assessment
practices (Havnes, 2002). As shown in Table 2, the assessment practices within each unit are
aligned with the unit aims and the assessment tasks and draw heavily on reflection and scholarly
examination of existing practices of participants affirming the emphasis on praxis. Throughout the
course, the assessment activities engage students in deep learning through the articulation of
practices and perspectives and reflection on these, critical reviews of the alignment between theory
and practice and planning informed by the literature and action research.
C. University Stakeholders: Response from the Assistant Deans of Teaching recognised the role of
the course in terms of supporting beginning staff and endorsed efforts to ensure these staff
participated but highlighted the need to ensure the course integrated into the normal work practices
of staff. Extended responses from members of the Staff Development network focussed not
surprisingly on structural and procedural features of the course arguing for greater integration with
the suite of staff continuing professional development programs that are oriented at skill and career
development.
D. Course Participants: The response rate to a questionnaire for both surveyed cohorts was
approximately 24% despite follow-up requests. The distribution of responses is shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Distribution of Responses
Level of Employment
Part-time or sessional staff (tutors)
Lecturer A
Lecturer B
Lecturer C
Assoc Professor/Professor
Non University (e.g. Technical college)
Professional staff (e.g. librarians)
2002
3
0
4
3
1
1
1
2004
3
1
0
1
1
1
1
Emerging in questionnaire responses to two questions that probed reasons for enrolling and
professional value in participating in the course were two themes. Firstly, the overwhelming
response (>80%) involved comments that reflected a broad sense of becoming a professional
11
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
teacher. The processes worked in the sense that broad and tangible outcomes that impacted on
professionalism were acknowledged. Some representative responses included:









Improve professional skills as a lecturer.
To professionalise my approach to teaching and learning.
Greater professional credibility. Confidence.
Knowledge of teaching.
Interest in education.
Developing theoretical frameworks.
Recognition about how out of step my staff are with contemporary thinking
“Feel Qualified now” – enhanced my feelings of value to the University.
Deeper understanding of T&L theory and philosophy.
Secondly, most respondents acknowledged that they gained knowledge about aspects of teaching in
higher education that had immediate impact:






Improve my classes.
Maximising effectiveness of students for different groups.
Practical “how-to” type knowledge about various topics.
Accomplished a dream in developing online module.
Skills to undertake the assessment of change to teaching practices.
Developed skills in action research and online delivery.
In contributing comments on weaknesses in the course delivery, several participants highlighted
issues related to the balance of print materials and online support. In some instances, print materials
were not provided as the unit was heavily dependent on online modes of delivery whereas in others
the expectation to use online practices was not reciprocated by teaching staff.
E. Focus Participant: The processes of course delivery and alignment are addressed in turn.
The course delivery I experienced was an amalgam of print materials, online materials and
interactions supplemented by limited face-to-face interaction. This variety in delivery affords the
opportunity to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of these delivery modes.
The supply of a semester’s worth of print materials provided a great deal of flexibility in terms of
scheduling study and assignment work. However, this required substantial self-discipline to
monitor timelines and set aside sufficient study time. In a couple of units, face-to-face meetings
were scheduled early in the semester. These meetings provided an opportunity to meet the teaching
staff, which created ease in contacting these staff via email when necessary later in the semester.
However, the value of meeting with other students was limited because opportunities for social
learning were not generally a core part of the units. In one unit, there was a requirement for
contributions to an online discussion forum and some students’ names became familiar through
their entries. Although this could be conceived as online community, the contributions seemed to
be to meet unit requirements rather than to engage with peers about topic of interest. The face-toface sessions typically focussed on procedural aspects of the unit and went through the information
contained in print or electronic materials. This was somewhat frustrating for those who had read
this material prior to the face-to-face meeting. Thus, there is a need to explore how to capitalise on
delivery modes to enhance learner benefit rather than use these as alternative modes for
disseminating the same information. Additionally, there is a need for a greater awareness that the
modes of delivery provide models of contemporary practice in action. In survey feedback on the
12
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
Course, I highlighted this point: “As this (course) is intended for those who are wanting education
qualifications or upgrading their qualifications, it is essential that the course provides exemplary
online learning opportunities”.
The processes of the Course included alignment with University goals. This alignment process was
evident from the assessment tasks. Reflection in various guises was overwhelmingly the dominant
practice across the units (See Table 2). This practice was most effective when coupled with a
product of personal value. For example, I valued reflections that provided the impetus for a
scholarly article much more highly than reflections that were solely designed for inclusion in a
portfolio. The former was valued over the latter because in publishing an article there is a need to
engage with the literature at a substantial level, reflections are utilised to generate new knowledge,
and thinking can be refined from reviewer feedback. Hence, a reflective task that commences with
an assignment and is translated into an assignment fosters deep engagement, involves other
professionals and through the review process extends the time length for thinking about the issue.
Concomitantly, there is the satisfaction of contributing to the professional literature.
The assessment also engaged students in a series of learning experiences. However, the diversity of
students and their varying levels of expertise and interests provides a challenge of how to meet the
needs of all students. A particular difficulty, I experienced as a student was learning solely from
traditional forms of text. In the Information Age, this is highly restrictive as an information source
and presentation medium. I was not excluded from utilising non-textual information sources, and
benefited substantially when I was able to incorporate these as learning activities. For example, in
the Portfolio assessment item in the Contexts and Issues in Higher Education unit (See Table 2) I
included a review of political cartoons. These were a valid information source because cartoons
provide a useful indicator of the general public’s view about various issues with the humour
directed towards paradoxes, what is contradictory, fears, problems, pretentiousness and absurdities
(Hutchinson, 1984). Thus, cartoons capture the essence of an issue at a particular point in time.
Additionally, I included a review of the impact of the higher education context through using the
video “Facing the Music” (Film Australia, 2001). This documentary provided a human account of
the impact of budget cuts within a university department over a period of time. Through this
vicarious experience, I was better able to envision how policy changes can directly impact on the
daily life of university teachers. These examples suggest that the processes that the learner engages
deserve at least as much attention as the content. Although this Course is substantive from content
perspective, a further iteration of the Course could include greater attention to the processes in
which the learner engages. A focus on the importance of effective pedagogical practices in this
Course would mirror the contemporary focus on the quality of pedagogical practices in schooling.
Zooming out: The extent to which a course achieves its goals is determined by the faithfulness of
the implementation. Although alignment with institutional goals appears to be acknowledged, issues
emerge with the implementation. QUT is a multi-campus institution, which imposes severe
limitations on the delivery of face-to-face sessions through which participants can develop social
relationships and build knowledge through free exchange of ideas and practices. Thus the on-line
mode of delivery provided a practical solution to an environmental constraint. This also provided an
advantage to some students who participate in the course from other universities and from offshore
placement. The on-line flexibility also accommodates the needs of academic staff who often have to
travel beyond their institution and overseas. The courseware management system supporting online
learning has incorporated into it a variety of communication devices such as chat rooms, discussion
forums, and email lists as well as devices to support learning through the combination of
multimedia resources, links to websites, and databases for literature resources.
The comment from the focus participant that the course should mirror quality pedagogical practices
is highly pertinent and clearly an area that is underdeveloped. Similar comments extracted from the
13
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
surveys also highlighted limitations in the way technology was being used. In part, this problem
stemmed from the in-experience of some of the teaching staff with online pedagogical practices.
Premise
The assumptions underpinning the delivery of GCHE at this institution, and more broadly, is that
formal study and qualifications are necessary to ensure quality of educational experiences for
tertiary students taught by academic staff.
Quick Read: In this study, we have not demonstrated that undergraduate teaching is indeed
impacted upon at all by the level of qualification or training of staff. Data from research in school
sectors would suggest that the more pedagogically qualified the teacher the more successful
learning occurs. We need research to establish whether there are parallels to this finding in higher
education. The basic question here is whether students of academic staff with teaching
qualifications have better learning outcomes than students in courses where staff have no higher
education teaching qualification. The general assumption from the literature is that they do, hence
the popularity of mounting such courses. We have not challenged these assumptions.
In an institution with approximately 1300 permanent academic staff and 4000 casual academic staff
eligible to undertake a GCHE, an annual enrolment of 30 students is relatively low. This
participation suggests low visibility of the course, lack of incentives to undertake the course or
possible workloads that constrain engagement.
Zooming in on our assumptions leads us to believe the model of basic teacher education is effective.
The course is providing a comprehensive and acceptable avenue for staff to engage in gaining
qualifications in teaching in higher education. The course addresses praxis, that is, it integrates
theory and practice in ways that accommodate individual disciplinary styles. Emerging from the
qualitative data is an endorsement of the effectiveness and value of a course of this nature for the
professionalisation of teaching. In addition to enhancing teaching, about 10% of respondents, who
completed the Course, indicated that they were more competitive in gaining full time employment.
These responses came mostly from part-time tutors. Hence, the broader assumption is that this
teaching qualification is seen as acceptable across disciplines. Other statements affirmed the
teaching approaches and commitment of teaching staff. However, there were suggestions for how
the course could be improved. Some comments spontaneously endorsed the course and argued that
it should be compulsory for all staff.
Zooming out provides a perspective that as a professional development course, there was strong
endorsement for its capacity to highlight good practice underpinned by theory. This response was
somewhat surprising as the balance between theory and practical advice is sometimes difficult to
achieve. For a small number of respondents, this was not achieved and there was some concern that
there was not enough exposure to teaching “tips” and exposure to best practice. Importantly,
however it should be noted that the GCHE is unlike other teaching qualifications which require staff
to demonstrate competence in professional practice. Thus, the field experience for tertiary teaching
remains the responsibility of discipline areas. On the other hand, a majority approved the level of
theoretical underpinnings. The assumption that academic staff in non-education faculties will
engage in the discourse of education is corroborated. Staff are prepared to engage with the
discipline of education in order to acquire the discourses and knowledge base to enhance their own
practice and to inform others within their fields.
Concluding Comment
This paper has been a reflective journey into the delivery of a Graduate Certificate in Higher
Education course. The approach, framed by the work of Mezirow (1991), Kreber (2004) and
Watson and Wilcox (2000) has provided an opportunity to view the course from three levels and to
14
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
reflect on the content, processes of delivery and assumptions on which the course is predicated. The
model has proven worthwhile and has enabled us to identify directions to proceed both at a detailed
level where fine-tuning is appropriate and at a systemic level where the course impacts on
institutional strategic directions for developing teaching quality. The reflections at various levels
suggest that there is considerable congruence between the intended and experienced curriculum.
However, these reflections also indicate avenues to explore to further enhance the quality of the
intended curriculum.
References
Aylett, R. & Gregory, K. (Eds.) (1996). Evaluating teacher quality in higher education. London:
Falmer.
Bain, K. (2004). What makes great teachers great? Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(31), B7-B9.
Beattie, D. S. (2000). Expanding the View of Scholarship: Introduction. Acad Med, 75(9), 871-876.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of
context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-206.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Candy, P. C. (2000). Reaffirming a proud tradition: Universities and lifelong learning. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 1(2), 101-125.
Coffey, M., & Gibbs, G. (2000). Can academics benefit from training? Some preliminary evidence.,
Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 385-389.
Daly, W. T. (1994). Teaching and scholarship: Adapting American higher education to hard times.
Journal of Higher Education, 65, 45-67.
Diezmann, C. M. (2005). Growing scholarly teachers and educational researchers: a curriculum for
a Research Pathway in pre-service teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education 33(2), 71–83.
Diezmann, C. M. (in press). Supervision and Scholarly Writing: Writing to learn – Learning to
write. Reflective Practice.
Druger, M. (1997). Preparing the Next Generation of College Science Teachers. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 26(6), 424-427.
Film Australia. Facing the Music (2001). Video.
Gaff, J. G., & Lambert, L. M. (1996). Socializing future faculty to the values of undergraduate
education. Change, 28(4), 38-45.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new
production of knowledge. London: Sage.
Hatton N., & Smith, d. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and
implementation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.
Havnes, A. (2002). Examination and learning an activity-theoretical analysis of the relationship
between assessment and learning. Paper presented at the Learning communities and assessment
Cultures Conference (EARLI SIG) University of Northumbria, 28-30 August
(http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002238.htm)
Hutchinson, G. (1984). The awful Australian. Victoria: Currey O’Neil Ross
Jones, S. (2003, 2003/08/08/). Is training failing to reach trainers? Times Educational Supplement,
29.
Kandlbinder, P. (2003). Peeking under the covers: On-line academic staff development in Australia
and the United Kingdom. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1/2), 135-143.
Kreber, C. (2004). An analysis of two models of reflection and their implications for educational
development. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 29-49.
Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (1999). Training college teachers. (Cover story). School Science
& Mathematics, 99(8), 413-417.
Leitner, E. (1998). The Pedagogical Qualification of the Academic Teaching Staff and the Quality
of Teaching and Learning. Higher Education In Europe, 23(3), 339-349.
15
Watters & Diezmann: Accrediting University Teachers
MacDonald, I. (2001). The teaching community: Recreating university teaching. Teaching in
Higher Education, 6(2), 153-167.
Marginson, S. (2003). Higher education reform in Australia - an evaluation. In Eggins, Heather
(Eds.), Globalization and reform in higher education (pp.133-163). Maidenhead: Open
University Press,.
Martínez, M., Gros, B., & Romaña, T. (1998). The problem of training in higher education. Higher
Education In Europe, 23(4), 483-495.
McArdle, K., & Coutts, N. (2003). A strong core of qualities--a model of the professional educator
that moves beyond reflection. Studies in Continuing Education, 25(2), 225-237.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moon, J. A. (2000). Reflection in learning and educational development. London: Kogan Page.
Nicoll, K., & Harrison, R. (2003). Constructing the good teacher in higher education: The
discursive work of standards. Studies in Continuing Education, 25(1), 23-35.
Prushiek, J., McCarty, B., & Mcintyre, S. (2001). Transforming professional development for
preservice, inserve and university teachers through a collaborative capstone experience.
Education, 121(4), 704-712.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge London.
Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E. & Clark, S. (1995) Recognising and rewarding good
teaching in Australian higher education, a project commissioned by the Committee for the
Advancement of University Teaching Canberra, Government Printer
Rowland, S. (1999). The role of theory in a pedagogical model for lecturers in higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 303-314.
Ryan, Y. (1996). The Graduate Certificate in Higher Education: Who enrols, who doesn't, who
drops out and why. Different approaches: Theory and practice in higher education. Proceedings
HERDSA
Conference
1996.
Perth,
Western
Australia,
8-12
July.
http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/ryan.html
Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D. (2000). University students' expectations of
teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 309-323.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic
Books.
Sears, D. (2002). Yes, but--remaking the making of teachers. Journal of Education, 183(2), 63-68.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1-21.
Soenksen, R. (1992, 29 October - 1 November). Confessions of a Professor, nee Actor. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago. (ERIC
ED 354 575).
Travis, J. E., Outlaw, T., & Reven, F. (2001). The preparation of the professoriate: Reviewing the
status of teaching and learning. Journal of Faculty Development, 18(3), 63-71.
Toohey, S. (1999). Beliefs, values and ideologies in course design. In Designing courses for higher
education (pp.44-69). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open
University.
Watson, J. S., & Wilcox, S. (2000). Reading for understanding: Methods of reflecting on practice.
Reflective Practice, 1(1), 57-67.
Wulff D. H. & Austin A. E. (eds.) (2004). Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies for Enriching the
Preparation of Future Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zeichner, K. (1986). Preparing reflective teachers: An overview of instructional strategies which
have been employed in preservice teacher education. International Journal of Educational
Research, 2, 565–575.
16