Archive for March, 2010
In a recent article published in the journal Active Learning in Higher Education (2009, 10: 172-184) Bantram and Bailey explored the responses of students to this very question at a university in the UK. Four predominant themes were noted (in relative order of importance):
- Teaching Skills: Students felt that an effective teacher explained ideas and concepts well; motivated and sustained student interest; used active-learning techniques; and acted as a facilitator to encourage and guide learning.
- Personal Qualities: Students valued personal qualities such as, “…being kind, helpful, patient, enthusiastic and having a sense of humor.”
- Relationships with Students: Students appreciated instructors who were friendly, approachable, and took the time to “get to know” them.
- Teacher Knowledge: Subject-matter expertise and knowledge emerged as the lowest ranked theme.
They summarized that, “…students appear to define good teaching largely on the basis of a range of skills and attributes that emphasize empathy and aspects of interpersonal relationships.” These findings support Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) classic Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, where an effective teacher is described to:
- Encourage contact between students and faculty;
- Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students;
- Encourage active learning;
- Give prompt feedback;
- Emphasize time on task;
- Communicate high expectations; and,
- Respect diverse talents and ways of learning.
The reality is that effective teaching goes much beyond developing subject matter expertise. From my experiences in higher education great teachers share two common characteristics: an extraordinary sense of humility; and, a strong commitment to continual improvement, based upon a fundamental motivation to inspire student success.
Although there are many benefits to enabling a community of collaboration, most universities struggle to implement collaborative initiatives due to inherent barriers in organizational structure, and long-held values in the prestige of rewarding and promoting faculty autonomy. Faculty are hired and rewarded for their ability to develop and lead independent research programs. Their teaching practice is inherently dependent on their individual abilities to disseminate and transfer their disciplinary knowledge and expertise. So how can institutions move “from a culture that supports individual work to the ones that facilitate collaborative work” (Kezar, 2005, p. 833)? How do we promote a community of academic excellence where faculty are encouraged to collaborate and to capitalize on their collective intellectual capacities in their role as researchers, teachers and contributors to their institutional, local and global communities?
Kezar (2005) suggests 8 principles for enabling collaboration in academic environments: a strong mission; integrated structures; institutional networks; appropriate recognition and rewards; clear priority from senior administrators; external pressure; values and learning. These principles are implemented through 3 key stages: Building an Institutional Commitment to Collaboration; Establishing a Clear Commitment to Collaboration; and Sustaining Collaboration.It is time for faculty and administrators to advocate for and establish a positive culture of collaboration within our academic communities. We need to focus on hiring a new generation of academics who recognize and actively translate the benefits of collaboration, and who fundamentally challenge and change the existing culture of elitism within our institutional contexts and structures. We need to provide funding and administrative support to interdisciplinary projects which emphasize the benefits of our collective intellectual potential and capacity to inspire positive change. We need to establish a tenure and promotion system that rewards, rather than questions the value of collaborative academic initiatives. We need to set clear institutional missions and to sustain a positive community dialogue which advocates for and communicates the benefits of collaboration. Not only do we need to focus our own efforts on collaboration, but we need to motivate others around us – staff, faculty, and students – to engage in collaborative work.
I hold strongly to a fundamental philosophy that the best leaders possess exceptional collaboration skills. They strive to bring out the best in themselves and others, by sharing knowledge and resources, thus building a reciprocal network of support and mentorship. The best academic leaders acknowledge and accept the limits of their individual potential, and demonstrate an ability to enable, empower, and learn from others. Together, we have the collective capacity and interdisciplinary potential to address society’s most complex challenges, and perhaps most importantly, to inspire positive change in the world around us.
Kezar, A. 2005. Redesigning for collaboration within higher education institutions: an exploration into the developmental process. Research in Higher Education 46(7): 831-860.
As accountability for the quality of teaching and learning in higher education garners increased attention from government, students, employers, professional organizations and society in general, many have argued for providing additional opportunities to train university faculty for one of their most important roles in higher education – teaching. Faculty development programs such as teaching scholars programs (e.g. Steinert, Nasmith, McLeod, & Conochie, 2003; Gruppen, Frohna, Anderson, & Lowe, 2003) and faculty certificate programs (e.g. Hubball & Burt, 2006; Hubball & Poole, 2003) have become increasingly popular across North America. Similar to many established programs in the UK, these initiatives are designed to bring together small cohorts of faculty to explore pedagogical theories, principles and practices, and to foster engagement in research on teaching and learning. Although specific program goals and outcomes vary by institution, most depend on providing an opportunity for faculty to meet intentionally and regularly to actively dialogue, and to provide a sense of reciprocal support and mentorship (Blanton & Stylianou, 2009; Hubball & Albon, 2007; Richlin & Cox , 2004).
Do these programs actually result in improved teaching and student learning? In one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind, Gibbs and Coffey (2004) would argue, “Most definitely!” They studied the effectiveness of teacher training programs at 22 universities in 8 countries, and found that those who had participated in university teachers’ training programs were more likely to adopt a learner-centred teaching practice, that their teaching skills and global teaching effectiveness scores improved, and that student learning was impacted positively by their engagement in these initiatives. Perhaps the most interesting finding was that faculty who did not engage in the teacher training programs actually reduced the extent to which they adopted a learner-centred teaching focus, and actually became more reliant on instructor-centred teaching practices. As learner-centred practices are suggested to promote a deeper and improved understanding of disciplinary knowledge and expertise, this result is especially substantial in its support for providing faculty teaching development programs.
I am a firm believer that most faculty are deeply committed to their teaching practice and to enhancing student learning. Faculty development initiatives provide important opportunities for instructors to develop confidence in their approach to teaching in higher education. They provide institutions with an important opportunity to promote excellence in teaching. And perhaps most importantly, they promote a positive teaching community which supports a common goal of placing the students at the centre of their university learning experiences.
Gibbs, G. and Coffey, M. (2004) The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching, and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87-100.
Gruppen, L.D., Frohna, A. Z., Anderson, R.M., & Lowe, K.D. (2003). Faculty development for educational leadership and scholarship. Academic Medicine, 78(2), 137-141.
Blanton, M.L. & Stylianou, D.A. (2009). Interpreting a community of practice perspective in discipline-specific professional development in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 34, 79-92.
Hubball, H. & Albon, S. (2007). Faculty learning communities: Enhancing the scholarship of teaching, learning and curriculum practice. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 18(2), 119-141.
Hubball, H.T. & Burt, H. (2006). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Theory-Practice integration in a faculty certificate program. Innovative Higher Education, 30(5), 327-344.
Hubball, H. & Poole, G. (2003). A learning-centred faculty certificate programme on university teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1/2), 11-24.
Richlin, L. & Cox, M.D. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning through faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 97,127-135.
Steinert, Y., Nasmith, L., McLeod, P.J., & Conochie, L. (2003). A teaching scholars program to develop leaders in medical education. Academic Medicine, 78(2), 142-149.
In a 2009 article published in Peer Review, Ken Bain and James Zimmerman explored how great instructors inspired a deep approach to learning. In comparison to surface learners, deep learners are said to take a superior approach to learning by relying less on memorization, and more on questioning premises, challenging assumptions and considering the implications and applications of the course subject matter (Marton and Saljo, 1976). It is within this learning realm that students more thoughtfully construct an understanding of course material, and perhaps most importantly, where they are more likely to carry their learning experiences forward.
Bain and Zimmerman summarize that, “Human beings are most likely to learn deeply when they are trying to solve problems or answer great questions that they have come to regard as important, intriguing and beautiful.” Students thrive in learning environments which provide them with an opportunity to explore and reflect upon how the course material has both personal and “real-world” relevance, and fundamentally challenges how they see the world around them. It is under these learning conditions that we, as instructors and fellow learners become wonderfully consumed by an inspired sense of curiosity and inquiry that is driven almost solely by the students.
The authors continue by stating, “…the best teachers–and this may be their most profound ability–find ways to link their own disciplinary concerns and interests with those of the students. [They have] the ability to frame questions in ways that would both capture the students’ imagination and challenge some of their most cherished paradigms.” Great instructors engage in a poetic dance between student and instructor, between comfort and challenge, and between the known and unknown – it is a complex dance that may take years to perfect. Yet, the reward is an educational system based on the very premise of providing students with the opportunity to develop the skills necessary to approach the world’s most complex challenges. If I could change one thing in higher education it would be to change our solution-driven quest for learning, to one that encourages instructors to ask and seek great questions that challenge the very basis on which both the instructors’ and learners’ understanding depends. Ask great questions and inspire a whole new generation of great problem-solvers.
Bain, K. and Zimmerman, J. 2009. Understanding Great Teaching. Peer Review 11(2):9-12.
Marton, F. and Saljo, R. 1976. Approaches to Learning. In Marton et al. (eds) The Experience of Learning (pg. 36-55).