Evolved Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Presentation

Wherever I lay my mat ...

Yoga is my life. Yoga is being. Yoga is coming home to myself.
My gratitude for this manifests in my utter bliss of oats, yoghurt, banana and prunes with coffee, for breakfast on special mornings like today, and every morning, that begins with my yoga practice and sitting.
The pre dawn sounds and silence wake me and my mat calls; from it's usual place, or rolled in a corner of some yet undiscovered space in an erstwhile home. It is my symbolic centering place. My day is balanced with my yoga practice and less focused without.
I am the guru inside myself thanks to the teachers in all their guises who have traversed my path, walked alongside me, beckoned me forward, nudged me ahead, challenged me and pointed me toward the light.
These are the permissions I give myself to be. This is what I am most grateful for.
So wherever I may lay my mat ... that's my home.

POT

Cross Faculty Peer Observation of Teaching:  Expanding Teaching and Learning Conversations

 Abstract:

This paper explores and highlights potential limitations of Peer Observation of Teaching imposed by the nature and culture in one discipline.  Adding peer observations beyond disciplines, delivers a richer set of experiences and perceptions of learning and teaching to expand learning and teaching conversations.  This research is important to improve on these limitations and filling a gap in the reported practice.  The participants in this research were formed into groups of four and observed and were observed by same and cross discipline peers.  The qualitative and quantitative findings were compared.  Evidence was found that cross and same faculty observations unfolded along different paths of enquiry.  Same faculty observers approached the observations from a content expert perspective, latterly moving to style and technique.  Cross discipline observers began with a student lens and more quickly moved to commenting on teaching methods and style.  All cross faculty observers reported the observations as learning experiences, and described the developmental opportunities of exposure to the different teaching approaches of other disciplines.  This paper will be of interest and use to all teachers and learners, and academic developers and small organisations looking for a model for enhancing teaching with peer observation.

Introduction:

Congruent with Shortland (2004), the purpose of this pilot study of peer observation in one university is to begin the journey towards increased professionalism in university teaching.  Peer Observation of Teaching (POT) at Bond University hopes to foster interaction between and amongst disciplines.  A conducive climate for such a scheme is vital to move beyond involving post graduate, newly inducted teaching academics, to the whole population of teaching academics.  A supportive culture can instil an ongoing process of intra and inter faculty peer observation.  It is a structured, scholarly approach to an interdisciplinary dimension of teaching practice comparing and contrasting the observations, critique, feedback and reflection of couplets.  To actualise this we also put in place a mechanism to disseminate our findings, capitalising on the shared good practice (Kember & McNaught, 2007) through a series of focus groups and web resources.  Observation of and by true peers, not just pairing seniors with novices, is used to promote double perspective learning where both parties in turn are the observed and the observer, and are afforded opportunities for insight into personal practice.  We found when we took academics out of the familiarity of their own disciplines and introduced a pluralistic model including cross faculty observations, teaching and learning conversations expanded from content focus to include a student-like perspective. We concluded that participation in the scheme has the potential to take lecturers beyond being subject specialists, to reflect on broader questions of content, learning, teaching philosophy and culture, and to build the cumulative narrative of excellence in teaching as a discipline.

This research began with the hypothesis that same faculty and cross faculty partnerships would yield observations polarised into two groups; content centred and learner centred, respectively.

A pilot study was conducted using Gosling and O’Connor’s Collaborative Model (2005).  This model is based on equality between peers and reciprocity of benefit, not feedback as judgement about quality.  By recognising the range of teaching activities that promote and support student learning, cross team discussion and the introduction of new ideas occurs.  Participants were drawn from all the faculties of Bond University; Business (Bus), Law, Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), Health Sciences and Medicine (HSM), and the Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture (ISDA), as well as Bond College.  Participants observed each other’s teaching within their own faculty and across faculties.  To complement the observations we collected Likert Scale data using the same questions as the internal student evaluation of teaching (TEVAL) system.  This allowed for measurement using the same question set and response scale, for consistency not only between faculties, but also for comparison with student responses. 

The study paired both inter and intra faculty participants to examine any differences in the ways that the observations occur and are recorded and reflected upon, and to encourage engagement with the teaching method, not just familiarity of content.  Each academic observed twice; one observation of a same faculty academic and one observation of a cross faculty academic: and was observed twice; once by a same faculty academic and once by a cross faculty academic.

I volunteered expecting to be monitoring others in their teaching. Instead, I discovered that they were reminding me of all the good intentions and practices which I had some years ago, and had let slide. I was reminded of the words of the song, 'Kids, teach your parents well'. (Law Lecturer, 2011)

Literature Review:

About every 10 years there is some resurgence of peer review but this time it addresses academic dissatisfaction with student evaluations as sole arbiter of quality and it assists with the collection of evidence of quality and of development using a scholarly process.  To complement student evaluation of teaching is Smith (2008) proposed a model of peer review, whereby academics observe and provide constructive feedback on one another’s teaching.  There are also affordances for quality enhancement (QE) in an increasingly regulated sector and to compete on league tables comparing universities in the quest for international and local students.  The literature in this area provides many papers that are aspirational, espousing position and ideology.  Of these, the concentration is on qualitative anecdotal reporting within schools or disciplines.

In 2005, Bell wrote a guide titled, 'Peer observation partnerships in higher education', published by the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. A search of the literature revealed a paucity of empirical evidence in support of, or to challenge, the facilitation of peer observation of teaching as appropriate use of university resources. The Griffith PRO Teaching team have now reported on 10 dimensions of observation with examples of evidence (Klopper & Drew, 2012). This is used in conjunction with their peer observation form, to indicate teaching and learning strategies for observations.

The ALTC Peer Review of Teaching in Higher Education Handbook – (Harris, Farrell, Bell, Devlin & James, 2007-2008), suggests there may be four types of program design:

A.      a program for the purposes of enhancing the teaching environment

B.      a program for the purposes of raising the standard of teaching quality

C.      a program specifically for new staff

D.      a program specifically for sessional staff

There are benefits for individuals as well as organisational units and whole institutions.  For the institution or organisation unit and in tandem with student evaluations, peer observation increases the volume and focus on teaching and provides a way of analysing common practice for focused professional development.  For individuals the benefits include:

-          Feedback on teaching for development

-          Evidence for use in promotion, probation, awards

-          Affirmation of good practice

-          Broader knowledge of curriculum taught by peers (intra-faculty)

-          Insights into how colleagues teach and ideas for teaching

-          Improved relationships with colleagues

-          Opportunities to develop skill in scholarship of teaching

The label of peer review by inference and history suggests negativity, with a review being perceived as a critical opinion and report, rather than a constructive critique or analysis.  Non-judgemental observation is the key action to develop.  In terms of design, this project began with a name change and ensuing shift in attitude from review to observation.  The real change in emphasis is not in the syntax but in the semantics and meaning imbued into the process as it is promoted: critique versus criticism.  In an environment characterised by real or perceived problems of time management for preparation and organisation by participants (Martin & Double, 1998), where academics don’t want to be saddled with administrative functions, the challenge is to cultivate a climate of cooperation.  Shortland (2004) observed that peer observation had become more prevalent in the academic landscape of the UK since the mid 1990’s, primarily as a political tool to improve quality of teaching through the sharing of good practice.  She saw a shift in the attitude of participants from mere compliance with management to a motivated agenda for continuing professional development.

At the inception of peer review the concept of the ‘critical friend’ (Handal, 1999) began the discourse of active and useful peer teaching critique.  Although it was established to create an environment of safety and give the participants the courage to engage in peer review, the observer was most often a senior staff member, mentor or manager, someone in a position of power, and therefore not a true peer.  For the purposes of this research we have considered peers as perceived through self-concept; how we rank ourselves through social comparison within the university.  This was described by one of the academics as follows:

We have senior and junior academics in terms of our research record and our publications and so on.  I wonder if we do have senior and junior teachers.  We’ve people who have taught less often, but what makes a senior teacher, is it someone who has been doing it a lot longer than you?

You get into bad habits, you get complacent.  Whereas in my experience the younger teachers are so keen, so keen to learn to teach and to actually judge the feedback they’re getting from the students by body language or whatever, they’re probably far better teachers than old lags like me who’ve been doing it for years. (Law lecturer, 2011)

While the role of support colleague as ‘critical friend’ (Handal 1999) is one of the vital elements for effectiveness, it was reported that feedback is invariably encouraging.  The “all boats float on a rising tide” metaphor is the only collegial model that will work for development.  Reciprocal associations and roles ensure there is consideration for the peer as something more like “equal” and reduces any perception of a power distance.  If ‘critical friend’ was an oxymoron it would reveal a tension.  In a developmental model there a greater need for a “trusted professional friend”.  In a summative role, for the same reasons, the observer or peer must remain at arm’s length so they can be an “objective and trusted critic”.  Some support colleagues mentioned how much they gained from the opportunity to observe: collegiality and expanding the academic leadership role.  In Martin and Double’s study (1998) participants selected their own partners and since the pairs shared perceptions of discipline and teaching philosophy this was ‘felt to have supported the smooth implementation of the scheme’ (p 166).

Although consideration is put forward as to the usefulness of cross faculty or school observation (Donnelly, 2007; Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004), no empirical study has been conducted to analyse the comparisons and contrasts of such observations.  The closest match is O’Keefe, Lecouteur, Miller and McGowan (2009) who discuss multi-disciplinary peer observation, but within a single faculty, not across multiple faculties.  They mention that some participants ‘sought the fresh eyes of a colleague from a different discipline’ (p 1063).  Other studies cite cross faculty observation as it relates to what is considered best practice teaching differing between disciplines (Newman et al, 2012; Donnelly, 2007), and how perceptions of the process differed or were similar (Schuck, Aubusson & Buchanan, 2008).

Often discussions with same discipline peers are centred on the content of teaching rather than pedagogical knowledge and procedures.  The framework suggested by Martin and Double (1998) of pre-observation meeting, observation, and feedback meeting, looked to address this misalignment and assist higher education teachers to cope with the broad needs of contemporary students.  This sought to activate a shift in emphasis from subject knowledge and content to a balance with skills to support learning.  Further anecdotal evidence from observations of researchers and participants, but not empirical data, suggests that the background feeling is that heterogeneous (Handal, 1999) or cross faculty peer review will likely yield more complete, authentic, impacting observation, because there is some difference in culture and industry expertise.  This translates into greater attention to how the teaching occurs, not what is being taught.  Commentary is expected to be more forthright as the observer is one degree more removed from the observed.

Indications of the potential benefits of cross-school observations were posited by Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond (2004) who documented that some lecturers reported previous experience of observing in other departments or schools, and saw advantages in discovering how different disciplines approached the ‘craft’ of teaching.  Their concern was that in an unknown domain, the observer may be unable to make an informed decision or judgement, but they did not go so far as to suggest this would be detrimental (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004).

Further indication for the direction of analysis for this paper to interchange the roles of observed and observer, was Shortland’s (2004) identification of the double perspective.  Strengthening the model is that the Educational Developer, another of the three elements, monitors Teaching Development Program (TDP) to ensure the process is effective through all cycles, and experience is positive and useful (Bell, 2001).  One concern is the extent to which this intervention influences the process, and the capacity to engineer a positive outcome, thus proving the hypothesis.  This research sought to achieve a sample of observations producing uncontaminated data for analysis, by having the researching academic developer, filling the role of a ‘critical friend’ (M. Healey, personal communication, May 29, 2012) providing process instruction and guidance only.  Bell (2001) also raised the question of how to ensure reflection provides a worthwhile learning process when feedback is always positive.  Peers are always supportive of peers and are rarely critical to the point of providing fuel for developmental intervention for the observed teacher.  It is always important, for development, that some “ideas for enhancement” are generated in agreement between peers and an implementation “how to” plan is discussed.  In this way the low hanging fruit of development can be addressed; simple stuff that will make a quick and noticeable difference to some aspect of their teaching craft.  Obtaining feedback from students as a contrasting perspective adds validity to the perceived need for change and in follow-up efficacy and impact of any change made.  If no developmental advice is considered and tested, all development is through the indirect lens of reflection and analysis.  Praxis is about using research to change practice so the doing step is important.

Donnelly (2007) identified further areas of research in subject domain and generic matching of observer and subject as a way of increasing academic debate.  Pratt (1997) discusses beliefs, intentions and actions as the interacting conceptions of the teaching.

We submit that the cross discipline observer, far from being a mere technique checker, provides the ability to comment in a meaningful way through a learner’s lens.  Pratt (1997) questioned whether moving the focus of observation from the academic’s discipline would reduce the critique to points of technique.  This paper provides evidence of analysis that indicates how a process of inter and intra faculty peer observation can provide feedback on all the interacting aspects of teaching, beliefs, intentions and actions, from various perspectives and through conversation. It is ‘collective reflection ’.

Method and Methodology:

In 2011, Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee research project approval was granted (BUHREC RO1200).  Using Design Based Research (DBR) methodology (Barab & Squire, 2004) this paper presents an empirical, evidence based contribution to the scholarly literature.  Although the discussion is limited to one small group within Bond University, it is the intention of the researchers to expand this research via collaboration with the Griffith PRO Teaching team.

Context matters and as learning and teaching theory is an applied field, participant researchers bring their own agendas to their work.  The use of a Design Based Research Model such as Kelly, Lesh and  Baek (2008), seeks to produce theories on learning and teaching.  The research involves design (intervention), takes place in a naturalistic setting (the classroom), is iterative (creates and trials a model, asks participants what they thought, evaluates, revises and retrials, seeks feedback and refines).  There is an ‘expectation that researchers will systematically adjust aspects of the designed context, so that each adjustment serves as a type of experimentation allowing researchers to test, generate theory, and retest in a naturalistic context’ (Barab & Squire, 2004, p 3).

The context of this research, the delivery of education in a university setting, is at its most basic a system of inputs (content), processes (teaching) and outputs (learning).  It also has similarities to Biggs (1987) 3P Model of Student Learning, where three stages of presage, process and product, work together to effect study behaviour.  In this setting the stakeholders are the consumers (students), the producers (teachers and tutors), internal community (peers, program convenors, university hierarchy), and the external community (disciplines and professions).  The students may also be producers; producers of feedback.  The affordances of this design framework suggest how the program will unfold (Norman, 1988); the iterations that occur through test and retest.  These exist relative to the action capabilities of a stakeholder, independent of the stakeholder’s ability to perceive it, and within the changing needs or goals of the stakeholder (Gibson, 1979).

Using the methodology of DBR, we collected qualitative and quantitative teaching observation data from participants in naturalistic settings, and transcripts from the focus groups of observed and observers for perceptual evaluation of the experience.  In this research, the researchers came to include the participants in a living practice of Action Research, as used by Zuber-Skerrit (1994) for a theoretical framework of professional development in higher education, and Carr and Kemmis (1986) who identified with critical reflection for education knowledge and action research.  The participants’ willingness to embrace a change orientation was evident.  As they progressed through the program they traversed Kolb’s (1984) cyclical experiential learning process, from concrete experience to self-reflection, evaluation and conceptualisation, then active experimentation, from where the cycle begins again.

In Semester 2, May 2011 the Office of Quality Teaching and Learning (QTL) conducted a pilot POT study with academics representing all Bond faculties (n=14).  Each academic observed twice; one observation of a same faculty academic and one observation of a cross faculty academic: and was observed twice; once by a same faculty academic and once by a cross faculty academic.  The structured program we developed (See Appendix B for an extract from the ethics application.) set the ground rules to ensure consistency and allow measurements, from which we could seek inferences.  After an initial group orientation session, participants arranged and conducted their observations throughout the semester.  From intra and inter faculty pairings, a total of 28 inter-faculty and 28 intra-faculty observations of teaching occurred.  The pro forma POT form was provided.  (Appendix x)  Of those returned, 15 of the 17 cross faculty forms and 7 of the 8 same faculty forms contained usable responses.  The researchers acknowledge the limitations of the data collected from a small sample group of lecturers sharing a willingness to enquire into their teaching and their students’ learning. 

Analysis:

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for statistical analysis of the quantitative data.  Analysis of Likert Scale (1-5) data of evaluation of teaching questions obtained from the POT Forms is tabled below in Figure 1.  Across all respondents, and comparing cross and same faculty responses, most questions exhibited little variation in the mean response.  With sample sizes of n=7 or 8 it is dangerous to draw conclusions about significance, but still useful to extrapolate the results.  All means were above 4.  It may be inferred from this result that the eager and engaged nature of the participants led to a skewed sample population and thereforethe positivity and optimism of results.  However at the 5% level of significance on a mean response of 4.5/5 then a “significant” difference might be at least +/-0.225/5.  That being the case, two constructs are worth revisiting quantitatively.  For example – “the educator provides timely feedback”; and “the educator challenges me to do my best” both show a significant difference.  Using the lens of cross discipline observer as providing a student view, what do these two constructs indicate?  Timely feedback is important for formative assessment questions so that students can clarify concepts before building upon them.  A cross-discipline observer may be looking to test their own understanding in order to test the efficacy of the teaching.  For the “challenges students” question there is a 4.2 vs 4.8 mean, which is a greater than 13% difference.  The notion of being challenged to do their best is about keeping students in the zone of proximal development so they have to struggle to build and test their mental models.  In this way it is works in conjunction with the timely feedback question, as students will be looking for feedback as part of the mental model testing.  What is most important is that the cross-discipline observer felt challenged or felt that the students must have been challenged and maybe transferred their own perceptions to students.  Further data would need to be gathered and examined to see if significance and correlation persisted.

At the end of the semester we conducted two different focus groups: one to discuss being observed, and one to discuss being an observer.  An additional focus group covering both aspects was held to allow for timetabling difficulties.  There were 13 contributors over 3 groups.  NVivo qualitative data analysis software was used to analyse these transcripts.  The completed POT observation forms were divided into two groups: same faculty observations and cross faculty observations.  An examination of the comments recorded revealed the following.  Same faculty observers concentrated their attention on content expertise.  Comments on technique used specific content examples, from the observation and their own experience.  For example the law lecturers referred to ‘posed a challenge’ and ‘judicial notice’, and the medicine lecturers illustrated their observations with ‘genetic counselling’ and ‘emotional impact’ statements, identifying with their “discipline knowledge in the subject matter being taught” (Kreber, 2002, p.15).  Cross faculty observers framed their comments from a learner’s perspective, often referring to ‘engagement’, ‘eye contact’, ‘interest’ and ‘vicarious learning through storytelling, links and metaphors’.  In conversations about the POT project some reported a conscious mental shift from immersion in the observation as a learner, through a feeling of information saturation (around the 10 to 15 minute mark), to conscious attention to the observation of the teaching technique.

An NVivo analysis of the focus group transcripts highlighted eight concept clusters.  A manual analysis of the POT Pro Formas identified the same themes expressed by the individual observers.  The NVivo analysis and data reduction and sorting, allowed further separation of the themes to associate observations of same and cross faculty.  The researchers in this phenomenographic analysis were then able to identify and bracket the concepts with reduced bias and contamination from their own expectations or involvement in the work of facilitating the peer observation partnerships.

The emergent themes are outlined below, each with a descriptive context and illustrative comments from multiple focus group participants representative of all faculties and identified as same or cross faculty observations.

1.            Participation:  The willingness and motivation, and associated fear of being part of a peer observation process.

Same faculty:

I initially went in for the observations being a bit selfish, because I wanted to see what are they doing that I can use in my own teaching and use that.  (HSM Lecturer, 2011)

It’s the initial thought that’s daunting, but when you actually go through it it’s not a big deal at all.  (ISDA Lecturer, 2011)

Cross faculty:

I think there is a difference to going to observe, or being observed by, someone from another faculty.  In a vague sense, there’s less threat.  The guy from Business isn’t worried that I’m going to be talking down the corridor and saying “You should have seen what he did!”, which is not going to happen, but there is that slight element of fear when you’re putting yourself up for observation.  (Law Lecturer, 2011)

2.            Consciousness:  Awareness of being observed by a peer/s.

I was far more conscious of my own Law peer being there than I was about someone from another faculty.  [After about 10 minutes] I’d forgotten that I was being observed which is interesting to me.  I was obviously conscious that I was being observed but by 100 undergraduates, not a couple of peers.  (Law Lecturer, 2011)

3.            Preparation:  Of content and delivery, with peer observation partners and because of peer observation partners.

In terms of preparation there was nothing I did that was special just because I was being observed, because the point being they should observe a typical day of teaching not someone performing for them or something like that so there was no special preparation.  (HSM Lecturer, 2011)

4.            Content:  Comparisons of engagement during the observation.

Cross faculty:

It might get us closer to appreciating the quality of the teaching […] areas that we aren’t familiar with, because we are then also going through the learning experience.  I was far more able to assess the teaching when I was actually learning in the process.  (Law Lecturer, 2011)

When you’re in a different field you don’t really need to understand the stuff, just the teaching style.  (HSM Lecturer, 2011)

I found it really good because you were just able to watch the teaching as it happened and think, am I learning like the students as well.  It sort of made me feel like a student – that was good.  (Business Lecturer, 2011)

Same faculty:

[It was] very difficult not to participate.  (HSS Lecturer, 2011)

Because I know the content [I had] more time to focus on student participation.  (HSM Lecturer, 2011)

5.            Performance:  How, or if, the observed lecture changed because the lecturer was being observed.

Both same and cross faculties:

[It’s] as if the ghost of the observer is still in the room.  So in a sense I’m, performing is an awful world, but I’m delivering my class as if there were an observer in the room.  It is a form of reflection I suppose.  That’s what I’m doing – I’m self-reviewing almost, self-observing.  (Law Lecturer, 2011)

Cross faculty:

[It’s] potentially off-putting than being observed by someone who wasn’t, because my approach to someone who wasn’t from my faculty was, well they are learning in the same way my students are learning.  (Law Lecturer, 2011)

6.            Feedback:  The experience of giving and receiving feedback.

Both same and cross faculties:

I think I was a little bit nervous giving the feedback because I was quite honest in my peer observations.  (HSM Lecturer, 2011)

I took this quite seriously, I went into this situation observing based on what we’d been asked to do in terms of the materials given to us, but then I also explained things in terms of, that as a fellow teacher I appreciated these aspects of what you’ve done as well.  (HSM Lecturer, 2011)

A lot of positive reinforcement plus some suggestions.  It’s important to give feedback in a professional manner that is supportive and not destructive.  (ISDA Lecturer, 2011)

7.            Reflection:  Continuing self-evaluation.

It gives us another perspective too. I think we all realise we’re actually all doing the same job. 

How you’re delivering it, basic things like expressions and the amount of work you might put into getting some good quality exercises up and running and things like that.  You know, you’re giving a damn and making a bit of an effort.  (ISDA Lecturer, 2011)

So, I think that reflection lives on beyond the actual exercise.  It does for me anyway.  (Law Lecturer, 2011)

8.            Collaboration:  Applying feedback to make changes in teaching.

[We] did something jointly together so it enhanced relationships.  (ISDA Lecturer, 2011)

[I’m] using the technique that he suggested in my lectures.  (HSM Lecturer, 2011)

The cross faculty observations have clearly added an extra layer to the reflection and conversations experienced by the participants; beyond same faculty validation.  On the whole the participants reported the experience was worthwhile and informative, as summed up by this comment. “It wasn’t ‘This is the time where I will be critiquing what you did.’  It was a conversation.  It was comfortable, positive and I got a lot out of it.”  (Law Lecturer, 2011).  Many participants actively developed the relationships formed through the project, continuing the conversations begun and going on to collaborative projects.  One relationship in particular has put this scholarship of teaching in motion.

Both [HSM Lecturer] and I have a keen interest in education and technology research.  [POT] lead to a successful cross disciplinary research opportunity working on the integration of 3D models and the Unity games development platform, for enhanced multimedia e-books and medical anatomy education.  The continued working relationship has seen [us] work on two additional grants. The first being a joint Royal Society UK Grant between Bond University and Coventry University’s Serious Games Institute.  The aim of the grant is to extract best practices and value stream/chain in the design, development and deployment of games technologies on a mobile and social platform to support health promotion.  The second being a faculty of Humanities grant to apply the theory of human motion control and gesture based learning to examine applied medical imaging for first year anatomy students via a 3D human skeleton and associated character rig controlled via the Xbox Kinect.  This opportunity to evolve the application of games technology to medicine has been possible through the cross discipline collaborations between the Faculties of Humanities and Social Science and Health Science and Medicine.  (HSS Lecturer, 2022)

Discussion:

This research began with the hypothesis that same faculty and cross faculty partnerships would yield observations polarised into two groups; content centred and learner centred, respectively.  This has been born out to a point, but through the course of the cross faculty observations, comments about both learner centeredness and technique have emerged.  Likewise in the same faculty observations, there were comments on both content and technique.  The participants behaved consistent with Pratt’s (1997) interpretevist sociology where he stresses the importance of remaining receptive to other teaching styles and methods, and awareness of teaching context.

To delve into the substance of what was observed and therefore to frame or understand our observations, we found references bound up in the literature of evaluation of teaching.  When formulating her concept of how higher education teachers can engage with teaching Kreber (2002) identified scholars of teaching to be both expert teachers and excellent teachers.  She further described the construction of pedagogical content knowledge as being the meeting of the expertise of discipline and knowledge of how to teach, to attain expertise in teaching.  This is helpful to understand how the observation unfolds in practice.  A cross-faculty observer, positioned in a zone that has some pedagogical knowledge but little or no content knowledge, impacts on the dynamic of observation.  It is not just the fresh eyes and ideas and broader collegial relationships referenced earlier that are the sole advantages.  The student-like lens of an external observer provides a collegial way to express student-like concerns.

The following focus group anecdote illustrates just one example of how the POT cycle is collaborative and enhances teaching.

I was first observed by the same faculty person and it was very early on in the semester and he made a really good suggestion about, instead of me just talking throughout […] and asking people to discuss where everyone kind of looks at each other […] he suggested, which was a really good idea, is to break them up into little groups and then ask them to discuss among their groups and then within those people one person presents so there’s no pressure on the others who don’t want to speak up but would still like to communicate their ideas .

And that was a great suggestion which I used throughout the rest of the semesters, discussing in groups and then ‘what were your ideas’ and ‘what were your ideas’ then put the ideas up on the whiteboard and then map it to the actual content of the slide saying “oh look you covered most of it intuitively anyway” and the theory behind it.  So that was a really good technique.  (HSM Lecturer, 2011)

I saw [her] doing that very effectively in the one that I looked at anyway, observed, and you could see that process so you obviously picked that one up very strongly because you were doing it.  (Law Lecturer, 2011)

You went to my last lecture so it worked out perfectly.  [He] came in the last lecture so I got really good positive feedback which left me with a glow...  (HSM Lecturer, 2011)

By the inclusion of cross faculty pairings, we have presented a set of observations which encompass an evaluation of both teaching and learning.  This is worthy of further investigation.  The different valences could be overlaid to build a richer evaluation of teaching and to substantiate the value of peer observation as a resource for continuous improvement in an open system of teaching.

From the first design iteration, and through discussion with the Griffith PRO Teaching Team, we have made some changes to the POT form.   The form is reordered and now provides a section for self-reflection.  We have aligned our ‘Educator Questions’ with the student evaluation questions.  The questions now mirror the Bond student evaluation questionnaire (TEVALs) and will allow us to correlate the answers for evidence and use in professional development [for example using Smith’s (2008) BETTER Framework model].  Participants have commented:

Peer observation in that way truly helps because if you’re teaching an unpopular compulsory subject which students don’t like you just have the TEVALs to go by, whereas if you had a peer observer looking at your style of teaching then you kind of get a sort of 360 degree feedback which is obviously what you want.  (It) distinguishes between the educational experience of the student and the ability of the teacher.  (HSS Lecturer, 2011), and,

Having peer observations a number of them throughout the semester is a great way to keep things fresh and make sure everything is on track properly and getting feedback and continue updating on techniques and suggestions and things like that.  (HSM Lecturer, 2011)

In the second iteration of the POT Project in 2012 we have developed the web resources available on the Bond Teaching and Learning web pages.  In Semesters 1 and 3 academics are able to access an online orientation session, download the POT form and register their interest as an observer and/or observee via an interactive link.  In Semester 2 Bond Learning and Teaching is running a guided POT project.  Orientation consists of a half hour briefing followed by actual live observation with ‘guinea pig’ lecturer in real classroom followed by a group debrief session, with the lecturer.  There will be four lecture observations (two observing and two being observed) and a final one hour focus group.  One participant this semester described this as ‘set and forget’.  The researchers agree the ultimate aim is for the project to be self-perpetuating, but there will always be a role for the teaching and learning representative as a ‘critical friend’.

Conclusion:

Our research expanded on the limitations in the literature on peer observation of teaching by including cross faculty pairings.  The results delivered a broader perspective in the teaching and learning conversations and professional development of the participants, exposing them to different teaching approaches and facilitating inter-disciplinary collegial relationships.  On campus our aim is to increase participation in the POT Project, providing professional development and evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning best practice leading to increased student confidence in teaching, and fostering a cross campus collegial environment of collective reflection among academics.  Support for the project has been expressed by participants, for example:

... the formality to the process I don’t think is a bad idea at all.  It’s not just for your research, it’s something that’s embedded into the quality, teaching, learning of the university as a whole.  That way you’re picking everybody up so if you’re an exceptional teacher other people are getting exposure to those people and learning off them and if you’re not so great you might feel, ok well I actually need to lift my game because I’m underachieving and getting a bit complacent in my teaching methods and styles.  (ISDA Lecturer, 2011)

Beyond Bond we see expansion via collaboration with the Griffith PRO Teaching team and the opportunity for cross campus peer observations of teaching, exploring additional variables of class size differences and socio economic community impact.

References

Barab, S. & Squire. K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.

Bell, M. (2001). Supported reflective practice: a programme of peer observation and feedback for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development. 6(1), 21-28.

Bell, M (2005). Peer observation partnerships in higher education. Milperra, NSW: HERDSA Inc.

Biggs, J. (1987).  Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Education Research.

Donnelly, R. (2007). Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19, 117-129.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.

Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gosling, D. & O’Connor, K. M. (2005). From peer observation of teaching to review professional practice (RPP): A model for continuing professional development (CPD). Educational Developments, 7(3), 1-4.

Handal, G. (1999). Consultation using critical friends. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 79, 59-70.

Hammersley-Fletcher L. & Orsmond, P. (2004). Evaluating our peers: Is peer observation a meaningful process? Studies in Higher Education. 29, 498-503.

Harris, K-L., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin, M. & James, R. (2007-2008). Peer review of teaching in Australian higher education: A handbook to support institutions in developing and embedding effective policies and practices. Melbourne: Australian Learning & Teaching Council.

Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A. & Baek, J. Y., Eds (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. New York: Routledge.

Kember, D. & McNaught, C. (2007). Enhancing university teaching: Lessons from research into award-winning teachers. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Klopper, C. & Drew, S., (2012). Defining and developing a rigorous literature-based approach to peer observation of teaching. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence, teaching expertise, and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 27(1), 5-23.

Martin, G. A. & Double, J. M. (1998).Developing higher education teaching skills through peer observation and collaborative reflection. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 35(2), 161-169.

Newman, L. R., Brodsky, D. D., Roberts, D. H., Pelletier, S. R., Johansson, A., Vollmer, C. M. & Schwartzstein, R. M. (2012). Developing expert-derived rating standards for the peer assessment of lectures. Academic Medicine, 87(3), 356-363. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182444fa3

Norman, D.A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

O'Keefe, M., Lecouteur, A., Miller, J., & McGowan, U. (2009). The colleague development program: a multidisciplinary program of peer observation partnerships. Medical Teacher, 31(12), 1060-1065. doi: 10.3109/01421590903154424

Pratt, D. D. (1997). Reconceptualizing the evaluation of teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 34, 23-44.

Schuck, S., Aubusson, P. & Buchanan, J. (2008). Enhancing teacher education practice through professional learning conversations. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 215-227.

Shortland, S. (2004). Peer observation: a tool for staff development or compliance? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(2), 219-228.

Smith, C. (2008). Building effectiveness in teaching through targeted evaluation and response: connecting evaluation to teaching improvement in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 517-533.

Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1994). Professional development in higher education: A theoretical framework for action research. London: Kogan-Page

 

Games People Play

Beyond novelty: Aligning game genre and mechanics with learning theories for student engagement.

Businesses and high schools recognise and exploit learner engagement through the use of particular games or programs and assess the use of and learning from these games. In higher education we (Penny and me) are framing the cognitive process of how the learning occurs in this new culture of learning via a Gaming Theory Curriculum model.  Far from being unstructured play, gaming curriculum demonstrates highly organized achievement level quantifiable learning outcomes. Our research will show how a curriculum model of gaming theory has been developed through the subject of computer game design and how this model can be adapted and replicated across other subjects and other disciplines. In addition to aligning game genre and mechanics with learning theories for student engagement, we will also demonstrate a model where multiple outcomes are assessed by a process of reverse engineering, where the steps towards the final 'answer' are retraced to discover where and to what extent the desired learning objectives have been achieved.

Applying Nulty's (2012) Relational Curriculum Design and combining this with Tasker's (2012) cognitive learning concept where constructivism meets reflection, we will show how student engagement can be achieved and enhanced. Students become active participants in designing their own learning trajectories, are motivated to succeed, and engage in deep learning with the content within the boundaries negotiated with the teacher. The teacher partners and mentors in the learning process, guiding students to seek their own destinations, each of which can be unpacked and assessed using criterion marking.

And that's where we're starting...

Here's One I Prepared Earlier.

Academic developer identity: how we know who we are
Shelley Kinash and Kayleen Wood

This paper explores academic developer identity by applying self-concept theory and appreciative inquiry to the personal journeys of two academic developers. Self-attribution, social comparison and reflected appraisals are presented and applied to explain how academic developers form their identities. Sociological principles are incorporated to describe the recursive informing of academic development and developer identities. The presentation of implications positions academic developers as higher education leaders.

Keywords: academic developer; identity; self-concept theory; appreciative inquiry

Introduction
In the tertiary environment, the landscape of academic development units has evolved from activist voices articulating what was taught, and to whom (Lee, Manathunga, & Kandlbinder, 2010), to a primary focus on how teaching and learning occurs in a climate of professional development (Clegg, 2003). Carew, Lefoe, Bell, and Armour (2008) unpacked the contested context of academic development in which academic developers interweave theory and practice, pro-activity and responsiveness, and discipline-specific and university-wide supports. Who we (the authors of this paper) are in our roles as academic developers and how we interpret our ‘selves’ determines how we work to bring about academic development’s emerging ethos in relation to research and service to the broader university’s and societal endeavours (Harland & Staniforth, 2003, 2008).

This paper is written by two academic developers, one of whom is also the unit director. Through the methodology of appreciative inquiry (AI) (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2003; Reed, 2007) the commonality we have discovered with one another, and most of our academic developer colleagues, is our passion for our field and our opportune entry into the terrain (Fraser, 1999). Our writing partnership produces rich contextual constructions in that I (Shelley) am an ‘insider’ (Fetterman, 1998; MacKenzie, McShane, & Wilcox, 2007), having been a university academic for 16 years, and Kayleen has the fresh insight that only ‘outsider’ status will catalyse (Kinash, 2006). In addition, whereas I am on the metaphorical right side of the tracks with an academic appointment and having been a teaching academic, she is a victim of the stigma (Goffman, 1959) of being on the ‘wrong’ side, with a general staff appointment and coming from industry (Harland & Staniforth, 2008).

Method
AI was chosen as the method for this inquiry because it created the framework to analyse our situated perspectives (Haraway, 1998) on identity questions of academic development in a rich context of self-concept theory. Cooperrider and Whitney (2003) defined AI as, “the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate and heighten positive potential” (p. 173). The ‘system’ explored in this article is that of academic development in the univer- sity context. The questions posed are about the identity of academic developers, how that identity is formed, and the implications for academic development.

The empirical data forming the basis for the research are the articulation and juxtapositioning of the personal journeys of partnering academic developers – one an ‘academic’ academic developer and the other a ‘professional’ academic devel- oper (Harland & Staniforth, 2003, 2008). In using a sample size of two to inform this inquiry, we acknowledge the importance of ‘thick description’ and seeking personal constructions of meaning in experience (Agee, 2009; Donham, Heinrich, & Bostwick, 2010). AI was used to adopt and apply the processes pioneered and advocated in academic development literature in that we:

• shared our personal journeys as academic developers (pioneered by Stefani [1999]);
• used our personal journeys to provoke “unruly questions” (as advocated by Peseta et al. [2005, p. 60]);
• interpreted the implications for academic developer identity through the lens of self-concept theory, in acknowledgement of Carew et al.’s (2008) compelling testament to the ubiquity of theory.

Whereas all of the academic development literature pays at least occasional homage to a positive, cheerful stance toward our field, the distinctive contribution of this paper is that we do so explicitly and transparently. AI provided the framework for us to take an optimistic and appreciative stance on the positioning and status of academic developers within higher education.

The structure of this research and paper follows the four phases of AI as outlined by Cooperrider and Whitney (2003): (1) discovery (asking questions); (2) dream (envisioning possibilities); (3) design (applying possibilities to the context); and (4) destiny (actioning the sustainable change). The ‘discovery’ phase of this research consisted of us articulating our histories as academic developers, collecting and analysing artefacts of that journey. The questions that we asked were about how we know who we are as academic developers. We applied self-concept theory and academic devel- opment literature to extend beyond the authors’ identities to elements held in common with other academic developers. Interpreted through the framework of AI, this analysis comprised the interwoven ‘dream’ and ‘design’ phases, in that we considered the possibilities for the contribution of academic developers to higher education given the particularities of the academic development context. Finally, the ‘destiny’ phase of the research consisted of synthesising outcomes of the other phases to articulate recommendations and implications for higher education academic development.

Self-concept defined
Our definition of ‘self-concept’ is collections of inter-related beliefs about who we are (Goffman, 1959; Gorrell, 1990; Rosenberg, 1989; Gecas, 1982; Marsh, 1990). It is important to recognise that self-concept is a socially constructed means of organising and theorising our beliefs about who we are. Applying the lens of self-concept is one way of conceptualising the phenomena and is not intended as a positivist depiction of our reality. Self-concept includes many allied concepts such as ‘self-esteem’ (how good I feel about myself) and ‘self-efficacy’ (my belief that I can achieve specific goals). We subscribe to a spiral model of self-concept wherein the ‘I’ can be concep- tualised as the centre (Kinash, 1995; Pyryt & Mendaglio, 1994; Rosenberg & Kaplan, 1982). There are multiple dimensions of self-concept and some are closer to the ‘I’ and others are farther away. Whereas there are elements of self-concept that seem stable across environments, people and contexts (global self-concept), people are also malleable and how we perceive ourselves varies according to our circumstances (Pyryt & Mendaglio, 1994). In other words, there are certain elements of Kayleen- ness and Shelley-ness that are constants no matter whom we are with and what we are doing. We are identifiable to others and to ourselves by our constant characteristics. We are also adaptable and metaphorically chameleon in our contexts.

As academic developers, when we are at work and in interaction with our academic colleagues, intellectual elements of our self-concept are salient and reflected in the vocabulary of our dialogue. In the spiral model of self-concept, identity is most robust when the individual integrates community norms and values, which are central to self-concept within this perspective (Henkel, 2005). Identity is constructed along two interactive axes, internal and external, and individual and collective, in a continuous and reflexive process (Henkel, 2005) to achieve dynamic homeostasis, preserving the character of the self through growth. As organic, open identities, we use internal processes of review to scan our environment and adapt to changing factors, while staying focused on our core competencies. These modifications culmi- nate in our quantitative and qualitative ability to respond to future contingencies (Emerson, 1954), which has proved itself over and over in our journeys through the faculties, schools, disciplines and diverse personalities of the academics with whom we work. In recognition of the intricate university dynamic of economics and pedagogy, the teaching, learning and research nexus has become the new paradigm where the university as a business entity sustains itself. These changes have not been simply driven from outside by external forces. Explained by the theory of hegemony (Humphreys & Brown, 2002), universities have been complicit in, and active agents of, their own transformation (Marginson, 1999), recognising the need for diverse academic developers including those who are able to see from the outside in and from the inside out.

Discovery phase: self-concepts of the authors
Our AI addressed the question of ‘what are our self-concepts as academic developers?’. In other words, who are we, the authors, within this context? This empirical discovery phase was an essential component of our research. Academic identity is not a fixed, unified constant across all persons hired into this role, but a uniquely applied and enacted construct with commonalities rather than essentialisms. Reflection, conversation, constant comparison and examination of artefacts led to the articulation of explicit depictions of our self-concepts. It was an element of self-concept that drew me (Shelley) to the field of academic development. I see myself as a leader and have always found resonance with pursuits that have a social justice component:
    
    Once there was a seemingly dangerous river. Person after person came floating by flailing their arms and calling for help. Passersby rescued person after person, pulling them out of the river. Finally, along came a person who walked upstream to see from where the drowning people were coming. It turns out that the bridge across the river was weak and people were falling through to the water below. The bridge was repaired and the near drownings ceased.

I like to see myself as that person who metaphorically investigates upstream and catalyses the bridge repair. In fact, the compliment that I have heard most often throughout my career is that I am good at building bridges. This compliment rein- forces my self-esteem and my motivation to work as an academic developer. Using this river analogy is not to say that academics are the equivalent of ‘near-drowning floaters’. In fact, it is usually quite the opposite in that the vast majority of academ- ics are competent and talented. Using the metaphor of swimming, my role is most akin to that of stroke improvement, in that I observe academics’ strengths and sup- port them only where they specifically want and/or need my help. This is a comple- mentary role for one’s self-concept. We are more likely to carry out roles when we feel successful in these pursuits (De Cieri & Kramar, 2004). It is rewarding to work in academic development because teaching academics how to write learning out- comes and align them with assessment tasks, for example, is linked to positive change in the student educational experience (Morss & Donaghy, 1998). Harland and Staniforth’s (2008) research on academic developer identities from six countries indicated that a helper value-base was one of the few elements held in common by most academic developers. A key component of academic developer self-concept is the macro-influence and contribution.

Academia found me (Kayleen) in a serendipitous sequence of events, but still orchestrated by my subliminal search for a meaningful avenue of contribution and voice. As a business professional and communicator since 1993, I am now an outsider challenged with imposter syndrome (Leary, Patton, Orlando, & Funk, 2000), launched into academic development, forming a conduit between the processing of the inputs/students of the university, the outputs/graduate outcomes and industry relevance, and the processors/academics (Rhoades & Slaughter, 1997). Where Shelley’s role might be described as general manager, I am the production manager, directly involved in research, grant- and contract-writing, and generating secondary revenue (both financial and figurative) for the institution.

In my role as academic developer, I like to see myself as the person who helps others hone their message and find their voice (Lavelle, 1997). My reward is the sense of achievement I inculcate in academics, when the teaching and learning grant proposal is finalised and the application submitted. A complementary key compo- nent of academic developer self-concept is the micro-influence and contribution. My self-concept is in alignment with what Rhoades and Slaughter (1997) call a managerial professional, marked by the characteristics of a traditional liberal professional. I am the bridge between faculty and administration, but not wholly in either category. I translate the academics’ pedagogical world into accessible public discourse. This role is reconcilable with my sense of corporate self. My self-concept has been defined by my ideological and political position in interaction with the interests of the stakeholders (Goffman, 1959) in private enter- prise and male-dominated professional organisations over the past 18 years. My sense of self was shaped by the command-and-control leadership style (Dubrin, 2001; Powell & Graves, 2003) of these business entities. Towards the other end of the continuum of organisational styles, I now find myself in a profession described as primarily female orientated (Haraway, 1998). The academic development unit is frequented by members, including Shelley and me, who exhibit cooperative and empowering styles of leadership, encourage participation in decision-making, and nurture others to achieve (Acker, 1990; Powell & Graves, 2003). Each requires a different level of immersion in the pool, a different amount of stroke-correction, and sometimes saving from drowning.

Dream and design phases: academic developer/development identity – how we know who we are
Within the context of academic development the dream and design phases of AI are cohesive and interactive. The dream of what academic identity can be and accom- plish is reflexively interactive within the intrinsic, unconscious design process by which our identities are informed. For the academic developer, conceptualisation of who we are is perhaps less important than how we know who we are because our role is inextricably informed by the roles and identities of those working around us and where we work. While not implying that academic developers and academic development are homogeneous, our theme-based inquiry into the people we are within the bounds of academic development illustrates a merging of personal self and work self that is undeniable.

Self-concept theory tells us that there are three ways that we know who we are (Pyryt & Mendaglio, 1994). One means is ‘self-attribution’ (Yara, 2010). This means that we observe ourselves. We note our successes and our challenges and use this to inform our identities. For academic developers, the successes that we attribute to ourselves depend on the experiences of others (i.e. secondary self-attribution). One of the functions of an academic developer is to support academics’ self-nomination for citations recognising contribution to student learning. This process is already once removed in that the academics are cited for their contributions to their students’ learning. The academic developers are subsequently commended on the basis of the number of successful nominations for their university. Secondary self-attribution is further complicated because an ethical and effective academic developer does not write the nomination for the academic, but creates the conditions that empower the academic to write a successful application, such as through building confidence and helping the academic find her unique voice. This can be confronting to the academic developers’ self-concepts in that one of the capacities that likely persuaded the institution to hire them is their articulate and expressive written communications. Academic developers cannot override the self-expression of the academic, even when it is not up to standard. Within the theory of self-attribution, this means that the academic developer is sometimes in the position of being judged on others’ work, and possibly, work considered uncommendable. When the results are returned, does the academic attribute the number of awards to their own self-concept? As argued earlier, it is difficult not to interpret the results as a reflection of self. Such are the secondary complications of academic developer self-attribution.

Another way in which we know who we are is through ‘social comparison’ (Bui & Pelham, 1999; Burleson, Leach, & Harrington, 2005; Vohs & Heatherton, 2004). What this means is that we compare ourselves to others and, based on how we ‘measure up’, decide who we are. Upward comparison means that we compare ourselves with others who are higher ranked or of a higher figurative caste than ourselves. Too much upward comparison can be hard on one’s self-esteem and become depressing. Downward comparison means that we make ourselves feel better by ranking ourselves against those whom society deems to be lesser. In universities, it is much easier to compare upwardly rather than downwardly. One quickly forgets that only 3% of the entire tertiary educated population has achieved a PhD (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003). Within the ivory tower, one develops the distorted view that nearly every citizen has a doctorate. On campus there are always those who have published more, read more, earned more competitive grant income and been invited to perform more keynote addresses. The game of conversationally one-upping one another is commonplace.

Again, academic developers are in particularly precarious positions. Academic developers find themselves figuratively stacking their blocks on the table building a tower high enough that academics will see them as worthy colleagues. While it is sociologically necessary to have colleagues in a lesser position in order to engage in self-esteem-building downward comparison, those deemed to be lesser are often disrespected. Whereas academics will not overtly ask their faculty colleagues direct questions about what, how often, and where they publish, they will, and do, ask academic developers. It is often open season on scepticism for academic developers’ credentials.

To cross the drawbridge to the ivory tower of academia is to present a very different facade as compared with what academics commonly and collectively refer to as the real world (Foucault, 1972b; Heidegger, 1977). In that corporate world I, Kayleen, was not called upon to prove myself on a day to day, case by case basis. The demand to prove one’s worthiness and to continually reclaim one’s place in the academy appears to be a universal experience of academic developers (Harland & Staniforth, 2003, 2008). Attribution theory of behaviour (Robbins, Millett, Cacioppe, & Waters-Marsh, 1998) ensures that my designation and inclusion in a particular organisation or professional body ascribes a given level of expertise and respect. There is a master–servant relationship that persists over time as clients come to me with problems to be solved or statutory requirements to be fulfilled, and I as the deemed authority relieve them of anxiety and fear. I wear the mask of Kayleen the accountant or business consultant and no one tries to remove the mask (Donahue, Robins, Roberts, & John, 1993). On campus, I am no longer the smartest person in the room. This subset of the population is heavily skewed towards the pointy end of the bell curve, and there is a tussle for lesser and lesser figurative, and sometimes physical, space. The academics I work alongside are all experts in their respective fields and want to rank me before they will disclose their Achilles’ heel, which is exactly what I am here to nurture, add value to and mould into a promotion of themselves, thereby creating a business plan or proposal to sell themselves for figurative and literal profit.

The third means of informing one’s self-concept is called ‘reflected appraisals’ (Amorose, 2002; Bois, Sarrazin, Brustad, Chanal, & Trouilloud, 2005; Hergovich, Sirsch, & Felinger, 2002; Quinlivan & Leary, 2005). We decide who we are based on what we perceive others think of us. The key word is perception. There is often a difference between how we think someone sees us and how they actually do. In fact, one of the key strategies of therapists is to reconcile perceptions so that there is a closer match between people’s perceptions of how they think others see them and how others actually see them. The other complicating variable in reflected appraisals is that different people have different valences. In other words, some people’s views matter to us more than others. Within the university, for example, it is more likely that the academic’s self-concept is more influenced by whether she thinks that her Dean likes her than by a colleague in another faculty. Depending on whether the affiliation to the career or the university is stronger, some inter-university academic developers have a higher valence for one another’s self-concept, whereas for others, intra-university Deans and Pro Vice-Chancellors carry greater weight.

The need to conform within the existing paradigm is exacerbated when academ- ics privilege social identification with those above them. This homosocial reproduc- tion ensures the continuation of rites and traditions (Foucault, 1972a, 1972b). Success and progression must be earned in the same way as the incumbents (Kennedy, 1998; Elliott & Smith, 2004). Academic developers need to develop thick skin and/or consider the source of negative feedback, explicitly assessing the relative valence. The nature of academic development means that people in these roles figuratively put their heads where bullets fly. Changing student evaluation of teaching and thereby messing (Devault, 1990; Moss, 2009) with professional development reviews and promotion applications does not put academic developers in high esteem of others, or (through the process of reflected appraisals) of oneself. Supervising curriculum review and challenging the efficacy of assessment will not win popularity contests for academic developers, and yet are critical elements of our role. Through the self-filtered judgements of academic clients, academic developers decide who we are and whether we can stand, and even be warmed by, the heat.

In summary, there are three key ways that academic developers inform their self-concepts. One is self-attribution. The outcomes of our work reveal our specific strengths and weaknesses. For example, one academic developer takes pride in the number of citations awarded to the academics he has supported. Another academic developer recognises her strength in framing teaching and learning research. Another means of informing self-concept is social comparison. As academic devel- opers we compare ourselves with one another across universities, and we compare ourselves with the academics and chancellery within our home institution. Finally, we know who we are through reflected appraisals. We perceive what and how these others think of us, and filter this to inform how we think about ourselves.

These three theories of self-concept formation are grounded on a Western, individualist paradigm. Even though each situates the individual as a social self, the theories are primarily drawn from social psychology rather than sociology. Who is this ‘self’ in the context of other selves? How do my comparisons against you make me feel about myself? How does how I think you judge me make me feel about myself? Considered in isolation, these theories are narcissistic and convey a false sense of intent and control, whereas the context of academic developers is altruistic rather than self-absorbed, and interdependent rather than independent.

In order for self-concept theory to be informative regarding the identity of academic developers, we must interpret the theories through an ontological overlay. Writing in the context of academic development, Lee and McWilliam (2008) discussed a Foucauldian perspective on identity. Foucault (1972a, 1972b) revealed the history of subjective meanings, unconscious consensus on truth and social behav- iours dynamically developed in a time and place context. Applied to self-concept, this means we are not free spirits with uniquely defined and self-determined identi- ties. As much as we might attempt to redefine ourselves through interrupting, challenging and critiquing the power forces that shape our identities (Peseta et al., 2005), we are bound by the threads that interweave us and, furthermore, we cannot see that from which we are looking out. Each self-identity is informed by and informs the contextual group identity. This social self, or self in the context of oth- ers, explains why there is such an emphasis in the literature on the identity of the field of academic development. Who we are as academic developers at one and the same time is reflexively (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000; Kincheloe & Berry, 2004) determined by and determines the meaning of the field of academic development.

Literature indicates that undefined identity as academic developers may arise from an amorphous identity of academic development centres. Harland and Staniforth (2008) and Land (2001) presented the identity of university academic development centres as “fragmented”, defining the term as holding few characteris- tics in common, including its ontology. Palmer, Holt, and Challis (2010, p. 171) depicted many academic development centres as “turbulent environment[s]” owing to unstable, transitory structures and executive leadership and changing mandates. MacKenzie et al. (2007) described the academic development role as increasingly “performative”, which means that academic developers are measured on the basis of external indicators of value-added rather than authentically enacting values of higher education.

Lack of solid career identification makes personal identity more important. Henkel’s (2005) academic identity theory explains that this is because people within minimally defined and weakly bounded contexts do not have the security of community attitudes and values. People in tight, definitive communities have vernacular and shared understandings that define not only their group, but also themselves. The literature we have reviewed throughout this article indicates that academic developers do not have the benefit of these defining ways of knowing and being. Specific to academic development, Harland and Staniforth (2003, p. 26) wrote, “As ‘regular academics’, neither of us recalls being concerned about ‘identity’ until we started our careers in academic development”. It is, therefore, not surprising that some academic developers portray selfhood as an identity crisis (Lee & McWilliam, 2008).

There is a growing body of knowledge about the disparate ways in which aca- demic developers see themselves. Just as academic development identity is pre- sented as diverse and conflicted, so too is academic developer identity (MacKenzie et al., 2007). Academic developers assert that their work is not understood by those outside of university academic development centres (Harland & Staniforth, 2003, 2008; MacKenzie et al., 2007) and that conceptualisation is highly variable by the academic developers themselves (Fraser, 1999; Harland & Staniforth, 2003, 2008). Further, analyses of the place of academic developers in universities reveal that persons working in these roles are stigmatised victims of hegemonic forces (Harland & Staniforth, 2008). Being marginalised within their place of employment further exacerbates a lost sense of self.

Destiny phase: implications for academic development
The final phase of AI research is posing the question of how to activate and sustain the vision and design over time and in complex environments. Trying to locate our selves within the dialectical tension of academic development as a discipline or as a managerial tool (Grant, 2007), and somewhere inside the acknowledgement of teaching and learning as a credible/creditable pursuit of continuing professional development (Clegg, 2003) allows us to create corridors for information, learning and respect, connecting university hierarchy with the individuals of the institution. Instead of polarised activities, we see faculty academics and academic developers, and teaching, learning and research as scholarship partners, with the integration of all parts of the academic personality forming a cohesive whole. Academics innovate in teaching and learning through identifying and applying evidence-based approaches to enhancement of student learning. Academic developers are teaching and learning innovators through identifying and applying developments in higher education across universities and by enhancing scholarship beyond the disciplinary boundaries. Academic developers require dynamic, positively informed identities in order to develop and maintain the courage that this leadership position requires. Beyond the individuals, the nexus of research with learning and teaching means that academics actively research in their own classrooms and recursively apply their findings to enhance their teaching and their students’ learning, whereas academic developers are Handal’s (1999) “critical friend(s)”, providing balance and direction, while remaining impartial with a “new leaderly disposition” (Lee & McWilliam, 2008, p. 75).

Reflexive inquiry into the experience of being an academic developer reveals four recommendations. First, use the self in academic development, engaging with academics, using one’s personal strengths and building relationships. Second, embrace the leadership role of academic development, envisioning, guiding and mentoring the teaching and learning process. Third, be kind to oneself as academic developer and to colleagues in the same occupation. Academic developers face numerous challenges and must strive to remain confident, positive and optimistic in order to influence change. Fourth, seek opportunities to contribute to a collective identity of academic development. Examples of collective contribution include collaborating on inter-institutional grant proposals and writing projects in the domain of academic development. In summary, recommendations are to strengthen one’s position as an individual and unique academic developer and use that self-identity to develop a collective identity of the field of academic development.

Conclusion The gap in the literature addressed through the present article is an empirical the- ory-based depiction of the processes by which academic developer identity is informed. This article applies AI and self-concept theory to the personal journeys of academic developers to inform how we know who we are. The implication of this exploration is that understanding the processes that inform our identities will help academic developers self-efficaciously assume our rightful places as higher educa- tion leaders (Taylor, 2005). However, as Land (2001) asserted, our roles as academic developers mean that the better we are at facilitating change, the less others will know that we were instrumental in its orchestration. With the expansion of the knowledge-based economy and the need to increase the capacity to serve it, the relevance of academic developers into the future is in creating the climate to nurture change. We acknowledge the positive experiences and strength-base of our study to encourage widespread inclusion, growth and development, as opposed to looking to the deficit model and seeking to repair or reform. Far from being invisible or even redundant in the future, our interpretation is that the role of the academic developer is assured, positive, active and sustainable.

Reference List available on request.