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...
Wednesday, 17 October 2012
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
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.
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.
Monday, 1 October 2012
Wednesday, 5 September 2012
Curriculum Design: Nothing new under the sun, or a new sunrise?
Try searching under the key words of curriculum development and you soon discover the relative scarcity of recent literature on the combination. While reports of practice, some very good practice, and examples of content and rationale are available, have we really seen anything new in the last almost 20 years? And given the rapid changes in learning environments and the emergence of the collective culture of learning shouldn’t we be? Look at the scholars of the field; Biggs, Bloom, Toohey, Perry. When was their work done? Where are they now; emeritus professors passing the baton?
Where does that leave us as curriculum developers or commentators some two decades since the last big thing in curriculum development? Contrary to popular belief curriculum design did not begin with John Biggs Student Approaches to Learning (1987) and Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment (1996). There were other models before, and as unlikely as it may seem, students still learned … and they became the teachers of today.
A programmatic approach designs a course to meet a need. A course evaluation approach focuses on the student experience to inform course design, where the creation of a certain learning environment will predict learning outcomes. The epiphany moments cannot be planned and designed for. All these models look at a discreet item of curriculum and approach design from that perspective.
Is it possible to construct a learning experience that is going to meet everyone’s needs? Biggs’ (2003) principle of Constructive (build and develop) Alignment (teaching, learning and assessment) as a ‘system of interrelated, sequential items’ for outcomes based curriculum design, gives us a robust repeatable model; a model derived from both the teaching and learning perspectives, and designed with the end in mind. Thus good curriculum design is a ‘transitional sequence (of activities) supported by linked items of assessment; Relational Curriculum Design’ (Nulty, 2011). The relational model is a way of delivering constructive alignment.
Course curriculum design is underpinned by identifiable characteristics of good design. A targeted approach can be used. This is constructive alignment where learners construct meaning via cognitions and teachers deliberately align learning outcomes with learning activities measured by appropriate assessment and feedback.
Relational Curriculum Design (RCD) (Nulty, 2011) is a process model for operationalising constructive alignment. It elucidates a rigorous, theory-based, repeatable process of curriculum design to make transparent and articulate what is usually only happened upon through experience and intuition. By combining Nulty’s (2011) Traffic Light Learning Model of acquisition, understanding and application, with assessment at the heart, RCD is the reality filter of what and how to do in curriculum design for constructive alignment.
Sunday, 26 August 2012
Great Expectations or Entitlement?
The overriding theme in anecdotal discourse and the literature of, and surrounding, teaching to a net generation is expectation. For a generation beginning life less than two decades ago, Negroponte (1996) observed a change from ‘atoms into bits and pixels’. Andone, Dron and Pemberton (2009), as Tapscott (2009) advocates of ‘grown up digital’ and ‘digital students’, reported on digital technologies integrated as a feature of everyday life and acknowledged that digital students use technology differently from previous generations, that is, fluidly and simultaneously. They tested the desirability and future development and evaluation of learning spaces informed by digital students’ attitudes, posing the question: What is now a learning space? And challenging the leap of correlation that use equals learning use.
A practical rationale for, and experiences with integrating [video games] into K-20 curriculum was presented by Annetta (2008). Wang Wu Wang (2009) expanded on this purporting that acceptance of m-learning by individuals is critical to the successful implementation of m-learning systems, and therefore identified a need to research the factors affecting user intention, including a study on age and gender variables. They found age moderated effort expectancy and social influence, where gender differences moderated the effects of social influence and self-management. Kazlauskas and Robinson (2012) began with the premise that 21C students are expected to utilise emerging technologies but their findings reinforced the observation that [podcasts] were not embraced by everyone, despite flexibility and mobility of learning opportunities. Significant numbers of learners preferred face-to-face and read or listen study environments.
Our relationship, as teachers, with technology determines how we teach to a net generation. This is articulated by Tapscott (2009) who tells us technology is only technology if you’ve never seen it before. Maushaus (2011) gives us the ‘fish in water’ analogy: Whoever invented water, it wasn’t fish. Fish inhabit water. They live in it. The net generation, is unable to step back from the technology and comment on it. They don’t acknowledge it. It is a given. This phenomenon can be observed with any change at any time in history; with any technology and any generation.
Donnison (2009) asks, ‘Who’s teaching the teachers to teach?’ She argues Gen Y’s understanding of lifelong learning has been influenced by their engagements with digital technologies, and that while they may have appropriated the discourse of change, this does not indicate overall capacity for change agency. Teachers in Gen X and beyond, as adopters of change will have a different relationship, entitlement and expectation of learning with technology than their students at any time in history and constantly evolve and move to align pedagogy with curriculum. We are concerned with the use of technology in an ‘art for art’s’ sake manner? Also where do we divide the generations? Is there an overlap? Are there anomalies that are a moving target in a 3D space? We see these same concerns from Wang, Wiesemes and Gibbons (2012) who raised vital questions about what constitutes a meaningful mobile learning experience, taking into account differing biographical and life stage factors. They challenged the ongoing tension of generation aligned with use of technology and expanded this to a discussion of digital fluency of all learners.
Monahan (2007) observes that continuous enhancements and literacy have resulted in a generation of students who expect increasingly more from their e-learning experiences. This has seen radical change from text-based environments to more stimulating multimedia systems, now extended to mobile platforms, always more available and more convenient for users. She reminds us that providing truly collaborative and interactive mobile learning tools is still a challenge. These thoughts are pursued by Hardy’s (2010) concept of practice architectures framing the social world and considering political, material and cultural pressures supporting increased use of new technology and stimulating productive teaching practices, but concerned by the availability of resources inhibiting delivery to a self-described entitled population of students.
But I think Thomas and Brown (2011) understand and articulate contemporary learners best when they describe, not a new process of learning, but a new culture in which organic learning grows, adapts and questions.
ePortfolio - a portfolio that is electronic, but with more ...
In a teaching environment where there is always a new tool promising to enhance student learning, and expected in the teacher’s repertoire, ePortfolios are a recent entrant. Rather than just accept that this wonderful new resource will aid in your teaching and deliver elevated results, we must ask, ‘Where’s the teaching and learning?’ Without this foundation, today’s new tool quickly ends up on the scrap heap with yesterday’s discarded fads. However, research to date has concentrated on ePortfolios as an assessment tool attempting to solve assessment and accountability issues. To establish where and how the teaching and learning occurs in ePortfolios, let’s look to literature which reported on ownership and sharing with ePortfolios.
Studies have identified ePortfolios as an important learning and assessment tool because they encourage students to create individualised knowledge, rather than demonstrate knowledge through exams, essay, and research projects (Goldsmith, 2007). Research has further identified that students enjoyed creating the portfolios and were encouraged to think about what they had learned, as well as the professional knowledge, skills, and abilities they acquired. Evaluation of the rubrics for portfolio assessment showed that students scored either on-target or acceptable on all criteria being assessed by the rubric (Buzzetto-More, 2010).
One study outlined three steps for making electronic portfolios more meaningful to students (Ayala, 2006):
1) Slow down the development process to allow broader participation by students and faculty.
2) Democratise the development. Building on a constructivist knowledge paradigm instead of a top down mandate will motivate key users to proceed.
3) Be open to discuss why electronic portfolios are right for the institution.
Of particular note, another study emphasised students’ perceptions of ownership and social learning throughout the process. It reviewed students’ comments with respect to students’ enjoyment of the process, how usage is incorporated into knowledge, and the reflective process. It identified three levels of reflection. The first level comments on content, the second comments on self as a learner, and the third level is illustrated with comments on evaluating the quality on their own work.
Although all these studies describe improving student learning, very few illustrate this with students’ voiced concerns or needs. The student’s role in electronic portfolios is portrayed as something done unto them, rather than by them, with administrators doing most of the planning and designing.
A University Needs Assessment Case
At Bond University, we carried out a needs assessment as an exercise for discussion about how both students and lecturers used ePortfolios for learning and assessment, rather than as an assessment tool. We looked at students’ voiced concerns and needs for learning and how they described ePortfolio use for improving their learning. Our focus was on what the students were doing (Kember & McNaught, 2007), and then how the lecturers were interacting with them, via ePortfolio.
We expected examples of student use of ePortfolios where they asserted their own intellectual property, and used the ePortfolios for collaborative purposes. We hypothesised that learning would emerge as a theme in the discourse of participating students. The provision of an ePortfolio is intended to promote ownership of a contextual (Ramsden, 2003) professional online identity and deeper engagement with content.
To best assess the feasibility of the ePortfolio platform as a learning tool, three volunteer groups representative of departments and faculties across campus participated and experienced various levels of immersion in the capabilities of the ePortfolio. This ranged from not doing much at all and being overwhelmed by what to do, through muddling through some sort of peer and lecturer feedback for iterative formative assessment items, to creating ongoing portfolios in which to accumulate a body of work and give personality and philosophy to the learning experience. The groups were surveyed at the start of the semester and again at the end, to allow us a window into their thinking, feeling, use and engagement.
Our research to date has uncovered avenues we weren't expecting, but are excited by. One lecturer has developed a plan for her students to accumulate three exemplary items of their work over the year, for feedback, comment, and then inclusion in their portfolios of learning for future professional use. Current conversations with other participating lecturers are revealing other instances where renewed focus on assessment for learning and interactive process has occurred. Creativity and critical thinking has happened, not just as a graduate attribute for students, but in continuing professional development for the teachers.
At this point in our research journey, have we backed ourselves into a corner and do we find ourselves unable to make a recommendation of a definitive ePortfolio platform? The answer is no. Open conversations with the lecturers to determine their goals for their students and how they think these can be best achieved will reveal how ePortfolios need to be woven into our Blackboard LMS, iLearn. Further investigation into the workings and accessibility of available student portfolio tools may prove one avenue. Existing Blackboard advanced tools may, with training, complete the picture.
The real question about ePortfolios is, 'Where is the learning?', and in the midst of the administration, we as educators, can't lose sight of this. Points to consider are: How can I use it? How does it enhance student learning? How else can we achieve the same thing? It is also prudent to ask ‘What’s in it for the teachers?’ because adoption of teaching tools and commitment to the integration into curriculum design and alignment with assessment and learning outcomes is paramount (Biggs & Tang, 2007).
Take-away lessons
When deciding whether to use an ePortfolio in your teaching, start by assessing student needs and concerns. This needs assessment will help you to identify the variance between the existing situation and the desired learning environment. Then decide how, or if, an ePortfolio will fulfil that need.
An ePortfolio is most often utilised as a means of student assessment, and in doing so, keep in mind that it must have the following attributes.
It must be:
a) Authentic so that students are able to use ePortfolios beyond the educational institution;
b) Creative and multimedia;
c) Across subject platforms to demonstrate learning across whole of degree;
d) Context-specific;
e) Professional and polished;
f) Accessible for peer-review; and
g) A tool for formative assessment.
There are numerous ePortfolio choices available in the market place. As an educator, you are looking for a platform as a means to enhance student learning and engagement. This is coupled with the capacity for timely and iterative feedback on assessment and collaborative group work with internal and external partners and educators, templates for reflective practice, and ongoing access for alumni. A further overarching 'selling point' may be the ability to launch seamlessly from your learning management system. In any respect, the decision to implement any ePortfolio platform pivots on its capacity to enhance learning, its relating operation as a perceptual and formative tool, and the stakeholders’ engagement in the organic process.
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
This Yoga Teaching Life
Every morning is yoga at sunrise for me; just a short practice, but there every day giving me balance, flexibility and strength. Sunday 22 March 2009 began just that way, then off cycling along the beach front road from Burleigh to the Gold Coast Spit. Outside the Mermaid Beach Surf Life Saving Club I came to an abrupt stop when a car turned in front of me. I don’t remember what happened after I swerved and squeezed the brakes. I woke up gazing into the wheel arch of the car. It felt bad.
The lifesavers picked me up off the road and flat-packed me into the First Aid Room. The paramedics came and did their thing with calm efficiency. In the hospital Emergency Ward time passed in a haze of x-rays, observation and ice. Sometime in the evening the orthopaedic surgeon came with the news: displaced fracture of the right clavicle and shattered acetabular (pelvis). What did this mean? I’d need a lift to work in the morning. Oh how optimistic I was: traction for six weeks, then “We’re not sure, but you’ll be in hospital for at least three months.”
Going from 25km hour to zero, broken, with bruises that I never got to see and being inside my head with my fears and phobias was terrifying. This wasn’t my life. This wasn’t in the plan. The next 10 days or so were a blur of doctors, nurses, surgery, metal pins and traction weights, as I realised horizontal immobile life. Even in this time somewhere in my head Yoga Nidra (Yogic Sleep) kicked in. Relax, centre, concentrate, and meditate. The night times and weekends were the hardest because they lacked activity and routine that I could mark. I started metering blocks of time in week days then weekends; sizable chunks that my brain could cope with ... not six weeks, 42 days, and the scariness of what might or might not happen then. Retreat to Yoga Nidra, again and again: safe, constant, achievable.
I remembered reading the autobiography of Dr. Tenzin Choedrak, personal physician to the Dalai Lama, and the accounts of other people who found themselves in confined spaces. They still managed their yoga practice in stillness. They mentally pictured their bodies doing the asanas, breathing and taking their minds through the sequence of postures they were unable to do. I had time and I needed focus. Every morning I pictured myself on my yoga mat at home, fluid and graceful, physically whole and living my yoga practice.
In the early hours of the morning, a patient two beds along from me was crying and waiting for her next pain medication. I’d never seen her, me being flat and literally screwed to the bed. I was also so concentrated on healing myself, visualisation, repelling any infections and sending positive energy to my injury sites, I’d never engaged with the other patients. Deep full yoga breathing was working for me and I knew the Prana energy would help her too.
“Juleen? Are you okay?”
Crying, “No. It hurts.”
“Let’s breathe together. Can you put one hand on your tummy near your belly button and the other on the top of your chest near your collar bone?”
Crying.
“Let’s slow down our breathing and count the breath in and out to a count of eight or six maybe. Start by inhaling, filling the lower abdomen and feel the lower hand rise up, then fill the lower ribs and upper ribs. See the top hand rise. Hold the breathe in at the top for one or two counts, then exhale from the top to the lower abdomen, feeling the hands fall and lastly sinking the belly button to the spine. Again to a count of eight, inhale ..., hold ..., exhale... In your own time, inhale and exhale.”
Gradually her crying subsided and I heard her sleep breathing in the dark of the night. Some 45 minutes later, she roused much calmer.
“Juleen, how are you doing?”
Sniffling, “Okay.”
“You’ve been asleep.”
“Really?” Sniff, “Thanks.”
Remote yoga and the power of the mind! I still smile to myself and get goose-bumps recalling this story.
The weeks passed and I felt stronger. My body was healing. I could feel it inside. Follow up x-rays heralded my release from traction and removal of the pin above my knee, saw me standing with the aid of two physiotherapists. They caught me when I fell due to my blood pressure plummeting with my change in altitude. Walking meant hopping on my other leg and pushing a shoulder height wheelie walking frame from the bed to the bathroom. The round trip of about 20 metres took half an hour, and I was exhausted. How did I ever train for hours each day? It seemed insurmountable. With dogged determination I pushed myself around the ward, then ventured out around the nurse’s station. I was barely recognisable. One because they’d never seen me vertical and two because I looked like Vampira: long hair, pale, with dark circles under my eyes, skinny and wasted, wearing hospital issue boy’s pyjamas.
Determined to go home, I mastered three stairs, up and down, on crutches, so that my rehabilitation could truly begin. First morning home, yoga mat in its usual place on the floor, I crumpled to the floor and laid in Savasana (Lifeless Body or Corpse posture) ... and that was it. Tears ... I could stretch my left arm up over my head, and breathe. After feeling sorry for myself and then feeling ridiculous, the biggest challenge of the day was getting back up off the floor. I’m not that resilient, and I didn’t try again for a little while. I didn’t have any movement in my right knee. After having been pinned and immobilised for six weeks, my quad muscles had solidified and my knee was locked like a rusty hinge on a gate. The doctor’s orders: no weight bearing on my right leg for six more weeks. Well, that just wouldn’t do. Between physiotherapy and osteopathy, and sheer determination to get off the couch, my goal was to be able to again sit in Virasana (Hero pose) with my buttocks on my heels. We measured my progress firstly by how many degrees my knee would bend, then by how much I was closing the gap to my heels.
The physical practice of yoga came back into my life. Achieving previously expected postures now represented my benchmarks and goals. I spent two more months at home with time and more time. I surpassed all expectations of how mobile I would get and I do not have residual pain. I truly believe all this is because of my dedication to my yoga practice and its reward. It is amazing how the body heals itself and tells you what it needs, if you just listen, but it is exhausting. Things I had never consciously considered: steps, doors, cars, crossings, escalators, carrying a cup of tea to the couch. I still get excited when I can walk to the letterbox.
Yoga and the ability to be inside myself in stillness, mindfulness and meditation, drew me forward and healed me physically and mentally. I discovered empathy within myself. I now understand that sometimes, “I can’t” means just that, but it doesn’t mean you don’t try again tomorrow. ... and sometimes things sneak up on you. I can do Padmasana (Lotus position) again, well almost, and my favourite Gomukhasana (Cow Face posture) is looking symmetrical and poised. As I plan to escape to Bali for a yoga retreat this year I am just so thankful that way back in Redcliffe in the 1980s I went to my first class at the Community Centre and began my lifelong journey with yoga. The teacher was a beautiful, wiry and wizened lady, Joy. I embraced yoga fully with Sinnamon at Labrador in the 1990s, and Jessie from Radiance Retreats in the 2000s. Thank you to each of these special women. Namaste.
Sunday, 18 March 2012
The Fame Game
Evaluations of teaching, electronic or not, are here and here to stay if the US experience is anything to go by … and it is. But let’s look at the teacher’s reactions and the emotional (psychological) place they come from, why this is so and how to best manage this.
The negative perception, culture and marketing of evaluation of teaching sees most teachers assume one of four default positions on the release (dissemination) of the evaluation results. Described by Arthur (2009) as shame, blame, tame or reframe, each of these derives from a deficit model of investigation. Each reaction assumes the worst and the recipient goes into defensive mode. Shame or embarrassment manifests in self doubt and loss of confidence. Blame is about externalising factors considered out of the lecturer’s control. Tame is also externalising the reasons, as it’s the students who need to change. Of the four, only the last, reframe, has any positive outcome possibility attached, and then only with a fix it mentality.
But why has this negative culture grown up around teaching evaluations? I submit that it is in large part due to the historic use of the results: professional development reviews, promotion check lists, evidence of problems. All things that need a big stick. Enter evaluations, the biggest most quantifiable stick available: efficient, consistent, reliable, valid … impersonal?
This brings us the aspect of context, which is really the beginning. Teaching evaluations by themselves only tell the story from one perspective. We need to be transparent and active in including other stakeholders in the observation. As well as learner outcomes, the actual results of the students, a BETTER evaluation (Smith, C., 2008) incorporates Peer Observation and Reflective Practice. Evaluations of teaching can be the beginning of something great: the conversations that develop a scholarly approach to teaching and learning, the gathering of evidence around teaching.
I purport that what is missing is the starting point of fame, where a positive research paradigm allows for the acknowledgement, reflection and celebration of teaching done well, as evidenced by learners telling us so. From here evaluations can form part of a bigger picture of assessing and improving teaching. They can be used for professional development, trying out new things (teaching methods and strategies), a starting point for discussion and growth, not an end point or fate accompli. A new appreciative inquiry culture needs to be fostered by teaching and learning representatives to begin the conversation with the things that went well, moving to points for consideration and then ideas for improvement, and how we are going to support these teachers to implement them.
‘Evaluation is not primarily about the counting and measuring of things. It entails valuing – and to do this we have to develop as connoisseurs and critics.’ (Smith, M., 2001)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)