Factors Influencing the Pedagogic Development of Novice University Lecturers: Findings

Factors influencing the pedagogic development of novice university lecturers: findings from research.

Dr Angela Pickering,

School of Languages, University of Brighton

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11-13 September 2003

Abstract

This paper presents the findings from a research project which I conducted between 1999 and 2002. This project was organised around case studies of four novice university lecturers who were enrolled on a one-year in-house teaching development programme. The aim of the study was to enhance understanding of the pedagogic beliefs of novice university lecturers and of the process of pedagogic change and influences for change, specifically inner influences [e.g. beliefs] and external influences [e.g. colleagues, students, university systems], and so to contribute to the wisdom of teaching development practices in the university context. Data was collected from the four lecturers by means of loosely-structured interviews, observation of teaching, stimulated recall interviews, and the analysis of reflective writing.

The paper briefly outlines the rationale for the study, the process by which data was gathered and analysed, and focuses in particular on the conclusions which have emerged from the analysis. Conclusions support the theorising of pedagogic knowledge as a thinking/acting phenomenon which is mediated by the individual's inner world of beliefs, and of pedagogic change as a process which is informed by the dynamics of individual beliefs systems and by the dialogic relationship between inner and external worlds, through which dialogue the individual's pedagogic beliefs and taken-for-granteds are interrogated and options for change are defined. On the basis of these conclusions, a number of implications are identified for teaching development in the university context.

Introductory remarks

This paper is based on Doctoral research conducted between 1999 and 2002. For a full version of the research study and its conclusions I refer the reader to Pickering [2002]. The research was based on case studies of four novice lecturers following a university in-house teaching development programme and explored the degree to which the beliefs and practices of the four lecturers changed [or not] during the life of the development programme. In this way the study aimed to contribute to an understanding of the process of pedagogic change and influences for change, particularly social influences [e.g. colleagues and students], cultural influences [e.g. pedagogic norms within disciplines] and individual influences [e.g. beliefs and taken-for-granteds]. I did not seek to compare details of practices, but sought to compare beliefs about practices and so to tease out differences and similarities in the lecturers' pedagogic approach [e.g. beliefs and taken-for-granteds about the best ways to teach, learning imperatives, the role of the lecturer, students' responsibilities, and the nature of learning], pedagogic perspective [the individual's sense of what was possible, plausible and desirable] and the experiences of the lecturers. Overall, and out of the rich and fascinating accounts of the four novice lecturers, the study has led to a number of potentially significant insights into the pedagogic beliefs of the cases and the nature and process of pedagogic change.

I begin this paper by briefly outlining the need to explore university teaching development interventions, particularly their impact upon novice lecturers.

The bulk of the paper is, however, devoted to an account of the study itself, and in the final and most substantial part of the paper I focus on the conclusions which have emerged from the study.

I end the paper by raising a number of implications and discussion points for those interested in or involved in teaching development in the university context.

The changing landscape of university life

As major players in the so-called "knowledge economy" [Blunkett, 2000], universities have become increasingly under pressure to be both competitive and "excellent" in research and teaching, in other words to demonstrate and be accountable for a "double professionalism" [Beaty, 1998] through such mechanisms as the Research Assessment Exercise [for research] and the move towards formalised training of university teachers. An important consequence of the latter focus [which inevitably impinged on the former] was the move by universities, throughout the 1990's, to establish in-house teaching development units and development programmes, programmes which were often mandatory for new lecturing staff [Bourner et al., 2000] and are set to become so in 2006. I assumed that such programmes were inevitably underpinned by specific understandings of the nature of pedagogic knowledge, of best practice and of the way in which we learn about teaching, and so it was a matter for concern to me that such assumptions seemed to be under-articulated.

An aspect of the drive towards "double professionalism", and an important influence on the design of my research study, was the politically-inspired move to set up an overseeing body to promote both the training and accreditation of university lecturers as teachers, that is the Dearing-inspired Institute for Learning and Teaching [ILT], set up in 1999 [NCIHE, 1997]. I would argue that the ILT, rather than being a solution to a problem, has become part of the problem of our approach to the teaching quality issue by tending to promote, through its discourse, a number of orthodoxies. Firstly its technicist approach to pedagogic practice has tended to represent pedagogic knowledge as generic, implying that best practice can be freely transferred across teaching and learning contexts. Secondly, the emphasis on notions of threshold competencies and checklists of best practice has tended to position academics as "objects" rather than "subjects" [Nicholls, 2001] and failed to engage with teacherly qualities such as acting according to principles and values, or reflecting on dilemmas [Rowland, 2000] or with the complexity and subjectivity of the learning/teaching relationship. Thirdly, the foregrounding of "operational" competencies, which are outcome-oriented rather than process-oriented [Barnett, 1994; Nicholls, 2001] has tended to decontextualise teaching and learning and lead to a further emphasis on a generic and a reductionist understanding of teaching and teaching development.

While not subscribing to the notion that the climate within higher education is one of insecurity, competition and surveillance [Dummett, 1994], I felt [and still feel] that this is a destabilised and disempowering world in which the discourse of innovation, expansion and quality assurance has become the equivalent in academic discourse of 'four legs good', and as such is not being reflected on critically enough, particularly in relation to the benchmarking of teaching standards, and the setting up of interventions designed to enhance lecturers' teaching performance. I was, and still am, concerned that the impetus for improvement in teaching quality [and for the training of novice lecturers] in higher education is not sufficiently informed by a critical dialogue which situates teaching in relation to influences for change. It is also a concern that the process by which lecturers develop their teaching practice has not been sufficiently investigated or theorised, and it is to this issue that I now turn.

A research shortfall

Knowledge about teaching and learning in higher education has been based on a rapidly expanding body of research which has increased our understanding of many areas, such as, student perceptions of effective teaching [Evans & Abbott, 1998; Ramsden, 1991] and the effect of the higher education environment and political context on the learning and teaching process [Lueddeke, 1997]. However, research on the development of teaching and the impact of teaching development programmes within universities is limited. The recent literature on teaching development interventions has tended to serve the function of information gathering and sharing, perhaps understandably given the immense changes that universities have had to deal with. For example, commentators have examined the organisational implications of accreditation [e.g. McKeachie, 1997], have surveyed existing custom and practice [Bourner et al., 2000], and have documented best practice [Beaty, 1998]. Others have examined the comparative outcomes of teaching development interventions [e.g. Gibbs, 2001; Hannon, 2001]. Relatively little empirical enquiry has been undertaken, however, in the context of university teaching, into the process [as opposed to outcome] of pedagogic change, the norms against which judgements of best practice or changes in practice are made [or not], or in-depth enquiry into differential response to influences for change [see Rowland & Skelton, 1998 for an examination of this].

I move now to an account of the study itself, and by way of introduction, I summarise exactly what I set out to do.

The research study

The aims of the study

The study followed four novice university lecturers from different disciplinary areas through a mandatory in-service development programme which ran from September through to July [2 cases from 1999-2000 and 2 cases from 2000-2001]. The enquiry aimed to:

1.  Enhance understanding of the pedagogic beliefs and practices of novice lecturers.

To address this issue I analysed data from individual cases and built up from the analysis a rich picture of the experiences of the novice lecturers, taking account of individual stories and highlighting elements common the cases.

2.  Analyse the degree to which such beliefs and practices changed [or not] during the life of the development programme.

To address this issue I analysed data from individual cases and came to conclusions about the degree and nature of change exhibited by each case. On the basis of these findings I came to conclusions about the degree and nature of change overall.

3.  Contribute to an understanding of pedagogic change and influences for change, specifically internal and external influences.

To address these issues I analysed data from individual cases and came to conclusions about the dynamic of each individual's belief system and the nature of the internal and experiential influences which had impacted on changes in pedagogic understandings. I also came to conclusions about common elements of these processes and shared influences for change.

4.  Contribute to the 'wisdom' of university teaching development practices.

To address this issue I came to conclusions based on the experience of the cases, the views of the lecturers on being and becoming a lecturer and the nature of the teaching development programme on which they were enrolled, and my analysis of those elements of the change process which were common to the cases.

The cases

My research was structured around case studies of four novice lecturers who were attending a one year development programme within my own university, a post 1992 'new' university. I felt that the environment of the programme [the Post-Graduate Certificate in Academic Practice or PGCAP] offered a naturally bounded home for a study of change, and an opportunity for insights into the individual lecturer's relationship with a development programme. There were many issues and problems associated with the researching of my peers as an insider in my home institution. These impacted on the ethical design of the study and measures adopted to maximise trustworthiness, and I refer the reader to Pickering [2002] for a discussion of these.

The four cases were purposefully selected from a population of approximately 30 lecturers, with the aim of achieving a mixture of disciplinary interests, a mixture of gender, and to include at least one example of a non-traditional discipline [in this case from Health Studies]. The decision to opt for a total of four cases was partly pragmatic and partly methodological. I felt that an in-depth study of more than four cases would be difficult in the time available, and felt that limiting the number of cases would allow me to concentrate on both specific instances and interactive processes which might have been hidden in a larger study, allowing me to address the issue of "complex singularity" [Sanger, 1996].

The cases are referred to here [using pseudonyms] as Tom, a lecturer in Environmental Sciences, Simon, a lecturer in Physiology, Hannah, a lecturer in Physiotherapy and Peter, a lecturer in Civil Engineering. All cases were in their first or second year of university teaching.

Data gathering

Data was gathered by means of interviews and observation of teaching events and the analysis of reflective writing [see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 for a summary of data-gathering]. Data was gathered during two consecutive years of the PGCAP, with two cases being followed during each year. During this time I attended the PGCAP workshops at fortnightly intervals as a participant-observer.

STAGE 1 [semester 1]

Oct./Nov. [1] Semi-structured interview

[2] Teaching observation [s]

[3] Teaching observation [videoed]

[4] Stimulated recall interview

Dec. [5] Loosely-structured interview

INTERIM Beliefs accounts sent to informants.

STAGE 2 [semester 2]

May/June [6] Teaching observation [s]

[7] Teaching observation [videoed]

[8] Stimulated recall interview

July [9] Loosely-structured interview

STAGE 3 Oct.- [10] Examination of PGCAP portfolios

Fig. 1: Data gathering calendar

Conclusions

It is not possible within the parameters of this paper to give a detailed account of the beliefs, practices and experiences of the four lecturers, or to quote extensively from the data I have gathered. However, I have summarised what I take to be three significant findings: firstly, I describe a number of key and core pedagogic beliefs which were common to the four lecturers; secondly, I give an account of experiential influences common to the cases; and thirdly, I outline my conclusions concerning the dynamic of pedagogic change.

It appeared to me that the four lecturers had not made any significant changes in their pedagogic practices throughout the course of the study. However, I have concluded that they were nevertheless engaged in a change process. This was a process which was long-term, and in which options for change were mediated by the dialogue between individual beliefs systems and the individual's relationship with the world. I have theorised this dialogic process as having the potential to lead to an interrogation of pedagogic beliefs and taken-for-granteds, through which an individual's options for change are defined. In this 'version' of events pedagogic knowledge is taken to be embedded within contexts, is a thinking/acting phenomenon [Freeman, 1992], and is a "piece of the person" [Richardson, 1990].

My conclusions relate to three connected phenomena: pedagogic knowledge, pedagogic change and the pedagogic change process.

Firstly, it was possible to group the beliefs of the cases as clusters which operated dynamically, in the sense that beliefs were more or less core and more or less stable, where core beliefs informed the individual's pedagogic perspective [that is, their sense of what was possible, plausible and desirable] and were therefore part of what a lecturer ‘knows’. For example, common to the cases' beliefs systems were core beliefs about the expert field, which influenced beliefs about learning, teaching, the role of the lecturer, the responsibilities of students, and relationships with colleagues. A significant aspect of this dynamic was a belief in pedagogy as discipline-led.