Educational development units: A cross-cultural perspective

Abstract

This paper examines the institutionalisation of educational development in universities in Australia, Britain, USA, West Germany and Sweden. Centres for staff, instructional, educational or academic development were established in these countries in the sixties and seventies, following expansion of the higher education systems. But the triggers for the establishment in each country were different, as are the institutional integration of centres and provisions in general. The institutional reward systems in all of these countries favour research performance over excellence in teaching, regardless of whether the universities see themselves as research or teaching centred.In Australia, educational development has been institutionalised to the highest degree; most of the universities have centres with permanent staff, some of whom are tenured faculty with a research and development function. In Britain there has been strong national support for training of university teachers and individual universities are providing this in a larger variety of settings. In the USA institutionalisation has taken many forms. But educational development is also funded on a short term basis, and due to the ample availability of grants there is continuous experimentation and influx of new people. In Germany the original connection between university reforms and educational development centres and the strong research orientation of universities has put these centres into a vulnerable position and limits their effectiveness. In Sweden central legislation provides for compulsory teacher training in the universities, but much of the general educational development work is organised centrally. The importance of educational development is generally acknowledged in these countries, its effectiveness largely accepted in faith.The period of rapid expansion in higher education, the sixties and early seventies, is sometimes called the "Golden Years of higher education". The period certainly appears full of promise, of bold reforms and innovation from the perspective of the "steady state" era, when contraction and financial exigencies often direct change rather than visions and ideas.The sixties with their emphasis on civil liberties, on equality and democratic decision-making saw an increasing involvement in higher education of youth, women and other relatively powerless groups in society. It also brought a reexamination of university teaching and learning by those who were concerned with communal needs and by those who engaged in the processes of teaching and learning. As a result, universities in most Western countries established educational development activities.

Pathways to the profession of educational development: an international perspective

“…At the same time, educational development units have undergone a period of institutionalization (i.e., having institutional funding, support and authority) (Moses, 1987), even transformation, taking on, for example, increasingly significant roles such as change agent and policy leader (Gosling, 2001(Gosling, , 2006Havnes & Stensaker, 2006). Just like other specialized occupations in colleges and universities (e.g., Student Affairs), educational development has evolved in response to a variety of internal drivers such as institutional positioning, faculty accountability, and program reviews, as well as external factors such as institutional response to government policy and funding directives, reports questioning the quality of higher education (e.g., Dearing, 1997 -Britain;Smith, 1991 -Canada), calls for accountability, a diverse student population, and the explosion of educational technology and research on teaching and learning in higher education to name a few.…”

A family of strangers: the fragmented nature of academic development

“…Weimer makes the remarkable claim that after 30 years of faculty development in the USA the impact 'has been nil' (Weimer 2007, 6, see also Moses 1987) and one correspondent said that we do not have the data to evidence our utility:…”

“…(R1) A difficulty with development work is that theoretical knowledge about academic practice is insufficient on its own and experience of academic practice is also needed. Both provide specialised knowledge and skills and developers tend to draw upon experiences in an academic setting, often the experience of being a university teacher or researcher (see Moses 1987):…”

Drawing on the Principles of SoTL to Illuminate a Path Forward for the Scholarship of Educational Development

“…The focus of these activities ranges from teaching strategies, course design, program and curriculum development, and policy and organizational development, with varying delivery methods including workshops, comprehensive programs, postgraduate programs, mentoring programs, individual or departmental consultations, research, evaluation, and providing leadership on governance and policy committees (Dawson, Britnell, & Hitchcock, 2010;Gibbs, 2013;Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010). Nuanced distinctions in educational development activities are further described in multiple studies (Dawson et al, 2010;Gosling, 2009;Lee & McWilliam, 2008;Lewis, 1996;McDonald & Stockley, 2008;Moses, 1987;Rowland, 2007;Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006;Taylor, 2005).…”