The ‘messy’ business of academic developers leading other academic developers: critical reflection on a curriculum realignment exercise

Abstract

Little has been written about academic developers (ADs) working in teams leading other ADs. This paper chronicles the experience of a group of ADs in one Australian university working on a curriculum realignment exercise. Unexpectedly the dominant theme in participants' reflections was group dynamics, not the process. We were confronted by unstated assumptions about ADs working collaboratively and shocked to realise that ADs, like academics, resist change. Our interpretation of that 'resistance' was a salutary reminder of the extent to which academic development work reflects broader social, political, and institutional contexts and discourses. Parallels between this context and ADs working with academics are drawn. IntroductionIn 2009, a group of academic developers (ADs) from an academic development unit (ADU) at a multi-campus Australian university engaged in a change process -a curriculum realignment exercise. The authors were part of this group. Atypically this exercise comprised only ADs, not external faculty. It involved two graduate certificate tertiary teaching courses which share a number of units, taught exclusively by ADs and delivered through the ADU. It had three purposes:improve the quality of the curriculum to ensure it was the best practice model in the university; enhance alignment between various aspects of the university-wide agenda to reform learning and teaching approaches; better prepare for an imminent full-course review.

Holding a mirror up to Academic Development through the HELTASA (un)conferencing methodology

“…Despite our tenure in academia, professional and academic qualifications and accolades, identities as stalwart members of our communities and trajectories into HE portraying personal sacrifices, commitment and a strong work ethic, we, in varying degrees, were often relegated to being outsiders amongst 'real' academics, viz., discipline experts (Thomas & Cordiner, 2014).…”