Denise Chalmers

Progress and challenges to the recognition and reward of the Scholarship of Teaching in higher education

For more than 20 years there have been growing and widely expressed concerns that teaching is not sufficiently rewarded and recognized in universities, particularly in comparison to research. Individuals, institutions and governments have each responded in different ways to promote changes in institutional systems and practices. Two of the major initiatives to raise the status of teaching have been the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and Teaching Quality movements. These share similar goals and many concepts, but began with a different impetus. This paper reviews initiatives to increase the status of teaching through better recognition and reward of teaching in universities. Current practices and evidence of change are reviewed. The paper concludes that while there has been significant progress made to date, the ultimate symbols of recognition and reward – promotion and tenure – are proving to be elusive but not unattainable for those who focus on the Scholarship of Teaching.

Strategies for effective dissemination of the outcomes of teaching and learning projects

This paper describes an empirical study that addresses the question of how higher education institutions can disseminate effectively the outcomes of projects that seek to achieve large-scale change in teaching and learning. Traditionally, dissemination of innovation and good practice is strongly advocated within universities, but little consideration is given to developing enabling strategies and processes. Most current models of dissemination focus on sponsored workshops, seminars and courses; upgrading infrastructure; journal articles and scholarly publications; resource websites; some form of ‘teaching excellence’ awards; and showcases of good practice. Although these are useful and do constitute a degree of dissemination, they are not sufficient for leading widespread changes in practice or implementation across an institution or discipline. A central task of this study has been to unravel the hitherto contested and unclear terms to explore the complex relationships between ideas and innovations and their dissemination better.

University teaching in focus : a learning-centred approach

PART 1 Focus on Teaching 1. Understanding Learning: theories and critique 2. Effective Classroom Teaching 3. Discipline-based Teaching 4. Teaching Graduate Attributes and Academic Skills 5. Using Effective Assessment to Promote Learning PART 2 Focus on Curriculum 6. Designing Subjects for Learning: Practical research- based principles and guidelines 7. Designing Online and Blended Learning 8. Research-Led or Research-based Undergraduate Curricula? 9. Problem-based lLarning 10. Authentic Work Integrated Learning PART 3 Focus on Students 11. Inclusive Teaching 12. Teaching International Students 13. Indigenous Knowers and Knowledge in University Teaching Part 4 Focus on Quality and Leadership 14. A Quality Approach to University Teaching 15. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 16. Leadership in Teaching

Where should the balance be between “scientist” and “practitioner” in Australian undergraduate psychology?

Abstract The scientist–practitioner model of training in psychology has been widely influential in the development of undergraduate curricula in Australia. The model had its origins in post-war America and has formed the basis for accreditation of psychology courses in Australia since the late 1970s. Recently a reconsideration of the model in Australian undergraduate psychology was argued for, suggesting that the absence of significant practical skills development in most curricula is detrimental to the disciplines graduates and their employers. The authors agree that the need for some practical skills development in undergraduate curricula is becoming increasingly important for psychology. Many of the exemplars of curriculum revision provided, however, are impractical and are unlikely to make significant contributions to Australian programs. There is an urgent need to consider the graduate attributes desired for 3-year and 4-year trained psychology graduates who will go on to employment without completi...

Student feedback in the Australian national and university context

Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of the practice and use of student feedback in the Australian national and university context. Australia has been a leader in recognising the importance of student feedback in quality assurance at the national level. The national survey of students’ experience of their study at university has been a key component in the government’s approach to quality assurance in higher education for a number of years and remains a central component of the national quality model. At the university level, the gathering of student feedback on the quality of teaching and subject is common practice, while gathering student feedback at the programme of study and university level is gaining widespread interest. Increasingly, universities are recognising the value of using subject and programme-level student feedback in their quality performance measures as well as integrating the data from their internal feedback surveys with the national surveys to provide a more detailed and multilayered profile of their students’ experiences.

CEQ and GDS outcomes in psychology, 1994-2003

This study was undertaken to develop and evaluate the efficacy of an early intervention for children who had been injured in an accident. The aim of the intervention was to prevent the development of longterm psychological consequences. Brochures were developed for children, adolescents, and their parents. These brochures detailed common responses to trauma (and normalized such responses), and suggestions for minimizing any post-trauma distress. Participants were children aged 7-15 admitted to hospital for traumatic injury. The intervention was delivered to one of two hospitals, within 72 hours of the trauma. 103 children and parents participated in the study. The parents and children completed structured interviews and questionnaires 2 weeks, 4-6 weeks and 6 months post-trauma. Outcome analyses also indicated that the intervention reduced parental distress at 4-6 weeks post-trauma. The intervention did not impact significantly on child adjustment over this time period. Results of the 6 month follow-up suggested that the intervention resulted in an amelioration of child anxiety from one to six months post-trauma, whereas the controls exhibited an increase in anxiety over this time period. Overall, it was concluded that the early intervention is a simple, practical, and cost-effective method of reducing child and parent distress post-trauma.