Greg Light

Rethinking our underlying assumptions about what we do and why we do it: academic development as a case

In this paper, academic developers from universities in three countries explore underlying assumptions about what we as developers do and why we do it in relation to evaluating development programs. Through addressing three questions, key ideas emerge that highlight what is often overlooked in day-to-day practice: the fact that academic development has a ‘signature pedagogy’ defined by the ‘learning paradigm’; the potential role of different stakeholders in setting criteria for evaluation; and the inclusion of non-traditional academic development literatures (e.g., adult education, educational change, organizational development) to avoid perpetuating established practices. Our intent is to intellectually challenge ourselves and others to move beyond sharing program and evaluation activities to explore ideas and literature not often considered in our day-to-day work. While the context is academic development, we believe the questions and the answers that emerged are of value to all involved in staff and professional development.

Changing Conceptions of Teaching in Medical Faculty

Background: The Association of American Medical Colleges and Howard Hughes Medical Institute have urged medical faculty to develop in themselves, and in their students, habits of critical professional inquiry, while stressing the importance of integrating formal learning with hands-on, practical experience. Aims: This study describes the impact of a year-long faculty development program on conceptions of teaching held by 16 faculty in a medical school affiliated with a large private Midwestern research university. Method: Using pre and post semi-structured interviews, researchers identified three conceptions of teaching – transmission, acquisition, and engagement – found in participants, comparing how participants’ conceptions changed by the end of the program. Results: Researchers found that 13 out of 16 (81%) faculty developed or maintained a more complex understanding of teaching by the end of the program. Conclusions: This study recommends that faculty developers (1) encourage their faculty to reflect substantially on what it means to teach – with the goal of assisting faculty to move beyond the idea of teaching as transmission or even as acquisition, to conceiving it as helping their students ask deep questions and make conceptual connections for themselves; (2) help faculty understand that developing a more complex understanding of teaching is as crucial to their professional development as developing their research and clinical skills; and (3) provide substantial opportunities for participants to explore teaching and learning as an evidence-based practice with colleagues and students.