Jo-Anne Vorster

Isn’t it time to start thinking about ‘developing’ academic developers in a more systematic way?

There is no defined route to becoming an academic developer. The research on pathways into the field (e.g. Kensington-Miller, Brailsford, & Gossman, 2012; McDonald, 2010; McDonald & Stockley, 2008) shows that in most cases ‘serendipity and chance played a role’ (McDonald, 2010, p. 40). Moreover, induction into academic development (AD) is often ad hoc, haphazard, and informal. Due to the changing higher education (HE) context, the field has grown exponentially and in many countries now plays a central role in institutions. This has generated increased demand for knowledgeable and competent developers that are able to contribute towards solving some vexing problems in contemporary HE. Current recruitment and induction processes of new developers do not necessarily meet this demand. In light of the above, we pose the question: given the changing context of HE and the field of AD, is it not time for us to induct newcomers into the field more systematically? As Kensington-Miller et al. (2012) suggest, we should not leave the induction of the next generation of developers to chance. We suggest that one way of ensuring appropriate induction is through a formal course for developers. Difficulties for newcomers to the field are illustrated by Kensington-Miller et al. (2012) when they report seeking ‘top tips’ at a HERDSA conference. We do not dismiss informal learning at conferences or the role of mentoring, coaching, apprenticeship, and so on, in inducting developers, nor do we minimise the benefits of relatively structured processes such as fellowship programmes, workshops, and postgraduate qualifications in related fields. However, these ways of induction may not offer novices the structured and systematic developmental opportunities needed to become developers able to fulfil varied, complex, and sometimes contradictory roles. Manathunga (2007, p. 25) highlights that most developers are ‘migrants’ from other disciplines who bring valuable experience and knowledge, but are unlikely to have been prepared systematically for AD work. They acquire the knowledge, practices, and identities for AD work ‘on the job.’ For many, AD feels an ‘unhomely’ space (Manathunga, 2007) for which they lack the necessary theoretical grounding or practical experience. The lucky ones work in centres where experienced colleagues act as mentors who induct them into their new roles.

Towards shaping the field: theorising the knowledge in a formal course for academic developers

In recent years there have been calls both for building the knowledge base of academic development (AD) and for systematic induction of newcomers to the field if AD is to advance as a professional and an academic field. Despite the importance and complexity of AD, induction of novice academic developers remains mostly informal and predominantly focuses on the practices of the field. We argue that more-experienced academic developers have an obligation to provide formal and systematic routes into the field and its knowledge base than is currently the case. One way of doing this is through offering a formal course for growing the next generation of academic developers. Such a course could equip newcomers with a more solid and shared knowledge base, thus contributing to shaping the epistemic spine of AD. In this paper, using Matons Legitimation Code Theory, we offer an analysis of an existing course aimed at equipping novices with the theoretical and practical knowledge to enable them to solve some of the problems in higher education. From this analysis have emerged general principles that could inform the selection, sequencing and pacing of knowledge in a formal course for academic developers.

Mapping the field of Higher Education Research using PhD examination reports

ABSTRACT The PhD is the highest formal qualification and signifies a scholar’s rite of passage as a legitimate contributor of new knowledge in a field. Examiner reports make claims about what is legitimate in a thesis and what is not and thus articulate the organising principles through which participation in a field is measured. The authors analysed 39 examiners’ reports on 13 PhDs produced over a five-year period by scholars from the Higher Education Research doctoral studies programme at Rhodes University in South Africa. Drawing on aspects of Karl Maton’s Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), this study uses the dimensions of LCT:Specialisation and LCT:Semantics to explore what kinds of knowledge, skills and procedures and what kinds of knowers are validated in the field of Higher Education Research through the examination process. The study found that despite concerns in the literature about the a-theoretical nature of the Higher Education Studies field, examiners valued high-level theoretical and meta-theoretical engagement as well as methodological rigour. In addition, examiners prized the ability to demonstrate a strong ideological position, to use a clear doctoral voice, and to recognise the axiological drive of the field. The analysis showed that examiners were interested in strong contextualisation of the problem-spaces in higher education in South Africa but also commented positively on candidates’ ability to move from troubling an issue within its context to being able to abstract findings so as to contribute to the field as a whole.

Re-Framing Academic Staff Development

Globally higher education is situated in a supercomplex world (Barnett, 2000) that is constantly in a state of flux and subject to multiple pressures. This situation has been exacerbated in South African higher education that has been characterised by student protests in the last two years (2015–2016). One of the major causes for the recents protests, particularly in our institutional context, has been students’ anger that despite the official demise of apartheid and the end of colonial rule, some universities in South Africa are still attempting to be copies of Oxford and Harvard.

Conceptualising an epistemically diverse curriculum for a course for academic developers

In this conceptual article we use Luckett’s model for an epistemically diverse curriculum, Kitchener’s levels of cognition and Maton’s concepts of knowledge and knowers to analyse a curriculum of a postgraduate diploma in higher education specifically for academic developers. We describe three meta-level frameworks which we offer to our participants to make explicit the pedagogy of the course. Our main argument is that a course which prepares participants to practise in the complex contemporary higher education context requires them to engage with specific kinds of knowledge, ways of thinking and ways of being so that they can contribute towards addressing the numerous and vexing teaching and learning challenges in their institutional contexts. We argue that analyses such as these help to make explicit the organising principles of a curriculum to the curriculum designers themselves who are then able to use the insights to strengthen the design, pedagogy and assessment of their courses.

Pedagogy for fostering criticality, reflectivity and praxis in a course on teaching for lecturers

Using the concepts of criticality, reflectivity and praxis, the paper presents an analysis of our reflections on participants’ responses to the assessment requirements for a course for lecturers on teaching. The context in which the course is being taught has changed considerably in the last few years in terms of the mode of delivery, as well as the number and diversity of participants. Our analysis has generated insights into ways in which the course is not meeting all the learning needs of the participants, nor preparing them adequately to demonstrate, in writing, their learning. Using insights gained, we suggest pedagogic processes and strategies for ensuring that the course focuses on both writing to learn and learning to write; and for assisting participants to acquire the practices to demonstrate their learning in written assessment tasks, using the requisite literacy including criticality, reflectivity and praxis.