[ Contents of TLC Submission ] [TLC Home Page ] Teaching and Learning Centre Review 2000

Report

Introduction

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor recommended that the TLC be reviewed after three years of operation. This review in 2000 is in response to this recommendation.

Review of the Teaching and Learning Centre

Terms of reference

The review panel shall review the Teaching and Learning Centre, and in particular shall review and report on:

1. Whether the current strategic priorities of the TLC are appropriate, and what, if any, changes should be made;
2. Whether the TLC is meeting its objectives and the needs of students and staff;
3. Whether there is a continuing need for each of the TLC's activities, or whether they should be merged or discontinued;
4. The TLC's community contribution;
5. The TLC's research contribution;
6. The appropriateness of the current management structure of the TLC and what, if any, changes should be made;
7. The current funding mix for the TLC and what, if any, changes should be made.

Membership of the review panel

The review process

The panel met in the week, Monday, 4 September Ð Friday, 8 September, 2000. Following a briefing by the PVC(A) and the Manager of the TLC, the panel conducted a number of interviews and meetings. The panel members interviewed and met with staff members from the TLC, staff with associations with the TLC (eg Library, Equity), teaching staff from a number of Divisions and external clients of the TLC. In addition, undergraduate and postgraduate students at all stages of their studies attended a number of meetings. The majority of meetings took place at the South Street Campus and a half day was spent at the Rockingham Campus. A number of written submissions were received from staff unable to attend the meetings or who wished to provide additional information to the panel. A list with the names of those who made a written submission and the schedule of activities for the review are in Appendix 1 and 2.

Following these meetings, the panel discussed a number of the themes that emerged during the review with the DVC, PVC(A) and some of the senior staff of the TLC.

Following the review, a Report was prepared and provided to the PVC(A) on 21 September. This was discussed with the TLC and errors of fact were corrected. The final report was presented to the PVC (A) on xx September, 2000 for implementation and to the Academic Council for noting.

A number of issues that had emerged but did not directly relate to the TLC or the terms of reference of the review were raised in a separate communication with the PVC (A).

General findings in relation to the terms of reference

The panel was impressed by the uniformly high level of support expressed for the work of the TLC by a range of stakeholders. This represents an endorsement of the quality of the staff, the work carried out and their perceived value to the university community. The TLC is to be commended for achieving this level of support in a relatively short time-frame. It is recognised that many of the sections of the TLC had existed in different organisational structures prior to 1997 and much of the work of the unit was already established. Nevertheless, it is not easy to reform an organisation, deliver expected services and move forward in new directions. The TLC has consolidated the organisational unit, identified a clear vision and have a dedicated staff committed to achieving it.

During the review period, the majority of comments from staff and students related to the work of Student Learning and the teaching and unit surveys. This is to be expected as the majority of teachers and students in the university have some contact with the TLC in these two areas. There was also strong support for the work of staff development and the video unit from teaching staff but little comment was provided on the work of educational development. The panel took this into account when preparing this report as it is recognised that the quality of the work carried out behind the scenes is as important as the work carried out more publicly.

The panel believes that the TLC has made a very significant contribution over the past three years. However, it is concerned that the range of services and the way in which they are delivered may not be fully sustainable into the future. Therefore, much of this report focuses on recommendations for changes to the operation of the TLC and the range of services it delivers. This should not in any way be interpreted as any indication of unsatisfactory performance. It is simply provided as recommendations to enable it to meet the future priorities of the university in a sustainable and effective manner. The major recommendations relate to the strategic directions of the TLC, the organisation of the functional areas and budget management.

Specific terms of reference

The panel believes that the TLC has appropriately identified its strategic priorities over the first three years of operations. The major priorities have been the first year experience and flexible teaching and learning. In addition the TLC has identified the relevant objectives from the SQIP and used these to guide their provision of services. These services have been appropriately provided by all sections of the TLC.

During the review the following issues relevant to the university and TLC became evident:

• The University has a policy of targeting equity groups and providing access. Therefore, the university is committed to support these students not only at the point of entry but also throughout their study. These students' learning is primarily supported by the teaching staff in the Divisions and the staff in the Student Learning area of the TLC. With teaching staff in Divisions facing greater demands on their time and higher numbers of students in their class, the pressures on the TLC are likely to increase. In this context, the panel noted the high levels of appreciation, voiced by both students and staff, for the TLC'S contribution to the university's equity objectives.

• Murdoch values its 5 star rating for quality of teaching. Many of the staff and students interviewed believed that the Foundation and 1st year units played a significant role in contributing to this rating. However, many staff and students expressed the belief that there was a danger that the Foundation and first year units were moving away from the core tenants of providing an emphasis on learning skills. This was particularly expressed where Foundation units were taught by less experienced members of staff, high numbers of casual tutors, little commitment to tutor training and little or no involvement of the TLC student learning staff in the program. All staff and students interviewed expressed the opinion that Murdoch was unlikely to sustain their high rating unless the first year units are taught by experienced staff and learning processes are included in the core program. The university's current emphasis on generic attributes underlines the importance of these processes being taught throughout the degree program.

• Any future growth in reliance on casual and tutoring staff highlights the importance of tutor training programs and staff development programs. Both Divisions and the TLC have a role to support these staff in developing their teaching skills.

• The greater utilisation of technology in teaching will mean staff will need on-going support in using these technologies effectively. There will be greater implications for the university in the way in which IT services and infrastructure are provided across the university. It is likely that current organisational structures will need to be reconsidered.

• The quality assurance process means that data gathering on teaching will need to take place strategically and with greater effect. Numerous responses from those appearing before the panel suggested that the current system of student evaluation of teaching and units is unlikely to contribute to real improvement of teaching and learning at the university. The panel considers that a systematic approach to evaluation of curriculum rather than units is more likely to result in improvements in the teaching and learning processes than is currently the case.

The following functions have been identified as relevant to the TLC. They should not be inferred as organisational units within the TLC.

Student learning

• The TLC's contribution to the support of equity and access students should be recognised and monitored to ensure they are able to provide an appropriate level of support to these students. To this end, it is important that the Divisions and TLC work more closely together to identify the students in need of support and develop strategies to do this.

• The TLC's role in Foundation and 1st year units should be further strengthened, particularly in the area of tutor training and TLC staff involved in tutoring in the Foundation units. Divisions would be expected to pay for these services. In particular initiatives such as tutor training for Foundation unit tutors prior to the start of semester should be actively pursued and at least one member of TLC staff should participate in the tutorial sessions of each foundation unit to ensure and inform the quality of tutorial support in the unit.

• In the provision of support to teaching staff and tutor training for student learning the TLC should consider a 'train-the-trainer' model so that staff are equipped to teach appropriate strategies and teaching skills and reduce the need to return for assistance on a regular basis. Assistance should be made available to particular units on a cyclic basis eg every 3 years.

• The value of one-on-one support from the TLC is recognised but is not likely to be sustainable in the longer term as a major method of delivery as demand on TLC services increase. Therefore emphasis should be on group work rather than individuals (small and larger groups in formal and informal settings). Peer learning with partnering/grouping of students would be one strategy to reduce demand for individual support.

• The current generic programs and those conducted with postgraduate students with Divisions are commended and should be continued. Again, consideration should be given as to which of these should be based on a train-the-trainer model so that staff within the Divisions acquire the appropriate skills to support these programs on an on-going basis. This will enable the staff in the TLC to provide services across the university on a sustainable basis.

• Links to the Research Office should be strengthened to ensure that postgraduate training is integrated and addresses issues raised in the Research White paper.

Teaching

• Staff development in teaching is crucial if Murdoch is to maintain its standards and high level of recognition for teaching excellence. Staff development programs must be available for full time contract staff, casual and sessional staff and tutors. A tertiary teaching course (this may be different to the current program depending on the audience) and tutor training programs should be considered a minimum requirement for all staff prior to teaching at Murdoch. These may be offered as generic programs available to all staff or offered to staff from a particular division or program of study. Divisions will need to recognise their obligations to pay casual and sessional staff to attend these programs.

• Staff Development programs should be linked to the process of quality review of courses/programs outlined in more detail below. This would lead to a reduction of generic workshop programs and an increase in programs linked directly to identified aspects required for improvement.

• Staff development for teachers involved in postgraduate teaching should be carried out on a coherent and systematic manner across the university. The postgraduate student programs which take place at a divisional level with support from the TLC are likely to be a useful model for staff development programs for postgraduate teaching and supervision ie. Divisional programs conducted in support of their own teaching and supervision needs with support from the TLC utilising a train-the-trainer model.

• A small number of generic staff development programs should be available at a university level. There should be a greater emphasis on divisional programs that are more specific and discipline based.

Teaching technologies and on-line course development

• The TLC has an important role in establishing guidelines, minimum standards and informing the university community of best practice.

• Its role should include the identification of appropriate tools for use in teaching and recommendations on the purchase of these as part of a university strategy in the adoption of teaching technologies.

• The TLC should be pro-active in their support to Divisions in assisting them to identify strategic directions for their programs of study and the costs (human and capital) associated with development and delivery of courses using technologies.

• The TLC should provide technical/programming support for the development of courses on a cost-recovery basis. If the Divisions do not take advantage of the availability of these technical and programming services then these services should be discontinued.

• There are also implications for staff training in utilising technologies in teaching. Any program should follow the principles outlined previously ie. they should be based on a train-the-trainer model and be divisional/program of study based rather than generic where at all possible.

Evaluation of teaching

• It is strongly recommended that the current practice of surveys for every unit be re-considered. These are not seen as having an appreciable impact on improving teaching and learning at Murdoch. The current system is resource intensive on TLC and is not perceived by staff or students of impacting on the quality of teaching and learning. Its primary use is seen as a monitoring and management tool, rather than informing teaching and learning on a dynamic and developmental way. It is important that its primary role be seen as informing the improvement of teaching and learning and not monitoring and management.

• The review on the student evaluation of units and teaching should be changed from a focus on single units to curriculum or whole programs of study and should be part of a quality improvement process. This should result in less unit and teaching surveys being administered. The evaluation process would be more systematic with utilisation of wider sources of data in order to provide a whole of curriculum perspective, e.g. data sourced from: student unit surveys from many units; peer review; focused discussion with staff, students, employer groups; CEQ; Graduate Destination Survey; and PREQ. Data gathered and interpreted systematically by the TLC with the Division of the whole programs of study rather than single units provides greater opportunity to have a real impact on the quality of programs of study. Any issues that arise in this process will need to be addressed through staff development and a range of strategies to be implemented by the division. These can be strategically monitored by targeted surveys etc, as they are implemented. This process is not seen to be outside the departmental review process but as contributing to the review process.

• It is suggested that programs of study should undergo this process of evaluation regularly eg. once every three years, but with targeted monitoring of strategies set in place where appropriate.

• This evaluation process links to the university priority of targeting the inclusion of generic attributes in programs and provides a mechanism by which it can be monitored.

• Staff development programs should be directly linked to the evaluation process and tailored to Divisional needs
  
  
  1. The staff development programs would be expected to include both academic and general staff and focus on the continual improvement of teaching and learning within the Division.

  2. It is considered central to the success of such a program that it be owned by the division in order to establish a culture of development and improvement of programs of study on an ongoing basis. Such a review process would also enable Schools to highlight the strengths of their teaching staff and incorporate this in the strategic development of their programs.
  
  
• The postgraduate curriculum/programs of study should be included in the above evaluation process as is suggested for the undergraduate programs.

• It is recognised that many teachers value the information provided by teaching surveys, though the value of some of the items is questioned. The timing when obtaining the data means that many may be unable to respond to the student feedback in time to effect change in the semester it is sought. The TLC should examine its role in providing this level of information on teaching using teaching feedback forms and perhaps provide advice and examples of ways teachers can more effectively gather informal feedback on their teaching in ways that lead to systematic development of a range of teaching skills.

• If it is decided to retain the teaching survey it should be reviewed to ensure it identifies a number of the dimensions of teaching in order to promote development of these dimensions for individual teachers. In addition, departments might use some of this data to highlight the strengths of the teaching staff and build a profile and mix of abilities of their staff across programs of study.

General

• The TLC should identify comparable centres to conduct benchmarking activities at both nationally and internationally. Where this is not appropriate to do as a whole unit, functional areas can be the focus of comparison.

• The role of the manager of the TLC should be seen as providing strategic advice to the PVC(A) in relation to teaching and learning across the university, particularly in relation to the development of Murdoch as a high teaching quality tertiary institution.

The panel considered that the TLC is fully meeting its objectives as first outlined in the report by the Deputy Vice Chancellor and as subsequently outlined in their implementation of the SQIP. The staff and students interviewed and all submissions endorse the work of the TLC.

The strategic directions as outlined in the previous section should guide the objectives for the TLC in the future.

c) Whether there is a continuing need for each of the TLC's activities, or whether they should be merged or discontinued.

The following should be considered in conjunction with (f) where it is recommended that the TLC be reorganised into two functional areas: Learning and Teaching. The provision of services and programs will need to be advertised in creative ways so that both students and staff are aware of the range of services available.

The panel considers that the following activities should be continued by the TLC.

Student Learning

• Continued support with equity and access students with greater interaction with Divisions on the provision of support.

• Continued and in some cases greater involvement in 1st year and Foundation units, in particular, tutor training utilising train-the-trainer models and tutoring in the Foundation Units.

• Utilisation of groups of students in preference to one-to-one consultations.

• Strategic identification of key programs for involvement on a cyclic basis.

• Clear costing and consistent application of these for teaching into programs and provision of training services.

• Continued commitment to Rockingham Campus student learning services.
  
  
  1. Examine current strategies for access to the services of TLC. There may be a need for a different structure of programs and timing of services in recognition of the different organisation of timetable and student needs.
  2. Access to TLC services at South Street by students

Staff Development

• The SD program be linked more closely to the evaluation of programs of study and identified needs.

• The SD program be linked and coordinated with general staff development programs to achieve greater articulation and coverage with programs; eg equity, international office, administration as it relates to teaching and learning.

• Sessional and casual staff, including tutors, receive training and support in teaching.

• A tertiary teaching course be maintained, though this may differ from what is currently offered.

• The introductory teaching course for postgraduate students be continued and where appropriate, strengthened in Schools/Divisions.

• Links to other university programs be established so that the staff in the TLC do not feel compelled to offer everything. Conversely it allows the staff in the TLC to develop areas of in-depth expertise in specific areas to complement this.

Course Development/Video

A similar argument holds for the provision of support for the utilisation of teaching technologies. Commercial companies are far less tolerant of late provision of content and rarely provide instructional design. The ability to respond quickly, reuse video and code and adapt existing resources is lost if the service provider is not available within the university.

• It is recommended that the course development using technologies (eg. on-line and CD-ROM) and video service continue to be provided but that it should be fully costed and charged at a cost recovery rate. If the service provided is effective then university systems should promote and encourage the use the services. In the event that there is not sufficient support from the University for these services then they should be discontinued.

Evaluation of teaching

• Development and implementation of the evaluation process on a rolling basis across Divisions concentrating on the provision of quality feedback and advice on responding effectively to the issues raised.

• Recognition of the role of the TLC in institutional research and the provision of meaningful data and its interpretation.

• Provision of surveys as required by this evaluation process. This may lead to a reassessment on frequency and type of surveys for unit and teaching evaluations.

The TLC has a strong service orientation that is linked to the community. However it is sometimes mistakenly believed that service to the community should be provided free. There is no reason why service to the community should not be profitable. Regardless of the motivation, however, all service to the community should be undertaken in a strategic and manageable way to ensure that they serve the overall structure and directions of the Centre. The TLC has a strong service orientation that is linked to the community, the manager of the TLC would be well positioned to pursue work in this area.

• Where there is a clear articulation of the work of the Centre, then this work can be strategically pursued, particularly where there is a potential to earn money through alliances with TAFE, Councils etc.

• The contribution of the Student Learning is recognised in the broader sense in their support to the university community, e.g. Uni Access etc. can be considered to serve this with their continued support for students throughout their study.

• Rockingham Campus and TAFE articulation which can capitalise on TLC services should be pursued.

• Opportunity to capitalise on what they are doing but to provide value-adding service.

• Access to Web services for groups both within and outside the university should be reviewed to ensure they fit within the TLC's and university's strategic directions.

The panel recognises the TLC's strong contribution to the University's research quantum through publications and presentations at conferences and is to be commended. This is an excellent output given the work commitments of the staff. In order to strengthen this further, TLC staff could consider the following options:

• Explore the possibilities of bringing funds into the university via research projects to add to the research quantum which is currently happening.

• Maximise the extent to which publications and research can be strategically linked to the work of the Centre so that maximum value of the work of the Centre is recognised. A number of the directions suggested in this review may provide opportunities of further research projects and publications and they should be planned as part of their implementation.

The current structure of 6 functional areas, while historically recognised, does not serve the current and future directions of the TLC. To take advantage of the interactions and sharing of expertise that is already under-way but allow it to develop further, it is recommended that:

• The TLC be structured into two sections - one with a focus on learning; the other with a focus on teaching. Such a move would relieve the current heads of sections of administrative and budget responsibilities and enable a more strategic focus within the TLC.

• A full-time manager be appointed to lead the TLC. This position needs to provide management expertise and leadership in strategic direction, reporting to the PVC (A). The demands of the position and the ways in which it can be used to better position the TLC to take advantage of future developments needs to be recognised in the appointment to this position. In addition, the demands of the suggested changes to the evaluation of teaching will require significant staff commitment.

• The benefits of membership of the Division under the PVC(A) need to be identified e.g. in the development of an IT strategy and provision of IT infrastructure and support across the Division where efficiencies can be gained. Other benefits and articulations may well be identified in this process.

• It is recommended that the current funding levels to the TLC be maintained given the likely increased demand on their services for student support and the demands of implementing the teaching evaluation strategy. Should University policy change to target further equity groups, this needs to be recognised in the funding of the TLC as their non-EFTSU work is clearly related to the number of such students attracted to this University.

• The current practice of dividing the budget to the six functional areas reduces flexibility and does not allow for strategic changes in directions. The organisation into the 2 functional units will provide some flexibility for allocating the budget and establishing required earnings.

• The TLC will need to clearly enunciate what services are charged and what are not and make these widely known throughout the university. It should not be left to the discretion of individuals within the TLC whether services are, or are not, charged.

• TLC should be pro-active in alerting Divisions to costs associated with their services (eg. developing courses on-line).

• With the restructure of the TLC and appropriate Divisional strategies within the Division of Academic Affairs (e.g. integrated IT services), should achieve economies of scale as well as increased flexibility that is currently the case.

• Particularly given the directions of the White Paper and the earning potential of the TLC, the Manager should prepare an overall business plan , identifying appropriate partnerships and sources of future work.

• There may be a need for recognition by the university that where policy changes in courses or student intake are likely to impact on the services provided by the TLC should be considered and, where appropriate, reflected in the TLC's budget. Eg. increase in equity or international students.