from the institute for the advancement of … · course experience questionnaire, ramsden, 1991)...

illuminatioFROM THE INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF UNIVERSITY LEARNING – SPRING 2001

WELCOME TO THE SECOND EDITION OFILLUMINATIO. The first issue was circulated bythe Academic Staff Development Committee,whose work has, since October 2000, beenundertaken by the Institute for the Advancementof University Learning. We publish Illuminatiowith three aims in mind: to introduce to readerssome of the potentially influential ideas currentlyemerging from research into higher education; toshare with others some of the insight andexpertise that individual Oxford academics bringto their teaching; and to provide informationabout the educational research and developmentactivity for which the Institute is responsible.

CONTENTSScholarship reconsideredDefining the scholarship of teaching – page 1

Understanding Oxford learningResearch at the Institute for the Advancementof University Learning – page 3

What do tutors do?Exploring the Oxford tutorial – page 4

Diploma in Learning and Teaching in Higher EducationA participant's view – page 5

ILT membership – page 6

The Institute's staff – page 7

Comments about and contributions toIlluminatio are always welcome and should besent to: Rebecca Nestor, Development Manager Institute for the Advancement of UniversityLearning, Littlegate House, St Ebbe’s Street Telephone: 2-86802email: [email protected]

IN 1990 the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teachingpublished a report entitled Scholarship Reconsidered – Priorities of theProfessoriate. Written by Ernest Boyer, then President of the Foundation,

the report was a response to growing concern about the low priorityassigned to undergraduate teaching in American higher education. Boyer’sredefinition of the notion of scholarship has been enormously influential,prompting reconsideration of the nature of the academic role by Americanpolicy makers at many levels. Below, we reproduce extracts from the secondchapter of Boyer’s report, in which he sets out four aspects of scholarshipincluding, significantly, a scholarship of teaching.

The full report is available for loan from the Institute for the Advancementof University Learning.

Today, when we speak of being “scholarly,” it usually means having academicrank in a college or university and being engaged in research and publication.But we should remind ourselves just how recently the word “research” actuallyentered the vocabulary of higher education. The term was first used inEngland in the 1870s by reformers who wished to make Cambridge and Oxford“not only a place of teaching, but a place of learning,” and it was laterintroduced to American higher education in 1906. But scholarship in earliertimes referred to a variety of creative work carried on in a variety of places,and its integrity was measured by the ability to think, communicate, and learn.

We believe the time has come to move beyond the tired old “teaching versusresearch” debate and give the familiar and honorable term “scholarship” abroader, more capacious meaning, one that brings legitimacy to the full scopeof academic work. Surely, scholarship means engaging in original research. Butthe work of the scholar also means stepping back from one’s investigation,looking for connections, building bridges between theory and practice, andcommunicating one’s knowledge effectively to students. The work of theprofessoriate might be thought of as having four separate, yet overlapping,functions. These are: the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship ofintegration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching.

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF DISCOVERYThe first and most familiar element in our model, the scholarship of discovery,comes closest to what is meant when academics speak of “research.” Notenets in the academy are held in higher regard than the commitment toknowledge for its own sake, to freedom of inquiry and to following, in adisciplined fashion, an investigation wherever it may lead… The scholarship ofdiscovery, at its best, contributes not only to the stock of human knowledgebut also to the intellectual climate of a college or university… Scholarlyinvestigation, in all the disciplines, is at the very heart of academic life, andthe pursuit of knowledge must be assiduously cultivated and defended. The

1

Scholarship reconsidered

Illuminatio 2 a/w 6 16/5/03 12:55 pm Page 2

it suggests that knowledge is first “discovered”and then “applied.” The process we have in mind isfar more dynamic. New intellectualunderstandings can arise out of the very act ofapplication—whether in medical diagnosis, servingclients in psychotherapy, shaping public policy,creating an architectural design, or working withthe public schools. In activities such as these,theory and practice vitally interact, and onerenews the other…

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHINGFinally, we come to the scholarship of teaching. Thework of the professor becomes consequential onlyas it is understood by others. Yet, today, teaching isoften viewed as a routine function, tacked on,something almost anyone can do. When defined asscholarship, however, teaching both educates andentices future scholars. Indeed, as Aristotle said,“Teaching is the highest form of understanding.”

As a scholarly enterprise, teaching begins withwhat the teacher knows. Those who teach must,above all, be well informed, and steeped in theknowledge of their fields. Teaching can be wellregarded only as professors are widely read andintellectually engaged…

Educator Parker Palmer strikes precisely the rightnote when he says knowing and learning arecommunal acts.2 Great teachers create a commonground of intellectual commitment. They stimulateactive, not passive, learning and encourage studentsto be critical, creative thinkers, with the capacity togo on learning after their college days are over.

Physicist Robert Oppenheimer, in a lecture at the200th anniversary of Columbia University in 1954,spoke elegantly of the teacher as mentor andplaced teaching at the very heart of the scholarlyendeavor: “The specialization of science is aninevitable accompaniment of progress; yet it is fullof dangers, and it is cruelly wasteful, since somuch that is beautiful and enlightening is cut offfrom most of the world. Thus it is proper to therole of the scientist that he not merely find thetruth and communicate it to his fellows, but thathe teach, that he try to bring the most honest andmost intelligible account of new knowledge to allwho will try to learn.”3

In the end, inspired teaching keeps the flame ofscholarship alive. Almost all successful academicsgive credit to creative teachers—those mentorswho defined their work so compellingly that itbecame, for them, a lifetime challenge. Withoutthe teaching function, the continuity ofknowledge will be broken and the store of humanknowledge dangerously diminished.

In the end,inspired teachingkeeps the flameof scholarship

alive...Without theteaching function,the continuity ofknowledge will be

broken and thestore of human

knowledgedangerouslydiminished.

SCHOLARSHIP RECONSIDERED

intellectual excitement fueled by this questenlivens faculty and invigorates higher learninginstitutions, and in our complicated, vulnerableworld, the discovery of new knowledge isabsolutely crucial.

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF INTEGRATIONIn proposing the scholarship of integration, weunderscore the need for scholars who give meaningto isolated facts, putting them in perspective. Byintegration, we mean making connections acrossthe disciplines, placing the specialties in largercontext, illuminating data in a revealing way, ofteneducating non-specialists, too. In calling for ascholarship of integration, we do not suggestreturning to the “gentleman scholar” of an earliertime, nor do we have in mind the dilettante. Rather,what we mean is serious, disciplined work thatseeks to interpret, draw together, and bring newinsight to bear on original research…

The scholarship of integration is, of course, closelyrelated to discovery. It involves, first, doing researchat the boundaries where fields converge, and itreveals itself in what philosopher-physicist MichaelPolanyi calls “overlapping [academic]neighborhoods.”1 Such work is, in fact, increasinglyimportant as traditional disciplinary categoriesprove confining, forcing new topologies ofknowledge…The scholarship of integration alsomeans interpretation, fitting one’s own research—orthe research of others—into larger intellectualpatterns. Such efforts are increasingly essentialsince specialization, without broader perspective,risks pedantry. The distinction we are drawing herebetween “discovery” and “integration” can be bestunderstood, perhaps, by the questions posed. Thoseengaged in discovery ask, “What is to be known,what is yet to be found?” Those engaged inintegration ask, “What do the findings mean? Is itpossible to interpret what’s been discovered in waysthat provide a larger, more comprehensiveunderstanding?” Questions such as these call forthe power of critical analysis and interpretation.They have a legitimacy of their own and if carefullypursued can lead the scholar from information toknowledge and even, perhaps, to wisdom.

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF APPLICATIONThe third element, the application of knowledge,moves toward engagement as the scholar asks,“How can knowledge be responsibly applied toconsequential problems? How can it be helpful toindividuals as well as institutions?” And further,“Can social problems themselves define an agendafor scholarly investigation?”… The scholarship ofapplication, as we define it here, is not a one-waystreet. Indeed, the term itself may be misleading if

2

1 Michael Polanyi The TacitDimension (Garden City N.Y.:Doubleday 1967)

2 Parker J. Palmer To KnowAs We Are Known (New York:Harper and Row, 1983)

3 The New York Times 27thDecember 1954


UNDERSTANDING OXFORD LEARNING

3

Understanding Oxford learning In 2000 the University established the Institute for the Advancement of University Learning, with a research brief to conduct aninvestigation of aspects of learning and teaching at the University. Following consultation during Michaelmas term withindividual academics, interested committees, and a sample of colleges the Institute is now embarking upon the first phase of itsinvestigations. The three-year project aims to explore the factors that undergraduates perceive to be of benefit or a hindrance intheir pursuit of learning. The research is intended to support individuals, departments, colleges, divisions and other bodies of theUniversity in building upon Oxford’s tradition of excellence in undergraduate education.

The study is being conducted by Dr KeithTrigwell, the Institute’s Principal Research Fellow,and Dr Paul Ashwin, the Research Officer, inconsultation with college and university staff.Broadly, the research is an investigation intovariation in student learning in Oxford. We willlook at how the perceptions of high achievingstudents (those who obtain firsts or thoseconsidered by tutors to be high achieving) differfrom those of other students, and how thisinformation can be used to improve the learningof all students at Oxford. The study will focus onthe undergraduate context. This is because wewish to investigate the special nature of theOxford tutorial system, and also because similarstudies, which constitute a source ofcomparative data, focus solely on undergraduatelearning.

Research carried out in other universities consistentlydemonstrates an association between students’ perceptions oftheir learning environment and the quality of theirachievements. Higher levels of achievement appear to correlatewith learning environments that are perceived by students toinclude: some independence in determining what and how theylearn; clear learning objectives; informed and supportiveteaching; appropriate assessment; and appropriate workloads(Ramsden, 1991). Oxford is not, however, the same as otheruniversities. Whether the perceptions that Oxford students holdindicate that these, or other factors, are significantly related tothe quality of their learning, is a question that will be examinedin this study.

The Oxford study will be conducted in two phases. The first willfocus on testing existing data collection methods (such as theCourse Experience Questionnaire, Ramsden, 1991) and onidentifying aspects of the Oxford system that differ from thoseinvestigated in the previous research. This phase will be largelyqualitative, and may involve research collaboration betweencollege tutors and members of the Institute. The first phase ofthe project will supply an account of how the students sampledperceive the learning environment of the University and college.It will enable us to ascertain the extent to which Oxfordstudents’ perceptions of their context are similar to, or differentfrom, those described by students elsewhere. In the secondphase a larger, more quantitative study will make use of the

data from the first phase to explore relationsbetween variables.

The research the Institute is undertaking has twoprimary purposes. First, the data from an analysisof the context as perceived by undergraduatestudents will be made available to participatingcolleges and the University. We hope that thisdata will assist those all those in the Universitywith responsibility for learning and teaching. Itmay be of particular significance in areas such ascourse design and review, academicdevelopment, and quality assurance matters. Atthis level, the research contribution may becharacterised as being for the University ofOxford. The second purpose may be characterisedas a research contribution from the University ofOxford to the international community. TheOxford data will enable further investigation of

several contemporary higher education research issues, includingstudies of high-achieving students’ approaches to learning inresearch-intensive universities (Lindblom-Ylanne and Lonka,2000) and studies of variation in learning patterns of“homogeneous” student groups (Prosser et al., 2000). A positiveside-effect of the research is that, whilst the approaches used inresearch of this type are not intended to be developmental, theydo encourage students to think about aspects of their learningthat they would not normally consider. As a result, collegesparticipating in the study might anticipate modest gains inlearning for some students involved in the project.

If you are interested in knowing more about this project, anextended account may be found in the research section of theInstitute website (www.learning.ox.ac.uk). For furtherinformation, please contact Keith Trigwell on 2-86810 [email protected]

REFERENCES:Lindblom-Ylanne, S. and Lonka, K. (2000) Dissonant study orchestrations of high-achieving university students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XV,19-32.Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Hazel, E. and Waterhouse, F. (2000) Students’ experiencesof studying physics concepts: The effects of disintegrated perceptions andapproaches. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XV, 61-74.Ramsden, P. (1991) A performance indicator of teaching quality in highereducation: The Course Experience Questionnaire, Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129-50.

We will look at howthe perceptions of

high achievingstudents...differ from

those of otherstudents, and how

this information canbe used to improvethe learning of allstudents at Oxford.


EXPLORING TEACHING

4

Each day in Oxford, students experience tutorials that are inspiring, intellectually challenging and expressive of a powerfullearning partnership. This article is an attempt to capture something of the nature of the tutoring expertise that underlies them.It is based upon interviews with three tutors, chosen for no other reason than that we knew them. They are of interest to us asexamples of how tutors generate approaches to tutoring that work for them and their disciplines, and we are grateful to ourinterviewees for sharing their insight with us.

According to educational research 1 – and indeed common sense- what distinguishes expert teaching in higher education is notsimply the breadth of disciplinary knowledge displayed byacademics. Rather, expert teaching derives from academics’ability to combine their own knowledge with an understandingof how students, engage with new subject matter and integrateit into their existing understanding.

Tutors’ often tacit knowledge of what students can find difficultto grasp, and their sense of what students find most interestingto explore, guide the ways in which they draw upon their owndisciplinary knowledge and the resources in their environment.Dr. Ngaire Woods (Lecturer in Politics and Fellow of UniversityCollege) told us about her strategy for teaching first yearstudents. She has several aims for these tutorials: to encouragestudents to abandon the assumption that everything that isprinted in a book is unquestionably true; to help them to create adetailed understanding of a particular argument; and to nurturetheir confidence in generating their own views of authoritativeacademic writing. Her students work in teams of three or four,together preparing a critique of a key text. The prepared critiqueis then presented, by the group, to the author of the text, whomDr. Woods will have invited to respond to the students. In theprocess of preparing their argument, her students learn aboutmore than the subject matter under discussion: they also learnsomething about teamwork and the value of collaboration.Debating with each other, she believes, helps students to fullyengage with material, and internalise their own understandingsof it. At the end of this exercise, Dr. Woods discusses it with herstudents to see how they have experienced it, and sometimesmodifies how she uses it. Teaching expertise, as Dr Woods’ workdemonstrates, determines how tutors think about, plan, monitorand evaluate what they do.

After some decades of discussion about the nature of the ‘studyskills’ that underpin academic communication, recent researchhas emphasised the importance to students of learning toappreciate the conventions of academic argument within theirdiscipline2. Appreciating the conventions of academic writingmeans, for instance, knowing what counts as evidence and why;how examples are used; and how arguments are framed. Itmeans gaining a level of fluency in discipline-specific discourse:the way physicists write for physicists or linguists argue withlinguists. Much expert teaching demonstrates these conventionsto students. From the beginning of the first year course DrHeather Viles (Lecturer in Geography and Fellow of Worcester)sets her geography students a deliberately wide variety ofreading: a chapter each from a range of textbooks, a variety of

articles and an extract from a web site, perhaps. She asks themto discuss not only the content of the reading they undertakebut also its structure, approach and purposes. Her students areexpected to make an assessment of its style, to examine its useof graphs, diagrams and photographs, and to consider how theliterature is or might be used for differing purposes.

The relationship between research and teaching is both long-assumed and increasingly called into question, so it wasinteresting that our tutors drew on their research activity toformulate strategies for helping students to consolidate theirunderstanding. For example, from the perspective gained fromhis research in non-metallic materials, Dr Paul Buckley (Lecturerin Engineering and Fellow of Balliol) recognises that mechanicalengineering textbooks tend to present arguments in a way thatassumes that everything is made out of steel. In his view,students need help to separate out concepts that are, as he putsit, “usually jumbled up” in their core texts. He thereforechallenges his students to interrogate textbook problems from arange of different angles. So he might ask, ‘Supposing [thestructure] was made out of chewing gum, would you get thesame answer?’ As well as enabling his students to see the in-built bias in the text book explanations, Dr. Buckley’s use of thisapparently simple questioning strategy discourages his studentsfrom reliance on rote-learning, and encourages them to seek tounderstand in greater depth the principles under consideration.

Is there anything to be learned from the approaches to teachingthat other tutors adopt? Some might reply, ‘very little’. Goodteaching, it is argued, is so highly contextual that what worksfor one tutor may not work for another. It is clear that ourinterviewees’ approach to teaching is indeed a unique responseto their own discipline, circumstances, and preferences. Butwhile slavish imitation would be unwise there is still much thatmight be learned by analogy from these examples.

An associated argument is that attempting to conceptualise‘good teaching’ independently of student learning is meaningless.The tutors we interviewed seemed to conceptualise teaching as,above all else, a partnership with their students. They thereforethought carefully about student feedback, spending time elicitingstudents' views and considering how to respond to them. Adistinguishing feature of the scholarship of teaching, it has beenargued, is that it thrives in collaborative communities.

The collaborators are colleagues as well as students, and talkingand writing about teaching is a way of nourishing, renewing,and invigorating it. If we agree that learning and teaching are

What do tutors do?


EXPLORING TEACHING

5

inseparable, and that ‘outcomes’ depend upon collaborationbetween learners and teachers, it becomes difficult to treatteaching as a matter of individual teachers’ performance, andeven more difficult to accept associated initiatives such asperformance related pay. Arguably, however, we need exemplars:teachers whose work is worth emulating. Would the collectiveenterprise of teaching be destroyed if we singled out forrecognition those whom we believe to be our best teachers?Research is also, undoubtedly, a collective enterprise, and onethat does not seem to have been impoverished by decades of

recognition for our best researchers. Should we recognise expertteachers in the way we recognise expert researchers? And if so,how shall we know them?

1 Sternberg R. J. and Horvath J. A. ‘A Prototype View of Expert Teaching’

Educational Researcher 24 (6).

2 Lea, M.R. and Street, B.V. (1998) Student Writing in Higher Education:

An Academic Literacies Approach, Studies in Higher Education 23 (2) pp

157-172

Interviews conducted by Steve Maxwell.

DEVELOPING TEACHING

Diploma in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education:a participant's view

A feeling of liberation accompanied my teaching in Michaelmas 2000. A recent ‘graduand’ of the University’s Diploma inLearning and Teaching in Higher Education, I compared my approach with the way I had taught the same class a year earlier. Inow felt better able to focus on the students’ experience, and less taken up with concerns about my own active contribution or‘performance’. I felt that I had a clearer understanding of the students’ learning and greater confidence about what was beingachieved through my teaching.

I was among the first group of academic ‘guineapigs’ to participate in Oxford’s part-time Diplomafor Oxford academic staff. At the outset, all ofthe newly assembled ‘students’ were unsureabout exactly what the course would have tooffer us. My fellow participants were both moreand less experienced than myself, ranging fromJunior Research Fellows engaged in the minimumthree hours a week of tutorial teaching, toUniversity Lecturers with some 15 years teachingexperience. Our motivations for attending werediverse: they included a desire to affirm that‘teaching matters’; a wish to develop particular teachinginitiatives; the hope that the course might help to deal withexternal pressures such as QAA audit; and the prospect ofacquiring membership of the Institute for Learning and Teaching(ILT). All of the participants placed a high value on teaching andwanted both to develop their own practice and to contribute tothe development of the Diploma programme.

The participants were one of the most important resources thatthe Diploma supplied. It would, in itself, have been anenlightening and enjoyable experience just to talk aboutteaching with these academics drawn from a range ofdisciplines across the University. The structure of the Diploma’sday-long seminars encouraged an immediate and lastingcamaraderie, and I am happy that many of the relationships Iestablished will continue beyond the course itself.

I was impressed throughout by the openness andenthusiasm of the course presenters. The coursewas running that year as a pilot and they werepositively encouraging of feedback of whatevernature. Oxford academics are a hard group tosatisfy and plenty of critical feedback wasforthcoming! Many participants felt that thecourse should be less theoretical and moreapplied, telling us how to teach rather thanengaging with educational research. Thosewanting straightforward instruction in ‘teachingtips’ were disappointed, as the emphasis lay

more on understanding student approaches to learning andresponding to them in unique ways. However, different teachingmethods were modelled during the course (and influenced myteaching practice) without being the main focus of the coursecontent. Much of the work in seminars was based around groupdiscussion, which was motivating and useful. Old habits dyinghard, the participants actually requested – and duly received – atraditional lecture.

With some trepidation, we embarked on two terms of peer-observation of each other’s teaching. To our surprise, it was notdisruptive having a supportive course participant observing one’swork. It was a privilege to gain an insight into the private worldof a fellow tutor, and illuminating to look at tutorial processesand students’ reactions even where it was not possible toentirely follow the content of another discipline.

In some respects themost informativepart of the coursewas being able toexperience being a

student again

5


6

Participants were allocated professionalsupervisors who supported their studies. Iactively chose my professional supervisor, adistinguished teacher within my owndepartment, and found the relationshipextremely beneficial. Professional supervisionwas further ‘uncharted territory’ for the Diplomaand the supervisors were not experts on theeducational literature. These relationships, withboth parties initially unsure about their role,seemed to develop in very different directions fordifferent participants. The opportunity to discussdiscipline-specific teaching preparation andexperiences was, for me, an invaluable resource.

In some respects the most informative part ofthe course was being able to experience being astudent again, examining our own responses toengagement in a novel and, to some, aliendiscipline. From this perspective, it was often theaspects of the course that went wrong that werethe most illuminating. An initial problem-basedlearning seminar did not work well for me,because the problem that we were asked to work on was toogeneral to allow us to properly engage in it (this problem hasnow been made more specific). A later session was moremotivating, as it was a genuine problem grounded in real Oxfordmaterials. Being confronted with a vast amount of literature tomaster in a short period of time overwhelmed most participants,and brought home the reality of being presented with anoverlong, un-annotated tutorial reading list. (Needless to say,the protestations of the pilot cohort have led to a dramaticreduction in the quantity of material included in the course.)Assessment is through the submission of a portfolio, anunfamiliar concept for most of us. Despite being set out indescriptive fashion, the criteria for assessment of the portfolioseemed to most of the participants not particularly informative,and the problem of understanding what we were aiming toproduce was aggravated by the non-existence of any previousportfolios for comparison. It soon became apparent as westruggled to understand what we had to write – and relate thatto our work on the course – how much the issues and anxietiessurrounding final assessment structure students’ approaches totheir studies.

Completing the teaching portfolios presentedinteresting questions about what should count asassessment. Many participants initially felt it wassomehow ‘cheating’ to submit material theywould anyway have developed for their teaching.Atypically, I did not focus on the assessmentcriteria until rather late in the process, andconfronted the requirement that the portfolioshould demonstrate a ‘reflective’ approach to myown teaching practice in the final stages of thecourse. Whilst I felt confident that all of theparticipants were ‘reflective’ in the context of ourdiscussions with each other during the course, Ifelt that there was a peculiarity about, and sometension in, engaging in reflection for the purposesof assessment. For me, it seemed to lead to adisappointingly thin and ‘intellectualised’ accountof my teaching experience, not succeeding incapturing its richness or complexity.

Overall, I – and I believe other participants –would strongly recommend the experience, butundertaking the Diploma is not an undemanding

option. Participants learn in different ways and at manydifferent levels on the course, but ultimately, making the linkbetween personal teaching practice and educational research isnot easy. The course team and pioneering participants workedhard to bridge this gap, to the evident benefit of the studentswe all teach; and, we hope, to the benefit of future courseparticipants, other members of the University, and the highereducation research community.

Dr Fiona Spensley, Fellow of Lady Margaret Hall

Dr Spensley undertook the Diploma in Learning and Teaching inHigher Education whilst she was teaching full-time in theDepartment of Experimental Psychology. She continues to tutorundergraduates in psychology and is also now a course tutor onthe Diploma.

We are currently accepting applications for places on the Diplomain Learning and Teaching in Higher Education commencing inSeptember 2001. If you are interested in finding out more, pleasecontact Sapna Shankar, 2-86806 or look at our website atwww.learning.ox.ac.uk. Applications close on 27 April 2001.

ILT membershipColleagues with three or more years of teaching experiencehave until September to apply via the ‘fast track’ route formembership of the new national Institute for Learning andTeaching. Some departments have organised a visit from the ILTmembership office to advise on preparing applications. TheInstitute for the Advancement of University Learning will

consider doing so for academics from other departments, ifsufficient interest is expressed. For further information aboutthe ILT, connect to www.ilt.ac.uk. If you would like to attend aseminar to discuss making an application, please [email protected]

It soon becameapparent as we

struggled tounderstand what wehad to write – andrelate that to our

work on the course -how much the issues

and anxietiessurrounding final

assessment structurestudents’ approaches

to their studies.


7

Director of the Institute: SUZANNE SHALE Suzanne is responsible for the leadershipand strategic development of the Institute.She is also theDirector of thePostgraduateDiploma inLearning andTeaching inHigher Educationand contributesto the Institute’sresearch programme. Suzanne has been afellow and tutor of law at New Collegesince 1989 and has been involved inUniversity teaching for over fifteen years.She continues to teach law, whilst herresearch interests include professional andgraduate education. She is a member ofthe University’s Educational Policy andStandards Committee.

Suzanne can be contacted, by email, [email protected] or bytelephoning 01865 2-86809.

Development Manager: REBECCA NESTORRebecca is responsible for the day-to-daymanagement of the Institute as well as themanagement of the Institute’s business

developmentactivities. Shealso contributesto the Institute’sprofessionaldevelopmentactivities,particularly tothose in the area

of management development. Rebeccaworks collaboratively with staff to tailorsupport programmes to their particulardepartmental context, whilst drawing onher ten years of management experience.Rebecca has been working at Oxford since1992, when she was appointed as theUniversity’s first Equal OpportunitiesOfficer. She is the secretary to the FacultyTeaching Representatives meetings.

Rebecca can be contacted, via email, [email protected] or bytelephoning 01865 2-86802.

University Lecturer in Learning andTeaching in the Sciences: Dr GAYNOR LLOYD-JONES MB.ChB Gaynor’s remit is to work with academicstaff in the Science Divisions, to supportlearning and teaching development. Sheprovides advice and support in planning,monitoring and evaluating learning andteaching at faculty or department level.She is also a course tutor on thePostgraduate Diploma in Learning andTeaching in Higher Education. Herdoctoral thesis was a qualitative study ofthe experienceof first yearmedical studentson an innovativeproblem basedlearning course.Gaynor practisedas ananaesthetistuntil 1990,when she embarked upon a secondundergraduate degree in psychology.Following this, she worked as aresearcher, and then as a Lecturer in theDepartment of Health Care Education atthe University of Liverpool.

Gaynor can be contacted, via email, on [email protected] by telephoning 01865 2-86813

Educational Development Adviser: DUNA SABRIDuna works with academic staff in theHumanities and Social Sciences Divisionsto support learning and teachingdevelopment. She works in a variety ofways with departments and individuals:leading seminars, contributing to policydevelopment on learning and teachingand supporting individual tutors. She isresponsible, with Gaynor Lloyd-Jones, forthe Institute’s seminars on learning andteaching, which are run jointly by Institutestaff and experienced lecturers from arange of disciplines in the University. Sheis a course tutor on the PostgraduateDiploma in Learning and Teaching inHigher Education. Her research interestsinclude the enculturation of newacademics and approaches to developingteaching within academic communities of

practice. Thelatter is thesubject of herdoctoral research.Duna joined theUniversity in1997 after 3years at RoyalHolloway College,University of London, working in researchand development in equal opportunities.She is a fellow of Harris ManchesterCollege.

Duna can be contacted, via email, [email protected] or bytelephoning 01865 2-86804.

University Lecturer in ProfessionalEducation: Dr FIONA SPENSLEY Fiona’s role is to support initiatives ingraduate education, particularly inrelation to teaching development andtransferable skills graduate education;and to promote the development ofteaching among staff in academic-related posts. She is a psychologist withresearch interests in learning from acognitive perspective and in cognitivedevelopment. Fiona has joined the

Institute fromthe Departmentof ExperimentalPsychology inOxford, whereshe taught forthree years.She has adoctorate incognitive

development from the Open Universityand has worked there as a researcher atthe Institute of Educational Technology.Fiona is a fellow of Lady Margaret Halland continues to teach cognitive anddevelopmental psychology.

Fiona can be contacted, via email, [email protected] by telephoning 01865 2-86812

The Institute’s Staff


Professional Development Adviser: ANN MEREDITH Ann is responsible for leading theorganisation of professional developmentactivities intended, primarily, for non-teaching staff. Ann is flexible in herapproach to developing supportprogrammes,working withdepartments todesign andimplementsupport that fitswith thecontext inwhich staff areoperating. Annis responsible for the Institute’s seminarsin professional development and is alsoleading the Institute’s investigation ofaccreditation opportunities forprofessional development activities. Annjoined the University in April 1999 havingworked at Edge Hill College of HigherEducation for three and a half years inboth the Teaching and LearningDevelopment Unit and as a lecturer inHuman Resource Management. She holdsthe SEDA Postgraduate Certificate inLearning and Teaching Support in HigherEducation and has an association withLinacre College.

Ann can be contacted, via email, [email protected] or bytelephoning 01865 2-86805.

Principal Research Fellow: Dr KEITH TRIGWELLKeith directs the Institute’s learning andteaching research programme. He alsoco-ordinates the support that is offeredto academic staff in colleges anddepartments to enable them to conducttheir own investigations into teachingand learning. An international authorityon learning in higher education, Keithjoined the Institute after seven years asDirector of the Centre for Learning andTeaching at the University ofTechnology, Sydney. His research intoexperiences of university scienceteaching resulted in the development ofthe ‘Approaches to Teaching Inventory’

that has beenadopted byuniversitiesaround theworld. Sixstudies fundedby theAustralianResearchCouncil and

carried out jointly with Michael Prosserunderpinned the recent publication oftheir book “Understanding Learning andTeaching: The Experience in HigherEducation” (Open University Press,1999).

Keith can be contacted, via email, [email protected] or by telephoning 01865 2-86810.

Research Officer: Dr PAUL ASHWINAs well as contributing to the Institute’sresearch programme, Paul is responsiblefor supportingacademic staffat Oxford whowish to carryout researchinto learningand teaching.Rather thanoffering generictraining ineducational research methods, Paul willbe using his expertise to help academicstaff to define and investigate their ownquestions about teaching and learning

INSTITUTE PROFILES

8

at Oxford. Paul’s doctoral researchfocused on the processes and outcomesof ‘peer learning’ for different groups ofstudents. His research interests includethe relationship between teaching andlearning and he is keen to examine thisin the context of the Oxford system.Paul is an association with CorpusChristi College.

Paul can be contacted, via email, [email protected] by telephoning 01865 2-86811.

Development Officer, Disability: PAULINE McINNES Pauline’s role is to design, deliver andevaluate a programme aiming toenhance support for disabled students inthe University.Pauline hasjoined theInstitute fromNew Zealand.She worked atthe AucklandUniversity ofTechnology as aResourceCoordinator for Disabled students andalso at Specialist Education Services,where she liaised with schools teachingdisabled students. Pauline has personalexperience of disability, being visionimpaired since birth.

Pauline can be contacted, via email, [email protected] by telephoning 01865 2-86814

The Institute for the Advancement ofUniversity Learning is supported byHEFCE through the Teaching QualityEnhancement Fund.

The Institute’s Staff


from the institute for the advancement of … · course experience questionnaire, ramsden, 1991)...

Documents