Upload
maud-mccoy
View
216
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ALTC Teaching Fellowship 2010
ACDICT Learning and Teaching Forum
5-6 July 2010
Overview
ALTC Fellowship background for proposal aims planned activitiesoutcomes
Open DiscussionAcknowledgements
ALTC & Reference Group
Background
Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) Data National results show Engineering and Information and
Communication Technology do not perform as well as other discipline areas on the good teaching scale
Report on CEQ & GDS for IT Broad Discipline 2008.
Monash Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) Data ICT and Engineering were ranked second lowest and lowest
respectively on the good teaching scale. 2005, 2007, 2009 data – ENG & ICT ranked low
Unit Evaluation Data (UE) 2007 – 2009 ENG and ICT ranked low.
Aims
improve the quality of teaching and student satisfaction within identified units
to build leadership capacity amongst currently recognised outstanding teachers.
How? Introducing a Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme (PATS) Using a model that has already been piloted in the
Faculty of Information Technology at Monash University that has led to improved unit evaluations.
Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme
Partnering of teaching leaders and other academics to discuss ways to improve a unit
Identification of leaders & partnersDiscussions over informal meetingsSupported by series of teaching
workshops, peer reveiewsincentives
Results in ICTFIT5151 Object-Oriented Business Application Development
Semester 2, 2008 (CL): Median: 2.86, Mean: 2.76 (59 students enrolled, 25 responses) Semester 1, 2009 (CA): Median: 4.33, Mean: 4.19 (20 students enrolled, 16 responses)
FIT2043 Technical documentation for software Semester 1, 2008 (CL): Median: 2.11, Mean: 2.32 (38 students enrolled, 20 responses) Semester 1, 2009 (CL): Median: 3.50, Mean: 3.00 (30 students enrolled, 12 responses)
FIT5173 Digital communications technology and protocols Semester 1, 2009 (new unit): Median: 4.36, Mean: 4.31 (25 students enrolled, 16 responses) This unit was a new unit taught in 2009, however, the lecturer wanted to be involved in PATS because his previous unit FIT1005 Networks and Data Communications was flagged as needing critical attention (Median: 2.95, Mean: 2.83 (112 students enrolled, 29 responses)
FIT9005 Computer Architecture and Networks Semester 1, 2008 (CL): Median: 2.95, Mean 2.70 (57 students enrolled, 23 responses) Semester 1, 2009 (CA): Median: 3.56, Mean: 3.32 (49 students enrolled, 25 responses)
FIT2028 Web Systems 2 Semester 2, 2008 (MA): Median: 2.5 (24 students enrolled, 7 responses)Semester 2, 2009 (MA): Median: 3.67 (30 students enrolled, 5 responses)
Three of the units (FIT5151, FIT2043, FIT5173) moved out of the critical attention zone (median < 3.0) into meeting aspirations (median above 3.6) whilst the other two units (FIT9005, FIT2028) moved into the needs improvement zone (median greater than 3.0 but less than 3.6).
Planned Activities 2010
Task Task Description Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 Announcement of PATS at University committees (UEC, LTC), Email to Faculty Deans(Sci, Eng, and ICT) .
2Release of unit evaluation results from CHEQ; Identification of participants; Meetings with Deans/Heads of School; Confirmation of participants; Scheme briefing sessions.
.3 CALT workshops: Peer Review, Working constructively with student
feedback,curriculum alignment, etc. . . . .4 Focus group discussion with PATS leaders and mentees; Analyse and prepare
report on outcome of focus group discussions .5 Administer surveys (Unit evaluation, MonQueST survey); PATS evaluation survey
issued to participants .6
Analysis of unit evaluation results- Identify units whose unit evaluation increased by 0.5. Analysis of survey responses from PATS participants. Identification of clusters and participants for 2011 iteration.
.7 Evaluation of first phase of project from project steering committee and ADEs .
Planned Activities 2011
Task Task Description Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
1Write 6-month progress report (combining focus group data, survey and UE results); Prepare papers for conferences Computing, Engineering and Science conferences.
.2 Present 6 month progress report to Deans, Senior Leadership Team, HoS and
members of UE ad LTC. Include suggested improvements and comparisons. .3
Head of School to nominate participants to the Scheme; Confirmation of participants. Organise and prepare vouchers.; Scheme briefing session; Issue coffee vouchers; Peers meet.
.4 CALT: Peer Review, Working constructively with student feedback.,curriculum
alignment, etc. . . . .5
Organise focus group discussion; Conduct focus group discussion with PATS leaders; Conduct focus group discussion with PATS mentees; Analyse and prepare report on outcome of focus group discussions .
6
Administer surveys (Unit evaluation, MonQueST survey); PATS evaluation survey issued to participants. Submit results to Dean, HoS and members of UE and LTC. Evaluation of final phase of project from project steering committee and ADEs. Preparation of final report
.
2011
Outcomes
A consistent and university-wide strategy/policy to assist academics to improve units that need critical attention;
Identification of perceived challenges and opportunities for the development of PATS as a mechanism to improve quality of teaching in Higher Education;
Improved teaching practice and student experience, and improved unit and course evaluations;
Dissemination of good practice both within and across discipline areas, through wide distribution of reporting and publications;
Embedded acknowledgement in “most improved unit from each cluster” into Monash’s Teaching Excellence Award process;
Ongoing acknowledgment and development of previous award winners’ and outstanding teachers’ skills;
Embedding of the outcomes into the Monash University Graduate Certificate of Higher Education.
Discussion
DeansThoughts and opinionsCommentsWant you’d like to knowOther outcomesSuggestions and recommendations
Survey questions PATS participants
How often did you met with your peer? What were you aiming to improve in the unit? What measures/advice did you take to improve your unit ? Or what
recommendations did you provided ? Has PATS provided you with an opportunity to reflect on your unit and
discuss your concerns with a colleague? Did you request a peer-review of your teaching? Why? Or did you
conduct a peer-review of some-one else's teaching? Why? Did you request a teaching evaluation? Why? Did the scheme provide you with the academic support you needed to:
i. openly exchange teaching ideas, ii. improve unit resources, (lecture slides, tutes, pracs, assignments, textbooks) and iii. discuss ways to improve the unit
Do you have any recommendations on how to improve the scheme? Any further comments.
Acknowledgements- ALTC
I’d like to acknowledge and thank ALTC for funding for this project.
Acknowledgements- Reference Group
External Reference Group Sally Rogan University of Wollongong Katherine Lindsay The University of Newcastle Phillip Dawson Deakin University Warrnambool Roger Hadgraft University of Melbourne Dr Jane Skalicky University of Tasmania
Acknowledgements- Reference Group
Internal Reference Group Marnie Hughes-Warrington Pro VC (Learning and Teaching) Professor Peter Stewart Faculty of Pharmacy Dr Sheila Vance Faculty of MNHS Catherine (Cathy) Barrett Faculty Business &
Economics Dr Wendy Sutherland‐Smith, Education Adrian Devey ODVCE Judith.Rochecouste CALT Lisa Smith Library
Acknowledgements-Reference Group
Monash Peer Assisted Learning Fellows Susan Edwards Faculty of Education Jane Bone Faculty of Education Jill French Faculty of MNHS Yvonne Hodgson Faculty of MNHS Gerry Rayner Faculty of Science