150 likes | 296 Views
ALTC Teaching Fellowship 2010. ACDICT Learning and Teaching Forum 5-6 July 2010. Overview. ALTC Fellowship background for proposal aims planned activities outcomes Open Discussion Acknowledgements ALTC & Reference Group. Background. Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) Data
E N D
ALTC Teaching Fellowship 2010 ACDICT Learning and Teaching Forum 5-6 July 2010
Overview • ALTC Fellowship • background for proposal • aims • planned activities • outcomes • Open Discussion • Acknowledgements • 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 amodel 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 & partners • Discussions over informal meetings • Supported by series of teaching workshops, peer reveiews • incentives
Results in ICT FIT5151 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).
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 • Deans • Thoughts and opinions • Comments • Want you’d like to know • Other outcomes • Suggestions 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