ABSTRACT
Written submissions are traditionally used in the assessment of applications for Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy, with dialogue offering an alternative approach. Quite why individuals elect for dialogue has received little attention. Using a mixed methods approach, data were gathered from two Universities offering dialogic and written routes in their Fellowship schemes. Most individuals elected for dialogue, although this decision varied between Fellowship categories. Reasons for the choice were highly individual. This study demonstrates that dialogic approaches are popular with staff. However, we argue the importance of choice in Fellowship assessment options and recommend this to other academic developers.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Fiona Smart
Fiona Smart is a senior academic in the Department of Learning and Teaching Enhancement. She leads the University's Fellowship Scheme and is an International Consultant working to promote evidence-based pedagogy and promote the value of Fellowship for individuals and institutions.
Mandy Asghar
Mandy Asghar is an independent educational developer. Her recent research has focused on the value of professional dialogue for recognising teaching expertise and the role of service-learning in higher education today.
Laurie-Ann Campbell
Laurie-Ann Campbell is a doctoral research student at Glasgow Caledonian University and a research assistant at Edinburgh Napier University. Her research interests include widening participation, social justice and equality and diversity in higher education.
Mark Huxham
Mark Huxham is Professor of Teaching and Research in Environmental Biology at Edinburgh Napier University, where he teaches undergraduate and postgraduate students and researches mangrove ecology, climate change, coastal sustainability, assessment, feedback and partnerships with students for better learning.