Continuing professional development: suggestions for effective practice

Abstract

Some of the recent debates and discourses about higher education have embraced the development of shared aims and values within the professional context. The opportunity to engage in critical reflexive pedagogy is being widely acknowledged as an important element in the continuing professional development in the sector. In this paper a case study model of professional development practice is outlined: the Teaching Development Group at the University of Gloucestershire. As part of a review of its own organizational structure for some aspects of professional development, a multi‐method research project was undertaken during 2001. The first phase was a questionnaire survey of the university's academic staff to establish some baseline data and to plot general patterns and trends. This generated a database of 101 returns; a response rate of 31%. The second phase was a series of four ‘focus group’ meetings to develop a more nuanced understanding of the key themes and issues that emerged from the survey. These highlighted the positive spirit in which the scheme was received in the first instance, the difference of opinion over the direction taken by different groups and agenda setting, and some perceptions about a formal framework for teaching observation as part of on‐going professional development. From the perceptions of preferences and/or optimal practice identified in the two phases of the research, a scheme of this kind has the potential to contribute effectively to professional development when appropriately resourced, small, cognate groups have autonomy and when there is a clear differentiation between on‐going staff development and formal appraisal activities.

Notes

This project was funded by the Scholarship of Learning and Teaching initiative at the University of Gloucestershire. Established in 1998, its purpose is to promote research and development related to teaching and learning practice across the university. The research team was drawn from academic staff from three of the university's seven teaching schools and included staff members with different roles within the university's organizational structure (Senior Lecturer, ‘Course Leader’, Reader, Head of School), different periods of tenure (from 1 to 6 years at the time the data were collected). Two members of the team had also worked at other higher education institutions in the UK.

In July 2000, Professor Mick Healey was one of the successful 20 nominees, from a total of 95 applications, who received awards of £50 000 to benefit their work in teaching and learning.

As the scheme developed, however, some groups grew in size to the point where they were significantly larger than this. In some instances, this was recognition of the difficulties encountered when attempting to convene a meeting of four to six people. With larger groups it was possible to have meaningful and constructive discussions without all members of the group being able to attend on all occasions.

Data that have not been included here reflect perceptions of the operation of the TDG scheme at the University of Gloucestershire, and whilst these were a primary focus for the research in the first instance, they are less relevant to a wider audience than the data presented here about perceptions of preferred and/or optimal arrangements for the scheme.

The full analytical procedures used on the survey data included descriptive statistics (frequency distributions, median and inter‐quartile range), association techniques (χ² and Spearman's rank correlation) and inferential analyses (MANOVA).

It should be noted by the reader that the data are not seamlessly transcribed. Much of the value of the analysis, such as it is, is to be found in the selection and presentation of data from different voices in different focus groups.

Where there has been editing within an individual's contribution to the dialogue, indicated by […], this too has been done to protect anonymity.

The Professional Development Group Scheme was approved by the University of Gloucestershire's Academic Board in July 2003. In the new scheme, academic and academic‐related staff across the university will be members of Professional Development Groups operating as Action Learning Sets. As an aside, observation of teaching will be undertaken in a separate scheme. (Readers interested in further information about the Professional Development Group Scheme are welcome to contact the Centre for Learning and Teaching, University of Gloucestershire, Park Campus, Cheltenham, Glos. GL50 2QF, UK.)