An Academy & QE – A Educational Developers Personal Perspective. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

an academy qe a educational developers personal perspective n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
An Academy & QE – A Educational Developers Personal Perspective. PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
An Academy & QE – A Educational Developers Personal Perspective.

play fullscreen
1 / 12
An Academy & QE – A Educational Developers Personal Perspective.
123 Views
Download Presentation
hanh
Download Presentation

An Academy & QE – A Educational Developers Personal Perspective.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. An Academy & QE – A Educational Developers Personal Perspective. Bob Matthew Director Teaching and Learning Service University of Glasgow

  2. A Starting Point • A need to acknowledge that HEFCE and SHEFC appear to be widening the gulf/differences between the HE sectors they fund!

  3. The Academy • Initial Response – Oh No, please not another new body! • Realisation – its not going away • Need to think about what is it trying to achieve?

  4. The Academy - Functions • Two functions • Regulatory – ‘licence to practice’ through completion of accredited programmes. • Professional development of those involved in teaching in HE • My view keep the two separate!

  5. The Academy - Organisation • At present LTSN / HESDA – work & are building ‘credibility’ with academics – this has taken time & effort lets not undo the good work that has been done. • ILTHE – started to have a real impact in many institutions, setting up something new will set this back, and will Ed Dev do a selling job a second time??

  6. The Academy - Organisation • A plea to look seriously at how other professions organise themselves • Engineers, role of Engineering Council and the discipline based Institutions • Medics, role of GMC and the Royal Colleges

  7. The Academy - Organisation • Could the new academy use the ILT as the regulatory function, and • The LTSN network (perhaps with new centres) to cover the professional development function.

  8. Quality Enhancement • SHEFC have gone for Quality Enhancement Engagements • Assessment • Responding to Student Needs (for session 2003/04) • Funding not yet announced, steering groups have been set up.

  9. Quality Enhancement • Monitored by ELIR, Enhancement Led Institutional Review (handbook now published) • Acknowledgement that enhancement will require institutions to take risks and so risk management will be part of review.

  10. Quality Enhancement • Is QE about ‘teaching’ or ‘learning’? • If QE focuses only on ‘teaching’ it will miss • If QE is to ‘improve students’ learning and their experiences of HE’ then the new Academy needs to involve more than just academic staff

  11. Quality Enhancement • NOT about dissemination of good practice, it MUST be about implementing change (based on research evidence) and showing that the change has ‘enhanced’ student learning. • QE money needs to go to ‘chalk face’ not in setting up more dissemination centres

  12. Final Thoughts • The new Academy needs to clearly separate out its regulatory and professional development functions • Needs to build on the existing success and not undo the good work that has been achieved in recent times • QE needs to focus on the learner not the teacher.