Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Pedagogy a poor second in promotions
10 December 2009
Study finds 'hypocritical' sector fails to practise what it preaches. Rebecca Attwood reports
Universities stand accused of hypocrisy this week over their claims to value teaching, after a major study of promotions policy and practice found that many are still failing to reward academics for leadership in pedagogy.
Research by the Higher Education Academy and the University of Leicester's "Genie" Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning examines the promotion policies of 104 UK universities.
It states that the use of teaching criteria is inconsistent, often absent and not always applied even if included.
All the universities examined include research in their promotion policies, but the same does not apply to teaching, which is excluded from the policies of 31 institutions.
In the research-intensive Russell Group and 1994 Group universities, only 58 and 35 per cent respectively feature criteria on teaching and learning in their policies.
When the researchers examined how universities put their policies into practice, they were able to obtain data for only 46 institutions.
"This in itself identifies an issue of transparency and consistency," says the report, Reward and Recognition of Teaching in Higher Education.
Among the institutions that made data available, only a tiny proportion of senior promotions in the nine Russell Group and 1994 Group universities examined include teaching and learning as a significant component: 8 and 9 per cent respectively. For promotions to lecturer or senior lecturer positions, the figures are 26 and 24 per cent.
This compares with 49 per cent at lecturer or senior lecturer level and 41 per cent of senior promotions in the 26 new universities that provided data.
The study follows related HEA research, published in February, which surveyed more than 2,700 academics. It found that while 92 per cent thought teaching should be an important factor in promotions, only 43 per cent thought it was.
George MacDonald Ross, senior adviser to the HEA's Philosophical and Religious Studies Subject Centre, said: "Considering how long official inquiries and policy documents have been saying that teaching and research ought to have equal status, it is quite shocking that so many older universities still fail to recognise leadership in teaching for promotion purposes, particularly at the professorial level.
"It is hypocritical for certain universities to say in their mission statements and strategies that they give equal weight to teaching and research, and not to practise this in their promotion procedures."
Sue Burkill, chair of the Heads of Educational Development Group, said that although there had been a trend in recent years towards including teaching criteria more explicitly in promotion, there was widespread belief among academics that it had made little difference.
She said there was "a great deal of discussion" in the sector about what the concrete indicators of teaching quality should be and how effective they were. The politics of institutional promotion committees were also seen as critical factors, she added.
"There is a belief that, although academics may be put forward by their departments, once their promotion claims are submitted to institutional-level committees there are barriers due to the way they are constituted and the highly competitive atmosphere that prevails."
One academic, speaking anonymously, said that while teaching and learning criteria were included in their university's promotion policies, they were not aware of anyone promoted on that basis.
An associate dean for teaching and learning in a traditional university, who also chose not to be identified, agreed there was a "real problem".
"In my experience, this has a direct impact on the perceptions of academics as to what is most important. Many are ruthlessly prioritising their own research over teaching commitments, even though it is the latter that financially sustains their departments," they said.
Wendy Piatt, director-general of the Russell Group, said its universities placed "huge importance" on teaching and learning, and a number of them were looking at how such skills could best be recognised by their promotion structures.
Paul Marshall, executive director of the 1994 Group, said that "high-quality research and teaching are mutually supportive".
However, Aaron Porter, vice-president for education at the National Union of Students, said: "For too long, good research has been the primary criterion in academic promotion. As student expectations increase, this must change."
rebecca.attwood@tsleducation.com.
R
Readers' comments
Surely this is not news in any meaningful sense. The low priority accorded to teaching and learning is clearly evident in the hordes of post graduate students who now deliver so much of the teaching in many so called 'research led' universities; it is evident in the size of seminar and tutorial groups and of course in the promotion game. I sat on promotion committees and the only criteria that mattered was research research research. As a head of department the consequences were far reaching. At times I felt I was on the Mary Celeste with my colleagues only appearing for their classes and the rest of the time working at home on their CVs. But of course, few were prepared to confront these issues and senior management continued to bray about their high standards of teaching and the wonderful student experience that had not diminished even though contact hours were cut and class sizes increased. In world class universities striving for inter-gallatic excellence how could this not be the case. The bull shit in this sector is quite staggering.
I also work in a research intensive university and am a member of promotions committees. Our vice chancellor is interested in teaching and in the 'student experience' and insists that all professors teach. This is an exciting innovation. Not only this, but teaching is rewarded by promotions committees and good criteria have been set out to make sure that teaching contributions are properly judged. Here, views about contribtions to teaching are taken very seriously even when the case for a promotion is made on the basis of research. Staff at this university are expected to spend no more than two days a week working at home - in the aftermath of a professor of sociology who turned up only on Thursday afternoons for more than a decade. CVs are good here, but so is teaching, and so - interestingly - is impact!
One key issue is how to recognize excellence in teaching and use it as promotion criteria. Also, why can't teaching be integrated into 'research'--that is, research and publications about teaching and learning in HE, all subjects.
Valuing teaching for promotion? What a joke. Check out the Faculty of Biological Sciences at the University of Leeds where they are jettisoning teaching intensive staff through "restructuring" - because er.. they don't bring in enough research income. Student staff ratio will rise to over 20:1 (really world class eh?) and; oh, and not a single professorial position in Teaching and Learning......
I seve on the Department Personnel Committee and the Faculty Personnel & Tenure Committee in a Canadian university where one can become a full professor in due course of time if one is excellent in teaching and good in research or excellent in research and good in teaching teaching. This has worked well over the last ten years since it was negotiated by the Faculty Association with the University Administration. However some one excellent in research and barely average as a teacher may become a full professor in 12-15 years after obtaining Ph.D. On the other hand, it may take more than 17 years for someone excellent in teaching and better than average in research (or unflattering research performance but very significant contribution in academic administration).
It is hard enough to quantify research, but at least there are some loosely agreed-upon criteria: number of publications, number of citations, research money brought in, etc. Of course, they are all problematic in their own way, and they can lead to insignificant small papers, unnecessary multiple authorship, large but low-impact grants, etc. The one I would like to see used is "citations per dollar spent". Nevertheless, quantifying teaching is even more problematic; the only measure seems to be students' perceptions, which, of course, leads to professors giving away grades and devaluing education even further. Until we find a suitable measure of teaching quality and effectiveness, these teacher-friendly policies have no chance of being properly implemented.
In the social sciences both teaching and research have neen usurped by the category of 'income generation'. Many of the outputs from funded research have minor impact and little intellectual quality, but income generation is now the portal to Reader/Prof. Quite often it is unnecessary to shine in any other category.
Reward and recognition for teaching in HE? How about this:
I have been forced to withdraw my application for promotion because it was not 'appropriate'. I have been turned down for promotion because I 'was not old enough'. I have been told that 'no professors will be appointed through the teaching route' despite the career path published on the university HR site. If I want to go to a conference, I have to pay for it out of my own personal savings. And my institution says that there is no discrepancy between teaching and research.
To Avtar and others in a similar situation: If you were forced to withdraw promotion application because you are not 'experienced enough' then most likely, you are being impatient. If you are asking for early promotion then the burden of proof is on you that you are exceptional. Believe me it is not so easy to prove this. On the other hand if you really believe that you are exceptional, look for another job.
Take it from someone who started his academic career in 1969 as a Lecturer Grade II in Newcastele upon Tyne Polytechnic and moved to the university sectory in 1982 in Canada, it does not make sense to spend your hard earned money for attending conferences even if you are presenting your own research paper. If your paper is any good then publish it in a recognised journal.
Mostly, conferences are waste of time and money.
I believe teaching has to be accorded due weight in promotion. What we are seeing in most Universities now is members of academic staff putting more efforts on research and doing just enough on the teaching part because teaching does not carry much weight in the University promotion criteria.
I also believe that in developing countries where resources are scarce, putting more weight in teaching could also encorage members of academic staff to set aside more time in writing compedia and books.
I believe teaching has to be accorded due weight in promotion. What we are seeing in most Universities now is members of academic staff putting more efforts on research and doing just enough on the teaching part because teaching does not carry much weight in the University promotion criteria.
I also believe that in developing countries where resources are scarce, putting more weight in teaching could also encorage members of academic staff to set aside more time in writing compedia and books.
Disclaimer: All user contributions posted on this site are those of the user ONLY and NOT those of TSL Education Ltd or its associated trademarks, websites and services. TSL Education Ltd does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify or agree with any comments, opinions or statements or other content provided by users.