Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Supporting Quality Teaching: a Profile of IWLP Teachers and the Role of Language Centres on the eve of the TEF by Dr Chiara Cirillo
Similar to Supporting Quality Teaching: a Profile of IWLP Teachers and the Role of Language Centres on the eve of the TEF by Dr Chiara Cirillo (20)
More from mlang-events
More from mlang-events (12)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Supporting Quality Teaching: a Profile of IWLP Teachers and the Role of Language Centres on the eve of the TEF by Dr Chiara Cirillo
- 1. Supporting quality teaching: a profile of IWLP teachers and the role of Language Centres on the eve of the TEF Dr Chiara Cirillo – University of Reading AULC Conference - Cardiff, 7-8 January 2016
- 2. The UK HE teaching landscape: fast changing and complex • increased participation > greater diversity (2003 ed.), more demanding students (2009 ed.) • pressure on resources (2003 ed.) • flexibility (2003 ed.) • quality & accountability (2003 ed.) • new technologies (2009 ed.) • employability (2009 ed.) • increased fees (2015 ed.) • global recruitment & global presence (2015 ed.) • inclusivity, students as partners (2015 ed.) Fry, Ketteridge & Marshall, A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
- 3. The scholarship of learning and teaching ‘Effective teaching […] has to be predicated on an understanding of how students learn; the objective of the activities is to bring about learning, and there has to be insight and knowledge about learners’ (Fry, Ketteridge & Marshall 2009:3)
- 4. Parameter shifts in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching • Broader goals (autonomous learning, cultural awareness) • Broader theories (cognitive psychology) (Newby 2003:13)
- 5. Accountability in HE Green Paper’s aims: • raise teaching standards to ‘deliver better value for money for students, employers and taxpayers > Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) • provide greater focus on graduate employability • widen participation • open up the sector to ‘new, high-quality entrants’ • reduce the regulatory burden on the sector Fulfilling our potential: teaching excellence, social mobiblity and ststudent choice (2015) www.gov.uk/government/consultations/higher-education-teaching-excellence-social- mobility-and-student-choice HEA strategy’s focus areas: • employability • retention and attainment • feedback and assessment • staff development http://digital.timeshighereducation.co.uk/HEASU PPNOV2015/
- 6. The survey: IWLP staff profile and CPD ‘an informed and up to date profession is a strong profession, a confident profession’ (Swarbrick 2014:37) IWLP teachers Numbers Development opportunities Relevant qualifications Experience Contractual terms Profile of language teachers in HE, IWLPs and CPD Evans (1988) Ferney (2000) Ferney (2005) Klapper (2001) Kapper (2005) Kapper (2006) Powell (2003)
- 7. How many people teach in IWLPs? Total number: 1554 Range: 6 -125 Mean average: 27 Most common: 10 -30 8.6 31.0 22.4 15.5 15.5 3.4 0.0 1.7 1.7 0 - 9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 40-59 60-69 70-100 above 100 %ofIWLPs Number of staff Size of teaching teams FTEs: 550 Range: 1.5 -70 Mean average: 13
- 8. What are the contractual terms for IWLP teachers? 11.8 29.4 7.8 19.6 7.8 7.8 5.9 3.9 3.9 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% %ofIWLPs permanent full-time 10.6 25.5 14.9 17.0 6.4 6.4 2.1 6.4 2.1 2.1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% %ofIWLPs permanent part-time 81.5 11.1 3.7 3.7 0% 10% 30% 70% %ofIWLPs fixed-term full-time 35.5 29.0 9.7 9.7 3.2 6.5 6.5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 80% %ofIWLPs fixed-term part-time 69.2 23.1 3.8 3.8 0% 10% 20% 30% %ofIWLPs Graduate Teaching Assistant 7.8 5.9 13.7 15.7 13.7 2.0 5.9 9.8 9.8 7.8 7.8 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% %ofIWLPs hourly paid
- 9. Hourly paid staff in IWLPs 56.8% programmes < = 40% hourly paid 43.8 % programmes > than 40% 7.8 5.9 13.7 15.7 13.7 2.0 5.9 9.8 9.8 7.8 7.8 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% %ofIWLPs hourly paid
- 10. 22.0 36.0 26.0 6.0 10.0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% %IWLPs less than 3 years 16.0 20.0 18.0 26.0 8.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% %IWLPs 4-10 years 7.7 11.5 25.0 23.1 5.8 13.5 5.8 5.8 1.9 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% %IWLPs 11-20 years 37.5 25.0 10.4 10.4 4.2 2.1 2.1 4.2 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% %IWLPs 20 years How much experience do IWLP teachers have?
- 11. 72.5 17.5 5.0 2.5 2.5 0% 10% 20% 50% 60% %IWLPs no relevant qualification 14.3 33.3 21.4 9.5 7.1 9.5 4.8 0% 10% 20% 30% 50% 60% 100% %ofIWLPs Certificate level 1.9 11.3 22.6 7.5 13.2 15.1 9.4 3.8 7.5 7.5 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% %ofIWLPs PGCE or Diploma level 2.0 19.6 21.6 15.7 9.8 9.8 3.9 3.9 7.8 5.9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% %ofIWLPs Masters Degree level qualification 37.2 27.9 27.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% %ofIWLPs PhD related to foreign language teaching What qualifications do IWLP teachers have?
- 12. 86.7 91.7 75.0 83.3 70.0 Ment Obs Train Work Conf %IWLPs Training & development activities offered 7% 22% 19% 52% Minimum number of activities offered 2 3 4 5 1.8 5.4 3.6 5.4 5.4 14.3 19.6 16.1 28.6 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% %ofIWLPs % teaching staff take up What training and development activities do IWLPs offer to their teaching staff? • Mentoring new teachers • Teaching observation/peer review • In house training • In house workshops • Conference attendance
- 13. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Appraisal scheme Individual support for any of the above Time allocation for any of the above Funding for any of the above Opport. Erasmus mobility or trips abroad Opport. active sessions offered by and to teaching staff Opport. research/scholarship/conferences Opport. further studies or profess. accred. (incl. HEA) Access to external CPD Access to CPD at Dept/ School/Faculty/Univ. level % of IWLPs Other CPD opportunities offered to IWLP teachers and enabling factors
- 14. Good practice in training & development activities in IWLPs • ‘Mutual Professional Development’ sessions in which staff share own teaching and assessment • Time allowance for scholarship in workloads • Non-salary budget specifically allocated to conference attendance, training and materials • Mentoring scheme for scholarly activities led by newly appointed ‘lead’ for scholarship; scholarly clusters (similar to research).
- 15. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 More staff engagement Better communication of opportunities More time/better contractual terms/recognition of research/scholarship in workloads and career progression More funding More support to engage in research/scholarship More study opportunities More sharing/dissemination opportunities More training % of IWLPs What more could be done to support the training and development of your teaching staff?
- 16. Issues and aspirations for better training & development activities in IWLPs • ‘Lighter teaching load, the main obstacle is not lack of opportunities, but workload, lack of time’. • ‘Giving teaching staff long term contracts that recognise their long term service and include provision for training’ • ‘It would be helpful to have some discussion of contracts at national level’ • ‘More external language CPD’ • ‘Financial assistance for outsourced training opportunities’
- 17. Issues and aspirations for better training & development activities in IWLPs (2) • ‘Scholarly activity should be included in our work models, so that the teaching staff who are already active in their own research area do not have to do so using their annual leave’ • Pay for part-time tutors is low, as is their status, and – despite the organisation of training courses – there is little potential for career progression for tutors within the university. More therefore needs to be done to make the terms and conditions of the job more attractive so that part-time tutors feel that the university’s commitment to their professional development is genuine’.
- 18. Close Reflection on practice (Schön1983) The ‘what’ model framework (Rolfe et al. 2001)
- 19. References • Coleman, J. A. and Klapper, J. (eds) (2005) Effective learning & teaching in Modern Languages, London : Routledge. • Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2015) Fulfilling our potential: teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice, [ https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/higher- education-teaching-excellence-social-mobility-and-student-choice, accessed 05/12/15] • Driscoll, P., Macaro, E., and Graham, S. (eds) (2014) Debates in Modern Languages Education, London: Routledge • Evans, C. (1988) Language People. The experience of teaching and learning modern languages in British universities, Milton Keynes : The Society for Research into Higher Education. • Fay, M. and Ferney, D. (eds) (2000), Current trends in Modern Languages Provision for Non- Specialist Linguists, London :CILT. • Ferney, D. (2000) ‘Introduction’, in Fay, M. and Ferney, D. (eds) (2000), pp. 1-11 • Ferney, D. (2005) ‘Institution-Wide Language Programmes and non-specialist learners’, in Coleman, J. A. and Klapper, J. (eds) (2005), pp.117-125.
- 20. References (2) • Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. and Marshall, S. (2003) A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. Enhancing Academic Practice. Second Edition. London: Routledge. • Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. and Marshall, S. (2009) A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. Enhancing Academic Practice. Third Edition. London: Routledge. • Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. and Marshall, S. (2015) A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. Enhancing Academic Practice. Fourth Edition. London: Routledge. • HEA (2015) Good Better Best. Transforming teaching through connections and collaboration, Higher Education Academy sponsored supplement of THE, 19/11/2015 [http://digital.timeshighereducation.co.uk/HEASUPPNOV2015/ accessed 05/12/2015] • Head, D. et al. (eds) (2003) Setting the agenda for languages in higher education, London :CILT • Klapper, J. (ed) (2001a) Teaching languages in Higher Education. Issues in training and continuing professional development, London: CILT • Klapper, J. (2001b) ‘Introduction: professional development in Modern Languages’, in Klapper, J. (ed) (2001a), pp.1-14.
- 21. References (3) • Klapper, J. (2005) ‘Who teaches our students? University teachers and their professional development’ in Coleman, J. A. and Klapper, J. (eds) (2005), pp. 23-28. • Klapper, J. (2006) Understanding and developing good practice. Language teaching in higher education. London: CILT • Newby, D. (2003a) Mediating between theory and practice in the context of different learning cultures and languages, Graz : European Centre for Modern Languages, Council of Europe Publishing • Newby, D. (2003a) ‘The interface between theory and practice’, in Newby, D. (2003a), pp. 13- 22. • Powell, B. (2003) ‘Developing Language Centres’ , in Head, D. et al. (eds) (2003) pp. 167 -179. • Rolfe, G. et al. (2001) Critical Reflection for Nursing and the Helping Professions: A User's Guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. • Schon, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books. • Swarbrick, A. (2014) ‘Evidence-informed practice as an effective approach to teacher development’, in Driscoll, P., Macaro, E., and Graham, S. (eds) (2014), pp.37-49.
Editor's Notes
- Not only teaching acquires considerable importance in the new globalised [click] mass higher education landscape [click] but a further shift can be observed from teacher to learner and from content to pedagogy [click] The newly emerged scholarship of learning and teaching mostly draws upon sociocultural approaches to learning, such as constructivism [click] , where the emphasis shifts from teachers and instruction towards learners, learning processes and strategies [click for slide 5]
- In foreign language learning and teaching this picture is compounded by [click] A broadening of the goals of language learning to include educational goals such as autonomous learning and cultural awareness [click] A broadening of theories of language learning to incorporate insights not only from applied linguistics but also from cognitive psychology.
- The activity of learning and teaching in universities is also under increased scrutiny from the government, demanding objective, measurable standards for the sake of accountability. [click] The Green Paper published last November is a consultation document that - I quote - ‘seeks to change the higher education landscape’ in England. Its core aims are to: Raise teaching standards through the introduction of a Teaching Excellence Framework, which will link funding to evidence of success, in order to ‘deliver better value for money for students, employers and taxpayers’ Provide greater focus on graduate employability Widen participation and Open up the sector to ‘new, high-quality entrants’ Reduce the regulatory burden on the sector The plan is to close the consultation in 2016, legislate and go ahead with a phased introduction from 2017/8. The criteria and the metrics for the TEF have not been announced and will be ‘developed over time’, although aspects to be considered will be teaching quality, learning environment, and student outcomes and learning gain. The intention is that successful applying institutions will be eligible to increase student fees above the current 9,000 pounds. The TEF – the paper says – will bring also reputational advantages. The announcement of the TEF has been met with mixed feelings. Whatever your views - and if you have not read it I encourage you to read the paper - it seems that closer scrutiny will be paid to all those involved in teaching in University. This is at last the opinion of the Higher Education Academy, [click] which has launched a new strategy just after the publication of the Green Paper. The strategy, which among other things includes plans to become a membership organisation with aspirations to chartered status, aims at driving teaching excellence by focusing on four priorities employability Retention and attainment Feedback and assessment and Staff development, with the latter playing a crucial role [click next slide]
- Teaching is what IWLPs do, it’s our ‘core business’. Are we well placed for the closer scrutiny ahead? Most of the discussions that have taken place within AULC in recent years have been about what we do for students and with student: numbers, motivation, curricula, methodologies and innovative practices. We have not talked much about ourselves. And yet [click]‘ an informed and up to date profession is a strong profession, a confident profession’ Swarbrick (2014:37), whom I am quoting, is talking about secondary school teachers, so often subject to policy changes. She claims that the ability to question what we do rather than remaining acquiescent is always important but particularly at times of fast change. ‘This is imperative – she says - if education is not to become the yoyo of the government of the day’. (2014: 48) Given the potential of CPD to transform teachers’ practice and raise standards of both teaching and learning, I was keen to bring it to the attention of our Association. I was delighted when the Executive Committee agreed to introduce a section on professionalization and CPD in the annual survey. I am also immensely grateful to all the respondents, who have taken time to gather the information and give their input. I am not aware of another survey this kind. [Click] In the literature on language teaching in universities one finds some references to the profile of language teachers, the issue of casualization and low status, their professional qualifications and experience. I have also found references to staff development activities, but no quantitative data. The only quantitative survey I encountered is the one John Klapper carried out as part of an HEFCE Teaching and Learning Development Fund and published in 2001 but which was mainly devoted to Languages departments. I felt that collecting data about who teach in IWLP and how they maintain and enhance their professional standing was a valuable starting point for a broader reflection on quality teaching in our programmes. [click] The survey was sent to all the 75 AULC members institutions, usually to a Programme Director, Centre Manager or Head of Department. The response rate was 80%, although it varied from question to question. Questions ranged from staff numbers and contractual terms, to staff experience, qualifications and development opportunities. Let’s see what the data said [click fornext slide]
- We have 1554 teaching staff employed in IWLPs. It is a lot of people! [click] The size of each operation is quite varied, with a minimum of 6 o a maximum of 125 staff. The average is 27, the highest percentage of IWLPs have between 10 and 19 staff, followed by those with 30 to 39 staff. [click] The survey also asked about numbers in terms of Full-Time Equivalents, mindful of the fractional nature of many posts. Several respondents have found difficult to answer. Based on 2 thirds of answers, the total FTEs are 550, ranging from 1.5 to 70 with a mean average of 13.
- Respondents were asked to indicate the percentage of staff in the following contractual terms: permanent full time 2. permanent part-time 3. fixed term full-time 4. fixed term part-time 5. graduate teaching assistants and 6. hourly paid staff. The picture emerging varies considerably among different programmes, but some trends can be noticed. [Click] The percentage of PERMANENT FULL-TIME staff is low across the respondents. The most common mode is 10% (nearly 30% of all answers). Notice also the nearly 12% of IWLPs without any permanent staff.[click] The most common percentage of PERMANENT PART-TIME staff is also 10%.[click] Only half of respondents answered about FIXED TERM FULL-TIME staff, possibly because it did not apply to them. Still for consistency’s sake I have analysed only the complete answers. It does not seem a common contract, with over 80% of institutions without any staff in this category.[click] As for FIXED TERM PART-TIME staff, again only half of the responses could be analysed here. They marginally more common than fixed permanent, with at least one third of respondents claiming their institution employ them in at least 10% of cases. [click] We did not have many responses for GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS either. They seem to be employed rarely in IWLPs. [click] Finally let’s turn to HOURLY PAID STAFF. We have again a varied picture across different programmes, however it seems evident that hourly paid contracts are still very common, with only 7.8% of institutions with no hourly paid staff. The most common percentage is 30% (in 15.7 % of IWLPs) followed by 20 and 40% (in 13.7%). Notice that in very few institutions they form half of the contracts. There seem to be a divide between those institutions which are committing to abolish hourly paid contracts and those where they are still very much in use. [click]
- Is this an half full or half empty glass situation? [click] If we do the sums we have 56%8 of programmes with 40% or less of hourly paid staff and 43. 2% with more than 40%, so technically we could say say that the glass is marginally full, but I would be inclined to conclude that we are on the right track but we have a long way to go. We can hope that future surveys will charter a continuation of this trend. I can also see here an opportunity for those institutions belonging to the less than 40% front engaging in dialogue with the others and articulate the advantages of permanent staff. After all, one of the suggested metrics for the TEF could be the proportion of permanent staff. To summarise the answers, it seems that the contractual landscape of our IWLPs is quite varied, and within individual programmes a combination of contractual terms are offered to teaching staff. Graduate Teaching Assistantships are rare, and the same can be said of fixed term full time staff. Fixed term part-time staff is marginally more present. Three contractual forms seem to be adopted instead: Permanent Full time, Permanent Part-time and Hourly paid, employed in different percentages . Of these, hourly paid contracts are still very much in use, although in most cases they form less than half the contracts. Have we learnt something new? Do the data confirm our expectations? On my part I was expecting more part-time staff, although I am relieved hourly paid staff are no longer the dominant form. Contractual terms are important. They are linked to issues such as sense of belonging, ownership, time availability, status and identity, team dynamics, all of which are crucial when we address quality teaching and quality learning. Let’s now move on to two aspects which will help us forming a better picture of IWLP teachers: their experience and their qualifications. Let’s begin with experience.
- The data refers to all staff. [click] Newly qualified or less experienced teachers are not common. In most cases they form between 10 and 20% of the teaching staff. No programme has more than 40% and 22% have no junior staff at all. [click] As for teachers with a more substantial experience, between 4 and 10 years, the most common occurrence is 40%, with significant numbers also at 30 and 20%.[click] Very experienced teachers, with 11-to 20 years career, have also a solid presence in IWLPs. The most common mode is 30%, followed by 40. In some case it is even up to 60%. [click] Finally staff with a long career in teaching, over 20 years. They are not so common, the most frequent percentages are 10 and 20%, yet there are programmes in which they make up a substantial percentage of the teaching team. To summarise, despite variations, the picture emerging is that of staff teams with a composite teaching experience but mostly between 4 and 20 years. This to me seems to indicate plenty of experience and a healthy variety that should enable both vitality and maturity. Let’s add to the picture by including the qualifications.
- The picture emerging with regards to qualifications is very encouraging, with the vast majority of IWLPs employing qualified staff teaching on their modules. Certificate level qualifications seem common only among a small percentage of staff, between 10 and 20%. PGCEs and Diplomas are more popular qualifications, although the picture is quite varied across programmes. The most common mode is 30%, followed by 60%. Master Degrees relevant to teaching seem less 6common than Diplomas, yet ¾ of IWLPs have between 10 and 50% with a Masters qualification. Finally PhD related to foreign language teaching are held by only a small percentage of staff. To summarise, with again variations across institutions, IWLP staff seems well qualified, with most teachers holding a relevant teaching qualification at Diploma or Masters level. Hardly any programme employs staff without qualifications. The survey has revealed that IWLP staff are well qualified, experienced staff but not quite settled, with over 40% of programmes employing more than 40% of its staff as hourly paid teachers. What do programmes do to ensure that they maintain and enhance their precious capital?
- We first asked respondents to indicate what they did in terms of training and development, suggesting the following activities: [click] Mentoring new teachers Teaching observation/peer review In house training In house workshops Conference attendance [click] The results seem rather positive, with activities offered by at least 70% of IWLP. Observations/peer review is the most common activity, conference attending the least. [click] Just over 50% of programmes seem quite active, offering all the five activities suggested. Respondents were then asked to give the proportion of staff that participated in at least one activity in the past 12 months [click] The result is that nearly 29% of programmes have total engagement. Is this because staff don’t engage? What are the barriers? Is less than 30% engagement good enough? I’ll leave you to decide. In the meantime let’s see what else IWLPs or their universities provide in terms of training and development. [click next slide]
- We asked respondents to indicate three further activities available for their staff. First a word on methodology. This question and the next elicited free answers, rich qualitatively but not so easy to quantify. In order to do so I have created some broad categories, as I wanted to be able to draw some generic trends. We had 73% response rate here. More than half respondents said they had other courses, seminars, workshops at programme, department , School, faculty or university level. External opportunities are also mentioned but less frequent (less than 20%). The same can be said for opportunities for further studies and professional accreditation with the HEA. I have put together research, scholarship and conference attendance, presentations and publications. These opportunities are available in less than 20% of institutions, but it is true that only a couple of institutions mention explicitly research and scholarship. Just above 10% of IWLPs organise participative, active sessions offered by teachers to teachers, sharing good practice. Even less mention mobility schemes or field trips. Then there is funding. I have grouped here all explicit mentions of funding, although only 2 or 3 institutions make specific reference to allocations. The others seem to imply that funding is available on application, and mostly for conferences and travel. Time is even scarcer than money though, as we can see from the table. I found very few mentions of time allocations for development and even fewer for research and scholarship. Quite interestingly there are quite a few mentions of individual support available for training, development, research or further study, often to support HEA applications or e-learning projects, but not only. There is mentoring beyond initial employment and even in research and scholarship. Finally there are a few mentions of appraisal schemes, which I wouldn’t immediately link with development, but quite a few have, so here they are. To summarise, a varied landscape with several interesting examples of good practice (defined as enabling, individualised, active, learning-rich activities) and perhaps some participation issues. Here are some examples of good practice the survey has captured: [click next slide]
- [click] Mutual Professional Development’ sessions in which staff share own teaching and assessment [click]Time allowance for scholarship in workloads [click]Non-salary budget specifically allocated to conference attendance, training and materials [click] Mentoring scheme for scholarly activities led by newly appointed ‘lead’ for scholarship; scholarly clusters (similar to research). We need to keep in mind is that for the variety of staff we have seen emerging from the survey, with different contractual terms, as well as experience and qualifications, we need a variety of development opportunities, but most of all genuine access to opportunities in the form of time, financial resources and individualised support/guidance/direction.
- We concluded the survey by asking respondents to indicate three more ways in which their programme or university could support their staff’s development. Only a 2/3 of respondents answered this questions. The others either left it blank or said they were satisfied. Unlike what we have seen so far, where a varied picture was emerging, here a few aspirations seem to come out loud and clear. In most cases it seemed that the ‘more’ that should come from outside the programme, from the university or from external forces. The majority of respondents have raised the issue of time – the lack of it – together with the need for recognition of development and scholarship in workloads; also better contractual conditions for hourly paid and low fractional staff, who often cannot access development opportunities. A few mentioned issues of career progression, lack of clear pathways or limited opportunities. The second common aspiration is for increased funding for development, followed by a desire for more training opportunities. There seem to be especially an appeal for external and for language-specific opportunities. So more time, more funding and more training are at the top of the list. Other mentions in the wish list were for more study opportunities, more sharing of good practice outside own institution, support for research and scholarship and better communication. A couple of respondents would like to see staff engaging more with what is available. Here are some of the answers which – in my view –better summarise the mood of the our fellow members: [click next slide]
- [click each] ]Lighter teaching load, the main obstacle is not lack of opportunities, but workload, lack of time’. ‘Giving teaching staff long term contracts that recognise their long term service and include provision for training’ ‘It would be helpful to have some discussion of contracts at national level’ ‘More external language CPD’ ‘Financial assistance for outsourced training opportunities’
- [click each] ‘Scholarly activity should be included in our work models, so that the teaching staff who are already active in their own research area do not have to do so using their annual leave’ Pay for part-time tutors is low, as is their status, and – despite the organisation of training courses – there is little potential for career progression for tutors within the university. More therefore needs to be done to make the terms and conditions of the job more attractive so that part-time tutors feel that the university’s commitment to their professional development is genuine’.
- The survey has told us quite a lot about the profile of the IWLP teacher, well qualified, experienced but whose contractual position hinders professional development and career progression. IWLP programmes and their institutions provide a good amount of opportunities, although the landscape is varied and good practice could be shared more widely and participation could probably be increased. What seems to be needed the most is not always within reach of the single programmes, but lies within the wider institution or perhaps even externally, especially with regards to contractual and workload issues. [click] The purpose of the survey was to provide AULC members with the opportunity to reflect individually and collectively, a reflection on practice, as Schon (1983) would call it. The survey has answered several questions, although the are many which have been left unanswered, for example questions about the quality and impact of development provision, Has the survey been useful? Is it something that we should continue to collect periodically? Is there more that we could ask, or ask differently? Or ask to different people? What about the voice of teachers? [click] And more importantly, what are we going to do about what the data seem to tell us, as teachers, as managers and educational leaders and a national association? My impression is that there seem to be an opportunity for AULC to be a forum for discussion, but also perhaps a catalyst for opportunities for development, such as ‘professional learning communities’ These are my questions, the answers over to you. Thank you.