Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

The quality of teaching and the pedagogical development of teaching staff is a key issue in higher education (HE). University faculty, particularly in research-intensive universities, mostly identify themselves as researchers. This understanding is, to a large degree, reinforced by universities due to the influence of league tables based on research performance and other economic and cultural factors. While many universities are increasing their focus on teaching improvement, the general value system, from hiring requirements to promotion criteria, and institutional culture often still revolve around research. Around the globe reward systems strongly favour publications (Turner and Gosling 2012). Many universities are starting to try to redress the balance and give greater prominence to teaching, first and foremost by rewarding excellent teaching, and to a lesser extent through promotion structures (Parker 2008; Subbaye and Vithal 2017). Research is the hard currency and, within such a context, teaching competence development can be difficult to prioritise, for individual faculty members, departments and universities.

In this chapter, we consider how universities internationally are responding to this challenge. We discuss some of the factors that influence policy and practice within institutions in general and through the strategies pursued by two comparable research-intensive universities, the University of Copenhagen (UCph) and the University of Edinburgh (UoE).

2 International Trends

Teaching quality has always been on the agenda in HE. Until recent decades, the responsibility was placed mainly on the individual teacher. Now, with increased external scrutiny of institutional performance, and with a growing body of research into teaching and learning in HE, the focus has changed towards an organisational responsibility. This is often manifested by an organisational focus on building teaching competencies through formal, structured staff training and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programmes. This shift has been supported by international initiatives and reports (McAleese et al. 2013; Hénard and Roseveare 2012). A central focus of these reports has been the relatively low status of teaching compared to research. For example, McAleese et al., in their report to the European Commission, noted that:

In most Member States, an academic career is still more strongly linked to research than to teaching in terms of initial selection at job interview and subsequent promotion and performance related reward (McAleese et al. 2013, p. 30).

They point to the obvious solution that:

Every institution should develop and implement a strategy for the support and on-going improvement of the quality of teaching and learning, devoting the necessary level of human and financial resources to the task, and integrating this priority in its overall mission, giving teaching due parity with research. (ibid., p. 27).

In research-intensive universities, the emphasis on research performance is even greater. Academics are hired primarily on the basis of their research merit, and the common narrative among faculty follows the dictum of ‘publish or perish’. The emphasis on research performance is evident in the incentive structures of most universities. For academic positions, the requirements are first and foremost a PhD degree, that is, three to four years’ further education in research, and then documented research competences in the form of publications, H-index and research funding. This understanding permeates the whole culture at these universities: ‘…research is the major driving force for personal engagement and institutional ethos’ (Mårtensson et al. 2011).

As the organisational focus on teaching increases, we are beginning to see requirements for teaching competencies being explicitly stated and defined in relation to promotion and career paths. As stated by Chalmers and Gardiner (2015, pp. 82–83):

there are clear expectations that teaching staff will increasingly be required to provide evidence of the quality of their teaching and of ongoing participation in teacher development programmes.

The requirements for certified teaching competencies are commonly linked to initial university teacher development programmes. Globally, there is a large variation in the status (e.g. mandatory or voluntary), target participants, resourcing, purpose and scope of these programmes (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015). In Australia, it is left to each university to decide on their requirements for teacher training, while, in Canada, most universities provide support for developing teaching competencies (Taylor and Znajda 2015). In Denmark and the United Kingdom and other countries like Malaysia and Sweden, this is a general sector-wide expectation or requirement for university teacher training (Chalmers and Gardiner 2015). In Sweden, the requirements are higher than average, with participation in a ten-week pedagogical course required for a tenured academic position (Roxå and Mårtensson 2008).

In Denmark, information on CPD and teachers’ pedagogical competence is a part of the institutional accreditation, but there are no official requirements with regard to the extent of CPD. Universities Denmark (the organisation of the eight Danish universities) recommends a 250-h course (app. ten ECTS), and most universities have requirements aligned with this recommendation. Qualifications required for different positions in universities are regulated through governmental circulars, and the latest government circular from 2013 attempted to strengthen the status of teaching by making career options more visible and by making the two main functions of universities, teaching and research, clearer (Christiansen 2016). However, universities in Denmark still employ postdoc researchers on fixed terms in increasing numbers, with limited potential for them to undertake CPD (Christiansen 2016).

In the UK the pedagogic development of staff has been the focus of government and sector bodies, since the late 1990s, and the publication of the Dearing Report, a major government review of UK Higher Education (Dearing 1997). Key actions have included the development of the United Kingdom Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) for the staff involved in teaching and supporting learning in HE (Higher Education Academy 2011), the role of the Higher Education Academy (HEA) in externally accrediting University CPD programmes, as well as the requirement for institutions to include information on the number of staff with a teaching qualification or in their annual return to the Higher Education Statistics Unit. It has also been suggested that information on staff teaching qualifications may form part of the new Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) which will determine the level of student fees that universities can charge (BIS 2016). The introduction of the TEF mirrors the long-established UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) that seeks to recognise the quality of research activity and is used to allocate funding to institutions.

3 CPD Design Considerations

Whilst contexts and drivers vary between institutions and countries, there are a number of common issues to consider when designing CPD provision to enhance university teaching. The complexity of academic roles and what this means in terms of workload and time for staff to prioritise teaching and particularly for CPD is a key issue. Balancing research and teaching commitments is at the heart of this challenge for many individual staff and institutions. Other significant considerations include national regulatory, Quality Assurance and funding arrangements; academic career pathways, staff recruitment and opportunities for promotion; changing curricular and student requirements linked to different modes of study and demographics; evidence from educational research and the scholarship of teaching on effective pedagogic practices; as well as student, employer and other external feedback on educational provision and outcomes.

Organisational structure also plays a significant role in influencing the optimal design of CPD activities and the chance of successful implementation. It will be easier for new CPD initiatives to gain acceptance in a streamlined organisation, with a coherent value system and tight linkages between the different elements and levels, than in a more loosely coupled system. Universities often show the characteristics of a loosely coupled system as defined by Karl E. Weick (1976). This concept of organisations as loosely coupled systems is a powerful tool for describing educational systems in terms of their degree of shared values and the amount of common variables across sub-systems. As Weick puts it (1976, p. 3):

… if we did not find many variables in the teacher’s world to be shared in the world of a principal and/or in the variables held in common were important relative to other variables, then the principal can be regarded as being loosely coupled with the teacher.

In addition to practical implications for the efficiency and effectiveness of CPD provision, these issues will have a major impact on personal and institutional motivations. For example, in considering the model of self-determination and personal engagement proposed by Ryan and Deci (2000) (Fig. 1), there will be colleagues who engage with CPD for intrinsic motivations linked to their interest, commitment and passion for teaching, seeing it as central to their identity as an academic. For others, extrinsic motivations such as links to career advancement, pressure from managers or the university will be more important. The relative weight of these intrinsic and extrinsic motivations will have an impact on how individuals engage with the CPD and what they learn from this engagement. For both individuals and institutions, if compliance-based extrinsic motivations dominate (e.g. focussing on ticking the box of CPD completion for individuals or targets for numbers of staff completing CPD for institutions) over the desire to use the CPD to better understand, support and enhance teaching and the value of teaching, there is a significant risk of undermining the value of CPD and its impact on teaching quality.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Framework for understanding extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, the internalisation of extrinsic motivation and personal engagement, based on Ryan and Deci (2000)

Full size image

Some of the specific design decisions this raises includes the balance between theory and practice in CPD provision; the role of reflective practice versus formal teaching; the relationship between CPD and disciplinary contexts; centralised versus decentralised provision and support; adaptability to various organisational sub-cultures within the overall value system; links to processes around staff recruitment, management and promotion; as well as specific approaches (including peer observation of teaching, researching personal teaching practice and production of teaching profiles).

4 Different National and Institutional Contexts

To explore and understand the impact of these different design considerations, we consider the approaches taken to develop and embed CPD for teaching staff in two comparable research-intensive universities from different national contexts: the UCph in Denmark and the UoE in Scotland (UK).

The UCph is the oldest Danish university, founded in 1479. It is a comprehensive university with 38,000 students, 21,000 at bachelor level and 17,000 at master level. The university formulated its first institutional strategy in 2007 named ‘Destination 2012’. This focussed on research as its foundation, and the UCph is placed between 30 and 120 on international ranking lists. The strategy of 2012 (Strategy 2012–2016, extended to 2017) has a strong focus on education and as such puts education and teaching on the agenda for the first time in the history of the university (University of Copenhagen 2012).

The UoE is one of the ancient Scottish universities, founded in 1583. It has more than 35,000 students, 40% of whom are from outside the UK, studying a very broad spread of academic disciplines. Edinburgh has an international reputation for research excellence, ranked within the top five UK institutions and top 20–50 in global rankings. Recent University Strategic Plans have emphasised the importance of teaching, with the 2016 Strategic Plan (University of Edinburgh 2016) explicitly stating that the university aims to be known as much for the excellence of its teaching as it is for its research.

Enhancing the status of teaching and education in such traditional universities that are highly esteemed for their research excellence has to build on local engagement and ownership, involving changes of institutional culture that will take time to achieve. Both universities have a clear strategic priority to enhance teaching and learning, but with different approaches to developing and implementing the strategy—partly due to their different national contexts and conditions.

In the Danish context, the liberal government established an Expert Committee on Quality in HE that emphasised the need to balance demands for both research and teaching competences (Søndergaard et al. 2015). There is no sector-wide framework for teaching competencies in Denmark equivalent to the UKPSF. In general, the only requirement linked to teaching for a permanent position (associate professor level) is a positive statement obtained through completion of a university Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Programme. There are no other explicit requirements for certified teaching competencies for promotion or salary increases. Teaching features as one factor among five to six others, including research merits, fundraising, services and leadership experience. The recommendations made by the Expert Committee (Søndergaard et al. 2015) have not, so far, resulted in policy changes.

Whilst much of the context described earlier for the UK as a whole, including the UKPSF, the role of the HEA in accrediting university CPD programmes and the focus of government agencies and funding bodies on teaching quality and the pedagogic development of staff, is relevant to Scotland, there are some significant differences linked to its status as a devolved nation. This includes important differences in how HE is funded (e.g. Scottish students do not pay fees), in having an enhancement-led approach to institutional quality assurance, and there being no current requirement to report on staff teaching qualifications or participate in TEF.

Within these different national contexts, the UCph and the UoE have developed different CPD structures, incentives for CPD participation (including the weight given to teaching qualifications in promotion decisions), institutional discourses on teaching versus research and different roles for teaching and learning (t/l) units.

4.1 University of Copenhagen

From the UCph, we describe two of the central levers for CPD: the pedagogical competence profile and the teaching portfolio. We then present a small qualitative study identifying drivers and barriers for their design and implementation and conclude with some perspectives on their expected impact at university and national levels. The authors from UCph are central actors in the implementation of these initiatives, and this case study is based on our participation and reflections of how to organise the work, carrying through centrally decided goals while taking into account local needs and ownership.

The pedagogical competence profile and teaching portfolio are key drivers for educational quality enhancement at UCph and integrated parts of a general institutional-level Education Initiative. They are closely linked, with the TP using the pedagogical competence profile as a template or descriptor. The pedagogical competence profile has a wider intended use. It has been designed to be a general tool for describing teaching competence, that is, job application, promotion and course development. Two separate committees were appointed to oversee these developments, with members of teaching and learning units and representatives from each of the university’s six faculties working in close collaboration with university teachers, study leaders and university leadership at all levels.

Work on the pedagogical competence profile started in September 2014 with the final profile approved by the central university leadership team in June 2015. Work on the teaching portfolio began in May 2013 and by December 2016 a common understanding of what a portfolio is and how it can and should be used at different occasions had been established together with examples of TPs. During 2017, faculties will adapt the portfolio to complement local regulations, and teachers will begin to complete their own teaching portfolios. From 2018, the teaching portfolio will be used by all staff and leaders in their annual performance and development reviews.

4.1.1 The Pedagogical Competence Profile

The engine of the Education Initiative is the pedagogical competence profile. It provides a descriptive model of teaching competences, aiming to build discursive practices by affording a common language for university teaching and education. It is intended to be used when staff and leaders need to describe and reflect on teaching competences and on the development of teaching and learning.

The pedagogical competence profile (PCP) was developed by a committee with representatives from teaching and learning units and faculty members from all six faculties, to provide a thorough understanding of teaching and learning across all disciplines. As representatives of their faculties, members of the committee ensured dialogue and feedback with their faculty. The committee agreed on a number of central principles for the PCP:

  • Student learning should be central to teaching practices

  • Pedagogical competence was broadly defined as scholarship of teaching and learning

  • There is no one-to-one correlation between job category and pedagogic competence level, but it seems natural that certain teaching functions require certain pedagogical competences

  • The descriptive categories and terms used should be compatible with ‘The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education’ out of consideration of international mobility of staff.

The committee worked with categories identified through research in the field as being significant in supporting high-quality teaching. The concrete structure and visual representation of the model was discussed (e.g. taxonomy, concentric circles, spider’s web). A key consideration was how leadership and faculty might perceive the model and how it will be used. The committee was conscious of the importance of emphasising the development dimension of the descriptions, rather than being overly prescriptive or controlling. They therefore aimed for slim, brief descriptions.

The first model developed by the committee had a linear taxonomic structure based on consultations with international experts, including Mick Healey in the UK and Thomas Olsson from Lund University in Sweden, and attempting to define and measure pedagogical competence (Ryegård et al. 2010; Mårtensson et al. 2011), with similarities to ‘The UK Professional Standards Framework’. The taxonomic model was circulated and discussed widely at the university, and returned with a no-go! There was general agreement about the utility of a common descriptive model for pedagogical competencies, but the hierarchical structure was disapproved of. Rather, faculty and leadership wanted a model consisting of areas that could be covered in different ways reflecting disciplinary and individual contexts. In response, the committee then designed a model in the shape of a fan with six leaves, representing six areas of competencies that can be used to map the faculty member’s teaching and teaching-related competencies.

The model is not normative. It does not prioritise certain teaching methods or course types over others, but instead emphasises the importance of understanding aspects that promote student learning. With student learning at its heart, the competence profile maps out areas of teaching practices, the teacher’s ability to reflect on and develop his or her teaching and engage in collegial and organisational collaboration around development of teaching and education. The model is shown in Figs. 2 and 3.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The pedagogical competence profile (PCP) (University of Copenhagen 2017)

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

The six areas of the pedagogical competence profile

Full size image

The two areas ‘Knowledge of learning, teaching and study programmes’ and ‘Practice and reflection’ constitute the core of the competence profile (see Fig. 3). The other four areas are spread out on either side of the core to indicate that this is where the acquired competencies are put into play. The two core areas emphasise that direct teaching is central. However, other areas can be as important for student learning, such as the structure of study programmes, development and evaluation of courses and programmes, as well as the learning environment at the university.

The areas of the PCP differ in structure and progression. In some areas, competence development is a matter of quantitative growth, while in other areas it is rather a matter of qualitative thresholds. Competence development may happen faster within one area and slower in others, hence the mapping of an individual teacher’s competencies is an overall (holistic) assessment of the whole profile. In principle, any university teacher can achieve high competence levels in any area of the profile, although this may not be demanded or expected.

The PCP also forms a basis for the assessment and evaluation of teaching skills, as they are described in the teaching portfolio, particularly in relation to job applications. This work was carried out by the teaching portfolio group.

4.1.2 The Teaching Portfolio

The objectives for introducing a teaching portfolio (TP) for all teachers in the university are to support teachers in making continuous and systematic reflections by writing about their teaching practices, hence, over time, enhancing their pedagogical competences and ultimately benefitting students’ learning.

The initial idea was to create an e-portfolio where selected parts or folders could be shared with selected peers and leaders. The committee developed a format for a common TP that was tested by selected users representing all faculties and the different levels of teaching staff. Test groups were asked to follow the dimensions of the pedagogical competence profile and adjust the TP to various situations: Applying to become a member of an imaginative teaching academy, preparing for the annual Performance and Development Review, applying for an academic position, presenting a course and as an assignment for the teaching and learning in HE programme. However, the teachers involved in testing and developing this e-portfolio argued against a single common format and structure because it would require experienced teachers to reorganise and duplicate all the teaching material they already have in different formats. There was a strong demand for freedom in choice of methods and teacher autonomy.

It was already a requirement and established practice for faculty to submit a TP as part of teaching and learning in HE programmes, and as part of applications for academic positions at the UCph (since 2011). However, in order to achieve the objective of more continuous reflections on teaching practice and evidence of competency, it was necessary to identify additional and recurrent opportunities for written reflection.

A new, recurrent opportunity for reflection is the mandatory annual ‘Performance and development review’, where faculty meet with their leader (manager) to discuss results, competence development, well-being, work conditions, and so on. Both research and teaching should be discussed in these meetings. While research outputs are measured through publications, citations and achievement of external funding, no similar measures exist for teaching. The basis for discussing research has its drawbacks, as the focus arguably is on quantity rather than quality and societal impact. Using the TP as the basis for discussing teaching can perhaps help avoiding the same drawbacks emerging in teaching. The format being tested as we write is a TP summary of half to one page, to be submitted in advance of the performance and development review. A useful TP summary would require that the teacher maintains a TP continuously, systematically and in writing.

The freedom in choice of methods for the TP makes the concept complex and difficult to communicate. Figure 4 is an attempt to illustrate this complexity.

Fig. 4
figure 4

The complexity of the teaching portfolio (TP) concept of the University of Copenhagen

Full size image

There has been a lack of common language to assess teaching in applications, as well as in discussions about teaching in the yearly performance and development reviews. The PCP ensures a common language and criteria for quality teaching and is meant to be used together with the TP either as a dialogue and reflection tool or as a means to structure the TP. This will support teachers in being systematic in their reflections. The PCP is based on a broad understanding of competence as the scholarship of teaching and learning, and it is hoped that using the PCP together with the TP will urge more teachers to become increasingly scholarly.

4.1.3 The Design and Implementation Process

The PCP and TP have been developed iteratively through the involvement and interplay of different levels in the university: individual teachers, study leaders, heads, deans, rectorate. This interaction with many actors and boards at the university have made them think and react and give feedback, and, based on the feedback, the ideas and approaches have evolved.

As part of this iterative process, a variety of methods have been employed to collect data and to inform the process of designing and implementing the two initiatives. The data collected through interviews and feedback from hearings and committees have been gathered as field notes and audio recordings and analysed thematically (Braun and Clarke 2006) for barriers and drivers for implementation. By barriers we understand expressions of resistance, hesitation or questioning the measures that may be signs of real or imagined issues that the implementation of the measures could evoke. By drivers we understand expressions of curiosity, support and constructive contributions that may be signs of the measures being in demand by staff and/or leadership.

4.1.4 Data Collection Methods

For the pilot testing of the PCP, we recruited teaching staff across faculties and with different levels of teaching experience from teaching assistants and PhD students to professors. The data originating from this process include the portfolios produced, notes from the feedback sessions and recorded focus group interviews.

The questions and feedback we received from various committees and fora when presenting the PCP and TP are regarded as field notes as part of data collected.

A workshop with staff members at a university conference focussed on expressing concerns and ideas. In the workshop, an exercise led to a collection of post-its describing the need for spaces and situations for reflection on teaching.

The project staff also conducted individual interviews with experienced assessors of teaching qualifications across faculties to shed light on how TPs currently inform the assessment and how teaching qualifications are assessed. PCP and TP were presented at national conferences and feedback treated as field notes.

4.1.5 Results

Both the PCP and the TP have been continuously revised as a result of the many hearings and feedback sessions. The PCP has been definitively approved by the central university cooperation committee and is now being integrated in relevant documents and decision procedures.

TPs are already used when appointing academic staff at the university, and this practice was evaluated through the TP project (University of Copenhagen 2017). Interviews with staff assessing applications and deans appointing new staff have revealed the need for a common language and a standard or reference at the university, supporting the use of the PCP (Kobayashi et al. 2017). Other staff questioned the idea of the TP as a valid means to assess teaching competences.

Some staff fear that the PCP and the TP will be used by leadership as a control mechanism rather than a means for developing teaching. So, the language used was important. It was not accepted to call the PCP a tool for measuring competences; it had to be rephrased as a framework for mapping competences. Some also fear that the TP will create extra work at the expense of research. So, the high status and importance that research has for career advancement and status constitutes a barrier for implementing the TP. But, on the other hand, some staff believe that making the use of TP mandatory in leader–staff consultations and in course assessment will raise the status of teaching in the long run.

Faculty, in general, recognise the need to increase the status of teaching and are welcoming initiatives that can support this—especially the large proportion of staff who are engaged in teaching. Staff also confirmed the need for tools and space for reflecting on one’s own teaching in a broad array of situations.

Some staff expressed a fear that the PCP as a standard will work instrumentally and narrow teaching development, rather than creating space for new thoughts and initiatives.

Deans support the use of TPs as a means to assess teaching competences and welcome the pedagogical competence profile as a common reference.

4.1.6 Perspectives

In a research-intensive university environment, it is very difficult to give teaching a status equal to research. The PCP and the TP were passed by the university leadership team in October 2016, and the deans committed themselves to implement the measures in their respective faculties. The drivers and barriers identified obviously reflect the spectrum of extrinsic to intrinsic motivation, like the fear of yet another extrinsic measure or the welcoming of an initiative that will enhance the status of teaching. The qualitative study of drivers and barriers has shown that initiating discussions at all levels and in many fora at the university can bring support and concerns out into the open for a fruitful exchange of pros and cons. Through this open and iterative design process, the two fundamental measures have gained broad acceptance among both staff and leadership. The project is also an illustration of the fact that culture change takes time, especially at institutions with long traditions, and it is important to be cautious not to force initiatives through the organisation. In a loosely coupled system like UCph, this is even more important. The decision-making fora are not directly connected; they adhere to different agendas and values either concerned with research or education primarily, while staff are caught with a foot in each of these agendas. Obviously, it will take a lot of effort to implement the two measures into the everyday life of the university, but as the rector said at a meeting for the top leaders at the university in October 2016: ‘We have set a direction’.

The implementation of the Education Initiative at the UCph has involved collaboration with partners in other Danish universities, including the University of Southern Denmark, Aalborg University and Aarhus University through the Danish Higher Education Network as well as Universities Denmark. This collaboration has been a mutual inspiration, especially concerning the TP as other Danish universities also work to implement TPs in different formats. A huge effort feeds into influencing Elsevier to develop the research registration system PURE to include teaching activities, and this work has strengthened collaboration between Danish universities. In this sense, the Education Initiative will have impact beyond UCph and influence the national discourse on HE.

4.2 University of Edinburgh

A key priority for the UoE, reflected in its strategic plan and several recent investments and initiatives, is to raise the status and reputation of teaching to an equivalent level to research. This represents a significant change in culture and will require a range of institutional and local actions over several years. In this section, we describe two of the actions taken to support this shift: the development of a set of exemplars of excellence in student education to inform academic promotion applications and decisions, along with the creation of a CPD framework for learning and teaching. These actions are being coordinated through a University Learning and Teaching Policy Group and are linked to other work designed to support conversations around learning and teaching, changes in recruitment practice, staff annual reviews and practice sharing.

4.2.1 Exemplars of Excellence in Student Education

Culture change can require a focus on supporting the implementation of existing policies as much as the creation of new provision or structures. Academic promotion structures and policies are a good example of this. There has been a widespread view in Edinburgh, as in many institutions, that academic career advancement and promotion is only possible through either research excellence or a move into a management role (e.g. Graham 2015).The reality is more complex.

Several years ago, the university adjusted its academic promotion criteria to make it clear that promotion to Senior Lecturer and Professor could be achieved on the basis of teaching-focussed as well as research-focussed and leadership-focussed applications. Practice in promotion panels moved to reflect this change in policy, but awareness remained low amongst individual staff, line managers and referees. One of the key difficulties faced was that, thanks in part to the Research Excellence Framework, colleagues were much more familiar and conformable with metrics (e.g. grant income, publication profile) and indicators of esteem that could be presented in support of a research-focussed promotion case than for teaching-led cases.

In September 2013, the university introduced a set of ‘Exemplars of Excellence in Student Education’. These exemplars describe equivalent metrics and esteem indicators for teaching-led promotion cases, including front of house teaching, leadership in teaching, dissemination (i.e. publication) and external esteem for grades 9 (Senior Lecturer) and 10 (Professor). Promotion committees, referees and assessors use these exemplars when judging cases and, after a slower start from promotion applicants themselves, we are seeing an increasing number of teaching-focussed promotion cases being developed and taken forward. The exemplars are also proving useful in establishing common expectations for teaching contributions in all promotion cases.

4.2.2 Continuing Professional Development Framework for Learning and Teaching

In establishing a University CPD framework for learning and teaching, our ultimate objective is to have a positive impact on student learning through staff engagement with substantive continuing professional development activities. We also want to recognise, validate and support staff expertise and experience in teaching and supporting student learning.

Work on the CPD framework began in 2012, led by the Institute for Academic Development (IAD) working with the University (Senate) Learning and Teaching Committee. The IAD operates at a university level to support teaching, learning and researcher development. In developing the framework, our key concern was to respond to university priorities and provide a coherent framework of opportunities that can be tailored to different roles, career stages and personal requirements, that can also be linked to staff annual review discussions, individual career development, promotion processes and local plans for teaching enhancement. During the period over which the framework has been developed and implemented, there have been several significant external changes (most recently plans for the development of a UK TEF). Other factors influencing the design of the framework were recognition of the complexity and time pressures associated with academic roles, the need for a robust and credible system for validation and accreditation of CPD achievement, and the importance of engaging staff in CPD throughout their career. This led to the setting of the following design principles for the framework:

  • Provide flexible pathways for individual staff (linked to career stage, role, experience and individual requirements)

  • Emphasise and support the relevance of CPD throughout an academic career

  • Encourage reflective practice and draw upon a broad range of CPD opportunities

  • Strengthen symbiotic link between CPD and practice

  • Have robust and credible system for validation and accreditation of CPD framework and specific pathways

  • Pilot and develop appropriate model to scale up.

Based on these design principles, we developed a structure that provides staff with a range of options, tailored to career stage, preferred mode of learning (credit bearing/structured vs. flexible/self-directed) and specific areas (clinical education, digital education). This allowed us to incorporate existing credit-bearing programmes into the framework (e.g. Postgraduate Certificates in Academic Practice, Clinical Education, and Digital Education), alongside structured programmes aimed at early career teachers (e.g. graduate teaching assistants) like the Introduction to Academic Practice course and Clinical Educator Programme (Fig. 5). We have also developed a more self-directed portfolio route, the Edinburgh Teaching Award (EdTA), which can be tailored to different career stages and roles.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Overview of CPD framework for learning and teaching at the UoE

Full size image

All of these elements are mapped against the UKPSF, and the framework as a whole has been accredited by the HEA. This means that all university employees who successfully complete elements of the framework are awarded equivalent HEA Fellowship status. Staff are also able to make a direct application for Fellowship to the HEA.

Whilst participation on all strands of the CPD framework has grown since it was accredited by the HEA in early 2014, the EdTA is the area with the most rapid growth and scope for further expansion. EdTA participants are able to select from a wide range of CPD activities, including workshops and courses, secondments, mentoring, peer observation, curriculum development and applied pedagogic research. On enrolment, participants are allocated a mentor and advised on the EdTA level appropriate to them. Participants are also supported through access to group meetings and writing retreats. Time to complete is between six months to two years, with the final assessment being based upon a record of completed CPD, reference and reflective blog or presentation reviewed by a panel including an external member. Since the enrolment of a small pilot cohort in spring 2014, 53 colleagues have successfully completed the EdTA, 200 are currently on programme with a further 90 due to begin in November 2016. Twenty-five participants have withdrawn from the EdTA, mostly due to either moving away from Edinburgh or enrolling for an alternative CPD pathway.

4.2.3 Impact of New CPD Routes: A Pathway to Culture Change

Flexible portfolio routes to formally accredited CPD as an alternative to structured, credit-bearing programmes are a relatively new approach, and there is little published literature on their relative benefits to participants. We therefore commissioned an external evaluation of the EdTA to look specifically at this question, alongside its potential impact on departmental and institutional culture. This evaluation identified several outcomes for participants that have been identified by Gibbs and others as having significant potential to enhance teaching quality (Gibbs 2010). This included evidence of critical reflection on and changes to teaching practice, engagement with educational research results and use of insights from peers and students.

It has been interesting to see the extent to which those completing the EdTA have emphasised what could be termed intrinsic motivations and benefits (e.g. a desire to better understand and develop their teaching practice and engagement with educational literature) compared to extrinsic motivations (like ambitions for promotion or pressures from the institution or national developments like TEF). Whilst these extrinsic motivations are present, they are perhaps less prevalent than noted in other studies (Spowart et al. 2016).

A key characteristic of the EdTA model is that it can be organised at either a university level or within a specific academic school (department). Participants on local, school versions of the EdTA are able to draw upon both university-level CPD provision and activities and events run locally, tailored to their discipline. Importantly, running local versions of the EdTA provides an opportunity to develop a critical mass of colleagues with a shared commitment and equivalent CPD experience. Two local versions of the EdTA have been established so far, one in Veterinary Medicine (at levels 2 and 3) and one in Mathematics (level 1). Several other schools are currently exploring the potential to develop local versions of the EdTA, with support from the academic lead of the Veterinary Medicine EdTA through a secondment with the IAD.

While it is too early to tell whether this approach is having a positive impact on departmental and institutional cultures, initial signs are promising. Within Veterinary Medicine participation in the EdTA is now compulsory for all new staff who do not already have a teaching qualification, staff completing elements of the CPD framework are offering to mentor less experienced colleagues and staff are reporting a greater sense of community and being valued for and supported in their teaching activities. Achievement of different HEA Fellowship levels has been included in exemplars for promotion cases (see above), while time for CPD is being included in workload models and in suggested models for staff annual review conversations. Meanwhile, staff are increasingly sharing their insights and experiences of teaching informally and online.

As with student learning, the motivation of individual staff and departments in engaging with CPD will influence its impact. Rather than set rigid targets for participation and completion and risk a compliance model linked to superficial engagement, our focus is on supporting staff and departments to make an informed and personal decision on participation. This means being transparent on the significant time commitment for individual staff and the pros and cons of the different options available to them. We are also encouraging a small number of staff to participate in the central version of the EdTA before contemplating the launch of a local version. Thus far this approach is working, sign up rates from individual staff are increasing and we are seeing strong interest in the launch of local EdTAs. It has been particularly encouraging to see colleagues sign up for higher levels of the EdTA as part of their commitment to leadership roles in learning and teaching (see also chapter “Faculty Development for Educational Leadership”).

5 Discussion

Despite the many similarities between the two institutions (research intensity, similar size and spread of disciplines, position near the top of international rankings, particularly linked to research), there are important differences linked to national contexts, internal structures and cultures. These similarities and differences help to illuminate some of the key factors that influence the design, implementation and impact of CPD structures and related processes and systems. In discussing these factors, we consider the impact of Ryan and Deci’s framework for extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, for individual staff, for departments and institutions. We also consider the relationship between these motivations and their interplay between the organisational and individual level with reference to Weick’s notion of a loosely coupled system.

In developing its CPD scheme, Edinburgh has utilised national standards (UKPSF) and arrangements (HEA accreditation) reflecting the longer term focus from government and funding bodies on the pedagogical development of teaching staff and potential links to mechanism like TEF. This is a key extrinsic motivation for the university and some individuals for whom participation in accredited CPD is mostly voluntary. Whilst Denmark has no equivalent national requirement, Copenhagen has established a mandatory system for CPD forcing all teaching staff to design and maintain a TP, intrinsic motivation for the institution but extrinsic for individual staff.

Within Edinburgh, award of HEA Fellowship through the CPD framework is included in the exemplars for excellence in student education used to inform promotion decisions. In Copenhagen, there is no explicit link between CPD completion and promotion. Whilst the extrinsic element of motivation provided by this link to promotion in Edinburgh is seen as positive, it is important that this is not their main motivation. In both institutions, we have seen that many staff are engaged with this provision (CPD framework at Edinburgh, pedagogical competence profile and the TP at Copenhagen), because they personally value (and enjoy) teaching and are keen to further develop their practice and role. This has a positive impact on the impact and effectiveness of their participation. They have an enhancement mindset and intrinsic motivation to engage in teaching and competence development.

For others in Copenhagen, the portfolio is a purely extrinsic driver, as they see it as a duty laid upon them, and they question its usefulness, fear the misuse by leadership as a control mechanism and protest (quietly) against the extra burden that will be time taken from research. And of course, we will find every nuance in between the two extremes. At the same time, interviews with experienced assessors indicate that the culture has changed over the past decade towards higher recognition of the value and importance of teaching (Kobayashi et al. 2017), which indicates to us that the ground is fertile for further changes. However, in a culture where decoupling from central initiatives is commonplace and where it is up to the local environments to interpret the central initiative to fit the local environment, the impact of such central initiatives may be a slow process of change. Much effort has been put into making the TP meaningful for faculty, and hopefully many will receive the initiative with some degree of internal congruence between the task and their own values, or at least recognising the importance of working towards a higher recognition of teaching. Similarly, in Edinburgh, if colleagues only see their participation as linked to compliance with university or external requirements or purely as box to tick towards promotion, a reliance on extrinsic rather intrinsic motivations can limit the value of the CPD engagement and make it harder to complete the programme, given other competing demands on time.

A further key consideration is the relationship between CPD activity and systems and other dimensions of the academic role and broader university systems. In both the Copenhagen and Edinburgh approaches, a key success factor has been the ability for individuals to tailor the approach (use of competency profile and portfolio at Copenhagen and EdTA CPD pathway) to their disciplinary context, personal interests, activities and priorities. Ensuring that these approaches are loosely coupled in this way makes it easier for individuals to focus on and build their intrinsic motivations for participation. Linking CPD to arrangements for promotion, staff management and review further helps to emphasise its relevance to an institutional commitment to CPD and hence to the status of teaching.

The level at which CPD provision is organised and supported is also relevant to this discussion. In Copenhagen, local, disciplinary teaching and learning units support the TP and competency profile. Whilst support in Edinburgh is provided at a university level from the IAD, a key element of the design of the EdTA, in particular, is the ability to run local department/discipline level versions and in all case emphasise the importance of a range of local CPD activities. This ability to support local contextualisation and cohort building alongside institutional-level consistency and opportunities for practice is an important element of both approaches.

Our analysis highlights the complex interplay of factors for universities to consider when developing institutional CPD frameworks and structures. The degree of coupling between different university systems, the balance between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for individuals and organizations and the relationship between these are particularly important. In order to limit barriers and incentivise participation, it is important that CPD is connected with policies and practices around staff promotion, recruitment and annual review and that staff have time available to participate. At the same time, it is important that staff participation is not solely driven by extrinsic motivations (demands of university policy, requirement for promotion) as this risks a negative impact on the nature of the engagement. Furthermore, in order to secure high levels of intrinsic motivation, CPD needs to align with the sense of an individual’s academic identity, the disciplinary identity and identification as researcher and/or teacher. This requires flexibility in the organisation and location of a CPD system that is loosely coupled between faculties and the university.

The relationship and level of coupling between national, institutional, department and individual requirements and activities, and the importance of shifting motivations from extrinsic to intrinsic to increase ownership and engagement for individuals and institutions are key factors to consider and build into the design of pedagogic development opportunities and arrangements.