22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Building Transferable Skills to Face the Challenges of an Uncertain Future with Hope via a Graduate Teaching Preparation Program
Stefanie Baier, Hima Rawal
Michigan State University, United States of America
Presenting Author: Baier, Stefanie;
Rawal, Hima
As we are facing new technologies, AI in our changing communities and societies, we are challenged to develop skills to adapt and respond to the developments emerging at global and local contexts[STB1] . These changes have affected the labor market, where employees are required to solve complex problems at a fast pace. (Karaca-Atik et al. 2023).
The goal of doctoral programs is to develop graduate students as researchers to advance knowledge, ideas, and develop creative solutions. Yet, many follow a very narrow path with little experience outside of academia removing them from the realities and problems faced by new demands. To address this, researchers and employer have identified a set of 21st century skills (P21, 2019) to navigate the current developments and solve the problems of our generation. Over the years, these skills have been known as soft skills (Succi & Canovi, 2019), generic skills (Frenk et al., 2010), or skills for employability (Kearns, 2001). In this study we use the term transferable skills to denote the applicability of these in various contexts (Barnett & Ceci, 2002).
Where do our graduate students acquire these transferable skills in a university environment? Few would be inclined to first look in teaching professional development and pedagogical trainings. Researchers have explored existing literature identifying skills commonly seen as valuable to employers. In this quest, it has become apparent that preparing graduate students to teach provides competencies that go beyond the classroom or laboratory settings. Whereas skills acquired from teaching preparation programs and classroom experiences are often overlooked, research has shown that teaching skills can be transferred to a variety of careers.
This research study was conducted at a large research-intensive public university in the U.S.A. granting Bachelor, Master’s, and Ph.D. to over 50,000 students from all around the world. Annually, approximately 1300 of the 10 000 Graduate students hold instructional roles as part of their graduate assistantship and funding package, and provide 10 % of all classroom instruction at the institution. Their instructional roles include teaching a section or a lab, grading, and leading small discussion groups. These students participate in an intensive Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) Preparation program over multiple days to prepare them for effective instruction. The program focuses on facilitation, assessment and evidence-based pedagogical practices that will foster student learning. Feedback on whether graduate students met learning goals, and if they thought what they learned equipped them to be effective is collected immediately following the program. An initial review of the feedback revealed the utility of the skills and their congruency with transferable skills identified in the literature, among those effective communication skills, socio-emotional skills, leadership skills, and collaborative skills, to name a few (Karaca-Atik, et al., 2013). These skills can be used to mitigate some of the current challenges and positively advance our communities and our society. For example, communication skills to address contentious topics and situations, socio-emotional learning to compassionately listen to the stories of students in crisis can also be applied to working with those affected by humanitarian crises. Using technology to build connections and solve complex problems can translate into creating more equitable and humanizing experiences that challenge our world. In our attempt to intentionally design programs to prepare graduate students for working with diverse student populations, the classroom serves as a microcosm for the uncertainty experienced in our world, and prepares them to become change agents who instill hope to solve the problems faced by local and global communities.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFor the current study the researchers collected feedback data in response to the GTA Preparation program outcomes associated with the skill and knowledge development. The 21st century skills (P21, 2019) and sustainable careers frameworks (de Vos et al., 2020) were combined into a set of transferable skills. The GTA preparation program evaluation and feedback data collected between 2021 and 2023 included 1200 responses for analysis. The data analysis process consisted of deductive and inductive coding as discussed by Bingham and Witkowsky (2022).
First, the researchers analyzed and synthesized research and in a deductive approach identifying the transferable skills most often noted in the literature recognizing those that had most overlap. Fourteen transferable skill codes were initially elicited and entered into an Excel worksheet. These skills served as the basis for the thematic coding of the data.
Next, data collected following the Graduate Teaching Assistant Program program feedback surveys via Qualtrics (an approved university survey platform) was elicited and downloaded into an Excel file. This file contained both quantitative data (multiple-choice and other closed-ended questions) and qualitative data (open-ended questions). All quantitative data was deleted so the file only contained qualitative data. A separate file with only qualitative data pertaining to questions about what was learned from the workshops and sessions spread over the entire GTA preparation program were used for the current analysis. After all responses and quotes were entered into the Excel file, two researchers individually coded the responses as these aligned with the pre-identified codes..
The responses which did not align with the pre-determined codes were grouped under the recurring themes and new codes were generated for those quotes and themes based on Corbin and Strauss’s (2015) grounded theory approach. Quotes that did not speak to the topic were excluded from the analysis. After this process was completed, the researchers discussed the codes and calculated interrater reliability.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsInitial analyses of the data showed that the knowledge, skills, and competencies gained from the Graduate Teaching Assistant program aligned with the transferable skills and competencies of the 21st century as seen in the literature.
Among the skills rising to the top were communication, instruction/facilitation, and socio-emotional intelligence. Furthermore social & cross-cultural understanding and awareness as well as information technology, which are skills highly sought after by employees and essential to the ongoing process of improving communities emerged. Collaboration and teambuilding skills were frequently identified as by-products of teaching professional development. Given that graduate students came from a broad spectrum of disciplines, they recognized the value of diverse disciplinary and demographic voices. It can be inferred that solving complex problems in current realities are best addressed and solved when multiple lenses and inter-disciplinary perspectives and problem-solving skills are applied in collaborative teams. Similarly, leadership and organizational skills are increasingly important in educational spaces that require faculty and academic staff to navigate the intricacies of the in-person, remote, and hybrid learning environments which are also prevalent in the work environments of private and public sectors. Lastly, the dilemma of information overload and the use of new artificial intelligence tools require very intentional planning and self-regulation mindfulness with respect to ethics and integrity to be impactful change agents in solving our current generation’s problems.
ReferencesBarnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612.
Bingham, A.J., & Witkowsky, P. (2022). Deductive and inductive approaches to qualitative data analysis. In C. Vanover, P. Mihas, & J. Saldaña (Eds.), Analyzing and interpreting qualitative data: After the interview (pp. 133-146). SAGE Publications.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
de Vos, A., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Akkermans, J. (2020). Sustainable careers: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 117, 103196.
Frenk, J., Chen, L., Bhutta, Z.A., Cohen, J. and Zurayk, H. (2010). Health professionals for a new
century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. The Lancet, 376(9756), 1923-1958.
Karaca-Atik, A., Meeuwisse, M., Gorgievski, M., & Smeets, G. (2023). Uncovering important 21st-century skills for sustainable career development of social sciences graduates: a systematic review. Educational Research Review, 100528.
Kearns, P. (2001), Generic Skills for the New Economy, National Centre for Vocational Education Research, available at
https://www.ncver.edu.au/research-and-statistics/publications/allpublications/generic-skills-for-the-new-economy-review-of-research
P21. (2019). Framework for 21st century learning. http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_Framework_Brief.pdf
Succi, C., & Canovi, M. (2019). Soft skills to enhance graduate employability: Comparing students and employers’ perceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(9), 1834-1847.
22. Research in Higher Education
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
Where Do We Get Our Ideas About What Constitutes Good Learning and Teaching In Higher Education? How do we know?
Nada Jarni
RMIT University, Australia
Presenting Author: Jarni, Nada
Higher Education finds itself at a pivotal moment in time where disruption and innovation converge, creating a dynamic landscape of possibilities. Accompanied by the traditional concerns of increasing accountability, decreasing budgets and diverse student populations educators are responding to unprecedented competition with rapidly evolving generative AI technologies with demonstratable capacity for both learning adaptively. Collectively these challenge us to consider what constitutes good learning and teaching and more importantly cause us to question how do we know?
Three important imperatives compel those in higher education to address these two important intersecting questions. First, a thriving, dynamic economy is essentially a ‘knowledge economy’ with a robust pipeline of lifelong learners who can easily engage and re-engage with formal studies at any point in their personal or career pathways. (OECD 2023; Cheng et al. 2022; Morales et al. 2020). Beyond this transactional view of education, the provision of excellent learning environments builds nations and communities of people who can be better equipped to critique and interrogate ideas with a compassionate and ethical disposition, so vital in our information saturated world where the reliability of sources is questionable. Specifically, we want learners who have experienced transformative learning which empowers them with competencies inclusive of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that enable them to have agency over their own futures (OECD, 2019; Evans et al. 2015; Evans et al. 2010). Most significantly, if we want an equitable and just world, we have a responsibility to ensure all students, irrespective of their cultural backgrounds, gender or levels poverty or age are given the best opportunities to engage with learning in higher education and then to retain them until course completion. Both international figures and Australian data support the view that participation in higher education is strongly correlated with positive outcomes later in life (OECD 2020; ABS 2023; Tomlison, 2017).
This demands that we investigate practices that work and set students up for success. The American Council of Education (ACUE) make the powerful claim that, “The techniques of effective college instruction are known” (2016 p. 6). This view is not universally maintained (Morales et al. 2022). It must be acknowledged that there are multiple and ever-increasing demands on academics’ time including publishing, research commitments, compliance training, regulatory obligations and often large class sizes and teaching loads. Furthermore, as a profession intentional, systematic professional development with a focus on pedagogy has not been a high priority but is often provided as an ‘add on’. This is further muddied with promotion of a myriad of ‘effective’ pedagogical practices including: Case-based Learning through to Research-based learning, Service learning, Public Scholarship, Technology-enhanced learning, learning by making and doing to mention a few. (Mintz, 2020). Beyond these typically better documented approaches, a new wave of scholars and thought leaders are proposing less well investigated approaches such as, ‘pedagogies using AI tools, metaverse for education, pedagogy of care in digitally mediated settings, entrepreneurial education, and relational pedagogies’ (Kuklska-Hulme et al., 2003). Although it is heartening to see continuint exploration in this space, it also demonstrates the confusion and lack of clarity about what methodologies are critical to attend to and which have a valid research basis.
The literature review explored in this presentation synthesises key themes which have emerged from a small but well-respected research base of effective pedagogical practices in higher education and outlines implications of this for educators and policy makers. The conclusions aim to support academics in making sense of the complexity of learning and teaching and equip them not with simplistic formulas, but a menu of ‘high reliability’ options proven to improve the student learning experiences.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper is an exploration of the literature in preparation for a formal research proposal. Although there is ample research that is hosted in what works well within a particular discipline, less is available about which of these practices transcend disciplinary boundaries. At the time of writing, four key pieces of research were identified which met this requirement. In addition to this they were intentionally chosen as they drew on vastly different research methodology and consequently seemed to address different pieces of the puzzle about what practices are effective.
Chickering and Gamson’s 7 Principles that help to improve undergraduate experience (1987) was identified. This highly regarded work draws on a synthesis of a literature base that was the best of its time. This research although highly reputable and often cited is over 37 years old. The question remained whether the principles were still relevant for our time.
Ramsden’s (2003) drawing on mix of qualitative and quantitative research, adds another dimension, specifically drawing on student perception data. His findings emerged from conducting surveys and interviews, observations, document analysis and a literature review. This research highlighted what students perceived as important.
While Bain’s (2004) work identifying what the ‘best college teachers do’ backward maps from the teaching methods, philosophies, and practices that set ‘exceptional’ educators apart and contributed to their effectiveness in the college classroom. His qualitive research methodology incorporated identification of 63 candidates who were perceived both by their colleagues and students as being ‘effective’. The findings that emerged were in response to drawing on a combination of interviews, case-studies, reflective practice, classroom observation and arte-fact collection.
Finally, Smith and Biak’s (2023) meta-analysis resulted in a more contemporary collection of ‘high-impact practices’ and represent an increasingly more nuanced understanding of effective teaching approaches.
The findings of the four sets of research were then coded to look for similarities and differences. Through examining quality learning and teaching through the four studies and their multiple lenses by drawing on the literature, the student experience, the academic practitioner story and a contemporary meta-analysis some strong and consistent themes emerged.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe implications of this work are as follows:
1. Looking at list of effective practices alone is not enough. It needs to be supported with sustained professional learning for academics. Not just during their early career stages but at regular intervals so that their Scholarship of learning and Teaching is maintained. This would enable practitioners to keep abreast of evolving understandings and support educators in making adaptations in their practice.
2. The findings strongly reinforce a bank of dominant, high leverage practices. These are often referred to as ‘high impact’, yet educators need support in unpacking each of these and contextualising them into their own discipline to be meaningful. This also means that if the discipline already has what Shulman (2005) refers to as a ‘signature pedagogy’, assisting them to make connections and develop understandings about how these practices are aligned.
3. ‘The final list’ of high impact practices initially seems to challenge a few time-honoured practices, upon closer inspection it appears they have not disappeared entirely but been subsumed by other categories.
4. The reality is that we can never be satisfied with a final, ‘best of list’, we must continue to investigate, interrogate, and review our current body of knowledge. It is only through this active, reflective process that we can ensure we are delivering our best for our students.
Academics by nature, are natural learners. The act of research causes them to question, to verify data, theories, or propositions. They are seekers of truth, investigators, and deep thinkers. In terms of professional learning, a different content of pedagogy needed to be explored and privileged if we are to see the graduates who leave our institutions equipped to be self-regulating learners and future ready.
ReferencesACUE. (2018). Why Colleges and Universities Need to Invest in Quality Teaching. Retrieved from ACUE White Paper, American Council for Education.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2023, May). Education and Work, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.abs/gov.au
Bain, K. (2004). What the Best College Teachers Do. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cheng, M., Adekola, O., Albia, J., & Cai, S (2022). Employability in higher education: A review of key stakeholders’ perspectives. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, (16)1, 16-31.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Biochemical Education, 17(3).
Evans, K., Guile, D., Harris, J., & Allan, H. (2010). Putting knowledge to work: A new approach. Nurse Education Today, 245–251.
Evans, C. (2015) Situating Pedagogy. Southampton: University of Southampton.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Bossu, C., Charitonos, K., Coughlan, T., Deacon, A., Deane, N., ... Whitelock, D. (2023). Innovating Pedagogy 2023: Exploring new forms of teaching, learning and assessment to guide educators and policymakers. Open University Innovation Report, The Open University: University of Cape Town.
Mintz, S. (2020, September 2). Pedagogy and Course Design Need to Change. Here’s How. Inside Higher Education. http://www.insiderhighered.com/
Morales, L., Coetzer J., & Barkoc, N. (2022) A Circular Pedagogy for Higher Education. European University of Technology Working Paper.
OECD (2019) Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing. Paris.
OECD (2020) Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2023) Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris 2023
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Shulman (2005) Signature Pedagogies in the Professions, Daedulus Cambridge Mass Vol.134 (3), p.52-59.
Smith, C. D., & Biak, C. (2021). High-Impact Teaching Practices in Higher Education: A Best Evidence Review. Studies in Higher Education, 46(8).
Tomlinson, M. (2017) Introduction: Graduate Employability in Contet: Charting a Complex Contested and Multifacted Policy and Research Field. In M. Tomlinon & L. Holmes (Eds.), Graduate Employability in Context. Palgrave Macmillan.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
The Role of Formal and Tacit Knowledge in HE Programme Design
Marie Moran
ATU Sligo, Ireland
Presenting Author: Moran, Marie
Based on case study research in the Irish Technological University sector, Moran (2023) identified two factors within the control of a Higher Education Institute that contribute to student persistence. They are the provision of an enabling learning environment and appropriate programme design.The student should be at the centre of programme design decisions, which ultimately influence the student experience in the classroom (Tinto, 1975, 1993, 2012, 2017,2018). This paper seeks to investigate the manner in which appropriate programme design and an enabling learning environment are achieved in practice, by exploring the perceptions and experiences of lecturers and academic support staff in achieving these objectives.
Academic lecturing staff represent a significant collective body of knowledge, both formal (or explicit) and tacit, which is a key resource in programme design decisions. Among other factors such as HEI history and development, lecturer social and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1988; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) influences and informs the type of programmes that are created and provided in Higher Education. Marginson (2008, p. 303) describes HE as a ‘relational environment that is simultaneously global, national and local. Programmes are therefore required to align with HEI Institute policy, the European Standards and Guidellines (ESG), the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and a myriad of national HE policies and objectives. This means that the creation of a curriculum that is student-centred, while meeting national and international HE objectives, can be challenging.
The provision of centralised Teaching and Learning Centres in HEIs supports the the process of programme design, as well as informing academic staff about best practice, and embedding the broader requirements that programmes should meet.
This research studies the interface between academic lecturing staff and Teaching and Learning staff who create and disseminate teaching, learning and assessment resources in line with international, national and Institute policies. It investigates the extent to which academic lecturing staff use the programme design supports and resources that are provided by their HEI, seeking to gain an insight into the factors that enable or inhibit their use.
The research questions are:
How do academic staff use their cultural and social capital in the programme design process, and by extension, the provision of an enabling learning environment?
To what extent are the formal resources of the HEI (Policy, Data, Teaching and Learning Centre, programme development software) used to inform programme design and re-design; what are the enablers and barriers to their use?
The paper uses the theoretical perspective of Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1984, 1988; Grenfell, 2014; Grenfell and James, 1998) to study the role of lecturer cultural and social capital in the context of HE habitus and field. For Bourdieu, field describes a social space in which interactions and events take place, and the context in which previous knowledge about the field was generated, must be taken into consideration.Habitus describes a way of being and the relationships that exist between agents in a field (Maton, 2005); this interaction produces (and can reproduce) the social world and underpins the culture and practice that develops within the field. Bourdieu’s concept of field (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992) provides a framework for considering how existing knowledge about the field of HE is used and enhanced in the HEI, and informs programme design and classroom practices.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research is employing semi-structured individual and small group interviews with academic staff and academic support staff in the TU sector. For the semi-structured interview, a schedule was developed to guide the discussion (Whitaker and Atkinson, 2019) and allow exploration of complex topics and issues. A separate schedule was developed for academic lecturing staff and support staff as they were likely to have different perspectives on programme design. Questions were developed to seek the lecturing research participants views about their experiences of programme design, employing their own cultural and social capital, as well as the resources available in the HEI. The questions for the research participants from the academic support staff were focussed on the development of resources for programme design, and their dissemination and use by programme teams and individual lecturers. Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2019) is being employed in the interpretation of interview data from both groups of research participants.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe expected outcomes are an enhanced understanding of the role of formal and tacit knowledge in programme design, and alignment with HE Institute programme design policy. It also and the potential subsequent impact on the student experience. The research is also expected to provide an insight into the interface between programme teams or lecturers and academic support staff in the programme design and re-design process. It is anticipated that it will identify some of the challenges associated with the need for HE programmes to meet multiple objectives, driven by national and international HE policy. Teaching, learning and assessment are the pillars on which programmes are developed, and the resources that are available to support programme design place significant emphasis on these core areas. However, there are also additional requirements to evidence wider programme objectives, which require and perhaps challenge the cultural and social capital of HEI staff, and which require the type of supports that are provided centrally in the HEI environment.
ReferencesBourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. (Collier P. trans.), Oxford, Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and
culture. (4). Sage.
Bourdieu, P. and L. Wacquant (1992) An invitation to reflexive sociology. The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, and Polity, Cambridge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in
(reflexive) thematic analysis?. Qualitative research in psychology, 18(3), 328-
352.
Culver, K. C., Braxton, J., & Pascarella, E. (2019). Does teaching rigorously really
enhance undergraduates’ intellectual development? The relationship of
academic rigor with critical thinking skills and lifelong learning
motivations. Higher Education, 78(4), 611-627.
Grenfell, M. J. (Ed.). (2014). Pierre Bourdieu: key concepts. (2nd Ed.) Routledge.
Grenfell, M., & James, D. (Eds). (1998). Acts of Practical Theory. Bourdieu and
Education. Routledge Falmer.
Grenfell, M., & James, D. (2004). Change in the field—changing the field: Bourdieu
and the methodological practice of educational research. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 25(4), 507-523.
Moran, M. (2023). Why Are You Here? A Case Study of Persistence in Higher Education. (Thesis) TARA, TCD http://hdl.handle.net/2262/102578
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent
Research. Review of Educational Research. American Educational Research
Association 45 (1), 89-125.
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing College. Rethinking Institutional Action. The University
of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2017). Reflections on Student Persistence, Student Success, 8 (2) ISSN:
2205-0795
Tinto, V. (2018). A Theory of Student Retention: A Background Paper Prepared for
Staying on Track: New Perspectives and Sustainable Solutions to Educational
Dropout of Young Adults, A Conference sponsored by Arhus University,
Campus Emdrup. November 28, 2019.
Vaccari, V., & Gardinier, M.P. (2019). Toward one world or many? A comparative
analysis of OECD and UNESCO global education policy documents.
International journal of development education and global learning, 11 (1), 68-
86.
Walsh, S., Flannery, D., & Cullinan, J. (2018). Analysing the preferences of
prospective students for higher education institution attributes. Education
Economics, 26 (2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2017.1335693
|
