ALTC Teaching Fellowship 2010 ACDICT Learning and Teaching Forum 5-6 July 2010

Overview ALTC Fellowship background for proposal aims planned activities outcomes Open Discussion Acknowledgements ALTC & Reference Group

Background Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) Data National results show Engineering and Information and Communication Technology do not perform as well as other discipline areas on the good teaching scale Report on CEQ & GDS for IT Broad Discipline Monash Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) Data ICT and Engineering were ranked second lowest and lowest respectively on the good teaching scale. 2005, 2007, 2009 data – ENG & ICT ranked low Unit Evaluation Data (UE) 2007 – 2009 ENG and ICT ranked low.

Aims improve the quality of teaching and student satisfaction within identified units to build leadership capacity amongst currently recognised outstanding teachers. How? Introducing a Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme (PATS) Using a model that has already been piloted in the Faculty of Information Technology at Monash University that has led to improved unit evaluations.

Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme Partnering of teaching leaders and other academics to discuss ways to improve a unit Identification of leaders & partners Discussions over informal meetings Supported by series of teaching workshops, peer reveiews incentives

Results in ICT FIT5151 Object-Oriented Business Application Development Semester 2, 2008 (CL): Median: 2.86, Mean: 2.76 (59 students enrolled, 25 responses) Semester 1, 2009 (CA): Median: 4.33, Mean: 4.19 (20 students enrolled, 16 responses) FIT2043 Technical documentation for software Semester 1, 2008 (CL): Median: 2.11, Mean: 2.32 (38 students enrolled, 20 responses) Semester 1, 2009 (CL): Median: 3.50, Mean: 3.00 (30 students enrolled, 12 responses) FIT5173 Digital communications technology and protocols Semester 1, 2009 (new unit): Median: 4.36, Mean: 4.31 (25 students enrolled, 16 responses) This unit was a new unit taught in 2009, however, the lecturer wanted to be involved in PATS because his previous unit FIT1005 Networks and Data Communications was flagged as needing critical attention (Median: 2.95, Mean: 2.83 (112 students enrolled, 29 responses) FIT9005 Computer Architecture and Networks Semester 1, 2008 (CL): Median: 2.95, Mean 2.70 (57 students enrolled, 23 responses) Semester 1, 2009 (CA): Median: 3.56, Mean: 3.32 (49 students enrolled, 25 responses) FIT2028 Web Systems 2 Semester 2, 2008 (MA): Median: 2.5 (24 students enrolled, 7 responses) Semester 2, 2009 (MA): Median: 3.67 (30 students enrolled, 5 responses) Three of the units (FIT5151, FIT2043, FIT5173) moved out of the critical attention zone (median < 3.0) into meeting aspirations (median above 3.6) whilst the other two units (FIT9005, FIT2028) moved into the needs improvement zone (median greater than 3.0 but less than 3.6).

Planned Activities 2010

Planned Activities 2011

Outcomes A consistent and university-wide strategy/policy to assist academics to improve units that need critical attention; Identification of perceived challenges and opportunities for the development of PATS as a mechanism to improve quality of teaching in Higher Education; Improved teaching practice and student experience, and improved unit and course evaluations; Dissemination of good practice both within and across discipline areas, through wide distribution of reporting and publications; Embedded acknowledgement in “most improved unit from each cluster” into Monash’s Teaching Excellence Award process; Ongoing acknowledgment and development of previous award winners’ and outstanding teachers’ skills; Embedding of the outcomes into the Monash University Graduate Certificate of Higher Education.

Discussion Deans Thoughts and opinions Comments Want you’d like to know Other outcomes Suggestions and recommendations

Survey questions PATS participants How often did you met with your peer? What were you aiming to improve in the unit? What measures/advice did you take to improve your unit ? Or what recommendations did you provided ? Has PATS provided you with an opportunity to reflect on your unit and discuss your concerns with a colleague? Did you request a peer-review of your teaching? Why? Or did you conduct a peer-review of some-one else's teaching? Why? Did you request a teaching evaluation? Why? Did the scheme provide you with the academic support you needed to: i. openly exchange teaching ideas, ii. improve unit resources, (lecture slides, tutes, pracs, assignments, textbooks) and iii. discuss ways to improve the unit Do you have any recommendations on how to improve the scheme? Any further comments.

Acknowledgements - ALTC I’d like to acknowledge and thank ALTC for funding for this project.

Acknowledgements - Reference Group External Reference Group Sally Rogan University of Wollongong Katherine Lindsay The University of Newcastle Phillip Dawson Deakin University Warrnambool Roger Hadgraft University of Melbourne Dr Jane Skalicky University of Tasmania

Acknowledgements - Reference Group Internal Reference Group Marnie Hughes-WarringtonPro VC (Learning and Teaching) Professor Peter Stewart Faculty of Pharmacy Dr Sheila Vance Faculty of MNHS Catherine (Cathy) Barrett Faculty Business & Economics Dr Wendy Sutherland ‐ Smith, Education Adrian Devey ODVCE Judith.RochecousteCALT Lisa Smith Library

Acknowledgements -Reference Group Monash Peer Assisted Learning Fellows Susan Edwards Faculty of Education Jane BoneFaculty of Education Jill French Faculty of MNHS Yvonne Hodgson Faculty of MNHS Gerry Rayner Faculty of Science