1. Presenting a convincing teaching case for promotion Briefing for applicants 6 th February 2014 Institute for Teaching and Learning Professor Keith Trigwell

2. TEACHING COUNTS AT SYDNEY PRESENTING A CONVINCING ‘TEACHING CASE’ 2 1.Understanding the ‘teaching’ elements of the policy - education-focused promotion pathways 2. Sources of 'convincing' evidence - making sense of student feedback and linking claims with evidence 3. Support in making your teaching case for promotion

3. TEACHING DIMENSIONS ›Teaching is broadly defined at Sydney: UG, PG, Higher degree supervision, Curriculum development, Learning support etc. ›Promotion committees assess teaching in terms of: ›Teaching performance ›Research-led teaching ›Student-focused teaching ›Scholarship in teaching ›Leadership in teaching ITL Teaching Insight 8: Arguing the case for promotion http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/programs/teaching_insights/http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/programs/teaching_insights/ ›Applicants should communicate their achievements in relation to all these dimensions of teaching not just ‘performance’ 3

4. PROMOTION PATHWAYS ›The University recognises the mutual interaction of education and research in academic practice ›There are now three promotion pathways: ›1) Teaching & Research ›2) Education-focused ›3) Research-focused 4

5. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PROMOTION 5 TEACHING AND RESEARCH STREAM – Minimum required standards Promotion sought Teaching standard Research standard Service standard Comment Level A to Level B; Level B to Level C; Level C to Level D Superior or Outstanding SuperiorAt least one Outstanding is required Level D to Level EOutstanding SuperiorN/A Promotion sought Teaching standard Research standard Service standard Comment AllExceptionalSuperior or Satisfactory Superior or Satisfactory At least one Superior is required, in either Research or Service EDUCATION FOCUSSED STREAM – Minimum required standards RESEARCH FOCUSSED STREAM – Minimum required standards Promotion sought Teaching standard Research standard Service standard Comment AllSuperior or Satisfactory ExceptionalSuperior or Satisfactory At least one Superior is required, in either Teaching or Service

6. DIFFERENT PATHWAYS REQUIRE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS 6 Teaching (40%) Research (40%) Service (20%) T &R pathway Scholarship of teaching and learning Discipline research Education Pathway Scholarship of teaching and learningDiscipline research Education Pathway Scholarship of teaching and learning Research on university teaching and learning Research Pathway Relative to opportunity: supervision, learning support Discipline research

7. EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS ›What are some different sources of evidence you would expect to see in an application? Link 1: ITL Teaching Insight 8: Sources of data for teaching http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/programs/teaching_insights/http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/programs/teaching_insights/ ›Students, colleagues, literature & teachers' own experience ›Different sorts of evidence relevant to each dimension ›Triangulation, coherence & authenticity ›A claim without evidence is less convincing ›A claim supported by only one sort of evidence is less convincing ›A claim with the wrong sort of evidence is not convincing 7

8. STUDENT SURVEY DATA AS EVIDENCE Presenting USE data in a way that is convincing and credible Link 2: ITL Teaching Insight 6: Using student feedback http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/programs/teaching_insights/http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/programs/teaching_insights/ ›Interpreting numerical data ›Making sense of student comments ›Contextualising results ›Triangulation of data ›Most importantly: What has been done with the information? 8

9. EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL TEACHING CASES Presenting your case: What information and evidence? Online form: ›Text: Claims, illustrative practice and key evidence ›TRSSA: Reinforcing evidence – not new claims ›Referee's reports: Reinforcing evidence – not new claims ›Supplementary evidence – PDFs only – (it’s a reference not necessarily read by all c'tee members, so – non-essential reinforcing evidence – not new claims). ›Interviews: only for level E 9

10. ARGUING THE TEACHING CASE SUCCINCTLY What members of previous committees said they looked for: ›A clear and distinctive theme or focus that runs through the applicant's argument for promotion ›An authentic, convincing voice and identity as a teacher – not empty jargon ›Clear claims and achievements based in examples of practice, followed up by relevant, broad-based (triangulated) evidence, that is reinforced (not repeated) in TRSSA form, the referees reports and (at E) the interview 10

11. Thank you Questions? Participate in one of the ITL workshops http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/awards/promotions_teaching.htm

12. CONSIDER COMMITTEE’S EXPECTATIONS POLICY CRITERIA (A-E) ›Descriptions of expectations for academic work at each level of appointment: ›Level A: will be contributing to teaching … under the supervision of a more experienced member of staff ›Level B: … education-related scholarly activities, which have resulted in demonstrated improvements in teaching quality and/or education outcomes ›Level C: … will disseminate knowledge in learning and teaching to benefit and promote good practice in the Faculty/University ›Level D: … contributions to national efforts to enhance curriculum … a sustained track record of effective leadership of teaching teams in curriculum design … evidence of major original and innovative contributions to curriculum and pedagogical development which enhance the University’s standing as a national leader in education within the discipline 12