 Mae'r ystyried am gweithio i yn dweud y Prof. Porto Llyfrin, gyda'r unigweithio fydd yn ei gweithio i gael yma yn y cyflwyoldu. Mae oedd oedd yn ei ddych chi'n llei, a oedd yn rhan o'r atbydd ym mhir o'r proiect. Yn ymddangos o'r mynd i'ch gweithio i'r llunio a'r Llyfrin. Ddodd. Gweithi. Ddodd. A'r hyn sy'n ddodd o'i'r gwahanol. Fy hoeddiw'n fydd ymddangos o'ch gweithio i'n ei ddodd. Felly mae'n eu bod yw'r edrych yn ymlaen o'r system swedol. Mae'n credu yn ymddi, mae'n ddullfeydd ychydig i eisiau amddangosiau. Mae'n ddod ddod. Felly, os ydych chi ddod, mae'n gweld. Mae'n ddod o'r ddifartmelt, ddifartmelt o'r ddifartmelt o gwaith eidio. Mae ymddydd yma, rydyn ni'n gallu penderfyn yn ychydig. swynhau, mae cyfnodd maen nhw wedi ychwanegu iddyn nhw. Cael ei fyw ddylu gweld i ddim. Yn ddaeth yn urchyn ni allans hwn o'n ddwylaeth ymlaen iawn. Maen nhw'n dda'u ddwylaeth o'sawn i ddwylaeth a'r oedd ymlaen iawn. Mae gwybweithu i fynd yn ddim yn gweithio y newfial yn ganahog. Roedd fynd i'n ffordd yma'r ddwylaeth o'r digwydd, mae'r hwn iddyn nhw'n gweithio ar gyfer y mewn gw Ahilyddol, yn myw ymlaen, o'r ymlaen meisio. Mae'r cyd-wyrd, maen nhw'n meddwl gweithio'r gweithio'r dynig, a how they create a reality of a certain sort, create culture, if you like, although I'm increasingly getting a bit disturbed about that term. Using social practice theory based on activity theory and communities of practice theory and so on but amending it a bit to analyse that. Wrth ydyraf, rwy'n allan y byd yn dyma'r rhaid, y mynd i'r drafod o'n drafod meddwl. Mae Adrebu Cyfoedd yn sgolol, mae'r roliadau yn ymchwil ymddangosol, mae'r adran llwyddiol, mae'r adran llwyddiol, mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r dyma'r adran llwyddiol. Mae'n ddweud o'n ddweud o Gwrs Thesol, o'r cyfreith gwasanaeth, y cyfnod o'n perffodus yw'r cyllidebyn, mae hynny yn ei gwaith hwn o'r ac yn gweithio yn eich hwn yn gweithio'r cyfrannu celfanol. Byddwn yma ym Mhwrieddau ysgolwyr siwr yw cerddyr, ac mae'n mynnag yn eich gweithio am ymddangos ymferwyd. Ond mae'n ddweud yma ei fod yn unig a'r hybl, os roedd yn cerddwyr ei chyfnodol, wrth i'r 20 ysgolwyr ysgolwyr yn gweithio i'n ei gweithio'i gyrwyr honno yn ôl yn y hefyd mae'n agafod. chairdw i rynglyn hwnnw i'r gweithio, wrth i'n credu. Ac ydym yn ymuno'r hyffordd ychydig yn ymweld, mae'r 4 o 5 o gyrd yn y gweithio'r unig a'r ysgrifennu'r hyffordd i'r Unig, felly yw bod y 24 ysgrifennu ar y mewn Unedig. Yn amdano'r unig yw gan yn ymdweithio ar y sefyllfa ar y sefyllfa ar y mewn Unedig, ac mae'r unrhyw genedig ar y sefyllfa ar y mewn Unedig.那个 system is now changing we've got the higher education academy, which is integrating those subject centers and also integrating the Institute for Learning and Teaching higher education, which was one of the few things I understood from by the way I'm speaking in English. I now have six words of Swedish instead of the two that I started with this morning. I'm learning, so you should have the paper in front of you. Maen nhw'n bau ddweud o wneud, ddweud o'r pfer o'i ddoedd i ni'n ddoedd, ac mae'n ddweud o'r bys yn ei ddau o'i ddweud o'r gwneud ni'n ddweud o'n bwysig o'r ddweud. Neu shefyd maen nhw'n ddweud, ond hefyd wedi sefydliad jawg yng nghyddweithio mae'r hefyd yn dduol eich gw Communion Cymru. A yna y gallwn gwyaf yn rhoi yr hynny'r hyn yw'n ddweud. Walten, mae'n swyddi'n gwlad hynny'r hyn. ychwanegwyd hynny, a oeddiwch gyda'r lleidio a'r lleidio yn gyflaedd. Dyna yw'r llenwyr yn cyflaedd, a oeddu'r lleidio yn cyflaedd yn y lleidio yn cefnogaeth, yw y ftakr ymlaen i'r lleidio. Ond yna'r gweithio yw'r ystyried? A yna mynd i'w gweithio'r lleidio, yw'r reall, yw'r lleidio'r lleidio yw'r lleidio yn cefnogaeth? A'r llyfrifedd drwy'r drefn hwn o mynd i'r mynd i'r lleidio, acho that is what I have published about already. There is lots of material available. I've got a website with all my publications and references to lots of others. Where am I coming from with this? Well, the research of others into education development in the UKWhen abroad and I've got a PhD student who is just finishing her thesis. In fact, she will be submitting it in 2 weeks' time. She's tracked the process that you going through in the UK. We're a bit further behind than you I would say, Maen nhw'n gwybod ar y dyfodol yn 1997 i'r ystyried ar gyfer y Llywodraeth yma yn y Llywodraeth. Yna'n ddyn nhw'n gwybod o'r cyd-diwodd, mae'n rhan o'r cyd-diwodd. Mae'n ddysgu'r ysgrifetio cyd-diwodd, mae'n ddysgu'r ysgrifetio cyd-diwodd ar gyfer cyllidau gael, y gallu leddau oedd y cyd-diwodd, ac y gallu gwynllun gyffredinol, sydd ar gyfer y gyd-diwodd, a'r cyd-dweud y dyfodol, ac ydych yn gweithio'r ddweud yn ymwyllt yma, rwy'n fwy oedd ymddangos ychydig yn ystod. Mae'r cyd-dweud yn ymwneud, ac ymdw'n cyd-dweud yn y papur. Mae'r papur yw ymwneud yn ymwneud yn y papur. Mae'r cyd-dweud yn ymwneud. Mae'r Rhonny Bamba, roedd yn ymddangos, wedi'i ddechrau, yn gweithio ar gyfer y prosiectiol. Mae'r cyd-dweud yn ymwneud. Mae bywch y mynd y seradau o'r ysgolwg hon i yng Ngwyllgor Llywodraeth, ac ysgolwch netwg o'r Pwlad erbyn y profiad. Ym Mhwgriffe, mae'r Rhwyngenuseatai o'r newydd, rydw i, yn cymryd yn ddechrau o'r cyfeirio y cydweithio. Mae'r newydd, a chynllun i'r llyfr, roeddaeth i'r canolwydau a'i adysgfaith erbyn'r oeddach o'r deixoedd o lei andennau. will sit alongside the subject centres. So an extra thing. We're hoping that we'll be at least involved in the bidding to evaluate the centres of excellence in teaching and learning. There are 100 bids in to set up those centres and something between 20 and 30 will win and they'll be set up shortly. ac sy'n excessio yn ddod y dysti, neu'r ddod ofeithio sydd cyhoeddfa i allanfodol hwnnw, ar contwch gwybodaeth, a cybernurentg, o'r prosesul proces. Efallai'n hollwch ei geirerau, mae'n hollwch yn gael, a'r hollwch yn gwybod, mae'n hollwch yn perlu at yr enw i'r hollwch yn cael ei geirerau, boed saya wedi cael ei bod yn gwneud eiserdeisgoel yn hollwch yn boed eu meddwl arall. I'm told that it might be. Which is good. That's what keynote speakers should do, isn't it? Stare things up a bit and so on. Maybe I'll get some questions at the end. But so what I'm saying really is I'm coming at this as an educational researcher using the literature, using those things I've just mentioned. I don't have an axe to grind and I'm coming at it naïve in terms of the politics of this, particularly of course the Swedish politics of it. So a little bit of a preamble about policy, first of all, before I get into the detail of the actual thing itself, I'm told you recognize these people. A theme from a technical, rational point of view, a purely logical point of view if you like, Chet is self-evidently a good idea. Train teachers, they'll teach better, things will improve. It's got to be better than things as they were to bring in compulsory, higher education teacher training. Seems on the face of itself evidently a good thing. But as Stephen Bald, Professor of Sociology at King's College of Professor of Education, Educational Sociology at King's College in London tells us, policies are often the result of negotiation, bargaining, obfuscation, fudging, sometimes deliberate, sometimes not deliberate. Policy texts are created and they contain numerous points of view and the language sometimes elides those different points of view. Cogan tells us, Maurice Cogan, Professor Maurice Cogan is one of the big names of higher education research, tells us that policies, they're not really technical, rational in nature very often. They're incremental. There's a process of disjointed incrementalism that goes on. One thing builds on another. There's bargaining and conflict and so on. A policy is created and so what happens is a process of sedimentation as policy grows and it's not always a rational building of one thing on another. I've got a quote in the paper about that. Policy at the national level, policy at the institutional level tends to be a bit fudgy, a bit like that. I think that's that program. The people who wrote that program were very well versed in the nature of Westminster and Whitehall politics. They knew what they were talking about, sorry, the one before. Second thing is very often the theory of change in policies, particularly policies I think to do with improving teaching and learning in universities are not very well thought out. Things seem like a good idea, but the theory of change is a tacit one and it's often not a very good one. Alan Skelton, for example, has done a review of, and I think you have something similar here in Sweden. In Britain we have the national teaching fellowship scheme where £50,000 is given to high quality teachers in higher education. There's a big thing in London and the minister comes along and so on. A big who are every year, there used to be 20 of these people now, I think there are 50 of them. But Skelton, who evaluated the NTFS, the national teaching fellowship scheme, asked the question, what's the theory of change here? How will this change anything, really? He gets quite aerated about this issue. Will it really enhance teaching and learning? Or will it just give these 50 people a nice £50,000 for three or four years, no strings attached? They're nice if you get it, but how's it going to make fundamental change? One of the questions that I always like to ask is what's the theory of change here? For example, about Scottish quality enhancement. How is this going to happen? How will it work? How will institutions change from where they are now to be enhancement-led? Then you start asking different people that question and you get different... They've got one. They usually haven't surfaced it. They've got a theory of change. It's not usually surfaced, but you find that you've got different answers. So the policy makers will give you different answers. People actually doing the enhancement-led institutional reviews will give you different answers. The people on the ground will give you different answers and so on, so interesting. The third thing to say about policies is they come from the first really. They often have multiple purposes, sort of elided together in a policy text. So you think you know what a policy is about, but actually it is about multiple things. Non-page four of the handouts, I won't read them out. I've just pulled out four quotes from official documents about what compulsory higher education teacher training chat is about in the UK. They're very different sorts of things. We're at the stage now, by the way, that a consultation process is underway. The first phase of the consultation process about chat has just finished, which is about the structures and frameworks of it, and then a second phase will be coming in soon, which is what you're talking about, the content and so on, the detail of it. I mean, I think that's a depressing list of quotes there, isn't it, from the government? One of them says, basically, to give key stakeholders confidence in the quality of university education. That's pretty important, but it's not what I'd put down. A fourth problem with policy in this area is about what's the best level of analysis to attack change in our case, the enhancement of teaching and learning. Should we attack at the individual level, like the scheme I've just mentioned, the NTFS, the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme, one person or 50 people, individually, or education development courses, one person, although I do hear groups of people, which is nice to hear, from one department coming to a course. Or the MISO level, the one that I'm interested in, the kind of micro sociological level, or the institutional level of university. If you look at policies orientated to improving enhancing teaching and learning in the UK, you can see a kind of random, apparently random, some policies here, some policies there, and so on. Actually, I have to say, and the quote is in the paper, that the government in the UK has actually recognised this problem now. In one of its, this is on page 5, I think, it isn't in there somewhere. Okay, don't worry. Government's actually said, we haven't thought enough about the level of analysis and what the appropriate level is for the theory of change that we've got. And so, one of the recent, the TQAF, Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund, has quite deliberately approached the issue at multiple levels, which is very nice to see. So, we've had a kind of, sorry, the slides are just for fun. A Christmas tree model of policy. Shiny baubles, very appropriate for this time of year, isn't it? Shiny baubles, this is one of the challenging controversial bits maybe that we'll have before. I'm talking about the UK now, I know nothing about the Swedish. No, it's not like this in Sweden. Shiny baubles put up temporarily, temporary effects, look great, but not connected to each other and so on. And maybe it's the government or the policy maker, whoever it is, saying, look, we're doing something and it's great. So, moving to the Swedish case now, if you're following on page 5, take your choice, read it, listen to me, do a bit of both, look at the pictures. I'm told that here, Sweden, like nearly everywhere else in the rest of the world, is facing a fundamental change in higher education, massification, changing student preparedness, numbers of students increasing and so on. And so, it's felt that there's a need to address teacher education here as we're doing in the UK. So, I want to just disaggregate my first question a bit into three sub-questions. What's the theory, leading on from what I've just been saying, what's the theory of change here, is the thinking joined up and will synergies be found with what is already in place? Now, the theory of change, certainly in the UK, is again, from a technical rational point of view, looks pretty straightforward, set out on page 6. Training all teachers in higher education will lead to conceptual and behavioural change among them. They'll change their ideas, they'll change their... The research shows us that people tend to move away from thinking about themselves. What am I going to do? What do I know as a teacher? Will they find me out? And gradually, they move towards what do the students know and where can I take them and how can I encourage learning to occur? So, there's conceptual change and obviously there's behavioural change in what they do and how they do it and so on, improvement. And then these conceptual and behavioural changes will lead to cultural change within the higher education system generally. So, you fill the place up with enough good teachers and the whole system will change. And so, in the long term, we'll get better educational experiences for students. So, the final thing is that student learning improves. And there's a quote there from Tom Borner at Brighton University and he and colleagues did a study of that process. And that quote on page 6 pretty well sums up that theory of change while you read it and I'll just get some water. So, they looked at 50 institutions in England and they're also saying what's interesting about the methods used on those education development courses in those 50 institutions is that they're nothing like the methods, the didactic methods, the etogogical methods I should say, and nothing like the ones generally used in those universities. They don't use lectures, for example, in education development courses. They don't use seminars. They use the sorts of things you're probably familiar with. Discussion, buzz groups, resource-based learning and so on. And Borner and colleagues say, well, that's great because the education development courses, in a sense, are predicting the higher education of the future. They're student-led and student-centred the education development courses and that's where the future of higher education pedagogy should be. Not in reproducing the disciplines or lecturing about the disciplines and so on, but preparing students for portfolio careers for a postmodern world where they'll need all sorts of different skills and they'll need to be very competent individuals with good learning skills, ability to learn. So, if that argument is correct, the Borner et al argument and theory of change and development and so on is correct, then Chet, both in Sweden and the UK, is a good idea. But there are some questions about that and on page seven I take another author from Hong Kong Ho et al, that team, who suggests that it might not work. They wonder whether actually practices, conceptions of teaching and learning and so on are so easily changed and so easily transferred into practice. So, I'll just read this one out. As pointed out by some education, this people I'm sure you know, Biggs and Ramson and so on, many staff development programmes work on the assumption that providing tertiary teachers with prescribed skills and teaching recipes will change their practices and thus improve their students' learning outcomes. However, the experience of many staff developers has suggested otherwise. Many cases, participants query the feasibility of the methods presented, defend the methods that they are currently using, the old lecture, seminar and so on methods often, use new methods mechanically or modify methods which are meant to facilitate student learning into a didactic. They modify them into a didactic transmission mode and didactic for us would mean a very teacher-centred mode. So, there is an issue there about how far change actually occurs and some of my work on social practice theory, which I won't say much about here, but I've been working on the notion of teaching and learning regimes, regimes rather than cultures for all sorts of reasons. In other words, the idea that in departments or sub-departmental work groups that are engaged in a project for an extended period of time, people begin to see the world through spectacles. We all see the world through spectacles of one sort or another, but particularly if you like cultural spectacles. Identities are created, defended, attacked and so on. I don't like the word culture or communities of practice because of the notion of sharedness. There's some sharedness there, of course, but there's also a lot of tension, power, politics going on. Perhaps that's not a good metaphor, but there's more than just spectacles. So, there's internal diversity going on, and I've elaborated this elsewhere and will be writing more about it. But what they do share, I think, is what you could call a backstory, a history. They've been working. The group, the department, have been working on a common project to do with teaching and learning, perhaps an undergraduate degree or whatever. Over time, they've developed sets of meanings, they've developed identities, they've developed power relations and so on, and they've got this backstory. So, whatever the current issue is that they're dealing with, in common they have a history. And a set of practices. See if you can guess the relevance of this. This is Icarus. Apparently, you can't really see it, but Icarus has hit the sun and is falling into the water. So, it's all happening in the background. But in the foreground, the practices are just going on as normal. So, it's just for fun. But I think there is something about that. The practices are very difficult to change. There's a nice metaphor about policy that shows policy makers having a jug, which is the policy and they throw it down. But for the people at the bottom who are going about their daily work, they see the shards around them and try to make, well, what's this? Particularly in a situation where there are multiple initiatives coming at them. So, actually changing practices is really quite difficult. So, the question that I have really is, if you take the individual level of analysis, if you train individual teachers and then expect major changes to occur in departments, well, maybe actually there isn't that much elbow room in the department for change and that the practices that happen regularly, their unconsidered repetitive recurrents practices will maybe unfortunately make it quite difficult to bring about. Fundamental changes. So, there's a quote there on pages. Oh, no, sorry, your page numbers are different from mine, aren't they? I've just realised, ah, yes, because I've got a big version that I can see. Right, under slide eight, Brugel, if you've got that. Yes, my apologies. I thought there were a few confused faces around. Perhaps I need a... I'll get the... Yes, I did a bigger font so that I can actually see it. Yeah. Oh, it's not page numbers on this one. All right. Slide numbers will go for you. Okay, so Gibbs and Coffey then conclude that, the quote there, trainees reported that their departments, in their departments, teaching was often not valued and there was pressure to conform, but to largely teacher-focused, not students at focus, teaching conventions, such as lecturing and testing of acquisition of subject content. Change was sometimes frowned upon and taken to imply criticism of more experienced colleagues. The Gibbs and Coffey study, I... You need somebody else here, Custon. How do you say her name? Leica, is it? Leica. It's in this area of effects. But she and I were talking about the studies of effects. She uses the word impact. It's not a word I like, actually, for reasons I'll talk about in a second. But we were talking about the studies of effects of education development courses, teacher-training courses. And they're poor, really, those studies, methodologically poor. The recent one that I could find is the Gibbs and Coffey thing. They did a preliminary set of results a few years ago and the quote's final results have just come out in 2004 in the journal Active Learning. But if you look at the methodology there, it's not that great. So I don't know how much we can know about that in terms of effects. There are some problems too, I think, in terms of education development courses themselves, certainly in the UK. One argument is that they're insufficiently... they're insufficiently take into account disciplinary differences in teaching and learning. Now, what those disciplinary differences are, again, isn't very well studied. There's the Hativa and Mrenkovich collection from about 1995 and there was a series of studies done, I think, funded by the Kani Centre that was published two or three years ago. Clearly there are differences in teaching and learning approaches by discipline and I tried to summarise what we know in the second edition of Tony Beech's Academic Tribes and Territories that I worked on with him. So there's a bit of a section in there trying to summarise differences in disciplinary approaches. We've tried to gather from the Learning and Teaching Support Network evaluation, which, as I say, is divided by discipline, some of those differences, but it's really hard to pin down. But clearly there needs to be more thinking, I think, in education development programmes about disciplinary differences. I know there's an argument that says that we should mix disciplines and that there's a lot to be gained from mixing disciplines and I'm sure that's true, but there are disciplinary differences too. There's quite a critique also of the notion of the reflective practitioner. I have no idea how much that's used here in Sweden, but certainly in the UK it is the dominant, it's the hegemonic approach. We're developing reflective practitioners. But exactly what is meant by the reflective practitioner and exactly what one could expect from developing a number of reflective practitioners is, I think, open to some debate. I'd rather like the work of David Dill, the American academic, who talks about the learning architecture of universities. In an article published, I think, in 1999, he talks about using examples from across the States. He talks about how the systems and structures and procedures of universities can enhance or not learning and teaching in those universities. He gives a very nice set of guidelines, really, for the establishment of a learning architecture in institutions. On the one side, you've got the theory of the learning architecture that says that institutions need to be set up in particular ways. On the other side, you've got the idea of the reflective practitioner, which basically says if you fill an institution with enough reflective practitioners, it will be an enhancement-led institution, a sort of size thing. Underneath that, there's Lewis Elton talks about where there's death, there's hope. I think it's a lovely phrase. In other words, you wait for the old guard with their old practises to die and the new lot. Where there's death, there's hope. What a lovely phrase. But I think that's completely wrong. He thinks so, too. Elton thinks so, too. Because structures and practises, in a sense, are separate from people. Over time, but the structures and practises have longevity. So there's the problem of methodological individualism that's imbued in the idea of the reflective practitioner. It's the level thing that I talked about before. We shouldn't expect interventions at the level of the individual to make, necessarily, any way to make changes at higher levels of analysis in any reliable way. So I think, just to skip a bit, my conclusion from the first question is it a good idea? Is Chet a good idea? Yes, it's a good idea. I don't want to throw it out at all. That's not what I'm about. I'll read out the sentence, the paragraph that says this, because I want to be quite clear about it. My argument is not that we should throw out the idea of Chet, merely that it needs to be supplemented in a joined-up way with other resources, structures and processes that are already in place or need to be developed. So we need to think, oh, I missed that one. That's about the best I could do for the reflective practitioner. I'm sorry. It's not easy to find an interesting thing to describe the reflective practitioner. That's pathetic, but we need a learning architecture. I was looking for something a bit more elaborate, but I think I would add to Dill's idea of a learning architecture the idea of an enhancement culture. Yes, we need structures, processes and systems in universities. We need to think about our committee structures and how we identify problems, because a learning architecture is about the identification of problems and how they're addressed, and they're about closing the loop between seeing the problems and changing practices and so on. But we also need an enhancement culture where people are kind of aware, and together in their work groups are ready to review practice. I've said that practices tend to be ingrained, the Brugel thing, so ready to look at their tacit knowledge, look at their unconsidered sets of assumptions, unconsidered practices and consider them. Bring implicit theories out and make them explicit and so on. We need to find ways to attack the teaching and learning regimes, attack in a nice sense and make them explicit and so on. And as well as that, I'm under different games now. There we go. I'm regretting these slides already now. Universities play different games. I mean, I don't need to tell you this. They play a research game, particularly in the UK where we have the research assessment exercise once every five years. We're just coming towards our next one and suddenly we have to focus there, and our money depends on winning at that game. We play the teaching quality game, the enhancement game. We play what we call the third leg game or the third mission game of income generation and so on. Those games have different rules, different goals, and they're not necessarily congruent with each other. So there is the question too of aligning policies and priorities and thinking carefully about the different games and the ways in which there can be synergies between them, but also the contradictions. I mean, I don't know about you, but what I notice is, depending on which committee I happen to be sitting in that day, the game, the one game is in the foreground always and it's really hard to remember the other games. So you can talk about, I don't know, somebody's teaching or something, but you forget about the research game, which is some contradictory thing going on, and then you go to another committee and it switches again. And of course, as well as learning architecture and an enhancement culture and thinking about the different priorities, et cetera, there's the simple stuff in a way that Cherwich and Sabatier in their classics study great expectations and mixed performance from the 80s told us about the fact that you need good resources. I'll come to that in a second, that you need to be clear in your policies and their aims and the theory of change that you shouldn't shift priorities halfway through and so on. That's more obvious kind of stuff about the underpinning resources. Okay, question two. And I'm not going to go on for an hour and a half. So I'll race through this because I do want some time for questions. What can experience theory and research teachers about the likely implementation of CHET? Well, there's a bit of a thing at the moment in the UK for evidence-based practice imported from medicine. And I would argue that that tends to omit or occlude professional judgment. It's Cherwich's argument, isn't it, about the reflective practitioner, that actually professional judgment is really important and there are no one-size-fits-all solutions in a mechanistic kind of this is what you do in this situation kind of way. And certainly the social practice theory would tell us that people create their own and different realities in different contexts and those realities have very significant implications for the way that policies are received, understood, put into practice and what works in one place won't necessarily work in another place. One of the principles that the 24 subject centres tend to like and use is the notion of brokerage where they sit up here, the subject centre charged with improving teaching and learning in that particular discipline and they would say, oh, they're doing X in university Y. Let's tell university Z about practice X and we'll just broker the practice. But I think there's a problem with that and I was talking on Friday about the notion of reinventing the wheel. I think reinventing the wheel is a damn good thing to do actually. It's not a problem because if you reinvent the wheel, it's your wheel and it's a wheel that is appropriate for your place. It's a wheel but it's a bit different from that other wheel. So what can the Norwegian experience tell us? Again, I'm benefiting here from Kirsten Lig. Thank you for her work. We've been in correspondence and she's been telling me about the Norwegian experience because they've now implemented CHET and they've had it since 1988 I think it is. So there's quite an experience there and I won't describe the Norwegian system and you may know it very well but it's in the paper, a brief summary taken from Kirsten's work. What I'm interested in is not the description of the system but the experience of implementing it. So first of all it was the opposition to the idea of CHET and where it came from, the Committee for Educational Matters. There was a question about what right of they, who should be imposing rules about teacher education, compulsory teacher education, have they got the right to do that? But it was pretty clear, at least from Kirsten's account, that something needed to be done, that teaching competence wasn't being taken into account at all and people could be promoted and get to quite senior positions without being good teachers. So something did need to be done. There was a certain amount of inertia at the institutional level and the whole thing is taking quite a long time to actually get into place there and certainly I would expect that to be the case for inertia to happen and certainly in particular places, some places will move faster than others, other places will be slow. The implementation... Is it...? I'll try and speak a bit louder. Sorry. The trajectory was very mixed as well the trajectory of the implementation of that policy, of the CHET policy in Norway. So some departments, some faculties, and there's an interesting disciplinary difference here, I think, or a different disciplinary dimension here, implemented it quite quickly and to good effect. Others resisted or simply tried to ignore the policy hoping that it would go away in the end. Of course it didn't. Then there was the practical problem, the kind of cherish and sabatier resources problem. Suddenly institutions that didn't have the resources hadn't had education development courses on any scale at least. Now suddenly they were supposed to do compulsory for new staff these courses and they just didn't have the capacity, they didn't have the staff, they didn't have the time, and so on. So course capacity was a problem. If there was the question of some resistance, is it worth it? Why do we want to spend our time on this when we've got all these other games to play? Research is our priority, or something else is our priority. Different stakeholders, 6th, took different points of view. The top teams in Norway, the president and so on, tended to be in favour, students generally in favour, lecturers mixed partly depending on how experienced they were, whether they were new lecturers, but even the new lecturers who in principle were in favour are busy people. They're doing everything for the first time. They've got it and often they get dumped with stuff in the UK at least, that the older people defending themselves, the professors, et cetera, stay away from. So even though the new people wanted to be involved, they just didn't have the time to be involved. The response of the lecturers' unions, union in a way tended to be eventually in favour, in the UK it's mixed. There are two unions involved, they're mixed between the unions and mixed at different levels of the union as well, in the response to Chet. And still we don't really know about the effects. Kirsten, who studied it, says, nice phrase, the quality of teaching is by itself a difficult animal to catch alive and measure. Is it really, is Chet in Norway really improving the quality of teaching? Difficult to catch that one alive and to measure it. And an even more difficult question is, even if the quality of teaching has been improved, has that led to an improvement in the quality of learning in the students? That's even harder to research. So poor old Gibbs and Coffey and everybody else trying to desperately to catch that animal, or those two animals, the quality of teaching and the effect on learning. It's a tough one. There are more robust studies of little things like mentoring, the effectiveness of mentoring or the effectiveness of workshops and so on. You can get down to that level and have quite robust research designs there. But bigger questions about Chet or about education development courses and about student learning are much harder to tackle. Moving to the English experience, I think you can see three distinct phases and from what little I got from this morning with the help of a bit of simultaneous translation, I think some of it might be quite relevant to you. The first phase was an attempt by what was the Booth Committee, Clive Booth was the chair of it, to introduce 24 competences. That would be the standard thing that all new lecturers would have to achieve. So it was a competence-based model. Now I'm told that you don't have this problem in Sweden, but in the UK the competence-based model is a disaster, has been a disaster since 1986 with the setting up of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, which introduced a very mechanistic, I would say, competence-based model for the training of electricians and plumbers and so on and people said that that competence-based model forgets about the brain. It just looks at practice, behaviour and so the danger is you get plumbers trained in a competence-based model who know what to do, but don't understand what they're doing or why they're doing it, and if they meet a problem they can't solve it. They've achieved the competence. So competence for us is a bit of a pejorative word in the UK. These 24 competences were put out by the Booth Committee and there was uproar amongst the whole community. There was a revolution about it. What are these things? Why these competences? What right does this committee to say this and not that? And so on. The community was just not going to have that competence-based model, particularly when they'd been thinking along the shun reflective practitioner lines, which is completely the opposite, of course, of what we saw as a mechanistic thing. So what's distinctively higher education about these? These could be the competences of a primary school teacher. And if you looked at them, there was nothing in there that was distinctively higher education. Where are the subject disciplines in these competences? They weren't there and so on. So quite quickly those were withdrawn and the Booth Committee, I think, went away with its tail between its legs a bit. And there was a move back to the default position, which was the series of outcomes and underlying values and principles from CEDA, the Staff and Education Development Association, which had been used for quite some time. So that's the position we have at the moment, the CEDA approach, which is based on the reflective practitioner viewpoint. But there is, as I say, the third phase is the consultation that's going on right now. But my guess is they won't move very far away from the CEDA model of outcomes and the underlying values and principles that underpin them, because those have got some kind of hegemony and acceptance. But to move over finally to Ronnie Bamber's study, the PhD student I was talking about, she's been doing this policy trajectory study of the implementation of the dearing proposals from 1997 to have to train, to do what you're doing, to have CHET, to the present day. And the series of bullet points towards the end of the paper summarise what she found in the UK. So the more prestigious universities didn't and don't have practices in place and management procedures in place to implement some of the proposals. They're more loosely coupled with the newer institutions, which are more managerialist and can make things happen more directly, although with problems. Again, like Norway, the leaders of institutions that she interviewed tended to be very much in favour of CHET. But while some gave real support, the resources that I talked about others were just giving rhetorical support with no additional resources, heads of department were more circumspect than the top teams, perhaps because the heads of department faced these multiple games in a more day-to-day way. Some were very much in favour, some were against, some did what they could but had to prioritise, say research or whatever. Some heads of department did hamper the implementation of CHET and continue to do so. They certainly have the power to do that. As in Norway, the story is very similar in both countries. New academic staff mixed in their support, in principle in favour of being trained, of engaging with education development courses, but in practice so busy and worn down very quickly by the multiple demands on them that it was hard for them to engage fully. So Bamberg concludes, in the detail, rather than uniformity of provision, the diversity of values and purposes in different types of institutions is reflected in a diversity of attitudes and approaches to training, the size of the course, the levels of support among senior managers, heads of department and among new lecturers themselves. That's very much what one would expect from a social practice point of view. There was, as I said before, only limited elbow room. What's that? I missed that one. Yes, only limited elbow room. The other one was the refraction of policy for change via individuals. Oh, it's the wrong way round. That's why it should be the elbow room and then the prism. So the policy will be refracted according to the culture and nature of the priorities of particular institutions. So, just to conclude then in a sentence, I would say, as I said before, yes, it's a good idea, but the lesson, I think, is don't expect too much too quickly from it and don't forget the level of analysis issue, the importance of learning architectures and enhancement cultures at the institutional level to support pushes to enhance teaching and learning, generally speaking. Thank you. Thank you for the very interesting and most provoking presentation. I'm sure there's a lot of comments and questions in there, please. Porgynyn, please introduce yourself to the other side of the room. I'm porgynyn, also, from the mic question that refers to the phenomenon with disciplinary differences. Because in the book, Pipes and Territories, you write about, well, you discuss things around communication in academic environments, and you talk about a large network who teaches or academics refer to large networks of several hundreds of people involved in them, but they tend to test their ideas and develop new ideas in very small networks, compiled, for instance, seven, eight, nine people only. So that's one way of looking at the other way, seems to me, is the disciplinary way of looking for networks. And these two not always are the same. I guess you can find these smaller networks of people in different subject areas. So wouldn't it be, wouldn't the slides be made sort of in that direction instead of in the direction of the disciplinary differences? I guess we'd like to comment on that. Yes, thank you for that. I faced a very interesting task in, I was asked by the publishers of Academic Tribes and Territories. Tony Beecher was keen for there to be a second edition and we decided Tony and myself and the publishers to do, for me to help with a second edition. I'd already been quite critical of the Tribes and Territories thesis in print for a number of reasons and the methodology underpinning it. For example, there's a trickle down, if you've read the first edition, there's a trickle down theory which basically says what top-level professors do in Stanford today, the less elite lecturers will do community college in Oakland tomorrow. I don't think so at all. And the whole epistemological essentialist thesis of the Tribes and Territories argument I had some problems with the idea that the structure, the epistemological structure of a discipline conditions even determines which in the strong form you see that said not only by Tony Beecher but by Clark and others, I think is too strongly stated. And unfortunately in the literature on teaching and learning practices, we still see that strong version of epistemological essentialism being articulated. For example, some of the work by Ruth Newman and others published recently takes the Tribes and Territories soft, hard, pure applied thing and says, well, soft applied disciplines use these kinds of practices in their teaching and learning and so on. There's a lot of problems with that. So for me the, yes, the slice, the important slice despite the fact that I worked on the second edition of that book and you hear my voice I think coming through saying, well the important slice is the work groups but that narratives about discipline, narratives about disciplines not necessarily the structure of the epistemological character of them but narratives about disciplines are important and those work groups are open systems they're natural open systems and one of the things that flow into them is narratives about disciplines that are more structural in nature so I wouldn't rule this out it's just that I think the focus as you say the slice should be there but that disciplines continue or narratives about disciplines continue to have significance so the LTSN, the learning and teaching support network with the 24 subject centres one of the questions they asked us as evaluators was are we right to tackle this from a disciplinary perspective and the answer we gave them from our evaluation was yes you are because narratives about disciplines are important to lecturers and they see themselves as biologists or economists or whatever whether there are real differences in the teaching and learning practices across the disciplines in a sense doesn't matter too much we don't think there are that many actually but it's the narratives that are important and so you are right to take a disciplinary perspective and there's an interesting tension and I'll have to be careful what I say because I'm being recorded but in the Higher Education Academy which integrates the ILTHE the Institute for Learning and Teaching Higher Education and the LTSN, Learning and Teaching Support Networks there's a bit of tension let me say between them and one the LTSN says oh they're too generic they're taking a generic view the ILT which doesn't so much distinguish between disciplines and the ILT people will turn to the subject centre people and say oh they're too fractured and divided and so on so this question turns into a political question so how the Academy deals with that will be a very interesting thing to see but I mean Paul Ramston, the director is clearly aware of the issue what's your experience and what is the Norwegian experience in terms of you can really make a change within the framework of the teacher excellence teachers expertise and teachers doing scholarship do you really change just towards reading the science of pedagogy at all well I can't speak for Norway you'd need Kirsten here for that level of detail but it's an interesting question the the experience I would say in the UK and I know that the scholarship of learning of the SOTL conference by Benita Dandrea colleagues happens every year but I would say there's a certain amount of resistance amongst lecturers to that certainly at Lancaster if I base it in the Lancaster experience what lecturers say is we don't want to become educational researchers and they resist that in the UK quite quite strongly whereas the education developers I think want to turn towards what they often call an inquiry led approach to it one of the tasks that we had to do so there's a tension I think between what the developers want and how far the lecturers being trained want to go down that road one of the tasks that we the evaluation team at my department were asked to do by the LTSN right at the beginning was to look at their baseline statements about the state of the discipline in the country and the idea was that the 24 subject centres and the one generic centre had just been set up they would review the state of teaching and learning in the discipline at the moment and this was I'm talking about three or four years ago write a statement about is quite a long thing and then they would review their how things had changed and maybe try to look at the impact they'd had on that over time and our job in the team was to take all of these 24 documents the generic centre didn't do one and to analyse the key issues that were coming out of those documents and one of the one of the we had a taxonomy that we used and one of them was pedagogical research and it was interesting a very few of the subject centres talked at all about pedagogical research in the discipline one or two did, usually just a comment or two it wasn't in the consciousness at all of the discipline and I think there's a good reason for that and that is that the research assessment exercise in the UK doesn't count or at least didn't count pedagogical research so you got no value for it at all they're looking at that now as the Learning and Teaching Support Network moves into the academy a similar sort of exercise has just been completed and we've been involved in collecting data from a number of sources including round table discussions and so on about the state now and pedagogical research is much higher up the agenda in the consciousness at least of the subject centres and in their perception of what's going on but that's been how that's come around whether it's been through education development courses or whether it's been a shift in the at least the rhetoric about the research assessment exercise I don't know but I know that Paul Ramstone is very the director of the academy is very keen to emphasise that trend Michael Christy from Chalmers the third wise monkey on the board here you talked a lot in your paper about theory of change if you quoted Skelton criticising the teaching awards do any of the theorists talk about the theory of change for the better and my question relates to Hobe's criticism and criticism of a lot of teachers when they've been followed with us urging change it's a very good question thank you for asking it the theories of change and the literature on change does tend to concentrate the case studies are often the disasters and things that didn't work and so on I've looked I've asked that question of myself and I've looked for positive examples and I can point to Lewis Elton's work in that area he did some work for the generic centre of the LTSN the one in York and there's a paper that's on the web by Lewis Elton that's quite interesting that analyses success gives some case studies of successful change and asks your question and basically what he says is the examples he chooses or at least that I've taken from him I think there are other ones in there are problem based learning and what's the other one project work that's right yes problem based learning in medical profession and project work generally speaking what he says is that problem based learning in medical education if you analyse it took off because it was congruent with the practices in the discipline already medical people do problem based learning they take a history they make a diagnosis on the evidence the facts and so on so there's a certain amount of congruence between the pre-existing situation and the new thing that's being implemented and I think that's a very useful paper in the work that I did with colleagues called change thinking change practices which is also available on the web I give the example there of do I need to stop for a second if you ask me to of the credit framework in the UK which was an amazingly successful change I think you have it here kind of American system of the assignment of credit value to assessed learning so you get credits and you can exchange them and so on the ECTIS system is a similar thing so we moved away very quickly or many institutions moved from a term based thing with final exams towards a modular credit based lots of franchising accreditation of prior experiential learning a whole constellation of behaviours practices to do with based on the assignment of credit value to assessed learning an incredible change and also in some quite prestigious universities that you might think would be quite resistant and what was the reason for that success well you know it's hard to say definitely but for me one of the reasons was it was a low fidelity change and by that I mean it was there was an aim there but people could read into it and apply it in different ways so that for example from a student centered perspective if that's your ideological viewpoint you could think about students choosing modules developing their own program and so on so for somebody from that ideological standpoint it was attractive for managers, for university managers it was attractive because it appeared to break down the academic tribes and to give them some control it seemed to be economical as well for somebody who was who came from what I call an enterprise ideological perspective it enabled students to choose things that were appropriate to the post modern economy, they could do French and business and become you know go to France and be involved in the business world or whatever as opposed to a disciplinary perspective so in that paper and in Elton's paper there are some examples and some analysis of what of the conditions of success if you like I was thinking about the focus here is teacher training and thinking about your Christmas tree and the album I was thinking about did you look into training of head of departments head of schools about higher education yes we did Peter Knight and I people say to me oh we use your book well I've written more than one and one of them is called I forgot what it's called well it's a book about higher education heads of department yes it's gone completely out of my head how strange is that it was published in about 2001 I think and what we did was a web based inquiry I wouldn't call it research into heads of department and their experiences and how they were trained and so on and what we were interested in was using social practice theory one would predict that actually what works for a head of department in terms of their practices and skills and so on in one context may not work in another context I mentioned it before and the thinking about that also came out of a thing at Lancaster University called the new managerialism project which was a big funded project that we did about this question some time ago Rosemary Dean and Stephen Watson and others were involved with that not me so we asked heads of department around the world to simply fill in our very open ended and very vague questionnaire that's why it's a web based inquiry and not research and that's what most of them most of them said that they didn't have a lot of training in a formal sense they didn't what training they had they didn't think was that important when they became head of department they had a series of questions that they quickly found weren't the right questions the initial questions were about budgets and finances and work allocation models and so on and so forth the mechanisms and actually the questions they should have been asking were different questions about people and how to handle people and sensitivities and so on and yes what worked in one place in Canada for example didn't they had to learn a new way of behaving in another place so whatever that books called it's disgusting development of the teaching and learning development centre in London people have been working with the course development for individual teachers development of departments and faculties and faculties and more and more I think at least we are also involved in the strategic work at the university as a stock at the unit and to some extent I think it's reflected in the course it's also, but from your experience and I know that this is a general trend it's not only where it's the same at different places and so even on it's also an international trend so what's your experience is this reflected in courses in many places but also the teachers are prepared to be part of the strategic work in the committees evaluation committees no no, not in the UK that's interesting no we haven't seen that I mean the argument I've made would suggest that's the right thing to do but not to my knowledge in the UK no I didn't think so there isn't that kind of teaching and learning practices and so on in quite a narrow way and not thinking about the broader the broader role there tends to be a I think an aspect of course is about the higher education context but they tend to be quite from what I've seen of them quite nebulous really you know the massification and so on rather than the detail of the learning architecture and how to be involved with it and how it works it's the same with one day your rotation absolutely no we don't I don't think we do that I think they want coffee please that leaves I will once again thank you for the setting for the coming discussions this is some souvenies local souvenies Christmas souvenies thank you thank you