Training the trainers!

Not a post about shoes, but more about the challenge of providing flexible, online, relevant and (yes, you guessed it) essential training at the University. Here, I want to consider how best to deliver learning to the professoriate.

The discussions by my learned colleagues Heather Gaunt, Solange Glasser and Matt Absolom have crystallised how the structure and pedogogy of teaching underpins the learning that can be done, and importantly for this discussion, the possibilities of authentically engaging the learners.

Here, I want to consider the thorny topic of training the Professors. This is a very real issue for the University more broadly, and I’m sure many who are reading here would have shared a coffee with a colleague, complaining about the mandatory training delivered online. Sigh. Tedious, but necessary. But there are other areas where ongoing and professional development is essential as the world, regulatory requirements and graduate attributes change. Modifying delivery, making it flexible and making it accessible is important and imperative.

I’m talking about PhD training (graduate researchers in UMelbourne-speak). The Australian Council of Graduate Research has listed 6 principles of best practice, and at number 5 we can find the one relevant to this discussion.

Supervisors must provide guidance to graduate research candidates in the design, conduct and timely completion of the research project, support in publication and dissemination of research findings, and advise on the acquisition of a range of research and other skills as appropriate to the discipline and the background of the candidate.Supervisors also play a critical role in the development of both research and transferable skills to equip candidates with graduate attributes relevant to the breadth of employability opportunities open to post doctoral candidates. (Graduate Research Good Practice Principles, n.d.)

The 2016 Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) review found that Australia-wide, we have a robust and transparent graduate researcher training program, which made excellent contributions to knowledge, underpinned by a strong examination process and development of research skills (McGagh et al., 2016). However, the gaps were seen as making links to industry and and thus making research more relevant to Australia’s economy. This leads to a priority to drive confidence in the quality of GR students, by (amongst other things), increasing professionalism of supervision.

The last priority is the one we need to focus on. It is clear- there is a real and present need to adequately train our GR for the professional world. Students need professional, transferrable and disciplines specific skills. How can we equip GR supervisors to deliver these skills? Professors are excellent at delivering technical and discipline specific training and have great exemplars in how to deliver this training as they were trained this way themselves. But how do we encourage the professoriate to help students develop other areas? Refer them to other experts or train the professors to deliver other skills?

A thread on Twitter has captured my interest of late, and has sparked lots of discussions from academics and researchers on Twitter about what needs to be explicitly taught to GR students. Lots of grist for the mill, but what is the best way to present these gems across a discipline and institution? How can we support supervisors with platforms and mechanisms to support their GR students in these areas?

Professional development for GR supervisors is improving but there is still a way to go. I propose that a different framework should be approached, and have developed a padlet to note these ideas.

My reading has taken me the style of instruction which underpins subjects or courses to deliver content. I’ve wandered briefly into rhizomatic learning (eek!) but reading more about heutagogy makes me think this is a better approach. An excellent review by Moore (2020) considers lifelong learning and reviewed literature to apply heutagogy to adult, higher education and professional development, and specifically references development of extra skills of faculty (= professors). While noting a lack of critical studies which examine the value of assessment in heutagogical approaches, I think there is much to examine for utility to higher education. Of particular note is the focus on learner autonomy, which is certainly appropriate for the professoriate!

References

Graduate Research Good Practice Principles. (n.d.). ACGR. Retrieved May 2, 2021, from https://www.acgr.edu.au/good-practice/graduate-research-good-practice-principles/

McGagh, J., Marsh, H., Western, M., Thomas, P., Hastings, A., Mihailova, M., & Wenham, M. (2016). Review of Australia’s Research Training System. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies.https://acola.org/research-training-system-review-saf13/

Moore, R. L. (2020). Developing lifelong learning with heutagogy: Contexts, critiques, and challenges. Distance Education, 41(3), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1766949

3 thoughts on “Training the trainers!”

  1. I agree that a heutagogical approach to GR Supervisors would be a great advance in developing their capabilities to prepare RHD graduates for the world into which they enter! However the professoriate is so encultured into knowing how to ‘game the system’ that this is a hard nut to crack! Laurillard has some thoughts that could be applied: Laurillard, D. (2016, 2016-04-13). The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: professional development for teachers of disadvantaged students [MOOCs; blended learning; disadvantaged students; teaching designers; peer learning; learning community; professional development]. 2016, 24. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.29369

  2. Great concept Kate. Interesting article (Moore, 2020).

    I don’t think anyone would argue that heutagogy, and hence self-determined and life-long learning of Academic staff, is imperative. I use Academic staff instead of Professoriate since I think what you propose is important for new and emerging GRS supervisors, as much as the Professors.

    But its the later, who might need to be convinced to give staff the time and space to undertake such an activity. Most of us would love to explore our own learning but the time and a way of acknowledging its value is currently not available. Maybe ePortfolios could be a component of annual PDR’s?

    But it raises the question… how do we move away from PD’s to non-linear learning?

    I like the article by Gillaspy & Vasilica (2021) in the context of nursing …’what institutions “count” as professional development must be flexible beyond traditional approaches that are familiar to them. Educators benefit from having the space to define their own learning goals and paths, and institutions will benefit in return when educators are given the freedom to develop in these ways. It is from these intrinsically motivated, heutagogical, and transformational faculty development experiences that educators will excel in their own teaching and scholarship.’ (Bali & Caines, 2018).

    Bali, M., Caines, A. (2018) A call for promoting ownership, equity, and agency in faculty development via connected learning. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 15, 46 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0128-8

    Gillaspy, E., Vasilica, C. (2021) Developing the digital self-determined learner through heutagogical design, Higher Education Pedagogies, 6:1, 135-155, DOI: 10.1080/23752696.2021.1916981

  3. Hi Kate!

    Great post, and it is a great precursor to your subsequent assessment (although I am reading your post post-presentation!). I fully acknowledge both the necessity and challenge of the task. The Twitter feed you mentioned made me smile wryly, as it reminds me of one of my pet dumbfounded realisations when I was first offered a T&L and Research position at the University. I was a freshly minted PhD graduate, and when I expressed much trepidation around devising, developing, and coordinating new subjects without any training, I was told that I would learn on the job. Luckily I had (and still have!) an amazing supervisor, but without that supportive relationship and mentorship I don’t know what I would have done, except for flounder around. So not only do we need to question training for ECA’s in particular more globally, I agree with you that training supervisors is vitally important.

    One of the issues I see – as was noted by both Thom and Clayton – is that one of the reasons PD is viewed with such contempt is because it’s ‘extra’ in our already stretched workloads. So what I would reflect on is whether there are ways of redefining supervision more holistically, rather than PD on its own? An “It takes a village to raise a … ” approach may be appropriate here. I love your idea of a community of practice, which you mentioned in your padlet. Perhaps there would be a way of creating a community of practice to share best-practice techniques and ideas for supervisors, but also to share the supervisory workload; by this I mean creating opportunities for supervisees to be given group and peer training on common elements of their training. The onus would therefore not be solely on the shoulders of the supervisors. For reference, a fabulous resource for creating effective and self-sustaining communities of practice is the following: http://www.providersedge.com/docs/book_reviews/cultivating_communities_of_practice.pdf . In particular, the authors identify seven key design principles relating specifically to the management of communities.

    Thanks so much for your post, and I’m excited to see where this project leads you!
    Solange

    Wenger, E. C., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. C. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge, USA. (ISBN 1-5781-330-8).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *