Background: Australian universities are currently engaging with new governmental policies and regulations that require them to demonstrate enhanced quality and accountability in teaching and research. These discipline-specific standards articulate the minimum, or Threshold Learning Outcomes, that a higher education institution is expected to address so that graduating students can demonstrate their achievement to their institution, accreditation agencies, and industry recruiters. This impacts not only on the design of Engineering programs, but also on the preparation of academics to engage with these standards and implement them in their day-to-day teaching practice. Purpose: It is hypothesised that, compared with conducting workshops, having a nationally recognised academic staying in residence at an institution can lead to better engagement and enhanced practice. This paper describes a Fellow-In-Residence Engagement (FIRE) program as a more effective model for enhanced academic staff engagement and development. Method: A case study approach is used in this investigation, where the Fellow (the first author) worked with five different universities around Australia. At each location, the Fellow focussed on aligning assessment with program and course objectives, developing evidence-based assessments (as a step towards addressing Academic Standards), and mentoring of academics (especially early- and mid-career ones). Results: Interviews and comments as well as written communications with individuals and groups provided insights on the impact the program had at the participating universities. Further insights have also been obtained using feedback evaluation forms. These indicate specific and actual changes, solid plans being made and implemented with testimonies from individuals and leaders. Conclusions: Based on the feedback received, and the changes observed during the implementation of the FIRE program, the model appears to be a promising way of conducting academic staff development, and for realising a more lasting impact on enhancing teaching and assessment practices, leading to better achievement of student learning outcomes. The model could also be seen as a practical approach for better utilising the recognised expertise within Engineering Education and the Higher Education sector.
[1]
Ian Macpherson,et al.
Constructing a Territory for Professional Practice Research
,
2004
.
[2]
M. Dunkin,et al.
Award-winning university teachers' concepts of teaching
,
1992
.
[3]
R. Engle,et al.
The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning.
,
2004,
Journal of experimental psychology. General.
[4]
Rebecca Brent,et al.
Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research: Engineering Instructional Development
,
2014
.
[5]
Paul Trowler,et al.
Department-level Cultures and the Improvement of Learning and Teaching
,
2000
.
[6]
A. E. Goody,et al.
Are Teaching Workshops Worthwhile
,
2002
.
[7]
Mieke Clement,et al.
The Effectiveness of a Faculty Training Programme: Long‐term and institutional impact
,
2007
.
[8]
Rebecca Brent,et al.
Engineering Instructional Development: Programs, Best Practices, and Recommendations
,
2011
.
[9]
Alenoush Saroyan,et al.
Building teaching capacities in higher education : a comprehensive international model
,
2010
.
[10]
J. Newton,et al.
Feeding the Beast or Improving Quality?: Academics' perceptions of quality assurance and quality monitoring
,
2000
.
[11]
Ian M. Kinchin,et al.
The myth of the research‐led teacher
,
2007
.
[12]
Maxine D. Brown,et al.
BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
,
2003
.
[13]
Chris Rust.
The impact of educational development workshops on teachers’ practice
,
1998
.