TDU Talk
ISSUE 2 ▪ MAY/JUNE 2011
BEING AN EFFECTIVE ACADEMIC
IN A PBRF ENVIRONMENT
From the Appraisals Office
Charlotte Ferry-Parker, Appraisals Administrator, Teaching Development Unit
Working Effectively with the Support of a Mentor
Dorothy Spiller, Senior Lecturer, Teaching Development Unit
Research and Teaching: A Challenge, Or An Opportunity?
Prof Richard Coll, Professor of Cooperative Education, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning)
Researching Your Practice—first tips
Dorothy Spiller, Senior Lecturer, Teaching Development Unit
Recent teaching-related publications by University of Waikato
academics
Conversations for Writing—one year on
Kerry Earl, Jeanette Clarkin-Phillips, Frances Edwards, Jenny Ferrier-Kerr, Margaret Carr, Faculty of Education
Producing Quality Research and Teaching
Prof Robyn Longhurst, Geography, Tourism and Environmental Planning
Report on Teaching Network: Research and Teaching 23 March 2011
Dr Pip Bruce Ferguson, Teaching Developer, Teaching Development Unit
Tensions Associated with the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Dr Anne L. Zahra, WMS Tourism & Hospitality Management
Kia ora koutou
“
Kia ora koutou
In our May issue we look at one of the most significant challenges
facing academics particularly in the period leading up to PBRF;
the difficulty of balancing the multiple demands of academic life.
This is especially pertinent in relation to teaching and research,
but the need to balance priorities is integral to our performance in
all aspects of academic life. Furthermore, performance and
outcomes are not the only important dimensions. Equally important is the
wellbeing of individual academics and our relationships with each other.
While teaching is the main brief of the TDU, the capacity of individuals to work
in an engaged and engaging way with their students and to give due diligence to
their development as teachers, is inevitably shaped by all the circumstances of
their working life. For many the demand to meet the PBRF deadline is unsettling
and some people find it hard to pay appropriate attention to the other demands of
their jobs. In this issue we look at the effectiveness and wellbeing of staff in a
PBRF environment from a number of angles. Some of the contributions highlight
the importance of support networks for research productivity; others look at
meeting teaching and research requirements through research and publications on
teaching. In this respect, basic pointers for research and publication on teaching
are also provided. Other contributors with a successful record in both teaching
and research suggest strategies for achieving in both areas.
ISSUE 2: MAY/JUNE 2011
Teaching Development Unit
Wāhanga Whakapakari Ako
Private Bag 3105
Hamilton 3240
New Zealand
Phone: +64 7 838 4839
Fax: +64 7 838 4573
[email protected]
www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
We hope that this edition will be informative and helpful to you as we approach
the PBRF process.
Best wishes
Dorothy and the TDU Team
.”
•2•
From the Appraisals Office
Dr Trudy Harris, Teaching Developer (Evaluation/Quality)
“
Hello everyone,
The end of the semester is approaching rapidly, and that means that some thought
will have to be given to the appraisal of your teaching and papers. There are a
number of ways that you can go about getting a questionnaire for your paper and
teaching appraisals. They are outlined below:
The Standard University Appraisal
If you want to use a standard appraisal, that is the eight paper questions and eight
teacher questions, then simply contact the TDU by email:
[email protected] by phone: extension 4341, or through the online order
form on the TDU website http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/appraisals.shtml
Please be aware that this will take a couple of days, so please get your orders
in to the TDU in good time.
A Customised University Appraisal
If you want to customise your questionnaire by adding, removing, changing
questions or adding more formative open questions, then you can go to http://
waikato.ac.nz/tdu/customised.shtml. Here you will find the TDU itembank, and
also an online order form. You can put your selected items in the order form, or in
an e-mail and send to me at [email protected]
Online Appraisals
If you require an appraisal to be online then please contact me directly.
For any type of appraisal please consider whether teaching colleagues will be
included in the appraisal. Please consult with them before ordering.
Envelopes will be sent out to your administrators. Included with the envelopes are
Appraisal Coversheets. These are to be filled in by one of the teaching team on a
particular paper. This coversheet provides some basic information about the paper
and how it was taught to aid processing.
If you have any questions about this process please contact me.
Regards
Charlotte
Appraisals Administrator
07 838 4341
 [email protected]
•3•
.”
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
film for
Appraisals short
students
in the
r teachers to play
fo
lm
fi
t
or
sh
a
g
makin
t the appraisal
We are currently
e students fill ou
th
re
fo
be
om
ro
utes long so
lecture or tutorial
be about 1-2 min
ly
on
ill
w
ip
cl
t
hat
his shor
ents an idea of w
ud
st
questionnaire. T
ve
gi
ill
w
t
o much time, bu
about how
won‘t take up to
gives some tips
so
al
It
t.
ou
ab
l
ocess is al
information
the appraisals pr
t happens to the
ha
w
as
l
el
w
as
l
lp the
aisa
useful as it will he
to fill out the appr
be
ill
w
ce
ur
so
ide. This re
that students prov
praisal
more with the ap
ge
ga
en
ts
en
ud
st
why
ill be able to see
process as they w
d
take some time an
it is important to
he
ns carefully. T
answer the questio
the
ther be placed on
short clip will ei
link
ure theatres or a
ct
le
l
al
in
p
to
sk
de
ss in
r teachers to acce
will be sent out fo
u
e. We will let yo
the lecture theatr
sal
ai
ils closer to appr
know more deta
ns
have any questio
week but if you
en or
sal film before th
about the apprai
ns relating to
any other questio
contact me. My
appraisals, please
:
details are below
arker
Charlotte Ferry-P
07 838 4341
waikato.ac.nz
 appraisals@
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
•4•
Research and Teaching: A Challenge, Or An Opportunity?
Prof Richard Coll, Professor of Cooperative Education, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching
and Learning)
PBRF is looming and although I felt made a reasonable attempt to engage
with the Formative Exercise, like many of you I am sure I have work to do
to give my portfolio that final polish! We always seem to be short of time
do we not? Most academics I am sure feel pressure to complete research
projects and publications, work on their PBRF portfolios and so on, but we
also are required to teach, and teach well (to say nothing of other demands
on our time, such as administration and service!). It is important I think to
remember that even in a PBRF environment that the bulk of our income
comes from teaching and that a University is an educational institution –
albeit one informed by research, and not a CRI. It is this latter point that is
a distinguishing feature of universities. John Hattie from Auckland
University has often written that the teaching-research nexus is something
of a myth, and he argues that the evidence that university teaching is in fact
research informed is weak. Even if one agrees with his view, I imagine
most of us think our teaching should be research informed. I think there is
often confusion about what is meant by research informed teaching. To me
there are two aspects to this.
The first, is that when we teach, even first year students, that our students
are being taught by research active staff, and that wherever possible we
bring our current knowledge of our field into the classroom. I think this is
actually not that hard to do. We can sprinkle our lectures or other student
interactions/discourse with discussion of current research we are engaged
in. I like to do this because it helps me inspire my students, and show them
how what I am teaching is current and relevant.
The second aspect of research informed teaching is knowledge of
education, or teaching/learning. I may be fortunate in that my main
research area is in education and this fits nicely with my teaching. But I
think it is important for all teaching staff to have at least a basic
understanding of how students learn. Modern theories of learning suggest
that relevance is a key component of engaging learning. Students need to
see that what they are learning is relevant to them and to their intended
careers – using our research during teaching is a nice fit with this notion.
Waikato ran the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) and
Postgraduate Survey of Student Engagement (POSSE) benchmarking
surveys in 2008 and 2010.
•5•
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
Overall Waikato performed well (I will communicate more about the
findings from these surveys in the near future) but student feedback
especially at the first year level seems to point to memorisation of facts as a
key component of first year learning, and a lack of engagement in higher
order thinking. This improved from 2008 to 2010, but interestingly the
Staff and Student Engagement Survey (SSES) seems to indicate some staff
are not aware of this and there is something of a disconnect between
student and staff views. Placing attention firmly on research outputs and
PBRF does bring research into sharper focus; but at the same time it allows
us an opportunity to enhance student learning, helping them to engage in
higher order thinking, if we incorporate research into our teaching.
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
•6•
Working Effectively with the Support of a Mentor
Dorothy Spiller, Senior Lecturer, Teaching Development Unit
For some academics, having a mentor can be a helpful way to manage their
working life or to achieve specific goals such as increasing research
publications. A mentoring relationship can assist in a variety of ways:
It provides a protected confidential space for taking stock of one‘s
working life
It provides a space to reflect with the help of a colleague
It provides an opportunity to identify the gaps in one‘s performance and
articulate those areas where help is needed
It is a space to clarify ideas and feelings in relation to one‘s academic
work
It is an opportunity to clarify and rehearse ideas about research
It can provide an extra level of accountability
The mentor can suggest strategies or ways forward based on their own
experience
The mentor can assist in bringing existing projects to completion.
The mentoring relationship can provide support and affirmation for
people feeling vulnerable.
At best the mentoring relationship can be a professional friendship that is
both affirming for the person being mentored and also helps to set goals
and targets for the future.
Comments and quotes from programme participants
nd
encouraged a
t
a
th
s
y
a
w
d
reative ways
eing mentore
c
B
d
.
n
g
a
in
le
rn
ib
a
x
e
le
fl
ssional
entored me in
s for my profe
ie
it
n
iversity
u
rt
My mentor m
o
p
p
o
rther
work as a un
y
fu
k
m
e
in
se
e
c
to
n
e
e
m
d confid
emboldened
uthenticity an
a
d
se
a
re
c
in
resulted in an
academic.
r-Kerr)
(Jenny Ferrie
“
•7•
.”
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
aspects:
of two main
se
u
a
c
e
b
e
m
value to
considerable
f
o
n
e
e
b
s
a
h
e
Mentoring
ithout outsid
w
re
a
e
W
.
n
le locatio
tical)
ng Trust
y and imprac
fe, comfortab
z
sa
ra
a
c
e
in
b
y
te
a
a
1. Reassuri
v
(m
derful
are held in pri
se those won
lo
c
is
d
The meetings
n
a
c
I
.
It is my time
what I
interruptions.
or judgment.
he listens to
S
re
su
s.
n
y
e
a
c
d
t
d
u
e
o
c
fast pa
ideas with
h is rare these
ic
h
w
,
n
o
ti
n
e
tt
ives me full a
d.
My mentor g
petition
at to be hear
re
g
is
ere is no com
It
th
s
.
a
y
e
sa
m
to
to
.
e
t
v
a
ha
in confidence
is not a thre
s
e
h
re
S
su
t.
lo
n
c
e
is
m
d
n
y
o
keep m
atening envir
that she will
st
u
tr
n
It is a non-thre
a
c
I
r.
and my mento
cus on
between me
rward to refo
fo
g
e
n
v
ri
o
o
m
it
e
n
o
w
,
m
in
e last session
flection and
s me to build
e
g
ra
u
o
2. Helpful re ection on progress since th
c
n
e
e
gly. Sh
refl
plans accordin
p
After a short
lo
e
v
e
d
r
o
nd amend
future goals a
h) into a
lly for researc
lines.
ia
d
c
a
e
e
d
sp
te
(e
a
s
ri
n
p
appro
ioning.
d passio
y interests an
y skilful quest
b
m
)
l
e
ts
n
h
n
g
a
u
h
o
c
th
lp
m time to
scattered
able to he
nd who. Fro
ent from the
a
m
,
My mentor is
e
re
v
e
ro
h
p
w
,
im
n
t
e
ow, wh
me to
ern (a grea
why, what, h
y she allows
a
]:
coherent patt
w
ic
[s
is
n
th
e
In
M
e
‖
dered...?
ling‘s Wis
ave you consi
She uses Kip
.
H
―
s
n
io
st
e
g
and work-life
s sug
ts
e
h
g
id
u
v
o
ro
th
p
s,
e
n
sh
time
of my pla
nd ownership
a
l
o
tr
n
o
c
in
reta
“
.”
jh)
(Helen Samu
To join the University‘s mentoring programme either as a mentor or a
mentee, fill in the application form at: http://www.waikato.ac.nz/hrm/
mentor
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
•8•
Recent teaching-related publications by
University of Waikato academics
Research Your Teaching
Practice—first tips
Dorothy Spiller, Senior Lecturer, Teaching
Development Unit
 Select an area of your practice that you want
to investigate. It could be a new initiative
that you want to try or an area that is
troubling you and you want to alter or refine.
 Identify the relationship between the paper
outcomes and the initiative.
 Consult the relevant literature and identify
the key issues that have been identified in
relation to this particular idea (literature may
relate to your broad pedagogical goals, your
paper learning outcomes and your chosen
teaching and learning or assessment
initiative).
 Refine and sharpen your initiative in the
Cameron, M.P., & Lim, S. (2010). Frontiers in Economics
Teaching – Proceedings of the 15th Australasian Teaching
Economics Conference. Hamilton: University of Waikato.
(ISBN-13: 978-0-473-17331-9 [Paperback] and 978-0-473
-17332-6 [CD-ROM])
Cameron, M.P., & S. Lim. (2010). Recognising and building on
freshman students‟ prior knowledge of economics, In
Cameron, M.P., and Lim, S. (2010). Frontiers in
Economics Teaching – Proceedings of the 15th
Australasian Teaching Economics Conference, pp. 1-24.
Hamilton: University of Waikato.
Cameron, M.P. (2011). „Economics with training wheels‟:
Using Blogs in Teaching and Assessing Introductory
Economics, Working Paper in Economics 02/11.
Hamilton: Department of Economics, University of
Waikato.
Campbell, A., & Otrel-Cass, K. (2010). Teaching evolution in
New Zealand‘s schools – reviewing changes in the New
Zealand Science Curriculum. Research in Science
Education. Published on-line 21 April 2010. DOI 10.1007/
s11165-010-9173-6
light of your reading.
 Decide on a systematic evaluation strategy
(impressionistic observations will not
suffice!)
 Run the initiative and conduct the
evaluation.
 Analyse the findings and discuss in relation
to your pedagogical goals, the paper
outcomes and the literature.
 Many teachers find that a first iteration of an
initiative shows up numerous gaps or areas
that still need to be refined. For robust
research and practice it is generally best to
repeat the whole cycle before completing the
final write-up.
•9•
Cockburn-Wootten, C., & Cockburn T. (2011, March).
Unsettling Assumptions and Boundaries: Strategies for
Developing a Critical Perspective About Business and
Management Communication. Business Communication
Quarterly, March 2011. 74: 45-59,
doi:10.1177/1080569910395563, http://bcq.sagepub.com/
content/74/1/45.
Fitzpatrick, M. & Spiller, D. (2010). The Teaching portfolio:
institutional imperative or teacher‘s personal Journey.
Higher Education Research and Development, 29(20) 67178, April.
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
Grant, S.L. & Hurd, F. (2010). Incorporating critical pedagogy into the
scholarship of teaching and learning: Making the journey along side
our students. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning, 4 (2).
Grant, S.L. (2010). Locating the third sector within a management school
curriculum. Paper presented at Australia New Zealand Third Sector
Research (ANZTSR) conference, Sydney, Nov 2010.
Grant, S.L. & Hurd, F. (2010). Drawing as experiential learning: Images of
career in the classroom. Paper presented at Organisation, Identity,
Location (OIL) 6th Critical Theory Symposium, Victoria University,
February 2010.
Legg, C. (2008). Letting Reality Bite. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce
Society, 44 (2), 208-212.
Lim, S. & Cameron, M.P. (2010). Recent results from TEL3 & TUCE:
Building on students' prior knowledge of economics. In Yamaoka, M.,
Walstad, W.B., Watts, M.W., Asano, T., and Abe, S. (eds).
Comparative studies on economic education in Asia-Pacific region.
pp. 31-56. Tokyo: Shumpusha Publishing.
Scott, J., Harlow A., Peters. M., & Cowie, B. Threshold Concepts and
Introductory Electronics. Proceedings of the 21st AaeE Conference,
Sydney, 5--8 December 2010.
Scott. J., Harlow. A., & Peters, M. Impact of Running First Year and Final
Year Electronics Laboratory Classes in Parallel. Proceedings of the
21st AaeE Conference, Sydney, 5--8 December 2010.
Scott, J., Harlow, A., Peters, M., & Cowie, B. Exploring Threshold
Concepts in Electronics Engineering. 3rd Biennial Threshold Concepts
Symposium, Session 6.7, p. 82, Sydney, July 1--2, 2010.
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
• 10 •
Spiller, D. & Bruce Ferguson, P. (2011) Researching our Teaching. In N.
Zepke, D. Nugent, & L. Leach (2011). Reflection to transformation: A
self-help book for teachers (Revised edition). Wellington: Dunmore
Publishing.
Spiller, D. & Daly, N. (2009). Returning to a richer landscape: The
embedding of reflection in an additional language teacher education
paper. In L. Meyer., S. Davidson., H. Anderson., R. Fletcher., P.M.
Johnston and M. Rees (Eds). Tertiary Assessment and Higher
Education Student Outcomes: Policy, Practice and Research,
Wellington, New Zealand: Ako Aotearoa.
Wilson M. (2010). A mixed „cookbook‟ and student-designed laboratory
course at The University of Waikato in 2010. Australian Institute of
Physics Congress 2010, Melbourne, Australia, December 2010.
Wright, N. (2010). Twittering in teacher education: reflecting on practicum
experiences. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance
Learning, 25(3), 259-265.
Yamaoka, M., Lim, S., & Cameron, M.P. (2009). Too fast and too furious?
Increasing the breadth and depth of introductory economics. Journal of
Economic Education (Japan) No. 28, 102-107.
Zahra, A. (2009). Language and cultural considerations when
implementing innovative approaches to assessments: Reflective
learning journals and the perception of non-English speaking students,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 21(3), 54-59.
• 11 •
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
Conversations for Writing: one year on
Kerry Earl, Jeanette Clarkin-Phillips, Frances Edwards, Jenny Ferrier-Kerr, Margaret
Carr. Faculty of Education
Introduction
How do individual academics develop their skills and sustain motivation
for writing in order to see it through to publication? This article describes
the workings of the group which we initiated to support ourselves as novice
academic writers. Our experiences as members of this writing group are
drawn on to provide examples of what appears thus far to have been a
somewhat unique journey.
Academic staff members teaching in initial teacher education programmes
in the Faculty of Education have been required to add to professional
identity from research-informed teacher educator to include that of
researcher and author. Staff members in these programmes also spend
considerable time evaluating student teachers on their block practicum, a
task not usually required of academics in other faculties. For these faculty
members the challenge to develop their professional (teacher) and
academic identities, maintain and improve teaching quality, and manage
the workload posed by the requirements and pressures of the Performance
Based Research Fund (PBRF) has been keenly felt.
While in one sense we were a self selected group, in another the creation of
this group was sparked by a deliberate move from the faculty to provide
three-day writing workshops facilitated by Barbara Kamler (Emeritus
Profession of Education, Deakin University—see http://
writingdesigns.com.au/about.html). The future members of our writing
group were amongst those who attended the second of these workshops in
February 2010. Apart from having some common experiences as
colleagues working in the same department, we did not really know each
other well. However, after the shared experience of working together at the
workshop, and basking in the warmth of the final session after an intense
three days, we made a plan to meet in a month‘s time for breakfast. We had
no specific purpose in mind at that point, other than to explore possibilities.
There are five of us in the group including Prof Margaret Carr who joined
us as our departmental writing mentor. (The identification of senior
academics to mentor academic staff towards increased PBRF outputs was
an organisational move by the Faculty of Education). Although we used the
term ―writing group‖ to describe ourselves, to be clear, we didn‘t actually
write together (until our collusion for this article!)
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
• 12 •
At the first breakfast we agreed on regular meeting times for our
conversation-breakfasts. It was decided this would be one Thursday
morning each month for approximately an hour, with a single agenda item:
to talk about our research and publication progress. Essentially we set up a
context for conversation in support of our development as writers. Between
meetings we sometimes sent drafts to each other for feedback and
comment, and those who were able to, gave feedback.
Purposes and processes
Three purposes and processes emerged during our first year. Our thinking
and reflections about these led us to identify them as: gentle accountability,
honest feedback, and conversational spaces.
Gentle accountability
The writing group arrangements quickly became an accepted routine
although there was no leader and no compulsion to attend. If we needed to
or wanted to miss a breakfast we did. It was always affirming to find out
later that we had been missed.
“We are all mentors for each other in different ways for different
purposes. A kind of intuitiveness seems to have developed in the
group. We are aware when there is a need to „tell it like it is‟ but
also when all someone needs is to be affirmed.” (Jenny)
“I was uncertain about what a „mentor role‟ would include, apart
from speedy feedback on drafts; as it turned out I was welcomed as
part of the group, and we discussed questions that I raised about
my own writing.” (Margaret)
And we also recognised that Margaret‘s opinion instilled confidence.
I needed these regular
sessions for
momentum. I needed
the laughter and the
realities of other’s
journeys to support my
own endeavors...
Kerry
• 13 •
“Having Margaret as an experienced writer and her unassuming
and generous spirit has provided a dimension and richness that has
added to our confidence building.” (Jeanette)
Our meetings once a month motivated us to actually work on our writing.
They provided voluntary deadlines for us accompanied by a sense of
anticipation as well as opportunities for celebration.
“I needed these regular sessions for momentum. I needed the
laughter and the realities of other‟s journeys to support my own
endeavors especially when the long-winded nature of article
publishing was most apparent.” (Kerry)
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
“Knowing a breakfast meeting is coming up engenders a sense of
anticipation; anticipation of the camaraderie of a diverse group of
colleagues but also the stimulation of discussing writing and
publishing issues/tensions and successes along with affirmation
and encouragement.” (Jeanette)
“I really love hearing the success stories of the others. We can
really celebrate (and breathe a collective sigh of relief) when we
hear of publication success. Maybe that‟s because we feel some
sense of joint ownership or belonging in their journey. It‟s
energising.” (Frances)
Honest feedback
We acknowledge that these conversations over breakfast could have
become a purely social time, however seeking and providing feedback on
ideas and intentions as well as drafts, was a central aspect of our practice.
Mutual trust and support for risk-taking in our group relationships saw a
shift from the deeply personal and isolated nature of writing to a ‗boldness‘
in receiving and giving feedback, and coping with it.
“Writing is a solitary activity, yet as a member of a writing group it
is no longer that way for me all of the time. Writing for me has
become a collaborative effort even though I rarely sit and actually
write with the group. It has become important for me now to
participate in the critique of my own writing and that of
others.” (Jenny)
“The acceptance of risk taking that allowed the sharing of our
doubts, insecurities, ill-formed notions and budding learning, was
an essential feature of this group for me.”(Kerry)
“The non-judgmental, „anything is good‟ attitude of my colleagues
has allowed me to put forward initial ideas and musings for
feedback.”(Jeanette)
Being able to laugh together enriched our conversations and supported our
progress.
“In some ways we need relaxed laughter and teasing as much as
we need critical discussion of our work. It helps us keep things in
perspective, but it somehow keeps us on track as well.” (Frances)
“I found that the group has become confident enough to comment
on critical feedback with humour, prepared to discuss alternative
ideas and to challenge a viewpoint that they didn‟t agree
with.” (Margaret)
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
• 14 •
Written feedback from peers lead to the development of our skills in critical
review and acceptance of critical review.
“There were risks both in sending our drafts out to others in our
group and in providing feedback. Because we were novice writers
we posed questions and made comments from our individual points
of view and through the experience developed trust that our
comments were helpful and appreciated.” (Kerry)
“Getting feedback from my colleagues has helped me learn how to
be more critical of my own work. I am learning how to read with
new eyes.” (Frances)
Conversational spaces
The breakfast meetings were our primary conversational spaces. These
meetings were outside of our working day and supported the sustainability
of our group. The time was planned to often launch individual ‗writing
days‘.
“Meeting for breakfast on the same day as my dedicated writing
day has helped my motivation and enthusiasm. Coming away from
the very positive experience of a breakfast meeting has enabled me
to settle quickly into productive work.”(Jeanette)
Other spaces were occasional corridor meetings, use of Google docs, and
emails.
“We can bump into each other in the corridor, talk about how our
writing is going (or not), all within the space of 30 seconds. But in
that 30 second meeting I am reassured that another colleague is
genuinely interested and cares about my work. It encourages me to
keep going sometimes.” (Frances)
“Yes, the interactions about writing had several spaces: the
primary space was probably the breakfast meetings, but because I
liked scribbling by hand on documents, it seemed to be OK to talk
immediately about papers in the corridor, and sometimes for
longer in an office.” (Margaret)
Three of us were able to attend a writing retreat in November for which we
used the Michael King house. The retreat was organised as an end-of-year
bonus and we each set our own specific writing goals.
• 15 •
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
“ I had low expectations of my productivity on retreat. I thought we
deserved the time to ourselves as a reward. Not having been there
before, how could I know how the spirit of writers, the views, and
the conversation would draw words from me in the thousands. Not
only did I want to be productive when I got there but doing so was
easy.” (Kerry)
The relationships and practice of our writing group were unexamined
during the year but didn‘t, and don‘t feel fragile. No one knew what
outcomes to expect or to what extent the group would be sustainable on
initiation of this arrangement but we feel sure that these relationships will
now continue. Key factors in this arrangement are that, although supported
by organisational decision-making and good timing, participation in this
group was voluntary and its sustainability throughout the year is based on
continued individual voluntary participation.
We acknowledge we are self motivated and genuinely like each other. We
have come to care about supporting each other in professional and career
development. Based on our experience we would encourage the
establishment of collegial writing support groups at a grass-roots level. We
have found the informality of the arrangement to be its strength.
“Being a member of the writing group has given me the energy and
optimism to plan for the future. I think we have found „our stride‟
as a writing group because we have created a culture which values
and affirms, is flexible and innovative, and has no
boundaries.” (Jenny)
I think we have found ‘our
stride’ as a writing group
because we have created
a culture which values
and affirms, is flexible
and innovative, and has
no boundaries.
Jenny
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
Perhaps the effectiveness of this arrangement was based on readiness and
motivation. But more than the formal outcome of a published article tally,
which may please faculty leaders, we all considered ourselves more
productive, and stronger at the end of 2010.
NOTE: We recognise that there is a developing literature around
conversations of learning.
If anyone has been doing something similar we would be interested in
hearing from you.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: We wish to acknowledge the valuable feedback
provided by David Whitehead at our seminar presentation organised by
Bronwen Cowie of the Wilf Malcolm Institute for Educational Research
(WMIER).
• 16 •
Producing Quality Research and Teaching
Prof Robyn Longhurst, Geography, Tourism and Environmental Planning
The importance of a thriving research culture in higher education in New
Zealand is undeniable. Students appear to value being part of this research
culture but they also value and expect good teachers (Higher Education
Network 2010). Perhaps not surprisingly therefore, most of us working in
higher education aim to produce not only quality research but also quality
teaching. We don‘t want our teaching to take second place to our research.
We aim to be student centred, encourage experiential learning, and engage
in critically reflexive pedagogical practices. However, doing both research
and teaching well can feel like a tall order. At times the very thought of it is
enough to instil fear and panic in me. It seems there just aren‘t enough
hours in the day.
One of the strategies that I use to try and allay feelings of fear and panic is
to budget time for both research and teaching. As we know this sounds
easy but putting it into practice is incredibly difficult. It requires discipline
and skill. However, failing to do so eventually affects the progress of our
research, and/or the quality of our teaching. Each week I put aside time to
carry out research-related work such as reading through interview
transcripts, but I also put aside time to carry out teaching related work. I
don‘t just mean preparing for classes but something more, for example,
reading a recently published article on a particular aspect of teaching/
learning or taking part in seminar offered by the Teaching Development
Unit.
Also, I do my best to put in place some (realistic) short-, medium- and
long-term goals for each enterprise. One of my current research goals is
to finish writing a journal article that has been part of my life for far too
long now! One of my teaching goals is to reflect more carefully on how I
function as part of a team of teachers. I realised recently (after reading
Benjamin 2000) that I could improve in this area. I don‘t always achieve
my research and teaching goals but I keep reviewing and adjusting them.
Students appear to
value being part of this
research culture but
they also value and
expect good teachers.
Higher Education Network (2010)
• 17 •
Another strategy I use in an attempt to do the best job possible with both
research and teaching is to, whenever possible, combine the two
activities. I acknowledge that for various reasons not everyone is able to do
this but I have been fortunate in this regard. Talking with students about my
research gets me excited and keeps me connected to my various projects.
At the same time it can help motivate students. Students are encouraged
into the learning process as co-researchers (see Meyer, Land and Ballie
2010). For example, last week in a graduate course, in preparation for class
students read an article that I sole-authored. They were excited that they
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
had direct access to this article before it was published (it‘s forthcoming)
and were able to discuss the subject matter directly with the author.
But more than this, in order to take our discussion to deeper level, I shared
with the students the reviewer reports that I had received on the submitted
article. This enabled them to understand more about the process of
academic peer review. The students seemed quite taken aback at how
critical, particularly one of reviewers, had been about the article. We joked
about how feedback on their essays is now likely to seem ―tame‖ in
comparison. I explained that I had carried out major revisions on account of
this reviewer‘s comments. It was evident from the students‘ enthusiasm
displayed through their talking and listening that they had learnt a great
deal from this session. However, I was also an active learner in the session.
I found the students‘ comments on my project in general, and on the article
more specifically, to be incredibly helpful. For example, several of the
students offered examples from their own countries (Peru, Papua New
Guinea and Tonga) and this helped me to think about some of the issues in
a different way.
As academics we help
shape the culture of our
institutions… teaching
must be valued,
celebrated and given
the status it deserves.
There is a risk in the current PBRF environment that a culture will emerge
(and some would argue that it has already) in which research dominates
teaching. Teaching, however, plays an absolutely fundamental role in a
student‘s experience of university. As academics we help shape the culture
of our institutions. Therefore, we need to keep reminding our students,
peers, colleagues, administrators, managers (in short, anyone who will
listen) that teaching must be valued, celebrated and given the status it
deserves. For universities to truly succeed research and teaching must hold
an equal position.
References
Benjamin, J. 2000: The scholarship of teaching in teams: what does it look
like in practice? Higher Education Research & Development, 19, 2, 191204.
Higher Education Network, Guardian Professional, 2011: ‗It‘s time
for teaching to get an equal position with research‘, http://
www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/higher-educationnetwork-blog/2011/mar/14/higher-education-teaching-equal-toresearch, accessed 10 April 2011.
Meyer, J., Land, H.F. and Ballie, C. (eds) 2010: Threshold concepts and
transformational learning, Rotterdam, Sense Publishers.
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
• 18 •
Report on Teaching Network: Research and Teaching
23 March 2011
Dr Pip Bruce Ferguson, Teaching Developer , Teaching Development Unit
The first Teaching Network event of the year was a discussion around how
research and teaching can be combined to assist staff facing PBRF
pressures in 2011. While we all recognise that gaining publications at this
stage is a bit of an uphill battle in time to gain publication by the 31
December 2011 deadline, we did want to show how staff can write, and
have written, about teaching-related activity in ways that gain a research
publication.
We were guided in our discussion by initial input from Adrienne Anderson
of the Research Office, who advised staff to concentrate on publications for
2011 mainly if they are ‗on the cusp‘ of a grade, i.e. from C to B, or B to A.
Adrienne explained that lifting a portfolio‘s ranking by a grade has
significant ongoing financial benefits to the University. Adrienne made a
point of saying that the large group of staff who are already on target to
produce solid C, B or A portfolios within the remaining time don‘t need to
make any special changes to existing publication schedules and researchrelated activities.
Staff wanting guidance on where their portfolio currently sits (i.e., whether
they‘re on the cusp or firmly within one grade area) could approach their
Dean for guidance. The other folk who may be able to help are Lex
Chalmers (FASS); Mark Apperley (FCMS); Bronwen Cowie and Carolyn
Jones (FoE); Delwyn Clark (WMS); Claire Breen (Law); Craig Cary
(FSEN) and Linda Smith (SMPD).
Jillene Bydder from the Library then showed us a webpage, a library
initiative designed to measure journal or author research impact. Go to
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/library/services/pbrf.shtml to access this page.
The system searches a database called Scopus and produces an ―H index‖
to measure the research impact factor of journals or authors, information
that you may want to cite in your evidence portfolio.
Jillene explained that those who are in PBRF working groups are already
aware of the system but it has not yet been actively reported to Deans and
Chairpersons. She said it would be useful to have a conversation about
what the system is, how to use it and harness what is on offer. The library
would like feedback on the system, and staff are available to provide
further information about the system to areas that are interested (contact
[email protected]).
• 19 •
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
Discussion in the meeting then shifted to actual examples of how panellists
view publications submitted by PBRF participants, how to maximise the
presentation/impact of these, and whether education-related papers are
automatically considered by the education panel or can sit within a subject
panel. Noeline Alcorn and Robyn Longhurst led this discussion, as both
have been on previous panels. Ideas below were raised by both the
discussion leaders, and members of the Network.
It was suggested that:
§ Only staff on the cusp of a grade would need to put in extra effort at this
stage.
§ Only a certain number are able to be A grade, and there is nothing
wrong with being another grade.
§ When submitting publications on teaching, these need to be explained in
terms of methodology, not just a description of what is happening in
class.
§ Panels are unlikely to move publications from one panel to another, but
they can be cross-referred to another panel.
§ Panels work within a discipline area so members tend to be aware of the
status of journals in their discipline.
§ The opportunity to publish in high-ranking journals about research in
teaching was discussed. In some disciplines, it would be considered less
respectable than a publication in the discipline. The Journal in Chemical
Education was suggested as an example.
§ Panels produce panel-specific guidelines which vary by
discipline. These are due out in July.
§ Panel members read four Nominated Research Outputs (NROs), so there
is value in being succinct. Two people on the panels assess the portfolios
independently. NROs (Nominated Research Outputs) give panel
members a feel of who the author/researcher is.
§ Impact is measured in a variety of ways. Journals can contribute to
ranking but with a measure of caution. The library initiative could be a
useful tool.
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
• 20 •
§ There is some scepticism about citation indexes with panels. The
British work on a metrics based system. The citation index is irrelevant
if publications are not produced in English, as in the case of publications
in Māori. The question was raised about how to get around this, but
there are no easy answers. It is hoped that panels such as the Māori
Knowledge and Development Panel understand the importance of peer
evaluation and uptake as an alternative to citations.
§ The PBRF process privileges certain publications versus others. The
significance of a book compared with a journal publication was
discussed.
§ When considering the status of journals, the ‗colonial cringe‘ was
discussed, i.e. valuing international journals over national journals,
which is reemphasized if staff refuse to publish nationally. Australia
rates some New Zealand journals highly.
§ In publications with two or more co-authors, the percentage share for
shared articles was discussed. To be considered seriously, staff would
have needed to contribute at least 50% of the publication. A suggestion
was to produce two articles on the same research, with the order of
names reversed. In some disciplines, such as physics, it is very unlikely
that papers are published by a single author. Panels are aware that the
lead name is the key author.
§ The question was raised about which journals have a shorter processing
time in order to submit publications before the cut-off date. It was
suggested that New Zealand journals, journals with a higher frequency
of editions and online journals would have a shorter processing time. If
you‘re pressed to get publications before the end of the year, then look
at such journals (bearing in mind that some may not have a high ‗status‘
for PBRF).
§ The percentage of successful submissions can be cited as pieces in a
complex picture. Panellists should be able to see a ‗platform‘ of
publications in a specific area rather than a scatter-gun approach.
§ With regard to selecting NROs, panel members advise putting forward
four outputs which staff consider to be their best. There should be
coherence between the outputs to show evidence of building a research
profile.
• 21 •
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
§ Coherence doesn‘t necessarily mean a narrow focus. It can be a broad
area but with a central theme permeating it. Some EPs (Evidence
Portfolios) have very different themes which makes it unclear where the
person‘s scholarship contribution lies.
§ There is space for a conversation on ‗coherence‘ and the point at which
coherence is defined.
§ There is a big effort to ensure that panels are ‗aligned‘ – some are seen
as too generous.
§ It was advised that ‗just getting started‘ with entering information into
the evidence-based portfolio is helpful in overcoming the initial concern.
§ In one Department, there had been a COD who would sit with staff to
help and support them with entering information into their
portfolios. This may be a useful example to put to CODs in a COD
forum.
§ The question was raised about whether measurement is the most
important thing? The element of enjoyment shouldn‘t be taken out of
research.
§ The criteria for the distribution of funding were discussed. In the British
system, the funding is given to those who are doing the research with the
intention of improving the research environment. It was suggested that
a similar model of distribution is used here.
§ The Teaching Awards committee factored in teachers‘ aptitude for
teaching in the selection of Teaching Award recipients.
§ The placement of doctoral supervision in teaching or research was
discussed.
§ It is important that the papers one is teaching are linked with research
(this fulfils the requirement that degrees are taught mainly by people
engaged in research).
Thanks to Preetha Pratapsingh for her excellent notes on this Network
meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday June 29, topic to be
advised.
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
• 22 •
Tensions Associated with the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning
Dr Anne L. Zahra, WMS Tourism & Hospitality Management
From my personal experience and from observations and discussions with
colleagues, we academic staff tend to compartmentalise our teaching and
research functions. Universities in their promotion processes tend to place
greater weighting on the quantity and quality of research outputs in
comparison to teaching quality and innovation. One specific example was
the recently developed Waikato University online academic staff portfolio
that was used in the 2010 promotion and salary advancement applications.
There were two items related to teaching listed on the drop down menu:
application road map, compared to nine items related to research. In my
view the two teaching items were quite quantitative and reductionist in
nature with no scope to demonstrate teaching excellence, opportunities to
provide evidence of other forms of student feedback besides teaching
appraisals or the chance to demonstrate any reflection on one‘s teaching
process which can lead to continuous teaching improvement. This bias
towards research over teaching in our university culture is further
exacerbated by university sector research performance evaluation exercises
such as the PBRF. The pressure on staff to deliver research outputs can bias
university processes such as professional goal setting (PGS) meetings
towards research. My personal experience over the last six years is that 8090% percent of my PGS meetings have been dedicated to research, with the
balance left for teaching and administration.
Empirical studies indicate there has been dichotomy between teaching and
research in higher education institutions (Clark, 1991; Hattie & Marsh,
1996; Ramsden & Moses, 1992). There has long been a call to breach this
teaching-research divide (Marsh & Hattie, 2002; Trowler & Wareham,
2007). Yet the challenge still remains for the University to support the
teaching role of academic staff. In this reflective article I will share my
experience of how I have tried pursuing scholarship/research around my
teaching and why I make this a priority. I will also discuss how I manage
the fact that amongst my research peers, publications in teaching/learning
journals in my field of tourism and hospitality management are not
perceived to be high quality research outputs.
For a number of years now I have been aware that teaching can contribute
to my research agenda, more commonly known as the scholarship of
teaching and learning. I have approached the design and practice of specific
teaching and learning activities in the same way I approach my other
• 23 •
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
discipline-related research projects. These activities are informed by the
scholarship of others in the field (literature review) and by my own
research process: identification of a research problem and how this
addresses a research gap or contributes to a body of knowledge; planning
the research design, collecting and analysing the data and writing up my
findings for publication. This process does require dedication and can be
time consuming. However it is also very rewarding in that I have
discovered that students are potential co-enquirers and co-researchers for
both the learning and research processes.
Why do I pursue this scholarship/research around my teaching? Firstly I get
great feedback, and often immediate feedback, on my teaching. This is a
great alternative to teaching appraisals. I have found that it improves the
delivery of my teaching and this is personally rewarding. The time and
effort to examine my teaching through the research lens has enhanced
student learning and the students recognise this and really appreciate it.
Another reason I pursue the scholarship/research associated with teaching
is that it fosters a reflective process and therefore continuous improvement
in my teaching, instead of falling into an efficient routine and doing the
same thing year in and year out. Finally of course there are the benefits of
research outputs from teaching practice (Zahra, 2008, 2009, 2010).
The time and effort to
examine my teaching
through the research lens
has enhanced student
learning and the students
recognise this and really
appreciate it.
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
However, it is not all positive as it seems. From my experience I cannot
dedicate all my energies to delivery of research outputs related to my
teaching if I want to progress my academic career. In the Management
Faculty there has long been a culture of research. For salary increases and
promotion it has been mandatory in the past to provide evidence of research
publications/outputs. Therefore publications associated with the scholarship
of teaching and learning were beneficial as long as they were alongside my
discipline related research. I have a long-held view that I cannot ―put all my
research eggs into the scholarship of teaching and learning basket‖ if I want
to be recognised as an expert in my field. However, more recently the
Faculty has gone through a process to rank journals in our respective
disciplines according to quality. This has been partially driven by the
Faculty‘s external accreditation processes to demonstrate evidence of
excellence in research. It is not clear yet how this quality research ranking
system will be used in promotion rounds. In my discipline area ‗Education
Journals‘ are not ranked very highly. There is one management education
journal ranked A (A* being the highest rank) to which I can submit my
research findings related teaching and learning. Nevertheless, I am
questioning the time and effort to publish research related to my teaching in
a new ‗higher ranked‘ management education journal thinking that perhaps
• 24 •
I am better exerting my research energies publishing in ‗high ranked‘
journals in my disciple as further down the line I am going to need to
establish myself as an ‗expert‘ in my field.
The research culture I am operating in does not, in my opinion, favour the
scholarship of teaching and learning which creates tensions for those of us
who choose to pursue this research field. I will continue to engage in this
research for all the above reasons but it needs to travel alongside my
disciplinary based research rather than detract me from it. This does entail
extra work but it is worthwhile because of the benefits to me personally and
my teaching, my students and the learning community but this decision is
not without its friction.
References
Clark, B. R. (1991). The Fragmentation of research, teaching and study: An
explorative essay. In M. A. Trow & T. Nybom (Eds.), University
and Society: Essays on the social role of research and higher
education (pp. 101-111). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and
teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4),
507-542.
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The Relation Between Research
Productivity and Teaching Effectiveness: Complementary,
Antagonistic, or Independent Constructs? The Journal of Higher
Education, 73(5), 603-641.
Ramsden, P., & Moses, I. (1992). Associations between research and
teaching in Australian Higher Education. Higher Education, 23(3),
273-295.
Trowler, P., & Wareham, T. (2007). Re-conceptualising the ‗teachingresearch nexus‘ Retrieved 30/9/2010, 2010, from www.portallive.solent.ac.uk
Zahra, A. (2008). Empirical evidence of learning journals as a form of
assessment. Paper presented at the 18th International Research
Conference of the Council for Australian University Tourism and
Hospitality Education, Gold Coast, Australia. February 10-13.
• 25 •
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
Zahra, A. (2009). Language and cultural considerations when
implementing innovative approaches to assessments: Reflective
learning journals and the perception of non-English speaking
students. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Education, 21(3), 5459.
Zahra, A. (2010). Learning journals as a form of assessment in a
hospitality context. Paper presented at the CHME 19th Annual
Research Conference, Surry, UK. May 5-6.
Chief Supervisor and Doctoral Exam Convenor Workshop
The Postgraduate Studies Office is holding a Chief Supervisor and Doctoral Exam
Convenor Workshop on Tuesday 10th May 9am – 1pm with lunch included.
This workshop is designed for all new chief supervisors, and for experienced chief
supervisors who would like a refresher or can add value to the session by
participating in best practices conversations.
There will also be a session to inform of processes and procedures around oral
exam convening.
All staff interested in attending this event need to RSVP during March to ensure a
seat and a coffee on arrival, lunch is also provided and space is limited. RSVP’s
will be collated through [email protected].
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us on ext 6310 or
[email protected].
Make a space at your place for teaching
Some of the best learning happens through conversation and most of the working life of academics is focused around the
department. So why not make the occasional space for conversation about teaching in your department?
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
• 26 •
2011 eLearning Workshops
Moodle workshops
‘Problem Based Learning (PBL) Today &
Tomorrow’
May 26 & 27, 2011, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
www.facilitate.ie
Critical Discussions about Social Inclusion
June 10, 2011, University of Wollongong
http://aall.org.au/forum/critical-discussions-about-socialinclusion
Internationalisation of Pedagogy and
Curriculum in Higher Education:
Exploring New Frontiers
University of Warwick, UK, 16-17 June 2011
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/events/detail/2011/
academyevents/16_17_June
11th Diverse International Conference:
use of visual media in education.
Developing Innovative Visual Educational
Resources for Students
28th-30th June 2011, Dublin
http://diverse2011.dcu.ie/
EDULEARN11 (3rd International
Conference on Education and New
Learning Technologies)
4th, 5th and 6th of July, 2011, Barcelona (Spain)
http://www.edulearn11.org
2001 ANZCA (Australia New Zealand
Communication Association) conference
These 'how to' workshops provide staff with the technical
skill and knowledge to use Moodle tools.
Moodle One: Getting started with resources : (June
9th, & November 2nd)
Moodle Two: Paper Settings & Communication :
(June 16th & November 9th)
Moodle Three: Assessment tools in Moodle : (June
23rd & November 16th)
Moodle Four: Groups and Groupings : (June 30th &
November 23rd)
Moodle Digest One (August 24th)
Moodle Digest Two (August 25th)
eLearning workshops
These workshops offer practical strategies to assist you with
implementing eLearning in your teaching.

Discussion boards - beyond the basics (Thursday May
5th)

Lecture capture and beyond (Wednesday June 1st)

Using quizzes for learning (Tuesday July 5th)

Blogs for learning (Wednesday August 3rd)

Turnitin & Plagiarism (Thursday September 1st)

Online Bookmarking (Wednesday October 5th)

Online collaboration (Tuesday November 1st)

New tools for a new year (Thursday Dec 1st)
University of Waikato, 6-8 July 2011
http://wms-soros.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ANZCA/
Call+for+Papers.htm
Action Learning, Action Research
Association (ALARA) 2011 Australasian
Conference: Action and change: Creative
responses for new challenges
Riverglenn, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 26-27
September 2011
www.alara.net.au
ePortfolios Australia Conference 2011:
Making a difference - Showing the
difference,
17-18 October in Perth, Western Australia at Curtin
University
http://eportfoliosaustralia.wordpress.com/conferenceeac2011/
• 27 •
ng and
Teachi
f
o
p
i
and
holarsh
uction
d
o
r
t
n
i
The Sc
ctical
h (AUT
: A pra
g
n
i
n
il Haig
r
e
a
N
Le
f
o
Pr
e at:
e by A
e onlin
u
e
q
r
i
f
t
i
r
le
c
by
availab
otl or
sity) is
c.nz/s
.a
Univer
a
o
r
a
loyd:
koaote
nner L
www.a
a
T
l
il
gJ
y.ac.nz
emailin
masse
@
d
y
lo
er.L
J.Tann
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
Teaching Development Events 2011
MAY
Appraisal Call—Semester A (Request for questionnaires) 
Mon, 2 May
Postgraduate Supervisors’ Conversations  Wed, 11 May
(12.00-2.00)
PGCert(TertTchg) meeting Wed, 25 May (1.00-3.00)
JUNE
Teaching Development workshops 7-17 June
Postgraduate Supervisors’ Conversations Tue, 28 June
(12.00-2.00)
Teaching Network Wed, 29 June (12.00-2.00)
SEPTEMBER
Teaching Network Thu, 1 Sep (12.00-2.00)
Nominations for Faculty Teaching Excellence Awards close 
Fri, 2 Sept
Appraisal Call—Semester B (Request for questionnaires) 
Mon, 5 Sept
Compiling a Teaching Portfolio workshop  Fri, 16 Sep (10.0011.30)
Postgraduate Supervisors’ Conversations  Tue, 27 Sep (12.002.00)
OCTOBER
Teaching Network Wed, 19 Oct (12.00-2.00)
AUGUST
NOVEMBER
Nominations for Faculty Teaching Excellence Awards open 
Mon, 1 Aug
Getting Published workshop Tue, 23 Aug (9.00-12.00)
Waikato Experience Induction Morning Tea Wed, 24 Aug
PGCert(TertTchg) meeting Tue, 30 Aug (1.00-3.00)
Action Research workshop Wed, 31 Aug (9.00-12.00)
 TDU staff are available on an ongoing basis for teaching
observations, individual consultations, focus groups and
support in preparing teaching portfolios.
Visiting academic: Jean McNiff Dates TBC
Postgraduate Supervisors’ Conversations Tue, 8 Nov (12.002.00)
Teaching Network Wed, 23 Nov (12.00-2.00)
DECEMBER
Celebrating Teaching Day Tue, 6 Dec (9.00-12.30)
Website: www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu
Email: [email protected]
JUNE TEACHING DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS
Week 1
Exploring your Teaching and Learning Beliefs*
Tue, 7 Jun, 9.00-12.00
B.G.24
Maximising Learning in Large Group Contexts: learning from case studies of practice* Wed, 8 Jun, 9.00-12.00
S.G.03
Introduction to Course Design*
Thu, 9 Jun, 9.00-12.00
B.G.24
A Beginner’s Guide to eLearning
Fri, 10 Jun, 9.00-12.00
TL2.27C
Principles of Assessment*
Mon, 13 Jun, 9.00-12.00
K3.10
Setting and Marking Assessment Tasks to Promote Learning
Tue, 14 Jun, 9.00-12.00
B.G.24
Becoming a Reflective Practitioner*
Wed, 15 Jun, 9.00-12.00
B.G.24
Research and Teaching*
Thu, 16 Jun, 9.00-12.00
B.G.24
Evaluating Your Teaching*
Fri, 17 Jun, 9.00-12.00
B.G.24
Starter Strategies for Teachers
Tue, 5 July, 1.00-2.30
B.G.24
Week 2
MAY/JUNE 2011 • TDU TALK
• 28 •
May/June
Professional Development at a Glance
Tue, 10 May (9.00-1.00) Chief Supervisor and Doctoral Exam Convenor Workshop
(details on page 26)
Wed, 11 May (12.00-2.00) Postgraduate Supervision Conversations*
Wed, 11 May (8.45-12.15) Introductory Session
Thu, 12 May (2.00-3.30) Ethics for Research Using Digital Technologies
Mon, 30 May—Fri, 3 Jun Appraisal Week
Tue, 7 June (9.00-12.00) Exploring Your Teaching and Learning Beliefs
Wed, 8 June (9.00-12.00) Maximising Learning in Large Groups: Learning from Case
Studies in Practice
Thu, 9 June (9.00-12.00) Introduction to Course Design
Fri, 10 June (9.00-12.00) A Beginner’s Guide to eLearning
Mon, 13 June (9.00-12.00) Principles of Assessment
Mon, 13 June (1.00-4.00) Managing Change
Tue, 14 June (9.00-12.00) Setting and Marking Assessment Tasks to Promote Learning
Tue, 14 June (1.00-4.00) Managing a Budget
Wed, 15 June (9.00-12.00) Becoming a Reflective Practitioner
Wed, 15 June (1.00-4.00) Managing Effective Meetings
Thu, 16 June (9.00-12.00) Research and Teaching
Thu, 16 June (1.00-4.00) Motivating Staff
Fri, 17 June (9.00-12.00) Evaluating Your Teaching
Fri, 17 June (1.00-4.00) Managing Teams
Thu, 30 June (10.00-12.00) Effective Writing
For details or to register, visit www.waikato.ac.nz/hrm/pd
* Please note change in date from original programme
Future Events
24 August: Waikato Experience Induction Morning Tea (for new staff)
25 August (8.45-4.00) Women in Leadership Day
8 November (8.45-4.00) General Staff Day
November (dates TBC) Visiting academic Jean McNiff
Produced by:
TEACHING DEVELOPMENT UNIT | WĀHANGA WHAKAPAKARI AKO | UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO
Private Bag 3105 | Hamilton | New Zealand
Phone: +64 7 838 4839 | Fax: +64 7 838 4573 | [email protected] | www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu