What is the Impact of Foundations of University Teaching Programs?

Much of the research on the impact on teaching practices, educational design, student satisfaction and student learning outcomes has been conducted in single campus studies. Only two studies found have been conducted across multiple institutions. However, all studies conclude that induction programs have some positive effect on participants' knowledge and skills about learning and teaching.

Spafford Jacob and Goody (2002) reviewed some of the factors that can impede or facilitate transfer of learning, these included:

• the extent of departmental support for implementation of learning;
• the relevance of the program's content and activities for participants' own teaching context;
• the impact of the organisational culture; the uniqueness of each individual's engagement with the program;
• the provision of follow-up activities for consolidating learning.

Spafford Jacob and Goody's research was conducted in a single institution and the results of their survey of staff who had completed the program endorsed their findings of their review. A review by Orrell and Goody (2002) also found the following outcomes:

1. The longer participants had been teaching the less benefit they derived from the course. However, all participants valued the opportunity to share practice and discussion of practice with a variety of other university teachers( Jacobs and Goody).
2. Lack of continuing support (including other colleagues' inflexibility) and/or funding and resources were often an impediment to successful implementation of learning( Jacobs and Goody).
3. An important outcome of the Foundations course was the establishment of an informal network among participants that continued beyond the program itself. To what extent does the Foundation program lead to the transfer of new ideas( Jacobs and Goody).
4. The departmental culture and work environment are critical factors and those who run preparation for teaching programs need to attend to the workplace to which the participants will return.
5. Cooperation between the educational development unit and the school or Faculty from which participants come is essential (Goody, 1998).
6.  Post program follow-up sessions to overcome barriers are necessary facilitate implementation of what is taught (Cheek et al)
7.  Group discussion about implementation in which the barriers are identify can help new staff utilise the strategies they have learn (Nolan)
8. as much time should be spent in the program on implementation as content (Ottoson)
9. Foundation programs are potential catalysts to promote a work culture that encourages change and risk taking largely through post program contact with peers and trainers (Shulman) .
10. Participants felt they had a wider range of teaching and learning methods and techniques (Gilbert and Gibbs (1998)
11. participants felt they were better at assessment that they believed it was integral to their course and that they course give specific examples of innovations (Gilbert and Gibbs (1998)
12. Participants underscored the importance of planning and design in the course and believed that they were all more reflective as a result of the course (Gilbert and Gibbs (1998)
13. programs generated behavioural change, conceptual change, empowered participants to innovate and change ineffective practices (Gilbert and Gibbs (1998)
14. Australian higher education teachers with postgraduate teaching qualifications received better student feedback ratings than those without. (Nasr, Gillet & Booth) (The limitation of this finding is that those who gain such qualification are self-selecting so possible more predisposed to teach well)

What criteria are suitable for evaluating induction programs?

Giertz (1996) survey research suggested that student learning outcomes are not appropriate indicators in seeking to validate the success of participation in Foundations of programs, since there are other complex influences on student learning. A survey was conducted of Foundation program participants and they were asked to judge the program's worth. The study revealed that participants increased either their theoretical understanding of teaching and learning or improved their knowledge of teaching skills. However, to implement learning effectively required a supportive environment and sufficient preparation time. A barrier to implementing good teaching was seen to be the university context where it was perceived that there was a comparatively lower valuing of teaching in relation to research in some areas. This study concluded that the value of good teaching must be transparently acknowledged at the institutional level.

Hall (1996) conducted a survey across two institutions. Key feedback suggested that to assist with teaching development, some part of an induction program were needed for focusing on content and processes more relevant to participants' own curriculum area, provision of mentors from within the same curriculum area, and further staff development within departments.

Kreber & Brook (2001) suggest six possible elements to evaluate:

1. "participants' perceptions/evaluations";
2. "participants' beliefs about teaching and learning";
3. "participants' teaching performance";
4. "students' perceptions of staff's teaching performance";
5. "students' learning"; and
6. "effects on the culture of the institution".

They also suggest that evaluation should address the following questions:

• "What is the intended impact?"
• "Why evaluate?"
• "When to evaluate?"
• "Who evaluates?";
• "How to evaluate?"
• Is the actual impact the same as the intended impact and is the actual impact desirable?";
• "Who should receive the results of the evaluation?"
• "What will happen as a consequence?"
  

They argue that the approach to the impact of evaluation needs to be aligned with the focus of the desired change as well as the intervention strategies used to bring about such change.

Fig 1 : Aligning evaluation strategies with intervention strategies and level of impact [From: Kreber & Brook, 2001]