Forget lone lecturers – pandemic shows teaching must be a team sport

Uneasy bonds between lecturers and education specialists must be strengthened to deliver post-pandemic learning, says Neil Mosley

一月 6, 2021
Source: Getty (edited)

The recent debate in Times Higher Education over the merits of pedagogy highlights the sad fact that teaching and learning within universities sometimes feels like a turf war between academics and those in education development.

In recent years, the UK has placed greater emphasis on teaching quality through the introduction of the teaching excellence framework. Alongside other developments, such as the largely mandated implementation of lecture capture, this has understandably led some academics to resent what they regard as unwarranted interference in their teaching and an erosion of their autonomy.

The education development field can often feel similarly embattled. Its credibility and its value are regularly questioned and it can sometimes feel a bit lost and peripheral, desperately trying to gain an academic and institutional foothold. And while the divide between education specialists and those who teach may have reduced somewhat during the pandemic, it is still a divide. The relationship is still dysfunctional.

The hard work of everyone who contributed towards ensuring the continuity of learning and teaching during the pandemic should be celebrated, but we should also recognise that the experience has highlighted that, organisationally, reflection and improvement are needed – when the time is right.

I would argue that the pandemic has underlined that the current model of university teaching is too solo mío (mine only) and that education support is far too disconnected and, at times, esoteric to meet the challenge presented by the greater complexity of present and future technology-mediated learning experiences.

Teaching – irrespective of your disposition towards it – has been burdensome during the pandemic. Academics have largely struggled alone to engage students at a distance or to review hours of video for the purposes of captioning. It is simply not sustainable or effective to add more and more burdens to the academic role and expect people to be able to give their best and not suffer from burnout.

Equally, in order for teaching and learning to be well supported, we need to carefully reconsider the wisdom of centralising teaching support and educational development. Centres for learning and teaching have a very positive mission but they can sometimes feel distant from the real action, contributing to the impression that educational development runs in parallel to teaching and learning as an optional extra.

The perennial issue for education development is getting people other than the usual suspects to engage. For some academics, any advice on their practice will always feel like an irrelevance and affront to their autonomy. However, what I often hear is that academics just don’t feel that the educational development available at their institution offers them real value and meets them where they’re at. There are valid criticisms of disparate one-off workshops that float above the realities of particular disciplines, or of teaching-development programmes that lack cohesion or are more philosophical than practical and focus too heavily on “administrivia”, particularly in relation to technology.

Education development activity can also fall into the “surrogation snare” that is already prevalent within higher education, whereby metrics such as the number of people gaining teaching certification or the scale of improvement in the National Student Survey become the objective, even though they are not necessarily good proxies of teaching excellence.

For education development to be more effective, the system and culture need to change. There needs to be closer collaboration and partnership baked in between educators, education specialists and related professional disciplines. This is where we can learn much from the sometimes maligned world of online education.

As many have found during the pandemic, teaching online is in no sense easier or less work than teaching in person. But, at its best, delivery of online education is a team sport, with academics and subject-matter experts working in partnership with professionals such as learning designers, developers, producers and project managers to shape and deliver experiences.

This kind of partnership and collaboration often leads to great strides being made in teaching practice as it necessitates reflection and justification of design decisions within a culture of constructive dialogue and debate that involves others.

Regardless of their view on education development, why would academics not want to work as a part of a team with a range of specialisms, pulling together to share the load and craft the best teaching and learning experience possible? Why would they want to bear the whole burden alone?

And why would those in educational development not want to work at the coalface of the educational experience, directly influencing delivery of specific courses, rather than at a distance?

For institutions, the question is simply this: are you set up to enable your people to deliver the best educational experiences? If education institutions are to successfully meet future challenges, teaching and education development need to be organisationally interwoven – not divided and battling for territory.

Neil Mosley is a digital learning consultant and designer working within higher education. 



  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.



11月 26日

黛比·科顿(Debby Cotton)、伊丽莎白·克里弗(Elizabeth Cleaver)和迪利·冯(Dilly Fung)称,不可避免的术语或低质量研究并不是否定整个学科的理由

12月 2日

Reader's comments (5)

"Regardless of their view on education development, why would academics not want to work as a part of a team with a range of specialisms, pulling together to share the load and craft the best teaching and learning experience possible?" Why indeed. Yet so many do. A very provocative piece. Great stuff.
The issue I think is with metrics that still assess someone's performance as an individual. Then, for example, one can contribute greatly to one or more modules, without being module leader. In terms of workload, one might even work as much as someone who is module leader of just one module and has perhaps only 1-2 lectures on it (the rest is done by the team of colleagues). The contribution as module leader will still be valued more. The same goes for research, bidding etc... In the end, it's all down to metrics. Regardless of how many employers tell us to be team players, we are assessed individually.
Edit: many times employers...
It was only yesterday that I read the most sloppily written and ill informed screed from a couple of academics arguing the exact opposite - that teaching and learning support should be treated as a scholarly practice and handed over exclusively to academics. Thanks for being a voice of wisdom with a grasp on reality.
A great piece clearly articulating the way forward to improve the learning experience for students in HE. However……..I’m not convinced it’s the right model for the later years of a degree, where learning meets cutting edge research, sometimes hot off the bench! Having the freedom and autonomy to update and edit learning materials and activities is an essential part of integrating research and teaching. Scheduling meetings and seeking approvals for changes at this level inhibit the direct free flow of knowledge from the research bench to the classroom, and that’s what makes university education so exciting for both staff and students. So I’d advocate yet another form of hybrid learning - a continuum from team-designed and created through to autonomous and spontaneous.