3.3 New Instructor Development

This note is contrary to the way instructor development is approached. It is based on industrial, business best practice for on-boarding and developing the necessary skills. It is very non-academic. We know that we are out-of-the-box here, but there are certain situations where you have to break a few eggs, do a major intervention to make a substantive change. Until teaching is recognized and treated as a cognitive skill set (more than one skill here), we do not believe that there will be a significant change and that for the most part, instructors will continue doing what they have been doing.

The basic instructor process has not changed in close to 100 years; why do we assume it will now or in the future if we continue to do the same things as before. Of course, there have always been the passionate outliers and these brave souls will continue to appear out of the mist. The overall incentive and view of teaching has to change, that is one aspect. It has to be equal to research, if not more important. Another aspectd is how we train, teach, and develop new instructors.

Here are some, out-of-the-box suggestions for those brave at heart to think about...

• There should be full courses and a 'minor' option in cognitive psychology (cognitive skill acquisition), learning theory, teaching methods, as part of any doctoral program. Probably 3-4 courses should be included. This is for those folks who will not be entering pure research positions. If they are going to supervise or teach in any fashion, they should take the option. If teaching is a priority, treat it as such.
• The first 'year' of employment should be treated as an opportunity to turn the lessons into something that is akin to actual skill.
• Often the first few terms are focused on transforming the graduate student results into papers, applying for grants, and so forth. There might be a few short courses taken on teaching, but we do not think that this is enough. More of a focus on teaching is required.
• We suggest that the new instructor spend one term (assuming three terms in a year) shadowing, sitting in, watching, and assisting three other instructors. First, in the home department, second in another department in the home faculty, and the third in a different faculty (at polar opposites in terms of methods, concepts). The new instructor has to start learning and seeing multiple approaches in teaching and having hands-on experience. We suggest a different order actually. Start with the foreign topic, then the faculty, then the department. Why do you think we suggest this? People we have chatted with over the years, suggests home, faculty, then foreign. We disagree with this.
• The new hire should be embedded into a buddy group (not just one other instructor, but not a horde either) to start a community of practice. One of the buddy group should be in a related content area (by types of learning outcomes, methods, etc.) and another person in the buddy group should a pedagogy expert.
• During the 'third' semester experience, the buddy group should do a peer review where the new instructor is helping, hopefully taking the lead.
• Every three years or so, the instructor should do this shadowing and learning 'practicum' again for one course. Again, outside of the faculty would be the way to go.
• The new hire should start participating in peer reviews and dossier reviews as well, starting in their first year. Discussions about the strengths, weaknesses, how to improve the dossier, teaching are important activities for the new hire.
• Every three to five years, the instructor should do a refresher 'course', not a short four hour one either, but a full course. The topic should be on learning, pedagogy, skill development. Not the latest teaching method being talked about. The refreshers should be at the foundational level and not the fad-of-the-day level.
• There should be a certification level for teaching, independent of research; like assistant, associate, full. An instructor should be recognized on the dual systems: what is their rating in research (e.g., Associate) and what is their rating for teaching (e.g., Assistant). By combining the two as is the common, current convention, it is easy to prioritize one at the detremint of the other. Wink-wink, nod-nod and a weaker teaching situation is dominated by the pub count and no one is the wiser. This is not good management, or personnel development.
• Bottom line, some level of equivalent learning about how to teach is relevant; perhaps similar to the learning programs for primary and secondary teachers.

Further reading

• Panda, S. (2018). Professional Development of Teachers in Higher Education. India Higher Education Report 2017: Teaching, Learning and Quality in Higher Education, pp.132-164.
• Postholm, M.B. (2012). Teachers' professional development: a theoretical review. Educational Research, 54, 4, pp. 405-429.