Susan Mathieson, Roger Penlington, Linda Allin, Libby Orme, Emma Anderson, Lynn McInnes, Kate Black, Helen Hooper

1. SEDA Autumn Conference 2019
New frontiers in educational and curriculum development
15th November 2019
Inducting staff into teaching across disciplines and
departments: an activity theory approach
Susan Mathieson, Roger Penlington, Linda Allin, Libby Orme, Emma
Anderson, Lynn McInnes, Kate Black, Helen Hooper
Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne

2.  Context of induction into teaching
 Present an Activity Theory model for the induction of staff into teaching
 How it was used at Northumbria – the research
 Key findings of the research project
 Recommendations
 In doing so, engage you in mapping your departmental activity systems for
induction into teaching and supporting learning, highlighting similarities and
differences across disciplines, departments and institutions.
Overview of workshop

3. Preparatory thoughts
 Please reflect on this question:
 How do academics learn how to become teachers and
supporters of learning in your department?
 What are the key strengths and challenges faced?

4.  Metrics for judging academic teaching practices
 NSS
 TEF
 PG Surveys
 Student evaluations
 League tables
HE Context

5. Research context
How do we support development of teaching & learning
practice in new staff?
 Previous research (Sue Mathieson) on academic experiences of induction to
teaching (in HEA Fellowship applications):
identified a need for more support for developing teaching in HE
 How to take this forward both as research and practice
 How to engage colleagues responsible for staff development of teaching
across disciplines and departments, in a research-informed approach to
improving our practices for induction of new academics into teaching

6. How do new staff become effective teachers and supporters of learning?
 To identify the support academics need with their teaching
 To identity the challenges/contradictions
 SEDA grant: Activity Theory approach to research on induction to teaching
 The project enabled educational developers to work together to map the experience of
new academics of their induction to teaching
The research question

7.  Understand the key contextual factors shaping the induction of staff into
teaching and supporting learning
 Understand the key issues by mapping the ‘activity system’ for the induction
of staff into teaching in each department
 Understand similarities and differences in the activity systems supporting the
induction of staff into teaching across disciplines and institutions
 Reflect on the key contradictions within disciplinary/departmental Activity
Systems for the induction of staff into teaching and supporting learning, and
the impact of this on how academics learn to become effective teachers
Aims/Outcomes

8.  Socially situated learning through engaging in everyday tasks
 Views academics as learners within complex activity systems comprising six
interconnected, and often contradictory elements
 It engages academics to
 Reflect on contradictions within activity systems - in this case for induction to teaching, in disciplines
and departments, and induction to the University more widely - as a way of stimulating changing
thinking and practices (Englund and Price 2018)
 Consider the impact of changes in HE on development of academics as teachers and supporters of
learning.
 Activity Theory has the potential for promoting ‘expansive learning’ and
‘transformation’ (Engestrom 2001)
 Proposes a model for supporting the professional development of staff
Activity Theory as a research approach in
educational development

9. Activity Theory as a research approach in
educational development
The use of Activity Theory for the current research served two purposes:
 a research tool
 a tool for educational development for the academics involved in the
project
 Can it explain how academics learn to teach?

10.  The Subject:
 The Object:
 The Community:
 Tools and Resources:
 Rules:
 Division of labour:
Activity theory: 6 elements

11. Activity System for the induction of staff to
teaching in disciplines and departments

12. Activity
 Mapping of Activity Systems for induction to teaching and
supporting learning in disciplines and departments
 Can you map out the activity system for your discipline/department?
 Any key issues in your discipline/department?
 Any contradictions within the Activity System and with other
systems impacting on induction into teaching?
 20 mins

13. 6 Elements to consider
SUBJECT: What are the characteristics of newly appointed academics in
your dept/discipline? Any changes to them over time?
Strengths/tensions/contradictions?
OBJECT What induction to T and L takes place?
COMMUNITY What are the communities that support the induction of new
academics into T&L? Strengths, gaps and tensions?
TOOLS What are the tools which staff typically need/get to know to teach?
What support for them to use effectively?
RULES What governs expectations of staff who are new to teaching?
Probation, CPD, tensions, contradictions?
DIVISION OF
LABOUR Workloads, Other?

14. Group activity
In groups
As you will be from different departments/disciplines can you find
any commonalities/differences in activity systems.
 20 mins

15. Activity System for the induction of staff to
teaching in disciplines and departments
Any tensions
contradictions...
emerging as
discuss the
dynamics of the
system?

16. Research at Northumbria University
 Research undertaken across 6 disciplines:
 Engineering
 Sport
 Business
 Computing
 Psychology
 Applied Science
 NU is a post-92 university
 NU moved from teaching and professional development to prioritise a
new emphasis on research
 All academics have a dual responsibility for teaching and research

17. What our research found
 Key issues and contradictions identified through the research
project
 Any overlap with experiences expressed here?
 15 mins

18. Findings

19. Findings: the Subject (Academics new to departments)
 Newly appointed academics: research-active, little experience of teaching in HE
 Conflicting identities as an academic: balancing teaching with research and income
generation
 Contradictions between prior expectations of the academic role and the realities of
heavy teaching workloads in challenging environments
 Threatened sense of wellbeing: uncertainty in developing identity as an effective
teacher in HE, unsupported demands and work overload
 But, a personal commitment to succeeding as a teacher in HE
 Bernstein’s (2000) ‘inner dedication’ of academics to disciplinary knowledge
Engestrom’s (2001) focus on what motivates subjects to succeed, despite
contradictions, as source for transformative learning and change – the
importance of academic agency
 important in whether academics ‘sank or swam’:

20. Findings
The Object: What induction to L&T takes place?
Community: Who/what support for induction to teaching
Tools and Resources: What are they? What support for them?
 Relative ineffectiveness of formal learning processes.
 Importance of informal learning from colleagues, such as module teams, office mates, or
programme leaders
 Opportunities for informal learning unequal - circumscribed by workloads of academics,
and reluctance of new academics to ask for support from already overloaded colleagues
 Poor timing: Teaching often started before support for teaching had been put in place
 Without support, and under time pressures, academics lacked confidence to adapt
teaching to new contexts, and fell back on ‘telling’ rather than facilitating active learning
 Many academics experienced a sense of dissonance between the way they wanted to
teach and the realities of how they were expected to teach within the time available
 Some academics talked of a clash of values with the teaching practices of new
colleagues and the expectations of students in their discipline
 Discussions with colleagues tended to be procedural rather than a critical reflection on
approaches to teaching

21. Findings
Rules: What governs staff who are new to teaching?
Division of Labour: Workloads, Other
 Rules governing the quality and quantity of work new academics
expected to undertake during probation were experienced as opaque
 Communications about rules and procedures tended to be via email
rather than discussion, which was often experienced as confusing and
alienating
 Lack of clarity about how to divide time between teaching and research
 Dissonance between understanding that they had been appointed to
focus on their research, and the realities of managing challenging
teaching loads
 Most academics felt they spent far longer on teaching, preparation and
marking than the allocated workload
 Where departmental practice was for academics not to take sole
responsibility for modules and programmes in the first semester, this was
welcomed

22. Overall
 The research has deepened our collective understanding of the
experience of academics of their induction into teaching, and
the contradictions they face in engaging with teaching.

23. Value of Activity Theory
 Can it bring about reflection and change in approach to staff development
for learning and teaching?
 Any surprises?
 Any limitations?
 15 mins

24. Initial cycle of expansive learning:
Recommendations
 Through discussion of the issues and contradictions that had
been identified in the Activity System for the induction to
teaching across our disciplines, the research group proposed
the following recommendations:

25. Recommendations
 Recognise the key role of informal learning in disciplines &
departments and work to create more explicit opportunities for
informal learning.
Construct these support groups where they don’t exist.
 Buddy systems for new academics
 Room shares where possible, including both experienced and new academics
 Make opportunities for shadowing and Peer Observation more explicit
 Team teaching should be required for all academics who are new to teaching prior
to leading a module independently
 Team teaching and shadowing of all aspects of a module should be integrated into
induction as part of the formal workload for all new academics for the first semester
 New academics should teach on best practice modules where they can model on-
line resources (handbooks, eLearning Portals, assessments)
 Individual teaching responsibilities in the first semester should be kept to a minimum

26. Recommendations
 Develop clear protocols and rules around expectations of what new
academics can be asked to do, and their workloads while on
probation, and make these available to new academics and to line
managers
 Develop an induction protocol specifically for teaching, in
collaboration with new academics, including how to lead modules,
assessments, using the electronic learning portal, personal tutoring,
video recorded lectures understanding policies supporting teaching,
etc.
 Align the central CPD for L&T offer more explicitly to support the
everyday teaching practices of academics

27. Recommendations
 Recognise that new academics do not want to bother busy
colleagues, and provide explicit access to a dedicated team of
experienced colleagues to support them with leading a module,
assessments, electronic learning portal, personal tutoring
expectations etc.
 Be aware of the contradictions within the community in how it
negotiates teaching and supporting learning, and the messages
about teaching that the community is giving
 Consider how to support new academics manage the hidden
curriculum – e.g. managing disruptive behaviour, managing conflicts
in workloads

28. Conclusions
The academics interviewed were committed to their teaching
and wanted to be successful teachers.
Our perception prior to the research was that because the
institution appeared to value research more than teaching,
new academics would also value research over teaching.
Levels of anxiety and tension experienced by new academics
were high, and they felt under pressure.
As educational developers we have developed a greater
degree of empathy for the experience of academics who are
new to teaching, and a deeper understanding of their
subjective experiences of induction.

29. Conclusions
 Our reflections on the research led to valuable discussions about the
tensions between the induction we would like new academics to
receive, and what the time available to us allows.
 It enabled us to recognise that investing time in new academics is
essential for the effectiveness of discipline teaching communities.
 However, we recognised that we need to engage more of our
colleagues in understanding and empathising with the challenges
faced by new academics, and find ways of mobilising them to offer
the support new academics need.
 As Boud and Brew (2013) argue, the benefits of supporting the
development of teaching are not just for the individual development
of teachers, but are also essential for the health of the practice
communities, or activity systems, that support teaching.

30. Next steps
Discussion of recommendations and further engagement in cycles of
‘expansive learning’ as a way of changing induction practices for
new academics
Need to involve more layers of colleagues with our recommendations
Focus on interface and contradictions with other ‘Activity Systems’
(e.g. for research, and institutional teaching enhancement strategies)
Comparative research beyond NU. Testing the findings and
recommendations at other Universities

31. Acknowledgments
 Funded by a SEDA Small Grant 2018-19
 Colleagues (Susan Mathieson, Roger Penlington, Linda Allin,
Libby Orme, Emma Anderson, Kate Black, Helen Hooper)
 New academics who gave their time to be interviewed

32. Further information
 Susan Mathieson,
 Address for correspondence: Teaching Excellence and Student
Outcomes, Northumbria University, Pandon Building 2nd floor .
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST
E-mail: susan.mathieson@northumbria.ac.uk

33. References
Bernstein, B. (2000) Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research and critique (revised ed).
Rowman and Littlefield.
Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organisations: An Overview and Interpretation.
Organization Studies (Issue 6):1021-1046.
Boud, D. and Brew, A. (2013) “Reconceptualising academic work as professional practice:
implications for academic development.” International Journal for Academic Development, 18
(3) 208-221
Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization.
Journal of Education and Work, 14(1):133-156.
Englund, C. & Price, L. (2018) Facilitating agency: the change laboratory as an intervention for
collaborative sustainable development in higher education. International Journal for
Academic Development, 23:3, 192-205. DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2018.1478837