It is interesting to look at the type of HE qualification which Universities are requiring their newer rather than existing lecturers/ teachers to participate in

However what is perhaps more to the point is the accountability and monitoring process which the teaching and learning process is subject to.It's all well and good having a qualification - albeit quite basic in some cases - but if there is no effective mentoring/ support programme in place to work with the lecturer then there is little point in having a bit of paper to say that you can teach.

I agree that fee paying students want and have a right to expect value for money and the University/ HE sector must play its part by regulating in a more transparent way.

I agree that HE teaching qualifications might not always cover key pedagogical issues and many colleagues gain these qualifications without actually developing as practitioners. I am just a bit wary of having a two tier education model - where some colleagues focus on research and some on teaching. I have a feeling that students start university wanting an education and the research side of things is generally invisible to them, so perhaps there could be more focus on meeting student needs?

I agree Higher Education is quantitatively expanding at the cost of quality. Academic leadership is lacking and mideocracy of VCs is affecting

The purpose of having poor lecturers is to encourage the students to read up themselves to find out what their lecturers are trying to say! @Eric: The answer to your question is "YES". How to go about that is up for debate.

'Scholarship' seems like a good idea to me and one I would embrace but it might involve a huge philosophical/paradigmatic change for some. A possible downside of having one or two teaching scholars in a dept is that some of the remaining staff might not see the value in such a role and now find themselves in a situation where they don't need to. I would like everyone to be a scholar but I am realistic enough to understand that some colleagues will always look down at what they see as 'mere' teaching. That's why I thought that compulsory teaching qualifications might be the answer. (Or possibly mass redundancies).

It is strange that one can become a senior lecturer without any training in education except to adopt the style of the best lecturers you had.

I agree Michael and there is certainly scope for institutions to examine the process of moving to a more scholarly conception of education. But the group that you mention, those who would benefit most but might not take any intervention seriously, remain my concern. I have a feeling that 'new' staff tend to come with a broader person-centred perspective but the dinosaurs are still around. And some of these dinosaurs hold senior positions - thus have the ability and influence to stifle change.

Yes they need to. It is always taken for granted that one is an expert in a given field, however, teaching others especially adults these subject area involves so many things including designing the course, classroom management, as well as managing ones emotional issues that come with public speaking and presentation to a student class. These are basics that even lecturers with professional teaching qualification still grappling with, but because they went through teaching practice before becoming teachers they are able to mange these things with the support and guidance of experienced teachers and teacher training. As we all know serious and fee-paying students do not want to have a freak or emotionally immature lecturer who cannot express himself/herself very well before the students.

It is interesting to look at the type of HE qualification which Universities are requiring their newer rather than existing lecturers/ teachers to participate in

However what is perhaps more to the point is the accountability and monitoring process which the teaching and learning process is subject to.It's all well and good having a qualification - albeit quite basic in some cases - but if there is no effective mentoring/ support programme in place to work with the lecturer then there is little point in having a bit of paper to say that you can teach.

I agree that fee paying students want and have a right to expect value for money and the University/ HE sector must play its part by regulating in a more transparent way.

@ Eric Blair and @ Carolin Gibby - My opinion with the new recruits who know their expertise PLUS who know their teaching, PROBABLY these new recruits can provide opportunities as CHANGE AGENTS to tell these DINOSAURS that this is 21st Century with 21st Century needs.

Personally, facilitators to be qualified as such should be life-long learners to be equipped to the uncertainty and to the complexities of cultural dimension plus some experiences of "un-teachable" or "at-risk" students. So, additional teaching qualification requirement is not BAD at all. It is healthy. It is positive perspective. Besides, education is supposed to transform students to be good citizenry. So, the extra teaching qualification can make the facilitators better TRANSFORMERS.

@Francisco I agree with what you say re the need to develop Transformers but we also need to be clear what we are actually going to deliver in terms of a teaching qualification.

As Michael suggested we need to move away from the mere teaching / teachers side and identify that good teaching leads to good research, leads to great education. I am aware of some interesting research going ahead about how much universities now are beginning to value teaching in terms of promotionability , but it can only work if we invest in good teacher training not limited and superficial study which appears to be accepted at the moment .

Hi Erik,

I agree that university lecturers have an obligation to be the best teachers they can be. I disagree that a compulsory teacher education course is the best mechanism to achieve this. I think that staff should be encouraged to professionally develop as teachers - so perhaps universities can make available courses for staff that are free - or even make some allowance in workload so that staff are more inclined to want to improve their teaching. I have had 30 years in primary schooling and seen poor teachers with proper qualifications. Compulsory training just generates the piece of paper - we need to encourage personal development of academic staff.

Hi Kevin

Whilst I agree that a piece of paper is on the whole largely meaningless , this begs the question about the quality of teacher training as a whole . If formal teacher training does not equip teachers to deliver how do we expect informal self development to have any significant impact on practice?

In many cases the quality of teacher development is so generic that for many teachers -it is hard to see how to use the knowledge gained from CPD within the short window of opportunity which new knowledge brings. It is also often provided by teacher educators who are not actively involved in research within Teacher ed, nor is the development supported by faculty - perhaps in name yes but not necessarily in action. The opportunity to be involved in a supportive community of enquiry / practice might provide a source for change , but again this is limited to those who input into that community and the resistance that some have to change in general.

- See Fiona Cownie's book on Legal academics and Tara Brabazon's The University of google for more interesting and accessible reading on this.l.

I think you are correct in asking whether formal teacher training fully equips people to be quality teachers. It might well be the case that it is difficult to see how you could be a quality teacher without formal training; but that formal training does not automatically guarantee quality. Likewise, maintaining quality requires ongoing professional development; but compulsory professional development does not guarantee quality teaching. I am not again professional development for teachers; I am not convinced that compulsory professional development will guarantee quality.

Different universities place different levels of emphasis on the quality of teaching but for colleagues working in environments where the only route to recognition and promotion is via research and publication there will be little incentive to spend time on improving the quality of their teaching. And it does require time. It seems to me, therefore, that the first step needs to be made by universities paying more than lip service to the notion of quality teaching.

@David I couldn't agree more. The UKPSF has had more impact with managers than teachers, where HEI who offer teacher education at undergraduate level only focusing on schools the message is clear - HE is not a domain where teaching is recognised as a relevant skill to enhance the opportunities which lecturers have. What is interesting is the contrasting position within FE - where HE is taught, the driver for basic teacher training in adult education is encouraged - so perhaps one might argue that the teaching is better there - but the knowledge is greater in traditional HE ? This is an interesting article which is worth a read.

Hin-Yan Liu (2012): Teaching without authority, The Law Teacher, 46:2, 146-164

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2012.681177

As long as the only (realistic) way to promotion is via research in many universities, there is very little or no incentive for staff to improve their teaching. No amount of teacher training and qualifications will change this; it is a systemic failure, at least in the UK - an education system that currently still systematically penalises staff and institutions who are interested in and focused on 'educating' - staff miss out on promotions and institutions miss out on ranking status.

Even the worst teaching can be improved by appropriate, targeted and peer-led training - but there needs to be the motivation for staff to buy into it; resources and time need to be made available. At the moment, any time devoted to a teaching qualification for a 'research-active' member of staff is, realistically, a waste of time that they can ill afford, in real terms and in career terms. I do believe though, that in time this will change.

The high student fees students are now charged and increased emphasis on student experience are very slowly changing these ingrained structures. High quality teaching, and with it, appropriate high quality qualifications, will become more important for many universities. And this, in time, is likely to change career pathways and promotional opportunities. At the moment, the speed of this change is still slow, but it is likely to gain momentum as the next generation of high-fee paying 'customers' needs to be attracted - who can and do ask to be taught to the highest standards, both in teaching quality and in the imparting of (research-led) knowledge.

you are right, of course. And for me it is sad that, as you have identified, it is customer feedback that will be the catalyst that brings about the change. This just underlines further that higher education is becoming/has become a business.

Faculty need to share experiences and learn from each other, faculty training, team teaching, greater consideration of teaching efficiency in the promotion process are tools that help.