Discussion

The essential statements point to issues and concerns that are solvable yet require a level of openness and transparency with both employer and tertiary educators alike. The following themes existed within the professional debate of this project:

a) to what extent do tertiary educators extend their pastoral support to students and, in doing so, rescue many from the possible consequences of their limited motivation and lack of focus?

We (the researchers) would take this one step further and ask, are our current teaching processes right for the learning needs of students? Are tertiary educators helping students to ask the right questions that have the most significance for their learning and further inquiry? Wesch (2008) clearly reinforces this notion stating that “Good questions are the driving force of critical and creative thinking and therefore one of the indicators of significant learning” (p.5).

b) that the core craft of teaching is increasingly impacted on by both ‘administrivia’ and over-engagement, in class time, with students who are not educationally prepared for the level of programme they have gained entry into.

Again, we would ask, are our tertiary institutions investing enough in front line preparation of students (such as the personal education planning initiatives being taken up by a number of tertiary institutes in New Zealand) to ensure incoming students are making the right decisions around their programme of study?

Likewise the teacher’s role in the modern tertiary environment does have complex requirements exerted upon it politically, socially and economically. These requirements suggest that support such as professional supervision of tertiary educators in such a dynamic, demanding climate is becoming increasingly advantageous. We would argue that professional support for educators will aid in their focusing on the quality of learning rather than the quality of teaching. This shift in the mindset of educators will “transform the entire educational agenda” (Wesch, 2008, p.5).

Gene

Central to the original design for this project was an intent to purposely facilitate the use of an action research approach as a change process for participants. The researchers believe the findings do show evidence that supports forward movement by participants in practices, ideas and assumptions about aspects of teaching and learning. Some evidence did surface through the use of an action research reporting template. The participants found that reporting tangible examples of change in teaching practice over such a short period of time was difficult to evaluate in quantifiable terms.

Heather

The process used in this project has helped to dispel concerns about the safety of open discussion/disclosure about teaching practice with peers. Facilitating a process for tertiary educators to discuss, debate and unpack assumptions about teaching and learning has created a space where the reframing and redirection of teaching roles has been enabled. All three groups had members who expressed interest in continuing a co-inquiry process in other academic cells (small working groups) which suggests a serendipitous benefit not anticipated at the beginning of this project.

Kath

The methods used to establish a group supervision action orientated enquiry was had some inherent limitations. The researchers found that the use of email as the primary way of communicating initial information about the project was less than satisfactory. What may need to be considered, in similar projects of this nature, is that the potential participant group have a more targeted approach through either hardcopy information or through various information fora. Worthy of comment here was the challenge(s) in getting the participants together on a regular basis for the scheduled group supervision sessions. This was not a factor of disinterest but simply one of coordinating up to six tertiary educators (three groups across three locations) from different programmes/faculty, to meet at the same time. While difficult, an eighty three percent attendance rate was attained with one participant withdrawing. Despite the intent to have a lead facilitator and a co-facilitator at each session, other unforseen commitments precluded both facilitators being present at all sessions. While the researchers recognise the benefits of having two facilitators present, the limitation noted was predominantly around the volume and quality of transcribed group notes.