Transformative Science Teaching in Higher Education

Transformative Learning and Teaching for Innovative Practice

The concept of transformative learning has been in existence for over 30 years, with writers such as Mezirow (1978, 1990), Mezirow and Taylor (2009), Cranton (1994, 1996), Dirkx (1998, 2000), and Taylor (1998, 2008) contributing significantly to its development as a guiding framework for adult learning and teaching in postcompulsory education contexts. Transformative learning is “the process of using a prior interpretation to construe a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience in order to guide future action” (Mezirow, 1996, p. 162), and those who transform undertake “‘deep’ learning that challenges existing, taken-for-granted assumptions, notions and meaning of what learning is about” (Dirkx, Mezirow, & Cranton, 2006, p. 4). At the heart of such deep learning is a critical reflection of taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions, where they came from, what they are based upon and therefore, their legitimacy in the current context (Cranton, 2006).

For many of us, the beginning of such reflexive activity is an event, a “disorienting dilemma” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 68) of seemingly variable significance, “…as traumatic as losing a job or as ordinary as an unexpected question” (Cranton, 2002, p. 64), which triggers a critical examination of our meaning structures, opening us up to alternatives. We actively choose to pay attention to this triggering event (Cranton, 1994) and in doing so transform all aspects of our being, down to our core beliefs and purpose in life. There are certainly times that we can learn to change our behaviours while maintaining unchanging beliefs, but we cannot transform, without our behaviours, competencies, beliefs, identity, and mission in life all being irrevocably changed (Poutiatine, 2009).

Consequently, transforming oneself as an academic teacher in science is quite different from just changing one aspect of teaching practice, rather it could involve reflecting critically upon yourself as an academic as well as your understanding of the content and nature of science and how such understandings are nurtured in your students. Transformational teaching depends, therefore, upon an academic’s ability to reflect critically upon their epistemology, ontology, and practice. Brew (2010) and Kreber and Cranton (2000) build upon the earlier work of Mezirow (1991) to argue that such critical reflection is required on at least three levels, namely, the instrumental or technical (content) level, the communicative (process) level, and the emancipatory (premise) level. When reflecting critically at the first of these levels, the instrumental level, the academic focuses on trying to understand and describe the teaching process and what they want students to learn. At the communicative or process level of reflection, the focus shifts to how students learn and what the teacher can do to facilitate learning, that is, a focus on the development of pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986). While during the third level of reflection, reflecting at the emancipatory or premise level, the academic considers why they teach in the way they do and focuses on the purpose(s) of their practice. Kreber and Cranton view these levels of critical reflection as equally weighted elements contributing to a knowledge about teaching and the ability to engage with the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL; Smart & Perry, 2007) and transformative learning.

Such a holistic understanding of teaching and learning and the scholarly interrogation of teaching practice is still uncommon in higher education; transforming ones thinking is discomforting, and for most of us, Cranton (2002) argues, it is easier to continue with our customary ways of thinking and acting than to change so comprehensively. Innovative science lecturers have transformed their entire understanding of, and practice as teachers and academics, often devoting hours and energy in doing so. What is it like then to be an innovative academic science teacher? What was it that initially catalysed them into becoming innovative educators with the goal of changing the way their students learn? What sustains their commitment to critical reflection and innovative, transformative practice? I will examine these questions by reporting upon research exploring the experience of being an innovative science educator, reanalysed through a transformative learning lens.

Innovative University Science Teachers

Two case studies form the basis of the research reported here. A multiple case study design (Yin, 2013) was chosen to enable each case to contribute something special to the investigation of innovative university science teaching, different from each other, but both contributing to the exploration of the phenomenon. Each case study was descriptive (Yin, 2013) in nature presenting a detailed account of the phenomenon by “…capturing process, documenting variations, and exploring important individual differences in experiences and outcomes” (Patton, 1990, p. 43).

Two science academics who acted as case studies were identified as innovative according to my broad definition:

an innovative teacher is identified as more than just one who uses a new or significantly improved technique for teaching and learning, but rather s/he is committed to the goals or philosophy of improving the quality of student learning through innovation.

This definition draws upon literature in which innovation is debated from an educational or learning perspective rather than from the more common approach in which an economic meaning is utilised in the discussion. A relatively recent report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example, refers to innovation as “creative destruction” and educational innovation as including “new or significantly improved approaches to classroom-based teaching, learning and assessment” (Looney, 2009, p. 5). Some sort of improvement in student learning outcomes must eventuate for the learning activity and/or teaching approach to be an educational innovation. Underpinning the concept of innovation, therefore, and the capabilities that innovative educators exhibit are creativity and imagination (Cachia, Ferrari, Ala-Mutka, & Punie, 2010; Moyle, 2010) and a commitment to quality learning.

My initial identification of these case studies was done on the basis of each person’s reputation, through the perceptions of colleagues and students, and by the artefacts available to support these perceptions. With this in mind, the individuals who participated as case studies and coresearchers, Charlotte and Beth (pseudonyms), were chosen carefully, not for their representativeness of a narrowly preconceived idea of innovative teaching but rather for their potential in offering an opportunity to learn about its nature as they have experienced it.

My choice of case studies was undertaken sequentially in time. Charlotte was selected in relation to the criteria outlined earlier, and because I was one of her former students, I had experienced firsthand her innovative approach to education. Charlotte, therefore, became my “Case of Focussed Innovative Education.” While Charlotte made a conscious decision to move entirely into educational enhancement and research, her experience did not enable me to understand the experiences of academic scientists who wish to successfully participate in both innovative education and its scholarship as well as pure discipline research. Such people may well be the majority of innovative teachers in science in higher education and hence their experience is worthy of exploration. Beth represented such a person; she became my “Case of Juggled Academic Tensions.”

Charlotte and Beth’s case records were constructed over time from multiple sources of raw data, including interviews, observational and documentary data, and impressions and statements of others—colleagues (key informants—KI) and students (U/G). I have incorporated the technique of testimonio in the research and thence this article, which is an open-ended and interpretive work constructed socially with my coresearchers. I produced these texts after meeting several times with my case study participants, interviewing their KIs, observing their practice, and surveying their students. I read through documents that each had produced, observed their teaching, and grappled with my emerging understandings of their experiences. I then wrote the first draft of the testimonio. I wrote as if I had lived the life of Charlotte or Beth—the life we had explored together—as further informed by the perceptions of their KIs and their students and the artefacts of their practice. The next step was to share with them their story as I had interpreted it, standing as it did in a “critical relationship to the world of actual events” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 375). Then followed an iterative discussion, correction, and enhancement of their testimonio until we were each satisfied that we had captured a “significant life experience” (Beverley, 1992, p. 92). Thus, testimonio exerpts and both interview and survey data are included here in the telling of Charlotte and Beth’s transformational journeys.

Charlotte’s Story

At the time of the research, Charlotte was an associate professor and director of Teaching and Learning in Science and Technology at a large and highly respected research-intensive university in Australia. Her influence and the respect she engendered was widespread—she was about to retire. Her curriculum vitae looked impressive, with her outputs (conference and journal papers; educational software; teaching awards; grants) predominantly in the broad field of science education, although she was employed in a Science Faculty. What is telling about Charlotte is that all of these outcomes had been achieved within the last 8 years of her career.

Charlotte’s career began fairly traditionally, with her completing an undergraduate science degree with honours, and continuing on into a research-focussed pathway as the following testimonio excerpt indicates:

…due to my good honours degree, they suggested that I enrol in a PhD program, and I ended up with a supervisor who was an animal physiologist at the College. I was pretty naïve back then, so when they offered me a scholarship and pointed me in the direction of the lab, I went along with it all. I wasn’t committed to the idea though, I didn’t feel confident about conducting my own research but I didn’t really question their plans for me as I was a different person back then. My supervisor, poor man, didn’t really have the skills to mentor me, and at the time I wasn’t really able to determine my own research direction. (Charlotte testimonio)

Charlotte’s disinterest in undertaking pure discipline research emerged early; at that time, she was a different person, willing to “act on the purposes, beliefs, judgments, and feeling of others” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5) and hence drift into a science doctorate. As is still the cultural norm for science students today, very capable science undergraduates graduating with honours continue with science in a research capacity, typically undertaking a PhD. Charlotte didn’t question the decision made for her by others until her experience of teaching in the first-year laboratories provided her with a satisfying and affirming experience, setting the scene for her future career focus:

By happy chance though, I was asked to teach in their 1st-year laboratories…and I loved everything about it. The students were fantastic, as diverse as they come but so eager and excited to learn. I was good at it too. I got such a buzz from these motivated students and I felt as delighted as they were by their achievements. For the next 12 months I organized the labs, developed lab notes…a little unusual for those days, and thoroughly enjoyed explaining concepts to the students, varying my approach to suit their needs, and experimenting with different ways of teaching them. I knew then that this was what I wanted to do, teach biology at university.…and of course, to be able to do that I needed a PhD!…I wanted to teach, it was comfortable, and I knew I was good at it! It was to be many years before I ventured down the research path again and I haven’t done pure research in my discipline since my PhD. I could always get enthusiastic about teaching biology though, and helping others to understand it. (Charlotte testimonio)

Pedagogical knowledge seems to have been instinctive for Charlotte, and she had the ability to master the content knowledge to the level required by the teaching situation. Charlotte was highly committed to improving the quality of student learning—students are always at the heart of her practice. For me, by listening to Charlotte recount the story of her extremely positive experience of teaching science, which helped her realise that she did this well and that her students learned, I realised that this experience represented the beginning of a gradual recognition of the disconnect between her meaning structure and the scientific culture she found herself working in. Her disorienting dilemma did not come as an epiphany but rather, for her it began as an incremental awakening and a realisation that the profession demanded specific credentials—a PhD.

Soon after she had received her doctorate and had been employed in a university, Charlotte recognised that there was something wrong with teaching in the faculty but didn’t know how to fix it or influence change. Being immersed in an environment in which her colleagues shared little of her passion for teaching was intensely frustrating for her. At this point in time, Charlotte had had little or no exposure to educational language of higher education or the scholarship underpinning her practice:

Throughout my early years I’d experiment quite a lot with my teaching, but pretty much everything I did was based on instinct…working from intuition at first, an approach which in the main has served me well. Whenever I’ve felt I couldn’t do something, or not do it as well as I’d like, I’d either get someone in who could do it better, or I’d go and get some training! (Charlotte testimonio)

Her training exposed her to scholarship of teaching and learning and from that point onwards, it underpinned her journey as an innovative educator. This journey has not been smooth sailing, however, and she has met with ongoing resistance and opposition from within her Faculty. Her work bumped up against the values at the heart of science—the nature of research. Some years prior to retirement, however, Charlotte was confronted with a disappointment so profound that it shaped the person she was to become—an innovative practitioner and leader of innovation across Science and Technology:

…there’s certainly been some pretty devastating times. Like when I was knocked back for promotion on the grounds that my research wasn’t up to scratch! I went up on my teaching and service to the university, but even after all that I had done…because that’s what they wanted me to do, they wanted me to do the administration and the teaching and I really wasn’t given the opportunity to do research even if I had wanted to, but they still didn’t see it as good enough…I went away…and licked my wounds, and after some sound advice from a colleague, I took study leave, went overseas, put my head down and wrote up years of research. I was invited to go to several universities in the UK and present our work as well. It was wonderful! I got lots of publications and acclamation, and when I came back I went for promotion again and was successful! (Charlotte testimonio)

Charlotte sought promotion as she felt she deserved to be recognised for her commitment to constructing effective student learning environments and leading teaching in her Faculty, activities that she valued immensely. Recognising that neither her Faculty nor the university valued her life’s work challenged Charlotte’s frame of reference and made her stop and take the time to critically reexamine her practice, her beliefs, and her best interests, forcing her to take action. She reinvented herself as an academic as one of her KIs recognised:

I mean her service to the university was huge. So the only thing,…(she) had all these excellence in teaching awards, a group one, her own one, so everything was really strong, except the research, you know, teaching development, even a bit of, not much investigation, but we weren’t really into that much research into our teaching and learning then, and so she got the flick. So she was pretty disappointed about that and pulled back from a lot of things she was doing in the university. (CKI1)

She also realised that the desire to focus on transforming science teaching and improving student learning and bring about systemic change, needs to be undertaken strategically. In order to make a difference in science education, Charlotte came to realise that she needed the credibility that comes with research. She also ensured that her team of innovators did not make the same mistakes she did:

…the fact that she was willing and encouraged her group to go and make their…presentations at international and national conferences, organise workshops here…And then to start putting stuff into journals, which she’s done, and then to make sure they have a presence at international conferences, which she’s ensured. (CKI5)

Although her lack of success in promotion was devastating for her, without this setback, this final triggering event, she may never have developed the essential educational research skills required of her to gain credibility with her science peers, and hence enable her to expand her sphere of influence for educational transformation in the Science Faculty. It also helped her to recognise that “very few ideas and very few projects of any significance are implemented by one person alone…” (Kanter, 1991, p. 59). While Charlotte’s earlier approach to educational innovation was collaborative, working with others whose role it was to teach first-year students, the setback she experienced resulted in a more planned and strategic approach to educational innovation and its leadership; she established and mentored her team of like-minded academics and articulated a vision, took risks, and made things happen:

You took on board her ideas, I think. She obviously had a vision…and then putting new things, trying new things out all the time. There’s this, I suppose, this incredible encouragement to try new things. We’re always given the chance, “Let’s try this”. Perhaps we do too much of it now? (CKI2)

She led with a common purpose, becoming in essence a transformative leader (Kallioinen, 2009):

She’s very good at getting groups together and she’s very good at convincing…and those that teach first year biology over there really work as a team in a way the others don’t. All of those qualities. You see that’s another thing in innovative teaching, the ability to get people back together and have a common purpose. (CKI4)

At heart still a scientist, committed to generating the data required to support her claims for improved student learning, Charlotte has transformed herself into something more, an advocate for actions and systems that enhance the student learning experience. She is willing to do whatever it takes to realise these ends:

I think this is essentially where all my skills have come together effectively, in the implementation side of things…working with others on really good ideas, to help make them happen. What I’m doing now feels risky though. I’m really outside my comfort area, working with a diverse range of people…people I don’t really know, nor would probably choose to work with if I wasn’t in this position. I’ve had to draw on all my relationship building skills to deal with some of them…I have one last opportunity to make things happen that will help student learning…one last attempt at implementing innovative practice on a large scale. I’m not interested in making the policy, I just help others establish a vision for teaching and learning, pull things together…and help make it happen! That’s what I’m good at. (Charlotte testimonio)

Charlotte’s transformational journey took many years and her learning the result of a number of activating events. These events changed her from being an individually effective and diligent practitioner into a highly influential and innovative academic interested in bringing about systematic change in transforming science teaching for the benefit of student learning—her ultimate driver.

Beth’s Story

Beth’s story differs significantly from Charlotte’s, as throughout her career she has been committed to becoming both a pure discipline researcher and innovative educator in science, one who is intensely interested in innovating her teaching and learning practice and researching geology. One of Charlotte’s colleagues was doubtful that achieving both goals is possible:

Teaching innovation is, I think, a full time job. If you are an innovative teacher, you spend all the time that you have of your own devoted to that. In the same way that a good scientific researcher…they do their other jobs, they do their administration, they do their teaching, but what they really do in life with every minute they have spare, they do their research…and in that sense, research really is a full-time job…And I think the same is true of teaching innovators. (CKI3)

Nevertheless, at the time of this research, Beth maintained her belief that she could do both. She was also aspiring to be Head of her Department at her research-focussed and aggressively aspirational university; she was committed to all aspects of academic work and a full-time mother of two young children. Her academic profile included journal and conference papers in both her discipline research and educational research, teaching awards, internal teaching development grants, and postgraduate research students undertaking their research in the discipline.

Beth’s academic career began in a manner typical for scientists—she started out as a tutor while undertaking her PhD part-time. Since then she has had numerous academic positions, including two Postdoctoral Research Fellow positions. “Soft money” and temporary and part-time positions are scattered throughout her curriculum vitae; a curriculum vitae of this kind is not uncommon in a science career but it may be more common for women in such disciplines. Beth’s exposure to exceptional teaching, however, began while she was still at school, causing her to reevaluate her engagement in school learning and ultimately directed her choice of career, her lifelong interest in teaching, and the manner in which she now teaches:

The whole idea of applying myself to school work was fairly low on my list of priorities…I also decided to do geology, ‘cause I wanted to get out of some classes…it had lots of field trips, lots of time outdoors. I really like being out in the open - I spent much of my time as a child playing around outside in the bush. Other than that, it was a pretty funny sort of subject choice as I never really excelled in science up ‘til then…Then I did geology, and my life turned around.

I had a fantastic teacher. She made it all come alive for me…It went from being a subject that I had a mild interest in, or at least the outdoorsy part of it anyway, to being the only thing I wanted to do.

…Looking back though, I really think my teacher was a very important part of my decision to do what I’m doing…and maybe even how I’m doing it. I’ve never lost my enthusiasm for the subject and try to make it come alive for my students just like she did for me. (Beth testimonio)

The experiential and applied nature of the geology degree with honours program that Beth undertook at university, confirmed her view of what it means to teach geology effectively, and as her testimonio attests, has continued to influence her practice as an educator:

In fact, a number of the teachers were field geologists, and some had very strong links with industry, but there didn’t seem to be a strong academic research culture there at the time, not like in some other universities. They were mostly really dedicated teachers…it was a great experience, I loved it and I don’t think I’ve ever lost that passion for field work or learning that’s authentic. That’s maybe why I have this interest in Problem Based Learning…more of that a bit later I suppose. (Beth testimonio)

Her innovations are driven by the desire to create an interesting, engaging, and authentic learning experience similar to the one she experienced as a student at school and university.

Participating in this research gave Beth the space to reflect critically on the strengths and weaknesses of her early undergraduate experiences. Although one of its major strengths was its applied nature, the Faculty staff profile lacked research strength which meant that Beth was not well mentored during her formative research years; similar to Charlotte, she had to teach herself how to do research. She learnt how to work by herself, to maintain focus and rely upon her individual energy, but she missed out on the opportunities afforded through collaborative team research and networking. Beth did well, however, and, unlike Charlotte, began to progress somewhat traditionally along the route to science academia:

Anyway, I found all the research quite interesting, so when I was offered a Post Doc in Canada I accepted it readily. So really I followed a fairly traditional academic pathway for science—a degree with honours, and a PhD followed by a postdoctoral fellowship. Canada was a great experience, working with a team of researchers, each looking at different aspects of the one thing, with my role being to take more of a helicopter view of the research. It was excellent really, I picked up some valuable work habits along the way. Everyone says I’m well organised and great at managing my time…not sure I completely agree, but I guess I owe that to my Canadian experience. I also found it really valuable working in a team—seeing how others do things, and think about things. I think that’s good for everyone to experience, so I make sure my students have these kinds of opportunities as well. (Beth testimonio)

It would seem that the many of the skills that Beth’s key informants recognise as essential to her success as an innovative teacher—exceptional time management and organisational skills and her commitment to leading and working in a team—were established as she developed her expertise in discipline research through her postdoctoral experiences. Beth’s second postdoctoral experience was a pivotal phase of her life, triggering her transformation:

However, my post Doc also marked the beginning of my real venture into teaching…Looking back it was a really important time in my life, it was great to get into teaching after so many years of focused research. It also revitalised my passion for learning. I did a Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education, mostly because I was trying to learn how to deal with some disruptive students who weren’t the slightest bit interested in learning what I had in mind for them to learn! I had never really had that experience before, and I felt I needed some help. The course was very useful, it honed my practical teaching skills and developed my ability to take risks and experiment with my teaching. (Beth testimonio)

This unexpectedly challenging teaching experience and her inability to deal with it effectively were disorienting for Beth, stimulating her to reevaluate her approach to teaching science and to reflect critically upon her skill set. Her subsequent exploration of scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education through the Graduate Certificate enabled Beth to “elaborate an existing point of view” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 7) and articulate and act upon her philosophy of teaching. Her commitment to helping her students learn and providing them with engaging and authentic learning experiences, based upon a problem or project-based methodology, were reinvigorated. Her commitment to transformative learning is clear; she values her relationships with her students and considers them to be her learning colleagues and coconstructors of knowledge:

I really enjoy teaching. I think my students pick up on this…my enthusiasm for the subject and teaching…I try to anticipate their questions or any problems they might have. I’m also quite happy to adapt my style of teaching, and the techniques I use to suit the students. I get the feeling that they like the way I teach…the way I treat them as adults and equals, and work with them as individuals, even when they’re part of a team—I think that’s important to make them feel valued….and valuable. I hate that barrier between Professor and students! I find they’re much more willing to talk about things if they’re not frightened, and I actually think that their contributions are truly valuable….we really need to listen to them! (Beth testimonio)

Both colleagues and students appreciate her efforts and commitment:

Beth is someone that we can relate to, she is more on our ‘level’ than some stuffy academic who has no time for people—only the subject. She gets to know us and will help us in any way possible while at the same time making the topic as interesting as possible. (BU/G19)

In terms of the students, it’s a fact that I think that she actually likes the teaching and likes the students. I don’t think there are too many people that are good teachers that don’t actually satisfy both of those rules. (BKI1)

She creates a learning environment for her students which enables them to “become increasingly adept at learning from each other and at helping each other learn in problem-solving groups” and acts herself as “facilitator and provocateur rather than as an authority on subject matter” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 1). She fosters students’ self-direction through the learning methodology she employs (problem based learning) and the manner in which she personally engages students and her colleagues acknowledge that it is valuable and is achieving outcomes:

I guess, you know, the weakest students are getting better learning outcomes from it which is probably a great thing…this format is more valuable now that it was ten years ago . . having them interact with other students making them more enthusiastic about doing the work. (BKI2)

Such evidence enables her to influence her science colleagues and hence transform the culture of the department in regards teaching:

…she is very positive in her ideas of how things should be done and that translates into her being reasonably forward in saying ‘look I think that it should be done in this way’ but not to the point where she is saying ‘you can’t do it any other way’, but you know her ways of doing things seem good and so most people are happy to do it that way. (BKI2)

Beth recognises that her commitment to innovative practice is not the norm in her discipline, readily admitting that although her colleagues are good teachers who are committed to quality teaching, they are not as driven as she is. She acknowledges the extra burdens that are increasingly being placed on academics and suggests that these might impact negatively on her innovations:

I’m really proud of what I’ve achieved in teaching and learning, and I’d like to think that the changes I’ve made will stay if I leave but I’m not sure they will. Everyone is so busy…and I can see things slowly changing back to the more traditional ways of teaching ‘cause that’s seen as easier! When you’re overworked, and you need to get your research up, you look for the easiest way to get through the teaching. (Beth testimonio)

Beth also recognises, however, that the dominate culture in science is research based and that others would suggest that the time that she spends on her teaching and curriculum innovations could have been usefully spent elsewhere. She admits that she has taken time away from her research to focus on her students and curriculum innovation and that her commitment to quality teaching means that the administration and service components of her academic work are also large. Some of her colleagues recognise the sacrifices that she has made on her path to innovation and reflect on the fact it cannot have helped her career progression or contributed positively to her private life. They recognise the inequitable rewards of research over teaching within their university system and are aware of what you need to do to advance in your career as an academic scientist:

I think she’s actually sacrificed her private life more than she’s sacrificed her research…but I think it has had an effect on her private life…umm…I think the way that she deals with doing academic stuff is to go on OSP, that’s the only time she can get away even if she is technically in [town] she’s…away from the day-to-day demands of teaching because she has a heavy teaching load and while trying to do all these things her research does suffer and I think that in [the department] that is a really bad thing to happen, it’s very much a research-based group and value is seen in doing that…[they’d say] don’t do all that, do your research love! (BKI3)

At the time of this research, Beth wanted to have a more holistic impact on curriculum, and teaching and learning development, and admitted that in order to do so she needed to be in a position of formal leadership. This way of thinking explains her desire to become Head of Department and hence gain control of the budget and be able to disperse it more towards learning and teaching and develop coherent policy and process to support its development. Her motivation is both student and curriculum centred:

Anyway, I’ve been told that I’m pretty much the only one in the department that’s pushing teaching development…and I do have to constantly push the process, but that doesn’t bother me. Ultimately though, I think you need to be in a position of leadership to get the things done, that I know need to be done…Anyway, lots of people have told me they think I’d be a good Head, and congratulated me on getting the position, and I suppose I see it as a positive for my career, although it will take time away from my research!…I’ve actually been quite interested in taking on more leadership roles like this for some time…and researching how it happens, but…I’ve not enough time for that really. (Beth testimonio)

Although in the past taking on management roles such as these was seen as a positive career move, more recently the benefits of such a move are less obvious. In fact Beth admitted that the outgoing Head of Department was less than enthusiastic about her applying for the position, as he believed that her time could possibly be better spent concentrating on her research. Towards the end of our research together, Beth decided to test the waters and apply for promotion. She was aware that the choices she had made throughout her academic career, though holding true to her “beliefs, and habits of mind or points of view” (Mezirow, 1997, p. 7), might well tell against her:

It’s possible that my passion for teaching and curriculum development might all come back to bite me soon though, as I’ve just submitted my application for promotion. I suppose the problem is, that I really haven’t got the research profile that might be expected in science if I want to advance beyond Senior Lecturer.…not for advancement in the traditional way anyway…The problem is I haven’t published any of my teaching innovation stuff either…Also I don’t think that researching teaching and learning holds much credibility in science…Lots of people advance up the ranks on the strength of their research, and perhaps do the bare minimum in their teaching! The bare minimum in teaching doesn’t seem to hamper your advancement within universities, but I suspect that the bare minimum in research is a different matter. I don’t think I’ve suffered as a result of my focus on teaching, but the promotion process will be the test and I don’t know how I’ll go. I would love to feel confident that what I’ve achieved to this point is enough but I’ll have to just wait and see. It does make me wonder though whether the university really does value teaching in the way they say they do. (Beth testimonio)

Beth subsequently told me that her application for promotion had not been successful. Being an exceptional academic teacher, based upon the evidence of her students’ learning outcomes and the extent to which she had transformed the curriculum, is not enough. Where will this new disorienting dilemma take her now?

What is at the Heart of Their Transformational Learning and Innovative Practice?

Beth and Charlotte share a number of characteristics; they are both passionate about learning and teaching in science; their commitment to this aspect of academic work beginning very early while doing their PhDs and working as casual teachers. They both recognise the limits of their (innate) abilities and share a willingness to seek help to improve their teaching practice. Both embraced scholarship of teaching and learning as a means of providing some answers to the challenges they experienced and subsequently sought assistance either by participating in a formal certificate program and professional development workshops or by consulting with higher education developers. Charlotte and Beth also share a similar skill set, at the heart of which is critical reflection at all three levels proposed by Kreber and Cranton (2000). They both also use their skills and attributes to deliver innovation through their classroom and curriculum practice as well as implement innovations on a larger scale, driving transformational change within their context and influencing others to come on board.

Over the years they have both committed exceptional amounts of time to teaching and curriculum development while knowing that the research pathway is the most assured route to becoming recognised and rewarded through the academic system. Charlotte and Beth chose a path of long-term commitment to transformative education, flying in the face of established institutional norms and the culture of university science. The decisions they have made put their career progression at risk. Why would they do this? What lies at the heart of their transformational journey?

Having worked with Charlotte and Beth over the course of our research together, my interpretation is that the manner in which they have constructed their academic careers exemplifies an ethic of care (Gilligan, 1982). The central focus of which is the imperative of “…attending to and meeting the needs of the particular others for whom we take responsibility…Prospects for human progress and flourishing hinge fundamentally on the care that those needing it receive…” (Held, 2006, p. 10). Noddings (2002), a major theorist in ethics and moral education, posits that care is basic to life; natural caring, she believes, is a moral attitude, a universal characteristic that guides the actions of all humans. It results from the fact that everyone wants to be cared for, to elicit a response and feel welcomed and included.

Noddings (2002, p. 11) suggests that caring is more than relationship, rather it should form a basis for ethical decision making. She refers to this concept as ethical caring, which is a “state of being in relation, characterized by receptivity, relatedness and engrossment.” Hence, from the position of an ethic of care, the learning environment and the teaching and learning activities that students and teachers engage in encourage students to explore their own understandings and ignorance without fear. Educators working from this position want the best for their students, “based on mutual obligations and relations of trust” (McDowell, 2004, p. 157). They are interested in getting to know students as individuals and respect the journey that they are embarked upon and not just the results that they may achieve. They would consider the curriculum to be more than just the syllabus but rather a dynamic and interactive process (Fraser & Bosanquet, 2006) in which the student (and teacher) is transformed as a result.

I believe that both Charlotte and Beth are motivated by an ethic of care as their work over the years has the essential characteristics that Nodding (1984, p. 25) outlines “constitutive engrossment and displacement of motivation.” They display motivational displacement, as their behaviour is largely determined by the needs of the person for whom they are caring (Noddings, 2004) and they demonstrate engrossment as they “attend to the cared-for without judgement and evaluation”, they allow themselves “to be transformed by the other” (Halwani, 2003, p. 162).

For both Charlotte and Beth, this is evident in the ways in which their students experience them:

Beth is very easy to relate to, she is always approachable and you know she will be smiling. I get the feeling that Beth actually cares about educating me. I had Beth for my first Geology subject in 1st year, and now I have her for my final Geology subject in 3rd year and her enthusiasm has never wavered, neither has her efforts to educate all her students fairly. (BU/G11)

Charlotte obviously takes great interest and pleasure in her areas of science, and in communicating this information to others. Her enthusiasm is helpful (esp. to those intimidated or bored by science) and encouraging. (CU/G5)

Through the perceptions of their colleagues:

I think the students would like her a lot…Beth is broad across the whole class; I would see that as one of her strengths, so that it is not just a few high flyers or the ones that go for a beer at the bar or whatever…her connection is with the whole class. (BKI1)

In the way in which they sideline the other pressing requirements of career academics, as they focus their attention on the structure of the curricula, their students’ learning experiences and the well-being and advancement of their colleagues:

And it’s blindingly obvious to me that this wasn’t somebody who leads and they follow, or somebody who directs and they go. It was somebody who really is genuinely…somehow working with these people…(CKI7)

There are people who can handle the most difficult of characters and they just somehow can look beyond the minor annoyances and fur balls and all the other things, and ignore all that and just got on with the main game and I think that Beth is one of those…(BKI1)

And in the manner in which each of them reflect on their motivations:

But students really are the centre of my world, everything I do in my work has the improvement of their learning at the centre of it—the environment I establish, the way I teach and assess them, everything! I’m happy to let them set at least part of the agenda, I let them contribute to the structure of the lecture…develop the theme…I think without that rapport…that essential trusting relationship with your students, you can’t really be innovative…or you can, but it probably won’t work! You have to have the students with you, they have to want to take the risk, or at least trust that you’re not going to drop them in it…(Charlotte testimonio)

I love helping them understand things, and to develop their skills…maybe assisting them to have one of those “ah hah” moments that I had when I was a student. That’s really important to me. I love working with students as well, and I work hard to keep them engaged with the work and have fun with it. (Beth testimonio)

This commitment to an ethic of care is perhaps the framework that guides their critical reflection; it is a non-negotiable in their lives, part of their identity and mission in life.

Charlotte and Beth’s exploration of the scholarship underpinning education in their discipline coheres with a commitment to ethical practice, as scholars of scholarship of teaching and learning would highlight; it is “…work that is ethical, context responsive, and carries moral and “pedagogical” imperatives…” (Gilpin & Liston, 2009, p. 2). As Shulman writes (cited in Gilpin & Liston, 2009, p. 2) scholarship of teaching and learning is a “concept of moral action aimed at cultural change,” hence through accessing and contributing to scholarship of teaching and learning, Charlotte and Beth participate in transformative education, based upon critical reflection and action or praxis (Kreber, 2006). Their academic work provides a medium for social change—changing the academic and student alike and ideally the culture and context within which both operate. Of the three ways that theorists (Gilpin & Liston, 2009) claim scholarship of teaching and learning is able to transform the academy, that is, recognising teaching as inquiry (research), acknowledging that it is a public rather than private endeavour, and that it has to be a scholarly enterprise, subject to the critical scrutiny of stakeholders; the first proved to be the biggest hurdle for both Charlotte and Beth. They each came late to researching their practice. While they saw their teaching efforts as subject to inquiry, taking time away from teaching and designing curricula in order to open their enterprise up to the critique of their peers through publications was difficult and ultimately worked against them.

Both Charlotte and Beth experienced triggering events early in their lives/careers, which helped them to realise that they loved science, were good at teaching science, and helping their students to transform their thinking so that they can “understand and use science like scientists” (Wieman, 2007, p. 9). They then made choices to transform their teaching and curriculum, choices which were in their best interest as these choices enabled them to live and flourish due to their commitment to the ethic of care. While Charlotte, epitomising “Focussed Educational Innovation,” found career progression difficult as a result of her commitment, Beth encountered an even rockier road as she “Juggled Academic Tensions” through trying to maintain excellence and outcomes in both discipline research and educational innovation. Their choices were personally rewarding and resulted in transforming the education of their students; however, these choices did not contribute to the smooth progression of their academic careers.

Charlotte has since retired from her university, but prior to doing so she progressed to being a key leader of projects for innovative curriculum development across the entire institution. Beth subsequently became an Associate Dean for Learning and Teaching in her faculty, and is a key driver of educational innovation; however, she has not maintained a profile in her discipline research, perhaps confirming Charlotte’s opinion:

I think it’s almost impossible to research successfully in your discipline as well as the education of your discipline…you have to make a choice. I think somewhere along the line you’ve got to make a decision about where your real interest lies and follow through with it. It’s too hard to try and keep up with the scholarship in both areas, and make a significant impact in both! (Charlotte testimonio)

I believe Beth may have finally made her choice and has ultimately achieved a reward—a position which enables her to influence or indeed transform the teaching practice of her colleagues.

Not all academics make the risky choices that Charlotte and Beth made or indeed display an ethic of care or commitment to improving their students’ learning. Self-interest (Baier, 1990; Moore & Lowenstein, 2004) would dictate that academics make choices in order to promote their best interests (careers?) through an evaluation of the facts of reality (Landauer & Rowlands, 2001) against what is extrinsically valued and rewarded by their institutions. Of course, the extent to which innovative and transformative teaching is valued within universities varies, as does the expectation that academics strive for excellence in their teaching through effort and innovation. However, if as is proposed here, an ethic of care underpins transformational teaching, then it behoves institutions to align this driver with an individual’s self-interest and utilise these drivers systematically, through recognition, support and reward, to encourage wider scale educational innovation.