The “returner problem” in academic development (currently reading: Bolander Laksov, 2024)

One problem of academic development is the “returner problem” — enthusiasm that participants might show during the workshops or other professional development opportunities we provide does often not result in changes to teaching practice. So what to do about that?

Bolander Laksov (2024) describes the “returner problem” as a sustainability problem, where resources are spent on workshops and other formats without them actually having the desired effect (or at least the desired effect to the full extent: There is also a lot of evidence that she cites that academic development work has a positive effect on teachers’ approaches to teaching, towards student-centered approaches that encourage deep approaches to learning, which often seem to be successful). This can be due to a culture that is stable and difficult to change, since norms and rules are collectively upheld and enforced by teachers and students (thinking back to the seminar about the importance of the classroom that I attended recently, where they made the point that maybe in the first year, it is important that students sit in a lecture theatre in a classical lecture, just so that they really feel like they have arrived at university, because this is how they think learning at university works), and to narratives of how new approaches have been tried but failed.

What could be done to make the “returning” more successful then? As always, more and better conversations help: People that see themselves as brokers for change, spaces in which people meet and have conversations (coffee machines are very helpful!), using a shared vocabulary (for example the exact meaning of “student-centred” changes after academic development training), and working on continuous incremental change rather than isolated events (think about the collaborative knotworking here). All of this can be supported by “pedagogic leadership” from people in legitimate positions within the organisation, potentially in formal  leadership roles, who building networks, do the relationship work, and purposefully lead change.

In the article, the main aspects of pedagogical leadership are listed:

• Focus on student-centred teaching — and I think in this context it is important to not only focus on telling teachers that they should focus on student-centered teaching and how to do that, but to also model it by doing participant-centred teaching in our own workshops and courses
• Be aware of the pedagogical consequences of enacted power — who is invited into conversations and listened to, and who is excluded?
• Create a vision and goals for pedagogical activities — I personally really like Karolinska Institutet’s “principles for quality education” and now really want to write my own version of this!
• Manage change and improvement work — to me this includes actually thinking through theories of change
• Co-create educational culture in the organisation — thinking back to the knotwork metaphor, that is probably the only way change can happen anyway
• Create bridges and arenas for sharing — more and better conversations might happen in any place, but we can support them by putting nice coffee machines or inviting into conversations
• Make time for reflection and feedback — this is one thing that I find really hard to do in my job, making time to think. Which nicely leads me into the next blog post on academic developer burnout… (but at least I put up the window light over my desk this morning!)

Bolander Laksov, K. (2024) “Sustainable educational development: dealing with the returner problem.” 192-201.