01 SES 04 A, Different Forms of Professional Learning
In a world undergoing rapid changes, there is a perceived need for a new vision and paradigm of university education. Universities should educate students to become well informed and deeply motivated citizens, who can think critically, analyse problems of society, look for solutions to the problems of society, apply them and accept social responsibilities (Kibwika, 2006; Mamdani, 2007). In other words, universities should prepare and train students to become capable and qualified professionals, who can analyse, conceptualise, synthesize, and cope with complex and authentic problems (Noroozi et al., 2012). For, this reason, universities in Uganda and indeed elsewhere, need to transform to be more innovative and relevant in addressing persistent problems such as: poverty, disease, climate change and food insecurity among other things as well as improving the quality of people’s life. This is not contested in this paper, the contention is rather on what can be done to have adequate competent staff that can make the needed transformation possible. Unfortunately, universities in Uganda as indicated by Kibwika (2006) continue to turn out graduates every year who lack: entrepreneurial, information literacy, collaboration, communication, innovation, problem solving, and responsible citizenship skills considered critical in fostering socio-economic development. Yet, the ever changing and competitive knowledge based-economy calls for education that prepares graduates that are highly innovative and productive at the place of work and society as a whole. Some of the notable problems that hinder universities in Uganda from operating as expected pointed out by O’Sullivan (2010) include university teaching staff incompetence. To this end, this paper is guided by the following major research question: What innovation competence profile, professional development activities and institutional policies and practices underpin the development of innovation competence of teaching staff in universities? The general objective of undertaking this study is to: establish innovation competence profile, professional development activities and institutional policies and practices that can be used to develop and/or enhance innovation competence development of teaching staff in universities so as to increase the relevance of universities to national development through fostering innovations at their work places and society as whole.
The need for a competent teaching force in any country’s education system cannot be over emphasised (O’Sullivan, 2010), as teacher quality is widely acknowledged as being crucial for transformation of education (Pilot & Kaseen, 2008). Thus, teachers are required to acquire adequate knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values required in the teaching profession (Bakkens et al, 2010). Arguments abound that teacher competence plays a decisive role in students’ learning attainment and overall improvement of an education system (Bakah, 2011). This study is rooted in the social efficiency notion of teacher education reform as advanced by Zeichner & Linston (1990), and builds on the work of Tigelaar et al (2004) on teaching competencies in higher education. The social efficiency perspective of teacher education reform is useful in examining the nature of teacher work so as to provide a basis for studying teaching (Zeichner & Liston, 1990). In this approach to teacher education, training and development, competencies are spelt out in advance together with the criteria to measure mastery of these competencies. Once the competencies have been demonstrated, the teacher is then viewed as ‘effective’ (Zeichner & Liston, 1990). Some of the key assumptions in the social efficiency perspective in teacher education reform discourse as presented by Cochran-Smith (2002) include: teachers must have the ability to demonstrate required competencies; teachers should be prepared for the realities of the teaching world; and teachers must have a desire for continuous learning in this ever changing world in all aspects of life.
Bakah, M.A.B. (2011). Teacher professional development through collaborative curriculum design in Ghana’s Polytechnics. PhD Thesis University of Twente. Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D. & Wubbels, T. ( 2010). Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction 20,pp. 533-548. Cochran-Smith, M. (2002). The outcomes question in teacher education. Paper presented at the challenging futures: Changing agendas in teacher education, Armidale. Kibwika, P. (2006). Learning to make change: Developing innovation competence for recreating the African university of the 21st century . Wageningen Academic Publishers. Mamdani, M. (2007). Scholars in the market place-The dilemmas of new-liberal reform at Makerere University, 1989-2005. Kampala: Fountain publishers. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., Mulder,M., & Teasley, S. (2012). Effects of the discussion script on argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning. A paper presented at ECER 2012 Conference. Pilot, A. & Kaseen, F. (2008). The teacher as a crucial factor in curriculum innovation: The case of Utrecht University. A Paper presented at the VSNU 2008 Conference, Maastricht, December 12, 2008. Tigelaar, D. E. H., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2004). The development and validation of a framework for teaching competencies in higher education. Higher education 48: 253 – 268, 2004. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1990). Theme: Restructuring teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 3-20.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.