**3. The initiative**

in the effective use of technology for learning [5]; and having a sound understanding of technology as well as encouraging eLearning [8]. There is still recognition that a good teacher in an online environment is no different in principle to a good teacher in the face-to-face setting. That is, they require "awareness of student needs, levels of understanding and knowledge, ability to plan effective learning experiences, ability to communicate accessibly and stay in touch not just with current discipline knowledge but also with contemporary influences on students' learning" ([5], p267). eTeaching and eTeachers have been acknowledged as more aligned and therefore skilled in regard to technology related principles and capabilities [1]. It is in reference to these principles and capabilities that interventions are needed, to develop academics' eTeaching, so that contemporary pedagogically appropriate approaches are used

Effective eTeachers need expertise in pedagogical, social, managerial and technical capabilities [2, 7, 8]. Further, the literature suggests that successful eTeaching requires attendance at a range of diverse professional development and training opportunities [6, 7], more research into blended learning and associated academic practice [1, 6], and supportive systems and institutional infrastructure [1, 3, 9]. This inventory of requirements informed the conceptualisation of the Framework that was developed as part of the initiative that is the focus of this chapter. In this chapter the reference to capabilities encompasses both the individual's ability to do 'something' as well as the extent to which they can do 'something'. eTeaching capabilities provide a means of defining the sequentially developmental implementation and utilisation of tasks and resources to promote student engagement, learning outcomes and experience. These capabilities enable both student and teacher performance to be purposely organised in a progressive sequence that builds on prior learning and ensures foundational

Across the higher education sector, learning and teaching standards are being increasingly used as a means of establishing the knowledge and skills that are important for effective learning and sound teaching as well as guiding and progressing change. These standards and their associated criterion assist universities to prioritise and better use resources as well as

As a mean of assisting academics and institutions to transition and navigate through the terrain of eLearning and eTeaching, change targeted resources and initiatives have been developed [2, 3, 7]. These resources and initiatives have focused on the dimensions of technology, pedagogy and context, and the aligning of these dimensions when designing eLearning environments [2–4, 7]. The emergent technologies incorporated in eLearning resources and initiatives include mobile devices as well as social media and networks. Connectivism, Communities of Practice (COP) and other co-authoring learning styles are relevant pedagogies to consider for the eLearning environment. Connectivism is a new learning theory that describes how technologies afford opportunities for individuals to learn through the virtual sharing and communication of information. A key feature of connectivism is peer and selfdirected learning that transpires through technologies such as Web browsers, email, online discussion forums, wikis, YouTube, or any other means by which information can be shared. Communities of Practice (COP) is a reference to the process of shared learning in relation to a

skills are acquired before progressing to complex levels of competence.

enabling the astute identification of potential enhancements [10].

in the online environment [1, 3, 7].

6 Global Voices in Higher Education

Discussions with key personnel at the University of Wollongong highlighted the absence of a specific framework to further develop eLearning and eTeaching at this institution. It was rationalised that the establishment of such a framework could provide a consistent understanding of the dimensions of eLearning and eTeaching and that it could also guide and inform the aspirational goals for teacher development in eLearning and ensure that eLearning and eTeaching was sustainable, innovative, adequately supported, and effectively reviewed.

The project team sought and acquired institutional funding to support the development of the Framework, including strategic collaboration with an international higher education partner, which had extensive experience with delivering online courses. The project team engaged in a comprehensive global search of the higher education sector to identify world leaders with a reputation for excellence in online learning and teaching. There were other criteria used to narrow this search including geographical location being a prioritised partnering location for the University, the strategic priorities of the partner institution aligning to the University's priorities, and the potential to establish a partnership with a university that was not already a partner institution of the University.

A subsequent partnership with the Indira Ghandi National Open University (IGNOU) was forged. IGNOU is situated in India and delivers approximately 228 certificate, diploma, degree and doctoral programmes to over "3 million students in India and other countries through 21 Schools of Studies and a network of 67 regional centres, around 2,667 learner support centres and 29 overseas partner institutions" ([11], preamble paragraph 3). The University has nearly 810 faculty members, 574 academic staff and approximately 33,212 academic counsellors [11]. IGNOU has been recognised internationally for its use of innovative technologies and methodologies and the provision of seamless student-centred quality education across numerous learning platforms and management systems. IGNOU has an abundance of online programs and web-based methods to enhance the teaching and learning processes of their programs [11]. Given this reputation and acumen, collaborating with them was viewed as being strategic, viable and beneficial.

The Framework initiative was implemented across a number of developmental stages (see **Figure 1**), which iteratively developed and progressed versions of the consequent Framework. Underpinning the Framework was an extensive review of literature related to principles and

**Figure 1.** The methodological stages that were implemented across the course of the initiative.

practices of effective online teaching and with a specific focus on the benchmarking of learning and teaching. As a consequence of this literature review, the project team established that in the online environment students need to have a variety of interactions that are separated into self-contained segments and that provide assessment and constructive feedback on mastery of each interaction.

#### **3.1. Workshops to scaffold the Framework**

The seed funding, secured from the University of Wollongong International Committee, supported the initial development of the Framework. This funding enabled the project team to travel to India to work with IGNOU partners. The initial face-to-face meeting in India, was considered essential to establish a strong relationship and harness the concerted efforts of the team members from the partner organisation. The first iteration of the Framework was conceptualised across a number of structured workshops, specifically designed to facilitate comprehensive discussions on important aspects of effective online learning. These workshops were followed by collaborative project team sessions that further developed and conceptualised the Framework. Prior to the workshops, a detailed work plan and associated schedule was negotiated, which comprised 1 day of collaborative engagement involving both the institutional teams, followed by a day where just the project team worked on contextualising the joint output for the UOW environment. This work plan and schedule were arranged for 4 days with Day 5 focussing on mapping a strategic plan for finalising the Framework and identifying potential future collaborative projects, between the two institutions/teams, which could be fostered out of this principle initiative. The primary focus of the workshops was to rationalise the elements, knowledge, skills, and enablers for eLearning that would inform the development of the Framework. The following questions guided discussions and planning that transpired across the workshop days:


**Figure 2** and **Table 2** are the first version of the Framework that resulted from the stage 1 workshops. This initial Framework illustrates early thinking about the elements of eLearning that were being considered, the responsibilities associated with delivering these elements and the first attempt to differentiate between eLearning and eTeaching capabilities. This version of the Framework comprises a set of responsibilities, grouped under three themes of (1) Teacher Capability and Scholarship, (2) Curriculum Design, Delivery and Evaluation and (3) Student Progress and Achievement, and then assignment of responsibilities according to whom it was perceived should have the associated accountability – teacher or institution.

The process undertaken to differentiate between eLearning and eTeaching capabilities involved a number of iterative discussions between the project team as well as consultation with the project partner IGNOU. The conceptualisation by the project team of the capabilities and practices pertinent to eTeaching are illustrated in **Figure 2**. This figure was designed to incorporate key components of eTeaching, which were rationalised as: Paradigm 1 Teacher Capability and Scholarship; Paradigm 2: Curriculum design, delivery and evaluation; and Paradigm 3: Student

**Figure 2.** The first iteration of the Framework.

practices of effective online teaching and with a specific focus on the benchmarking of learning and teaching. As a consequence of this literature review, the project team established that in the online environment students need to have a variety of interactions that are separated into self-contained segments and that provide assessment and constructive feedback on mas-

**Figure 1.** The methodological stages that were implemented across the course of the initiative.

The seed funding, secured from the University of Wollongong International Committee, supported the initial development of the Framework. This funding enabled the project team to travel to India to work with IGNOU partners. The initial face-to-face meeting in India, was considered essential to establish a strong relationship and harness the concerted efforts of the team members from the partner organisation. The first iteration of the Framework was conceptualised across a number of structured workshops, specifically designed to facilitate comprehensive discussions on important aspects of effective online learning. These workshops were followed by collaborative project team sessions that further developed and conceptualised the Framework. Prior to the workshops, a detailed work plan and associated schedule was negotiated, which comprised 1 day of collaborative engagement involving both the institutional teams, followed by a day where just the project team worked on contextualising the joint output for the UOW environment. This work plan and schedule were arranged for 4 days with Day 5 focussing on mapping a strategic plan for finalising the Framework and identifying potential future collaborative projects, between the two institutions/teams, which could be fostered out of this principle initiative. The primary focus of the workshops was to rationalise the elements, knowledge, skills, and enablers for eLearning that would inform the development of the Framework. The following questions guided discussions and planning

• Are the capabilities and criteria appropriate and organised logically and aptly?

• Is there indicative evidence that could inform the assessment of the criteria/capabilities?

tery of each interaction.

8 Global Voices in Higher Education

**3.1. Workshops to scaffold the Framework**

that transpired across the workshop days:

• Are there any capabilities/criteria missing?

Progress and achievement. Each of the three paradigms of the Framework incorporated both teacher and institution responsibilities because the project team and IGNOU partners established that for eTeaching development, both teachers and institutions shared the key responsibilities.

The responsibilities that were identified as being critical to the three paradigms associated with the first iteration of the Framework are detailed in **Table 2**. These responsibilities focused on communication, role-modelling, student support and engagement, effective facilitation of learning that is informed by evidence; and pedagogy for teachers. For institutions the Framework identified responsibilities aligned to quality assurance and evaluation as well as the promotion and facilitation of best practice. The development of the specific responsibilities that were rationalised for teachers and institutions emerged as a result of the brainstorming activities undertaken by the project team. These brainstorming activities started by identifying the broad areas that were perceived to contribute to successful eTeaching and then conceptualising the specific responsibilities that would most significantly contribute to these success factors in relation to the individual teaching and the institution (acknowledged to collectively be the Faculty, School, Department or Institution). After conceptualising the responsibilities there was some synthesis and further rationalising of responsibilities, which eventually arrived at the first iteration of the Framework detailed in **Table 2**.



Progress and achievement. Each of the three paradigms of the Framework incorporated both teacher and institution responsibilities because the project team and IGNOU partners established that for eTeaching development, both teachers and institutions shared the key responsibilities. The responsibilities that were identified as being critical to the three paradigms associated with the first iteration of the Framework are detailed in **Table 2**. These responsibilities focused on communication, role-modelling, student support and engagement, effective facilitation of learning that is informed by evidence; and pedagogy for teachers. For institutions the Framework identified responsibilities aligned to quality assurance and evaluation as well as the promotion and facilitation of best practice. The development of the specific responsibilities that were rationalised for teachers and institutions emerged as a result of the brainstorming activities undertaken by the project team. These brainstorming activities started by identifying the broad areas that were perceived to contribute to successful eTeaching and then conceptualising the specific responsibilities that would most significantly contribute to these success factors in relation to the individual teaching and the institution (acknowledged to collectively be the Faculty, School, Department or Institution). After conceptualising the responsibilities there was some synthesis and further rationalising of responsibilities, which

eventually arrived at the first iteration of the Framework detailed in **Table 2**.

**evaluation**

• Netiquette<sup>2</sup>

stated

explicitly stated • A range of appropriate eTeaching methodologies are used & used effectively • Programme evaluation data is regularly reviewed which then informs eLearning/eTeaching • Students & teachers have adequate information & resources to meaningfully engage in the eLearning/eTeaching • Assessment marking criteria are clearly stipulated, applied and

moderated

**Curriculum design, delivery &** 

promoted & maintained • Realistic indications of time & effort commitments are explicitly

• eLearning & eTeaching expectations & responsibilities are

• Exemplars of desired assessment performance are provided

is explicitly stated,

**Student progress & achievement**

achievement

• Learning analytics informs the facilitation of student progress & achievement • High-quality feedback is provided to students • Timely feedback is provided to students • The efficiency, efficacy & relevance of strategies employed to assess student progress & achievement is regularly reviewed & renewed • eTeaching reflection informs the renewal of strategies employed to assess student progress &

**Teacher capability & scholarship**

• Utilise

suitable tools & technologies

• eTeachers have appropriate subject & pedagogical expertise/credibility

• Communicate clearly & convincingly • Promote, exercise & facilitate eResilience1 • Recognise & appropriately respond to students' learning needs • Use feedback to inform & improve eTeaching & the curriculum

Teacher responsibilities

10 Global Voices in Higher Education

1 eResilience in this framework refers to the ability of those using technology to bounce back after a negative encounter. It includes the ability of the user to learn from, change and adapt to the situation and technology use, ultimately developing the flexibility needed to deal with the uncertainties and harness the opportunities of technology. 2 Netiquette refers to commonly accepted conventions of behaviour in a networked online environment.

**Table 2.** Version 1 of the Framework and the associated eTeaching responsibilities.

#### **3.2. Refinement and revision of the Framework**

Following the conceptualisation, refinement and creation of the first version of the Framework, the project team initiated an expert review and consultation. This involved the identification of senior higher education leaders from Australia who were reputed globally for their significant experience and expertise in eLearning and/or eTeaching. These experts were identified on the basis that peers considered them to have extensive knowledge, prolific publications and advanced capabilities in online learning and teaching. The project team sent the framework to these identified senior higher education leaders for feedback as critical friends. This group of critical friends were invited to provide comment on the importance or usefulness of this first iteration of the Framework. They were also asked to identify any additional responsibilities that would be relevant and necessary inclusions in the Framework. Finally, they were asked to indicate any similar resources that may be useful in informing the ongoing development of the Framework. On receipt of their feedback, the project team met to discuss the recommendations and then further refine the Framework. This resulted in the creation of version two of the framework (See **Table 3**). This version of the Framework comprised a set of principles/capabilities instead of responsibilities, which could be used to identify the professional development needs that could advance academics and institutions in regard to their eTeaching performance. The primary focus of the first iteration of the Framework was maintained in this second iteration of the Framework but greater detail in relation to some of the responsibilities, now principles/capabilities, was incorporated. Those critiquing the Framework did not always glean the intent of some of the responsibilities. This highlighted the need to not only provide further explanation to clarify what was intended in some of the responsibilities but also in some cases add additional principles/capabilities or tease a principle/capability out to two or more subsequent principles/capabilities. The organisation of the Framework was also significantly revised to present the Framework more holistically for different levels of engagement and operationalization. The principles/capabilities were worded and framed to encourage stakeholders to engage personally with the aspiration of how eTeaching and eLearning could be enhanced. The anticipated stakeholders who would use this Framework were notionally identified as teachers including sessional staff, subject coordinators or those with leadership responsibility for teaching and the institution. It was acknowledged that the institution was more concerned with enabling others than having specific principles/capabilities to facilitate eTeaching.

#### **3.3. End user consultation and revision of the Framework**

The next stage of the Framework development encompassed consultation with end users via an online survey and facilitated focus groups. These end users and key stakeholders were identified as potentially being the most impacted and influenced by the implementation of the Framework, particularly in relation to operations, management, career planning, promotion and probation.

The online anonymised survey and focus groups were advertised through professional organisations and institutional channels. In addition to basic profile questions about gender and place of work, both the survey and focus groups explored the following questions:

#### **Teacher including sessional staff at subject level**

#### **Capable eTeachers**:

**3.2. Refinement and revision of the Framework**

12 Global Voices in Higher Education

Following the conceptualisation, refinement and creation of the first version of the Framework, the project team initiated an expert review and consultation. This involved the identification of senior higher education leaders from Australia who were reputed globally for their significant experience and expertise in eLearning and/or eTeaching. These experts were identified on the basis that peers considered them to have extensive knowledge, prolific publications and advanced capabilities in online learning and teaching. The project team sent the framework to these identified senior higher education leaders for feedback as critical friends. This group of critical friends were invited to provide comment on the importance or usefulness of this first iteration of the Framework. They were also asked to identify any additional responsibilities that would be relevant and necessary inclusions in the Framework. Finally, they were asked to indicate any similar resources that may be useful in informing the ongoing development of the Framework. On receipt of their feedback, the project team met to discuss the recommendations and then further refine the Framework. This resulted in the creation of version two of the framework (See **Table 3**). This version of the Framework comprised a set of principles/capabilities instead of responsibilities, which could be used to identify the professional development needs that could advance academics and institutions in regard to their eTeaching performance. The primary focus of the first iteration of the Framework was maintained in this second iteration of the Framework but greater detail in relation to some of the responsibilities, now principles/capabilities, was incorporated. Those critiquing the Framework did not always glean the intent of some of the responsibilities. This highlighted the need to not only provide further explanation to clarify what was intended in some of the responsibilities but also in some cases add additional principles/capabilities or tease a principle/capability out to two or more subsequent principles/capabilities. The organisation of the Framework was also significantly revised to present the Framework more holistically for different levels of engagement and operationalization. The principles/capabilities were worded and framed to encourage stakeholders to engage personally with the aspiration of how eTeaching and eLearning could be enhanced. The anticipated stakeholders who would use this Framework were notionally identified as teachers including sessional staff, subject coordinators or those with leadership responsibility for teaching and the institution. It was acknowledged that the institution was more concerned

with enabling others than having specific principles/capabilities to facilitate eTeaching.

The next stage of the Framework development encompassed consultation with end users via an online survey and facilitated focus groups. These end users and key stakeholders were identified as potentially being the most impacted and influenced by the implementation of the Framework, particularly in relation to operations, management, career planning, promotion and probation. The online anonymised survey and focus groups were advertised through professional organisations and institutional channels. In addition to basic profile questions about gender and place of work, both the survey and focus groups explored the following questions:

**3.3. End user consultation and revision of the Framework**

	- Avoiding use of technical language and jargon
	- Providing clear concise subject information
	- Providing compelling explanation of the importance and relevance of the subject to the students
	- Being open to the use of new and emerging technologies
	- Actively seeking opportunities for enhancing pedagogy through the use of new and emerging technologies
	- Willingly trying new and emerging technologies with persistence and commitment to acquiring expertise in those technologies that may advance pedagogy
	- Effectively managing technology setbacks, anxieties or failures

#### **Subject coordinator at subject level**

#### **Capable eTeaching subject coordinators**:

	- Netiquette
	- Realistic indications of time and effort commitments
	- Assessment marking criteria
	- eLearning expectations
	- eTeaching responsibilities

#### **Institutional enablers**

#### **eTeaching administrators ensure that**:


**Table 3.** The second iteration of the Framework.


A total of five facilitated Focus Groups were held in 2014 and there were 10 respondents to the online survey. Participant's responses diverted largely into 'examples of practice' and suggestions for 'how tos', which spoke more to personal journeys towards eTeaching than offering comment on the Framework. Transcripts of the focus groups were created and the survey responses were added to these data sets, all of which were analysed by an external researcher. The project team met to discuss the findings from the analysis of both the focus group transcripts and the online survey. This discussion incorporated a consideration of the perceived relevance and usefulness of the framework as well as how aspects of the framework could be enhanced.

Based on the feedback and findings, the project team decided to audit other frameworks that were highly regarded by the sector and used for assessing and progressing quality learning and teaching. These subsequent identified resources were evaluated using four criteria: presentation; content; usability and potential alignment to the Framework. A synopsis of the relevance of these identified resources and how they informed the refinement of the Framework is detailed in **Table 4**.

Version three of the Framework saw the project team also refine the visual presentation of information. This third iteration of the Framework was sent electronically to the IGNOU team for them to review, provide feedback, and annotate. Their feedback was incorporated into the


**Table** 4. Existing quality learning and teaching resources and a summary of how they informed the 3rd iteration of the Framework.

third version of the Framework (See **Table 5**). This version of the Framework established a set of seven criteria that it was perceived provided a scaffold under which all of the rationalised eTeaching principles/capabilities could sit. The seven criteria were:


• To what extent could the eTeaching principles and capabilities be useful in developing

• University resources ensure access to high quality and timely support for the development of eLearning

• The University regularly provides eTeachers with access to learning analytics to assist them to identify stu-

• Content, facilitation and efficacy of eTeaching is regularly and rigorously evaluated and the outcomes are

• The University provides an online system to facilitate students to collect and collate evidence of their progress

dents 'at risk' of not progressing or achieving/facilitate student progress and achievement

• Can you identify additional eTeaching principles and capabilities that would be useful in

• What are some similar resources that may be useful in informing the development of the

A total of five facilitated Focus Groups were held in 2014 and there were 10 respondents to the online survey. Participant's responses diverted largely into 'examples of practice' and suggestions for 'how tos', which spoke more to personal journeys towards eTeaching than offering comment on the Framework. Transcripts of the focus groups were created and the survey responses were added to these data sets, all of which were analysed by an external researcher. The project team met to discuss the findings from the analysis of both the focus group transcripts and the online survey. This discussion incorporated a consideration of the perceived relevance and usefulness of the framework as well as how aspects of the framework

Based on the feedback and findings, the project team decided to audit other frameworks that were highly regarded by the sector and used for assessing and progressing quality learning and teaching. These subsequent identified resources were evaluated using four criteria: presentation; content; usability and potential alignment to the Framework. A synopsis of the relevance of these identified resources and how they informed the refinement of the Framework

Version three of the Framework saw the project team also refine the visual presentation of information. This third iteration of the Framework was sent electronically to the IGNOU team for them to review, provide feedback, and annotate. Their feedback was incorporated into the

• What are the most important or useful eTeaching principles and capabilities? Why? • What are the least important or useful eTeaching principles and capabilities? Why?

building teaching capacity to enhance the online learning of students?

your learning and teaching?

**Table 3.** The second iteration of the Framework.

**eTeaching administrators ensure that**:

disseminated publicly

• The University provides robust and reliable technical systems

• Scholarship of eLearning and eTeaching is widely disseminated

and achievement throughout their programme

materials

14 Global Voices in Higher Education

eTeaching principles and capabilities?

could be enhanced.

is detailed in **Table 4**.


Other than for criteria 7, which had a suite of institutional enablers detailed, the other criteria had illustrations of eTeaching capabilities and eTeaching leadership capabilities. These two



**Criteria** 1. Learning

**eTeaching capabilities**

activities,

•

Effective and appropriate use of eLearning technologies

eLearning activities support the content and pedagogical intent of the subject learning outcomes

learning

resources and

•

materials, for

•

Curriculum materials are provided using a variety of media

a unit, course

or degree

**eTeaching leadership capabilities**

program are

•

Integration of eLearning technologies adopts the TPCK –technology, pedagogy, content knowledge approach [12]

The eTeaching team are appropriately prepared and competent in the use and management of the integrated eLearning

The basics of Cognitive Load Theory [13] are applied to the instructional design of learning across the subject

Actively seeks opportunities to enhance eLearning pedagogy through the use of new and emerging technologies

Regularly reflects on evaluation data to inform eLearning/eTeaching strategies

appropriately

planned,

•

designed,

technologies

developed and

• • •

2. eTeaching

**eTeaching capabilities**

and support

•

A range of eTeaching is undertaken

A range of eTeaching tools and technologies, relevant to the learning outcomes and pedagogy, are used

eLearning expectations are explicitly communicated to students, including realistic indications of time and effort

for students'

eLearning is of

•

a high quality

• commitments

• • • **eTeaching leadership capabilities**

• • learning

•

eLearning activities are facilitated using technology to enable and enhance learning

Reflect on own performance and subject delivery in light of feedback and learning analytics to inform and improve eTeaching

Recognise and appropriately respond to students' support needs for online learning

Create and provide students with comprehensive guides on how to use integrated technologies

Feedback from

eTeaching teams

Awards,

recognition and

citations

Adoption of

innovation by

others

Work collaboratively with members of the eTeaching team to ensure consistency in the facilitation and quality of student

Students have access to online resources that promote understanding of key concepts and skills

prepared

**eTeaching capabilities**

**Indicative** 

**evidence**

Student

feedback

16 Global Voices in Higher Education

Feedback from

eTeaching teams

Expert peer

review on

course/program

materials and

design

External peer

recognition

Awards and

citations

Student

feedback

Awards and

citations

Model good online engagement including being an active participant in online discussions.

> •


encouraged


**Criteria**

**eTeaching capabilities**

**eTeaching leadership capabilities**

• •

5. Scholarship,

**eTeaching capabilities**

research and

professional

•

activities are

and commitment to acquiring expertise

integrated

•

Ensure an evidence-base informs eTeaching practice

Share eLearning/eTeaching strategies and exemplars with peers and colleagues

into teaching

practice,

•

curriculum

design, student

**eTeaching leadership capabilities**

engagement

•

Actively seeks opportunities to enhance pedagogy through the use of new and emerging technologies

Technology expectations that are evidence-based and contemporary are established

Ensure eTeachers have adequate information and resources to meaningfully facilitate eTeaching

Contribution, co-authorship or authorship of publications, presentations or workshops on eTeaching and learning

and in support

of sound

•

eLearning

• •

6. Professional

**eTeaching capabilities**

practice is

evaluated and

•

Maintain appropriate subject and pedagogical expertise/credibility

Engage in professional development related to eTeaching and eLearning

Reflect on feedback and learning analytics to evaluate and develop own practice/performance

continuing

•

professional

development

•

encouraged

portive and engaging eLearning environment

Ensure members of the eTeaching team have adequate information and resources to develop and maintain an effective, sup-

Leadership in promoting inclusive eTeaching practices and technologies that encourage cultural diversity, equality, indigenous

culture and traditions, support for students with special needs, and support for students in transition (e.g. 1st year, postgrad)

Open and willing to integrate new and emerging technologies, as appropriate to course design and pedagogy, with persistence

**Indicative** 

**evidence**

Feedback from

eTeaching teams

Extent and

18 Global Voices in Higher Education

participation

in student

engagement

innovations

Student

feedback

Peer review of

teaching

Feedback from

eTeaching teams

Expert peer

review on

course/program

materials,

design and

implementation

Awards & grants

Proceedings &

publications

Completion

of formal

qualifications

(e.g. ULT,

Graduate

Certificate)

**Table 5.** The third iteration of the Framework. categories of capabilities were the iterative development of the previous categories of: *teachers including sessional staff* and *subject coordinators or those with leadership responsibility for teaching*. The capabilities were expressed so that stakeholders using the Framework could facilitate a self-assessment and decide which assessment outcome was most applicable:


The inference in the design of this iteration of the Framework is that the capabilities listed are illustrations of desired performance as well as best practice that should be either maintained or espoused. Examples of indicative evidence that could be used to inform the self-assessment is provided, which is also intended to encourage robust and substantiated assessment based on fact rather than personal assumptions based on "gut" feelings. The capabilities are not intended as a definitive list but rather a starting point from which discussions about career progression and development needs can transpire, between the stakeholder and their supervisor/governing body.

#### **3.4. International peer review and validation**

The final stage in the development of the Framework was the presentation of version three at an international learning and teaching symposium - The 12th Annual Conference of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL), held in Melbourne, Australia in October 2015. This stage was designed to ascertain and validate the relevance of the Framework to the higher education sector. An opportunity for interested academics to self-nominate for a peer review roundtable symposium, to interrogate the Framework, was provided. Roundtable participants were asked to:


As a result of the roundtable, feedback was gleaned that could inform the development of a strategic plan to accompany and inform implementation of the Framework, across the higher education sector.
