D ISCUSSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

There is a dearth of literature about how universities select and induct people to act as change agents for teaching and learning change initiatives. The data analysis in the sections above, together with my scan of 21 universities in Table A.2, helps to fill this gap (see 2.5.2.4). It revealed various mechanisms were used to select change agents (typically by the Heads), ranging from: appointing those already in positions of responsibility; to the use of detailed selection criteria; to broad

generalisations about requirements; to no details; and to asking change agents to self-select, which was in the minority. The majority of the universities, including DUU, used broad generalisations and none had KPIs associated with the position. This may be because the intention was to portray the temporary role (in most examples in my scan) as not too demanding and therefore not too onerous. However, the role was in addition to current workloads in most instances, not equated to an academic position and, in all except one case, not linked to promotion. Induction was carried out by nearly 60% of

universities in the scan with the DUU school champions commenting that for them, their induction was insufficient or unmemorable.

Only one university in my scan recognised the role of the change agent through promotion processes. This was Glasgow Caledonian University, which had what might be considered to be three KPIs (although not identified as such), whereby two levels of change agents (scholar and associate) were required to: (i) develop a project proposal to be reviewed by international experts and the PVC (ii) use the allocated funds to work on projects in teams with the scholar helping the associate improve their research and writing skills; and (iii) publish the results of the project in a peer reviewed journal. If these KPIs were achieved, their career progression was enhanced. What was missing in the account was how the two levels of change agents were selected. At DUU, only one school champion (Trisha) had the CRA work she had done recognised for promotion to senior lecturer within the faculty of science and engineering. This was because one of the selection criteria required her to demonstrate she had carried out 'whole-of-school change' with the academic staff.

These two examples are supported by findings from a large study by Bexley, James and Arkoudis who found that 88% of their 5,525 academic respondents from 20 Australian universities 'believe that teaching should be rewarded in promotion, but only 31 per cent believe it currently is' (2011, p. xii). This is supported by an earlier and larger study by Diamond and Adam (2004) in which 50,000 American academics from 150 institutions were surveyed about reward structures for

involvement in developing new courses (programs). The study revealed that despite the rhetoric about involvement in course development being recognised for promotion, it was not matched by the reality.

A clear trend through my analysis of the selection and induction of school champions from their perspectives is workload issues, part of which is now being termed 'initiative fatigue' (see 2.1.2). This is when:

faculty ... feel overwhelmed by and sometimes conflicted about the number of improvement efforts to which institutional leaders and external authorities are asking them to devote time and effort ... [by being] asked to incorporate a string of new approaches in rapid succession [which they may not see as personally relevant to their work] [emphasis added] (Kuh & Hutchings, 2015, p. 184).

As Kuh and Hutchings explain, faculty are not necessarily doubting the value of the

initiatives, 'but when good ideas come too fast, or do not seem to be functionally connected with one another or larger institutional goals, the result can be pessimism and underlying anxiety' [about how to meet all these within the timelines] (2015, p. 184). In response to the question about induction, some school champions expressed feelings of anxiety about being underprepared for the role. These feelings can lead to academics being reluctant to take on new tasks associated with other initiatives in the future, which can be interpreted as a coping mechanism rather than resistance (Kuh & Hutchings, 2015, p. 185).

The notion of initiative fatigue partially explains the expedient decision-making of the Heads when selecting the school champions; the inability of the Associate Deans to keep up with all the initiatives they were meant to support; as well as the fact that most of the school champions did not self-select instead they had to take on the role under instruction from the Heads on top of everything else. This workload issue was a key finding from the Bexley, James and Arkoudis study (referred to above) where fewer than one third of respondents thought their workload was manageable, and just under half thought it unmanageable (2011, p. xi).

5.3.2

Practical implications

Three possible solutions for universities to reduce staff initiative fatigue and therefore workload, and formally acknowledge the role of change agents are advocated by Kuh and Hutchings (2015):

 hold a one-year moratorium on new initiatives which would give a break to the small number of faulty who are typically recruited to lead them— this solution could allow more time to induct staff into existing initiatives and prepare them for leadership roles such as school champion

 develop of a set of principles to guide choice and the bundling of related initiatives to reduce their number and create some synergy

 establish a reward system that adequately recognises such activities.

At DUU, various efforts were made to help Heads and Associate Deans and other members of Senate understand what CRA was about, so that they did not feel coerced into agreeing to make it policy, according to my interview with nominee of the DVC (and Chair of the Senate, Joseph). These efforts included conducting retreats, having interstate guest speakers on CRA, plus submissions from Narelle (Co-head of the ADU). Despite these efforts by Senate, many members did not attend and claimed to me they knew nothing about CRA (e.g. Associate Deans). Narelle contacted the Heads individually to try to convince them to actively support the policy. When Heads and Associate Deans can opt out of policy implementation with no repercussions from senior management, it does not bode well for the implementation of future learning and teaching initiatives. As well as direct intervention by senior management, perhaps actively supporting implementation of initiatives should be tied to promotion for Heads and Associate Deans, plus involving them in setting KPIs for future change agents with the help of the ADU so they may take more interest in the projects.

In terms of improving recruitment strategies of the school champions, more time should have been allocated, rather than two months following Senate's approval of the CRA policy. This would have allowed for more consideration by the Heads, using a set of KPIs and knowledge of the potential candidate's academic powers (positional, collegial, expert, referent), and possibly have resulted in a group of school champions who would have been more effective. As well, promotion should have been offered to those school champions who achieved most of the KPIs to the required standard. Tied to this, the academic developer with CRA expertise should have been appointed and commenced months earlier to support the Heads in developing KPIs; to help the Co-Head with induction of school champions over a period of months; and to set up the website with resources.

For the induction of the school champions to be more thorough, they needed to have had allocated time and well thought out resources available (other than the hastily compiled booklet given to them). Plus they needed me (or someone with my skills) to have been appointed earlier before implementation officially commenced. Ideally the school champions should have been taught the principles of effective unit and course design, how to construct learning outcomes that align across year levels and develop assessment criteria from those outcomes. They also needed to learn about authentic assessment design that could lead to their students achieving the learning outcomes. Depending on the unit and the assessment tasks, the school champions needed help to construct functional rubrics (criteria sheets) to help them judge the level of achievement reached by their students. The induction should also have involved me helping them to carry out these procedures on their units so that they had a least one example revised using CRA principles before they started working with their schools. Those academics who completed the Grad Cert (L&T) learned and applied these skills, but the majority of the school champions had not done this certificate. Most school

champions learned the above skills while working with me during implementation with staff from their school—not an ideal situation, although it resulted in much useful collegial exchange and a sense of learning together.

As well as induction into CRA, the school champions should have had advice, for example, from Heads and the Co-Head of the ADU, Narelle, on what their role as distributive leaders would involve. That is, how they might influence staff in their school and effectively manage political interactions, by applying one or more academic powers when most have no positional power (see Chapter 8). This could have been done with role playing plus real examples from the presenters.

5.4 S

In terms of the analogy I used as the title of this chapter, not all the horses (school champions) would be able to cope with all the courses (contexts) they were allocated to or self-selected for. There were a number of reasons that emerged to support this finding. There were wide disparities in the selection of the school champions and their allocation to academic staff and campuses. The majority were selected by the Heads who used 'ask' or 'don't ask' strategies, with the result that school

champions, predominantly, were not asked whether they wanted the role. The $3000 research fund offered to the school champions did have an influence on their decision to take on the role, because most took some or all of the money, although not all of those who did acknowledged this action in their interviews. Most of those who were selected or who self-selected had an interest in teaching and learning. Just over half of the selections (including self-nominations) were done very soon after the CRA policy and implementation plan had been approved by Senate, and the Heads had much more influence on the selection than the Associate Deans. Induction for most school champions was a one- off two-hour session run by the co-head of the ADU, Narelle, because there was insufficient time or funding for a more thorough approach. Those who became active school champions learned 'on the job' with help from me mostly, while those doing the Grad Cert (UL&T) sought help from coordinator Stephanie from the ADU. Together with the demographic data (see 3.1.4), the selection and induction of the school champions reveal a contextual complexity that emerged as critical in: the examination of DL at DUU; the formulation of recommendations; and the suggestions for further research.

6.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: DO LABELS MATTER