R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR A FUTURE DL MODEL

8.7.1

Issues affecting recommendations

In devising these recommendations based on my synthesis of the actors' judgments above, I am cognisant that they are a set of practical ideals that areunlikely to be implemented at DUU in the future. This is because there are so many seemingly unresolvable and complex issues (which I explored in previous chapters) that most likely will render any recommendations impotent. The main issues that had an impact on the CRA project are:

 the constantly changing national and international HE context and the drive to improve 'quality' (see 2.1, 2.2)

 the contested nature of HE concepts: mainly leadership, quality, DL, collegiality (see 2.3)  the drive to increase research and improve national and international rankings, resulting in staff

retrenchments (see 2.1.2.4 and 3.1.1.4)

 that teaching and learning initiatives currently are not as valued as research, hence unlikely to influence promotion (see 2.1.2)

 the increasing workloads for all academics (see 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.3.3 and 5.3)

 the interactions between notions of academic power and leadership contexts in schools and faculties (see 2.1.2, 3.1.1.3, 7.1.1, 7.4.4 and 8.4)

 the impact of changes in senior management personnel (see 7.1.2)

 the challenging role of the ADU in supporting policy implementation (see 7.0 and 7.1).

8.7.2

Recommendations

For the DL model at DUU to have been more effective in achieving full implementation of CRA in all programs and units, the following changes are suggested. In devising these, I have been influenced by the interviewees' perspectives, my own experiences of DL, plus how the following universities in my scan (see 2.5) implemented what appeared to be successful DL models: Glasgow Caledonian University, Oxford Brooks, and Leeds Beckett.

1. Instigate the three suggestions by Kuh and Hutchings (2015) to help DUU cope with initiative fatigue (see 5.3) so that sufficient time can be allocated for implementation of change without competition from multiple initiatives. These are: reduce fatigue of those typically selected to lead change by halting implementation of new initiatives for one year; reduce the number of

initiatives by devising guiding principles to combine related changes and reject the rest; and reward those who become involved in change.

2. Select faculty champions for the particular teaching and learning change and appoint them at academic D or E. They would mentor, support and coordinate the work of the school

champions in their faculty and liaise with the ADU. While they would be in charge of the school champions, these faculty champions would not have line management of them. This would remain with the Heads. The success of faculty champion, Simon, at DUU has strongly influenced this recommendation, even though he was academic B. I consider the faculty champion should be at a higher level than B to acknowledge the importance of the project and so the incumbent would have sufficient positional power to support and influence the Heads. 3. In relation to faculty and school champions:

(i) Selection (including self-selection) should be based on criteria related to the nature of the change, and both groups of champions should have collegial, expert or referent power as determined by their peers; sufficient school champions should be appointed to each school to ensure equitable workloads in terms of number of campuses and staff to support.

(ii) Labelling: see 6.3.2 for suggestions for label creation for change agents in HE as the labels of school champion and faculty champion are not suitable identity badges (I am using them for convenience in these recommendations).

(iii) They should be allocated sufficient time in the role, commensurate with the nature of the project, and undertake it for at least three years and be eligible for promotion if

successful. In the DUU project only one school champion, Trisha, achieved promotion (to academic C) based mostly on her involvement in the CRA project. This was because one selection criterion was experience in implementing change across the school and she was the only applicant from her school who had that experience.

(iv) During their three-year appointment: they should collaboratively conduct research into the teaching and learning change they are supporting; publish their findings; and report these at conferences, with support and mentoring by the ADU. In the DUU project only one school champion (of those interviewed), Trisha, with advice from the ADU, successfully conducted and published research into what she achieved with staff in her school. She presented her refereed paper at a high ranking conference and had her attendance partly paid by the $3,000 incentive payment provided for each school champion.

extended beyond three years with a changeover of faculty and school champions. 4. The university's research centre should provide funds for national and conference attendance

for the faculty and school champions to promote and disseminate their findings. In this way DUU's commitment to teaching and learning would be promoted to a wide audience. This recommendation matches what is done for researchers in areas other than teaching and learning.

5. The ADU should be provided with funds to employ at least three additional educational developers with the required expertise to support and mentor the faculty and school

champions, but primarily the faculty champions. My experience in the CRA project at DUU influenced this recommendation, as I could not provide the same level of support to all schools because I was the only academic developer involved full-time in the project. In my opinion, one academic developer was insufficient for a mid-size university teaching and learning project. Ideally, these three developers should conduct research into the change being

implemented by collaborating with the two groups of champions. This type of research would inform suggested improvements for implementing later teaching and learning initiatives. These developers should also be eligible for promotion based on successful support of the faculty and school champions and their published research.

6. At the end of the first three year implementation period, each faculty champion, with input from their school champions and the Heads would conduct an evaluation. For both the faculty champions and the Heads, carrying out the evaluation thoroughly would be part of their performance management processes. The nature of the evaluation would be decided in advance by faculty learning and teaching committees with advice from the university learning and teaching committee. The completed evaluation should then be reported back to these committees for comment and advice and then finally presented to Senate. This evaluative step was absent in the CRA project (see 7.5.1).

8.8 S

The implementation plan had a purpose statement, a set of timelines, deliverables and costs, including the necessity to employ an academic developer with CRA expertise. However, this

interpretation of the DL model is not what the interviewees mostly referred to, as the majority had not seen the diagram in the implementation plan (see 3.1.2.1). They viewed the DL model as what they experienced or observed during the CRA project; that is, a group of inconsistently selected, or self- selected school champions with nobody in charge, trying to support implementation of CRA with no knowledge of what it was (except for two) and minimal or no induction. The model respected school

champions' autonomy and allowed each school to implement CRA in its own way (see Table 8.1). However this led to different and often erroneous interpretations of CRA and inconsistent and/or superficial implementation. Those appointed were not all teaching and learning leaders in their school; they had no authority (that is, no positional power); and had to rely on collegial or referent power.

Most interviewees' comments referred to the DL model as a high risk strategy (see Table 8.1); however, there was no definitive yes or no answer as to whether they would use a DL model again, as many argued both sides. All suggested a number of changes to the original DL model but that did not mean they were endorsing their proposed changes (see 8.5.1 and 8.5.2). For example, 13 responses said it (a DL model being used to implement a whole of DUU teaching and learning initiative) would not happen now. They were referring to upheavals at DUU relating to retrenchments, faculty

restructures, and new academic standards. This chapter has revealed that after the project, most of the school champions considered they had exhibited a range of leadership behaviours (see 8.3.1) with nine citing the experience in the project led to them taking on more leadership roles (see 8.3.2). This indicates that DL has the potential to be a leadership development catalyst.

To explore the school champion role further, I developed a conceptual framework that

innovatively integrated leadership contexts with four academic powers and applied it to four vignettes. I illustrated that the framework has explanatory and predictive potential that can account for some of the messiness of change in HE. I concluded the chapter by incorporating interviewees' suggestions for a future DL model with some of my own, to devise six detailed recommendations accompanied by an equally long list of difficult to resolve and complex issues in HE that would, in my opinion, most likely curtail implementation of most of these recommendations.

The quote at the start of this chapter by Bolden, Petrov and Gosling related the unattainability of DL in practice to the 'bureaucratic nature of HE organisations with their imbalances of power, authority and resources, combined with recognition and career paths' (2009, p. 260). The research in this chapter lends support to this statement; however, it also supports efforts to improve the DL model at DUU as evidenced by the practical suggestions interviewees made. Academics can see merit in a model that values and respects their autonomy and school contexts, plus they acknowledge there needs to be someone in charge with authority and responsibility to ensure effective, consistent

implementation of change. In terms of the rest of the quote, my long list of issues facing HE (see 8.7.1) support the comment that DL is 'just an idealistic fantasy' in the current HE context.

9.CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND