R ECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations will be of interest to academics, university leaders, policy makers, academic developers and leaders of ADUs involved in planning, supporting and/or implementing

institutional change involving teaching and learning initiatives in a mid-sized university. They may also be of interest to those working in similarly complex, non-HE organisational contexts.

9.4.1

Manage the pace of institutional change to avoid initiative fatigue

To avoid competition from multiple change initiatives, Kuh and Hutchings (2015) make three suggestions which I listed in section 5.3 and summarised in section 8.7.2. These are that universities (i) halt for one year all new initiatives to reduce change agents' fatigue; (ii) vet initiatives based on a set of guiding principles relevant to the institution's goals that allow them to accept, combine or reject the initiatives; and (iii) reward the change agents. In terms of my study at DUU, had the first two suggestions been implemented before the CRA project commenced, the school champions, and especially the Associate Deans and Heads, would have had more manageable workloads. This consequence could have resulted in more effective monitoring of the school champions and CRA implementation in the schools, plus timelier reporting on progress. The last suggestion about

rewarding the change agents was a key part of the original implementation plan and was commented on favourably by the school champions.

9.4.2

Revise the DL model to improve consistency of implementation

First I present a summary of highly specific recommendations for a revised DL model at DUU that were outlined in detail in section 8.7.2. Although they are based on my research into the CRA project plus the scan of mostly DL projects (see 2.5), I acknowledge that these are somewhat idealised in the current research and rankings HE context. I follow these recommendations with suggestions for some principles for developing a DL model that would be more successful than the one at DUU.

9.4.2.1 Recommendations for a revised DL model at DUU

Central to the recommendations for a revised DL model at DUU is the imperative for the school champions to publish research on the project to inform future improvements to a change model. As well as a better identity badge, school champions should be more rigorously selected based on criteria and their academic powers to ensure they are more capable of navigating their respective faculty/school leadership contexts. Those who self-select should have access to the same criteria and seek comment from their Heads about what academic powers they possess. The school champions should have a sufficient allocation of time to be able to fulfil the requirements of their role, eligible for promotion after three years based on performance and research output from the project, and funded to report this at conferences. Sufficient numbers of school champions would be appointed to each school to ensure equitable workloads. They should be closely mentored and supported by faculty champions (who are also given a suitable label) at academic D or E with the same conditions as the school

champions. Heads should actively line manage and be in charge of compliance in the schools. The ADU should employ more academic developers with the expertise relevant to the nature of the project to support both groups of champions.

9.4.2.2 Suggested principles for a DL model in HE based on my research findings

In terms of broader implications for DL models in HE, the following principles are suggested:  If change agents are going to be given a label for the duration of a teaching and learning project, it

needs to be thoroughly considered to formally acknowledge the importance of the role and avoid potentially negative consequences.

 To encourage change agents to apply or be selected, reward and recognition strategies should be established commensurate with the size and complexity of the project. Recognition could include being funded to present at conferences and being promoted if sufficient progress is achieved in the project based on parameters set at the start, for example, by the respective faculty learning and teaching committees.

 So that change agents' research profiles do not suffer unnecessarily, they should be supported to conduct research into their role/s in the project and subsequent successes and/or failures in their respective schools. Support could come from the faculty change agents and the ADU, and this could result in joint publications that add to the university's research output and rankings.

Promotion guidelines should be reviewed and upgraded to provide support for both types of change agents to undertake this type of research.

 The role of the ADU in whole-of-university projects should include matching the number of academic developers to the size and complexity of the project so that change agents do not have to rely only on, and compete for, the attention of one or two academic developers. For example, when a new learning management system is implemented, typically the ADU is required to employ sufficient specialist contract staff to help academic staff learn how to use the new system within a tight timeframe (as happened at DUU after the CRA project, when eight additional specialist staff were employed).

 A project evaluation strategy should be established at the start, with input from faculty learning and teaching committees and be implemented with oversight from the Heads and the DVC (Learning and Teaching). The results could form a resource for future projects and reduce the time spent by those charged with developing implementation plans .

9.4.3

Monitor and evaluate change initiatives

Rather than waiting for a government audit to determine how well a teaching and learning change has been implemented (as happened at DUU), universities should have standard procedures for

monitoring and evaluating their change initiatives in order to improve the effectiveness of future institutional changes. Hall, Harding and Ramsden suggest that universities should have 'a range of quality indicators' that enable 'evidence-based claims about the direction of change and the level of effective embedding of the innovation [to be made] [emphasis added]' (2001, p.155). Despite my recommendation, it appears that universities do not typically evaluate change initiatives according to Blackmore and Kandiko (2012b), based on a global survey of 20 universities in five countries undertaking curriculum reform. They noted that 'many [of the reforms] have not been methodically evaluated even by the institution making the change ... [hence there is] no yardstick against which to measure the extent of successful change, plus knowing what actually happened' (Blackmore & Kandiko, 2012b, p.111). This research suggests that my recommendation to monitor and evaluate change initiatives would remain just that—a recommendation that would be unlikely to become a normalised process.

9.4.4

Caveat: DL won't happen now—riding the research wave

In section 8.7.1, I listed eight complex and seemingly unresolvable issues that would most likely render any recommendations impotent. Many interviewees remarked that the DL project 'wouldn't happen now' (see 3.1.1.4). Most interviews were conducted in 2012 and completed in February 2013, hence 'now' refers to those years. The most common reason was the drive by the new senior management team to increase research output and improve national and international rankings, leading to the retrenchment of 200 academic staff. Other reasons were that: teaching and learning initiatives are not as valued as research 'now' and unlikely to influence promotion; plus workloads have increased 'now' as all academics strive to meet the new research standards. Putting the caveat of 'it won't happen now' into perspective, I am borrowing an analogy from school champion, Lionel, who has seen this cycle repeated often: 'the research wave at the moment [is] coming into the beach, and in five years it could be the teaching wave'. My recommendations for an improved DL model at DUU may be useful in the future when the teaching and learning wave arrives, and for other institutions about to ride it to shore.