LE64 Academic Leadership For Course Coords Final

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program
Leading Courses: Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Final Report
http://academicleadership.dev.curtin.edu.au/course_coordinator 1 Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program
Support for this project has been provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd. This work is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NoncommercialShareAlike 2.5 Australia Licence. Under this Licence you are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work and to make derivative works. Attribution: You must attribute the work to the original authors and include the following statement: Support for the original work was provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Noncommercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Share Alike: If you alter, transform, or build on this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, PO Box 2375, Strawberry Hills NSW 2012 or through the website: http:// www.altc.edu.au December, 2008 ISBN 174067 596 7 Project Website www.academicleadership.curtin.edu.au/course_coordinator
Acknowledgements
The Project Team would like to thank the participants of the first and second pilot of the Program for their interest, enthusiasm and contribution. Their generous feedback and patience whilst the Program was trialed has ensured its success. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of all academic staff at Curtin University of Technology who provided feedback on the developmental needs of staff in the Course Coordinator role. Thanks also go to Professor Bruce Shortland-Jones for his assistance with the initial conceputalisation of the project. The hard work and support of Inna Geoghegan, Helen Walpole, Naomi Prisgrove and Dic Liew from Curtin is greatly appreciated in assisting with the production of the Program Resources. Helen Walpole provided particular assistance with the technical requirements for the online component of the Program in this guide. Jane Sneesby has provided specialised support through her analysis of the evaluative data from both pilots. Sue Bolton, as the first Project Manager, was invaluable in establishing the projects systems and made a substantial contribution prior to her unexpected death in 2006. The Projects success has also been aided by the hard work of the Curriculum 2010 team within the Office of Teaching and Learning. Their work with academics, through the course review process in play during and after the pilot, assisted by raising the awareness of the leadership role of Course Coordinators in determining course quality. The project team is also indebted to Professor Tricia Vilkinas and her team at The University of South Australia for their collaboration on this project resulting from their ALTC project, The development of a web based 360 degree feedback process for utilisation by Australian universities to develop academic leadership capability in academic coordinators. Thanks also are extended to the senior management of Curtin University of Technology for generously supporting and endorsing the project. Report and Resource Authors Sue Jones, Richard Ladyshewsky, Beverley Oliver and Helen Flavell Project Team Members Ms Sue Jones (Project Leader) Curtin University of Technology Prof Beverley Oliver Curtin University of Technology A/Prof Richard Ladyshewsky Curtin University of Technology Dr Helen Flavell (Project Manager) Curtin University of Technology
Leading Courses: Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators
Project Overview
Aims
The aim of the project was to develop and trial an experiential academic leadership program designed to enhance the leadership skills of Course Coordinators (those academic staff responsible for a course or program of study leading to a degree award) to enable them to ultimately improve the students experience of learning.
Local Project Outcomes (Curtin University of Technology)

Project outcomes have been achieved at both the local and national level. Local project outcomes include: Two cohorts of CCs have completed the Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program (ALCCP) (in total, 55 academic staff); There is strong senior management endorsement for the ALCCP; Endorsement of a Course Coordinator Role Statement by the University; Embedding of the ALCCP as part of the Universitys annual suite of leadership development opportunities for academic staff in partnership with the Organisational Development Unit (ODU) (face-to-face mode); The ALCCP (both delivery and content) has informed other leadership development programs at Curtin (for example, the Heads of School Leadership Development Program); Rewarding staff for their completion of the ALCCP through Curtins Teaching Performance Index (TPI); Links with promotion and performance review and workload systems within the University; An emergent Course Coordinators (CCs) Community of Practice (CoP); Overall, an increased profile and valuing of CCs within the University; and Planned trial of the ALCCP in fully online delivery for regional and remote CCs in 2009.
National Project Outcomes

Project outcomes at the national level include: Linkages with other ALTC projects including: LE8-805 The University of South Australia: Development of Academic Leadership within the university sector through the dissemination of a web-based 360 feedback process and related professional development workshop (Richard Ladyshewsky is a Project Leader); LE8-824 Murdoch University: Clarifying, developing and valuing the role of unit coordinators (Sue Jones is a Project Team Member); LE8-816 The University of Tasmania: Embedding and sustaining leadership
development for course coordinators (Sue Jones and Beverley Oliver are Reference Group Members); and CG8-735 Curtin University: Building course team capacity to identify, model and assess graduate employability skills (Beverley Oliver is a Project Leader). The ALCCP is available from the project website for delivery in face-to-face, fully online and in a blended learning mode; The associated ALCCP guide is a useful resource for academic leadership development delivery; and The dissemination of project outcomes through the publication of papers and conference presentations (see Appendix 3).
I congratulate the Project Team on the outstanding success of the Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program. Two pilots have been conducted and were extremely well received by participants. Over 55 participants have now completed the program. Outcomes of the project have included development of an excellent set of resources to manage and deliver the program, a Role Statement for Course Coordination adopted by Academic Board, recognition of completion of the program within the Teaching Performance Index, and increased recognition of the significant, and often undervalued role within the promotions process and new workload management system. There continues to be a high level of interest and Curtin is pleased to endorse the program, which has now been embedded within the organisation and will be offered as a joint initiative between the Office of Teaching and Learning, and the Organisational Development Unit. Prof Robyn Quin, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education)
Products
Several products have been developed during the project: Leading Courses: Academic Leadership for Course Coordinatorsthe final project report including evaluation data on the program pilots and findings from the project; The Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Programten modules with capacity for adaptation to suit different university environments including face-to-face, fully online and/or blended learning delivery; The Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program: A Guide to Coordination and Facilitation (a detailed and extensive guide to running the Program which can be used as a basis for delivering/supporting other academic leadership development programs); Blackboard Program shell adaptable to other learning management systems (available from the project website); Extensive package of Program resources (including over 100 pre-Program, Program and post-Program items); and Dissemination websiteproviding a news link as developments to the Program materials are made, and access to all the project resources.
Leading Courses: Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Final Report
A Guide to Coordination and Facilitation
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements Project Overview Table of Contents List of Tables Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. The Context of Leading Courses 3 4 7 8 10 13 16
2.1 The National Context. ....................................................................................................16 2.2 The Local ContextCurtin ..........................................................................................18
3. Method
19
3.1 Project Method and Leadership Development Philosophy.......................................19 3.2 Program Method ...........................................................................................................30
4. The Program Pilots
37
4.1 Pilot 1. .............................................................................................................................39 4.2 Pilot 2. .............................................................................................................................45 4.3 Pilot 1 and 2 Comparison Data. ....................................................................................47
5. Key Findings 6. Conclusions References
51 56 58
Appendix 1: Program Session Evaluation Form..............................................................62 Appendix 2: Final Evaluation Form Pilot 2. .......................................................................63 Appendix 3: List of Project Conference Presentations and Publications ...................66 Appendix 4: List of Internal and External Reference Group Members. ..........................67
List of Tables
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. The Leading Courses Intended Project Outcomes Matched Against Achievements Project Phases Course Coordinator Survey Results Key Features of the Leading Courses Project for Facilitating its Adoption, Adaptation and Implementation Project Distribution and Dissemination Strategies Structure of Pilot 1 and 2 Modules Pilot 1 and Comparable Sessions in Pilot 2 Modules Added in Pilot 2 Pilot 1 Participants Percentage Agreement with Survey Items (Appendix 1) Pilot 1 and 2 Final Session Feedback Data (Appendix 2) Pilot 1 Final Session Feedback Data (Appendix 2) Pilot 2 Pilot 2 Participants
List of Figures
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. SPSS Text Analysis of the Course Coordinator Survey Results ALCCP Structure Final ALCCP Modules and their Learning Outcomes Percentage Agreement for Pilot 1 and 2 based on Individual Session/Module Percentage Agreement for Pilot 1 and 2 for each Session/Module Based on the Final Evaluation Percentage Agreement for Pilot 1 and 2 based on the Final Evaluation Ratings for each Session/ ModuleAspects of the ALCCP Percentage Agreement (Strongly Agreed) for Pilot 1 and 2 based on the Final Evaluation Ratings for each Session/ModuleAspects of the ALCCP
List of Appendices
1. 2. 3. 4. Program Session Evaluation Form Final Evaluation Form List of Project Conference Presentations and Publications List of Internal and External Reference Group Members
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used

ACR ALCCP ALTC ATN C2010 CC CoP Curtin CVF iCVF EI ERG IRG HOS LEAP LMS MBTI ODU OTL T&L TPI LTPF WA Annual Course Review Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program Australian Learning and Teaching Council Australian Technology Network Curriculum 2010 Course Coordinator Community of Practice Curtin University of Technology Competing Values Framework Integrated Competing Values Framework Emotional Intelligence External Reference Group Internal Reference Group Head of School Learning Effectiveness Alliance Program Learning Management System Myers Briggs Type Indicator Organisational Development Unit Office of Teaching and Learning Teaching and Learning Teaching Performance Index Learning and Teaching Performance Fund Western Australia
Executive Summary
The Leading Courses: Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators project developed and trialled an experiential cross-disciplinary academic leadership program designed to enhance the leadership skills of Course Coordinators. Although nomenclature varies across the sector, Course Coordinator (CC) is used here to designate those academic staff responsible for a course or program of study leading to a degree award. Based on existing education research, the rationale behind the project was that CCs would be better able to manage the quality of the courses for which they are responsible if they had increased awareness of academic leadership and improved leadership capabilities, thereby ultimately enabling them to improve the student experience of learning and teaching. Focusing precisely on the CC role, the project advocated an inclusive and distributed model of leadership that recognised the crucial contribution of CCs in influencing learning and teaching outcomes for students. The project has successfully developed, trialled and produced the Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program (ALCCP): an extensive flexible resource designed to enable CCs to lead and manage course quality and their course team. Feedback from the two pilots has been excellent providing evidence that suggests the ALCCP has the potential to fill an existing gap by providing leadership development for a cohort of middle level leaders who have traditionally been overlooked in leadership development. Furthermore, the flexibility of the ALCCP resources should enhance the possibilities of the Programs adoption by other Australian universities and increase its potential for sector-wide impact. The Programs modular structure is designed for delivery in face-to-face mode, fully online and/or a blended learning model. Central to the successful adoption and adaptation of the ALCCP is the guide produced to complement the Program. The guide should be read in conjunction with this final report as it provides detailed information on successfully implementing the ALCCP and incorporates the key findings of this project. The developmental needs of course leaders are targeted at three levels in the ALCCP: personal leadership developmentreflective practice, setting developmental goals, peer coaching and emotional intelligence; conceptual understandingacademic leadership theories applied to practice, pedagogical concepts and curriculum design, implementation, assessment and evaluation; and skill developmentteam building, conflict resolution, communication, quality improvement, working with staff, students and external stakeholders. Notably, the ALCCP contains the elements identified as important for leadership development by Australian higher educational leaders (Scott et al., 2008; Parrish and Lefoe, 2009). It: is role specific, practice based, authentic and custom-made; employs coaching and much of the learning is peer driven; is self-guided; employs a role specific 360 leadership survey; has the potential to link to performance review systems; utilises action learning; emphasises responsive, flexible facilitation; and
10
provides opportunities for dialogue, networking and sharing of experiences. It is envisaged that the ALCCP will evolve and additional resources will be made available through the project website as they become available. For example, Curtins recently awarded ALTC project CG8-735: Building course team capacity to identify, model and assess graduate employability skills, is intended to capitalise on, and utilise, the ALCCP resource by embedding mechanisms for improving CCs knowledge and skills in building course team capacity for graduate employability. The key findings of the project are listed below and outline the lessons learnt from the experience of designing and delivering academic leadership development. They include the nature of academic leadership in general and the critical factors for the successful delivery of academic leadership development programs in particular. The experience of implementing and delivering two pilots of the ALCCP made it clear that successful academic leadership development requires a keen appreciation of current academic working conditions and culture and their effect on academic leadership.
Project Key FindingsAcademic Leadership

There are a number of key findings from the project in relation to academic leadership within higher education. They are: Higher educational reform impacts on leadership development, both as a driver and as a potential constraint for developing leadership capacity; Workload and work practice changes which are not conducive to leadership development (strong emphasis on administrative duties to the exclusion of leadership reflection and development) have a considerable impact. Time release for leadership development for this particular cohort is therefore crucial; There is a need to attend to the issues arising from the tension between traditional academic culture and work practices and the emerging corporate management culture of higher education by avoiding the use of managerial or corporate terminology; It is important to be aware of, and sensitive to, specific work practices of academia that influence leadership and its development. For example, the revolving door aspect of the CC role emphasises the need for a collegial approach to academic leadership as distinct from other leadership approaches. This is due to the fact that many CCs will move back into peer-based relationships with their colleagues once their appointment in this role is complete; and Staff must be empowered to realise their leadership capacity in the CC role.
11
Project Key FindingsAcademic Leadership Development

Key findings in relation to the successful provision of staff development in relation to academic leadership for CCs are: Contextualise all material to the CC role; Address the issue of clear role statements for CCs prior to leadership development; Be prepared to meet the needs of a diverse group of staff who are very busy with teaching commitments; As in good teaching practice, incorporate formative evaluation strategies, be flexible and responsive to the group dynamics and their needs; Be aware of the diverse discipline knowledge of the group; Allow time for peer-to-peer discussion, critique and debate; Critically engage with concepts and theories delivered in the Program; Apply a collegial approach to communications and interactions; Allow plenty of time for networking, socialising and sharing best practice and issues; Employ small group work where possible; Take time to form the group at the outset; Value staff by providing a prestige venue and quality catering; Acknowledge staff commitment through their participation; and Ensure the facilitation and coordination team are experienced and skilled facilitators in the higher educational context, preferably with experience in teaching.
12
1. Introduction
Effective higher education leaders not only take an active role in making specific changes happen by engaging people in the process of personal and institutional change and improvement; they also help reshape the operating context of their institutions to make them less change averse, more efficient and agile, and more change capable. Scott et al. (2008, xiv) Academic development has been successful when it has drawn on a deep understanding of the ethos of higher education institutions, their cultural practices and the discourse of academia. Boud (1999, 10) [Within academia] there is a general tendency for managers and management processes to be identified as significant sources of stress and dissatisfaction. Bryman (2007, 22) As argued by Scott et al. in Learning Leaders in Times of Change (2008), the greatest challenge facing higher education in Australia is rapid and ongoing change and the extent to which its leaders are change capable. Significantly, higher educational change has impacted on the project, for which this final report has been written, in ways that were not anticipated when the project began. Initially titled Building Academic Leadership Capability at the Course Level: Developing Course Coordinators as Academic Leaders, this project was funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) under the category of Institutional LeadershipPositional/Structural. Motivated by higher educational reform the project aimed to enhance the leadership skills of Course Coordinators (CCs) (also known as program, degree or academic coordinators/directors) by developing, trialling and disseminating an experiential academic leadership program. The rationale was that, with an increased awareness of academic leadership and improved leadership capabilities, staff in this role would be better able to manage the quality of their courses and ultimately improve the student experience of learning and teaching. What emerged as the project developed was the extent to which the effects of the changes to higher education over the last quarter of a century not only functioned as a driver for the project but as a potential stumbling block for the effective uptake of academic leadership (Flavell et al., 2008). In particular, some participants of the first pilot reacted against what was perceived as a management approach in the Program content. Some academic staff familiar with a collegial, autonomous working environmentwho had been experiencing continuous changeinitially appeared to align the Program with a management approach seen to be responsible for, and a part of, the changes impacting on their academic, collegial working culture (Gordon, 1995). What surfaced was the need for the project team to demonstrate an appropriate and efficient responsivenessin the same way it is required within the context of a changed and changing tertiary sectorfor the project potential to be realised. Through the first and second pilot of the Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program (ALCCP) at Curtin University of Technology (Curtin) the project team employed the same experiential learning principles (Kolb, 1984) that underpinned the academic leadership program they were trialling to ensure the success of the project. By reacting quickly and appropriately to early feedback in the first pilot the project team saw an improvement in evaluation data for the Program, and a substantial reduction in comments that suggested a dissatisfaction with perceived management speak. Whilst Pilot 1 was very well received, Pilot 2 registered an improved percentage agreement in
13
overall satisfaction. In the evaluations carried out at the end of each session, five out of nine1 sessions in Pilot 2 registered 100 percentage agreement in overall satisfaction. The remaining four registered above 94 percentage agreement with improvement in all but one item. The impact of change was, therefore, not only reaffirmed as a primary challenge for academic leadership (and its development) but also the importance of change capability in ensuring higher education remains viable. I have really enjoyed this and though I teach leadership/management/change management, being on the receiving end has changed my outlook towards the organisation. Though I preach it I dont necessarily practice it! Thanks and well done! Pilot 1 Participant. Consequently, the project, through experiential learning and the capacity of the project management team to modify their approaches, successfully met its outcomes. Now re-titled Leading Courses: Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators2, the project boasts an extensive package of flexible Program resources (available from the project website). These materials have been developed through the two pilots, and completed two processes of review and revision, as well as formative evaluation processes whist the pilots were underway. These resources show evidence of the practical application of the lessons learnt in trialling the Program, including an accompanying guide to running the Program; The Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program: A Guide to Coordination and Facilitation. This report should be read in conjunction with the guide to support the effective adaptation and implementation of the ALCCP to other universities. This report documents the projects storyunderpinned by the theme of changeand points to areas for further research and development, critical reflection and investigation in relation to academic leadership for CCs. The report is divided into five main sections: the context, which explores the drivers for the project and local and national issues impacting on the project; the method undertaken in the project, the Programs approach and the projects aims and objectives and dissemination strategies; an evaluation of the two pilots; the key findings and lessons learnt from the project; and a conclusion including future directions for consideration. Finally, this report affirms the need for academic leadership development to be responsive to the context in which it is delivered. That means facilitators and coordinators of academic leadership programs such as the ALCCP must be attuned to the impact of the ever changing Australian higher educational environment, and be aware of the impact of educational reforms on the traditional working practices of academia. They must also be sensitive to, and demonstrate an understanding of, local pressures and traditions within their university that could impact on academic leadership programs.
Only nine of the ten sessions offered in Pilot 2 were measured in this way as a longer form evaluating the Program as a whole was used in the final session (ten). The same process was used in Pilot 1, hence, there is only data on eight of the nine sessions offered in Pilot 1. See Chapter 4, The Program Pilots. 2 This title is the new name for the original ALTC project Building Academic Leadership Capability at the Course Level: Developing Course Coordinators as Academic Leaders. It is also the title of the final report for this project.
1
14
Therefore, as outlined in the guide to the ALCCP, the local context in which the Program is delivered and the individual skills of the facilitation and coordination team has the potential to have a substantial impact on the successful adoption and adaptation of the Program to a particular university. Their ability to change the Program to meet their universitys specific context and requirementsand to continue to be responsive to feedbackis likely to have a measurable effect on its reception and subsequent outcomes. As a result, the guide to coordination and facilitation emphasises the adaptability of the Program materials and outlines the flexibility of the ALCCP. The project team hope that the ALCCP proves to be a useful resourceas it is at Curtin becoming embedded and accepted as part of academic leadership development, assisting in ensuring quality course outcomes and improvements in teaching and learning.
15
2. The Context of Leading Courses

2.1 The National Context
Higher educational reforms that have occurred in recent years have made quality teaching and learning an institutional priority for Australian universities. The Learning Leaders in Times of Change study (Scott et al. 2008, 29-39) identified a number of change forces in higher education which dictate the need for good academic leadership including: Opening up of access and a resulting diversified student body; Changes in funding; Pressure to generate new sources of income; A trend towards user-pays; Rapid growth in the higher education export market; Growing competition; The challenge of maintaining standards with the changing nature of the student cohort; Students seeing themselves as consumers; Paid employment patterns of students for survival (average student works 14.8 hrs per week); and Changing characteristics of a new generation of students (Generation Y). For universities to remain competitive in this environment they need excellent leadership at all levels of the organisation (Hotho et al., 2008). However, CCs (also known as program, degree or academic coordinators/directors)3 have been the least well recognised for their role in determining whether change is effectual (Scott et al., 2008). Whilst quality is often measured at the unit level by examining student feedback and performance, course level feedback is equally as important. CCs carry much of the leadership responsibility for ensuring their courses are of high quality and industry relevant. CCs are the King Pins of course quality (Ladyshewsky and Jones, 2007) and their engagement with the change agenda is vital, as they focus efforts and assist staff to learn how to make the desired change work in practice (Scott et al. 2008, xvii). Yet in the development of its academic leaders, the Australian higher education system has tended to rely upon the wisdom of experience or learning on the job in relation to learning and teaching (Southwell et al., 2005). Course Coordinators are one such group of academic leaders who tend to be highly competent and qualified senior academics who, by virtue of their academic accomplishments, advance to the role of managing and leading a university course (Yielder and Codling, 2004). Due to their focus on academic pursuitsand given that few development opportunities exist for themthese important academic leaders are often not well prepared for the demands of their role. This is particularly so given the increasing load on CCs under higher educational reform. The role requires leadership skills that enable them to create a vision of what a course might be and then to foster a culture that supports and achieves that vision (Yielder and Codling, 2004). The responsibility vested in CCs for achieving the desired quality and credibility of course learning and teaching outcomes more often than not comes with little or no line management authority. As a result, CCs have to rely on personal influence
Significantly, and as outlined by Scott et al. (2008), the range of nomenclature for the same or similar roles within Australian higher education presents problems of mobility for academic leaders (reducing their capacity to move between universities).
3
16
and networks to achieve desired goals. Add to this the fact that many academics end up in leadership and management roles without aspiring to them, and the result is what Rowley and Sherman (2003, 1058) have identified as the unique challenge of campus leadership. Due to this complex operating context and its consequences, course coordination is often viewed as all-consuming and as having an adverse impact on personal teaching and scholarly activities (Carroll and Wolverton, 2004). Anecdotal evidence from Curtins CCs certainly suggests that student counselling on course related matters (particularly with the shift to a more client based model of interaction between students and staff) takes considerable time. According to Antonakis and House (2002) CCs often focus on the managerial or transactional aspects of their role, which includes planning and budgeting, organising and staffing, course control, monitoring, and generally solving problems. As a result, the academic leadership aspect of the role (Antonakis and House, 2002) is often subsumed by the managerial role. Ramsden (1998) noted similar findings in situations where academic leadership is lacking, resulting in the absence or neglect of strategic functions such as setting future directions and aligning people and groups with departmental and organisational goals. Developing and enabling academic teams to achieve a common direction for facilitating student-focused learning is often impoverished as is motivating and inspiring the academic team to ensure scholarly and professional learning. Furthermore, as a result of these pressures and demands, planning that focuses on improving the quality of academic courses is frequently absent or neglected.
17
2.2 The Local ContextCurtin

Curtin, based in Perth, Western Australia, is a large, comprehensive and research-intensive university, with a strong international focus in all of its activities. Consistent with its vision to serve its wider region, the University has campuses across Western Australia (WA), in Sydney and in Sarawak, Malaysia, and recently established a campus in Singapore. Curtin is the fifth largest university in Australia and the third largest enroller of international students (more than 17,000). Research student numbers are approaching 2,000. Curtin has the highest Indigenous student enrolment in Australia, now accounting for over 60 per cent of all tertiary Indigenous students in WA. The Universitys Reconciliation Action Plan is the first for a university in Australia and serves to underline the Universitys long-standing commitment to Indigenous Australians. Curtin aims to apply innovation and excellence to teaching and learning programs and its research initiatives. The Leading Courses project, therefore, emerged from a culture which increasingly promoted teaching and learning innovation, and a network of drivers common to all Australian Technology Network (ATN) universities demanding improved teaching and learning outcomes. At the same time, Curtin was embarking on several initiatives including: Curriculum 2010 (a university-wide course review project) and the implementation of Course Review policy which included an Annual and Comprehensive (five yearly) review process. Curtins online system for gathering and reporting students perceptions of their learning experiences and for gathering feedback from employers and graduates for the purpose of comprehensive curriculum review (eVALUate) was also evolving, providing more course data, thereby aiding the curriculum and course review processes. Already underway by the time of the first pilot, the Curriculum 2010 (C2010) project had thus raised the profile of the CC role as they are central to any curriculum review process. Consequently, the project was able to garner support from senior management who saw the logic inherent in such a development opportunity for CCs. Conditions were therefore ripe at Curtin, not only for the implementation of the Leading Courses project but also its endorsement and success. Certainly, the changes focussed on CCs through the convergence of eVALUate, implementation of the Course Review policy, and the C2010 project combined to facilitate the uptake of the Leading Courses project. Thus this ALTC project developed at Curtin through a desire to improve learning and teaching outcomes from the strategic and key positioning of the CC.
18
3. Method
This section outlines the method and rationale for the overall project and the ALCCP, divided under two sub-headings. This division has been made to provide a clear framework for understanding and distinguishing between the leadership development philosophy underlying the projects method and the Programs method.
3.1 Project Method and Leadership Development Philosophy

This project adopted an inclusive and distributed model of leadership with its focus on developing and implementing an academic leadership program for CCs. These middle management academics were identified for leadership development in this project since they play a significant role in leading and influencing teams of academics teaching within a course. More importantly, however, there is often little support within Australian universities to prepare, develop and recognise academics in this important leadership role with the focus tending to be on the Heads of School (HOS) and above (DAgostino, 2006).4 The aim of the ALCCP was, therefore, to build the leadership capability in current and prospective course leaders across the range of academic disciplines. One of the projects outcomes helps to address the leadership succession crisis facing Australian universities through up-skilling these crucial leaders. Hence, Leading Courses assumed a deficit model (Boud, 1999) in respect to academic development, with a linear change approach through its focus on increasing the knowledge and skills of CCs. Part of the project also involved the exploration of the role of the CC and the development of a role description, which has now been ratified by Curtins Academic Board (November 2008). Systemic change has also been a part of the projects approach and is an important aspect for successful leadership development. As Scott et al. (2008) report in Learning Leaders in Times of Change the lack of clarity around roles means that many may perceive there is no room to lead. Specifically, it is academic staff in positions such as course coordination that feel even less empowered to influence (Scott et al., 2007). Lack of role clarity, or role uncertainty, have been identified as obstacles to effective departments and significant causes of stress, leading to reduced levels of effectiveness (Briggs 2001, 234). Along with role clarification, the ALCCP has also been linked at Curtin to promotional processes, performance review, the Teaching Performance Index (TPI), and course coordination has been recognised in workload management systems more equitably. Emergent change is the final approach undertaken in the project, with attention being given to capitalising on the peer learning that evolved from the Program through establishing a peer network or Community of Practice (CoP). The dissemination of the ALCCP resources to other universities similarly represents an emergent change focus that has sector-wide potential. The project has, in other words, taken a three-fold approach to improving teaching and learning outcomes within the scope of the CCs role.
It could be argued that the ALTCs Leadership for Excellence in Learning and Teaching in Australian Higher Education Program (which funded this project and others) is helping to realise the importance of staff in such middle management roles, thereby shifting the conceptualisation of what constitutes leadership within academia.
4
19
The table below (1) lists the overall intended project outcomes and the projects achievements: Table 1: The Leading Courses Intended Project Outcomes Matched Against Achievements Leading Courses Intended Outcomes
A review of national and international academic leadership research and current best practice, and the publication of reports and journal articles.
Leading Courses Outcomes

The literature review undertaken was used to inform the ALCCP program development, and it has been reviewed and updated with recent research. Conference papers, workshop presentations, journal articles and reports within the scope of the project have been produced (see Appendix 3). A Course Coordinator Role Statement was endorsed by Curtins Academic Board in November 2008.
Clearly defined roles and responsibilities for course leaders recognising their critical role in achieving excellence in teaching and learning at the course level. A Course Leader Development Program and package of flexible learning resources which can be adapted for implementation in cross-discipline and wide ranging university contexts for current and prospective course coordinators.
The ALCCP has been produced through the process of two pilots and substantial review and revision. The package is flexible and demonstrates the elements suggestive of its successful adaptation, adoption and implementation. The ALCCP: A Guide to Coordination and Facilitation has been produced to enable this process, along with extensive resources and careful design of the ALCCP. The ALCCP is linked to: Curtins system for measuring and recognising teaching performance (TPI) and performance review systems. The CC role has also been better recognised in the workload system and the ALCCP has been embedded into the annual suite of leadership development and offered in conjunction with the ODU at Curtin. The ALCCP targets existing and aspiring CCs, and is focussed on empowering staff to be change capable and to lead their course team to improve teaching and learning outcomes. The projects outcomes including the ALCCP and all its resources will be made available to the tertiary sector. The External Reference Group were invited to access materials and provide feedback, however, this was hampered at times due to workloads and personnel changes. The University of Tasmania is utilising the modules as part of their ALTC grant LE8-816 Embedding and sustaining leadership development for course coordinators through tailored curriculum review.
Identification of systems level outcomes which have implications for university academic career pathways, promotion processes, University staff profiles, Staff Professional Development programs for current and prospective academic leaders; and change management in higher education.
Up-scaling of the project through a national network of users in the ATN who have been involved in the development of the program through their involvement with the Project Reference Group, and more broadly across the sector.
By supporting the CC both locally at Curtinand nationallythrough raising the profile of the CC as leader and enhancing their leadership capacity, the project hoped to build on the evidence that sound academic leadership ultimately improves student learning. For example, Gibbs (2006) found that if department leaders facilitate a good teaching environment then teachers are more likely to use a student-focused approach to learning, which in turn results in far superior learning outcomes due to a deep approach to learning (Prosser and Trigwell, 1997;
20
Martin et al., 2003; Ramsden et al., 2007). This approach was proposed by Ramsden (1998) who indicated that teaching which focuses primarily on student learning, rather than teaching activity, is best supported by academic leaders who provide clear goals and enable people to embrace change. Martin et al. (2003) also found that teachers are more likely to adopt a student focused approach to learning when they experience transformational and transactional leadership, clear goals and contingent rewards, and teacher involvement in decisions about curriculum and collaborative management. Throughout the project academic leadership for the CC role was conceptualised as both transformational and transactional in nature. Transformational leadership is inspiring, risky, visionary, and involves paying close attention to individual team members potential and development (Bass qutd. by Bryman 2007, 8). Transactional leadership invests in a more conventional reward and punishment system to gain compliance and involves monitoring the teams performance (Bass qutd. by Bryman 2007, 8).5 Clearly, the CCin this middle management academic role with little or no line management authority and responsibility for the learning experience of large numbers of studentsneeds to be competent across both leadership styles. When course leaders operate within a transformational and transactional leadership framework, the effect on the course team is to increase the student focus, resulting in improved learning outcomes for students. Course leaders require support and development to incorporate both transformational and transactional leadership capabilities into their personal repertoire, and to develop a contemporary pedagogical framework for improving curriculum design, development, assessment and evaluation. The impact of management and leadership development is enhanced when opportunities for feedback, discussion and support are included (Bolden et al., 2006). The ALCCP thus incorporates both peer coaching and a reflective journal, collectively embedded into an experiential learning cycle (Kerka, 1996; Kolb, 1984). The skills gained in the Program enabled me to build a good relationship within the team. Thanks a lot. Pilot 2 Participant. Furthermore, a distributed leadership model in which CCs are the focus of academic leadership development is one which is likely to impact upon Heads of Schools, a large number of teaching staff and, ultimately, students. Within Curtin, for example, there are approximately 400 CCs who in turn are in a position to influence the learning outcomes of many students through enhancing the student-focused approach of the teaching staff within their course team. In addition, Heads of Schools will be freed up to focus on strategic direction and initiatives if CCs assume responsibility for academic leadership at the course level. With the dissemination of a flexible learning package such as the ALCCP, academic leadership has the potential to be more widely distributed across the higher educational sector. This compliments and enhances the broader work of the ALTC in raising the profile of academic leadership and in shifting the perception of what leadership is in the tertiary sector (Parker, 2008).
For a clear overview between the distinction between transformational and transactional leadership see Alan Brymans Effective Leadership in Higher Education (2007, 8) published by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Brymans survey of the literature on higher educational leadership reveals a lack of consistent use of leadership key terms and often a failure to adequately define terms.
5
21
3.1.1 Project Phases

The initial project proposal identified four phases, however, a fifth phase was added when synergies with another ALTC project enabled the extension of the Curtin project (Table 2). The associated project, led by Professor Tricia Vilkinas at The University of South Australia, was focussed on developing a 360 degree survey tool specifically for the CC role (Vilkinas et al., 2007).6 This meant that the Leading Courses project could carry out a second pilot in which the new survey tool was used. Based on the feedback from the initial pilot the provision of a tailor made 360 survey tool was expected to be very well received as the tool used in the first pilot was the Competing Values Framework which is designed for a business/management context. The benefits of a second pilot can be measured through the evaluation data comparing the two pilots and discussed in the following chapter The Program Pilots. Table 2: Project Phases Phase
1.
Activity
Review national and international literature to determine current best practice in academic leadership development and to assist in defining the roles and development needs of course leaders CC survey undertaken to determine their development needs. CC survey was extended to HOS, asking them to identify the development needs of CCs. Paper presented at the Teaching and Learning Forum 2007, Perth, Western Australia, discussing the findings of the CC and HOS surveys (Jones, S., Ladyshewsky, R., Oliver, B. and ShortlandJones, B. 2007, January. Enhancing course coordinators' leadership and management for increased student engagement.)
2.
Design and development of the ALCCP in consultation with the CC Internal Reference Group. Preparation of the ALCCP course materials and learning objects including the online resources. Paper presented at the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2007, Hobart, with details of the CC survey (Ladyshewsky, R., and Jones, S. 2007. Academic Leadership and the Course Coordinator: King Pin in the Quality Process.)
3.
Pilot 1 undertaken in face-to-face mode using supplementary online learning resources with a representative sample of CCs across the Universitys teaching areas to ensure cross-disciplinary representation. CCs develop as a Community of Practice. Evaluation of participant reactions to Program and learning outcomes. Publication of a paper presented at the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2008, Canberra, exploring lessons learnt from the first pilot (Flavell, H., Jones, S., and Ladyshewsky, R. 2008. Academic Leadership Development for Course Coordinators and the Influences of Higher Educational Change.) Revision of ALCCP package based on Pilot 1 participant feedback.
The University of South Australia ALTC project, led by Professor Tricia Vilkinas, is titled The development of a web based 360 degree feedback process for utilisation by Australian universities to develop academic leadership capability in academic coordinators.
6
22
Phase
4.
Activity
Pilot 2 undertaken in face-to-face mode using supplementary online learning resources. Pilot 2 limited to CCs only. ALCCP embedded into the Universitys leadership professional development offerings (in collaboration with the ODU). System level processes identified and utilised, including; endorsement by the University of a CC Role Statement, ALCCP linked to TPI, and promotions and performance review processes and workload models. Paper published in the International Journal of Learning discussing the online delivery of the ALCCP in Pilot 1 (Ladyshewsky, R., Geoghegan, I., Jones, S., and Oliver, B. 2008. A Virtual Academic Leadership Program Using a Blend of Technologies.14.) Paper presented at the HERDSA Conference 2008, Rotorua, New Zealand, exploring the emerging CC CoP (Jones, S., Oliver, B., Ladyshewsky, R., and Flavell, H. 2008, July. Engaging Academic Leaders: Improving Teaching Quality.)
5.
Final revision and preparation of the ALCCP package for national dissemination. Dissemination of the ALCCP package and resources through the project website. Interviews with Pilot 1 participants to explore how well the Programs outcomes had been transferred into the workplace begun (not yet completed at the end of the project).
Phase 1 The project began with a review of national and international literature on best practice in academic leadership development to assist in defining the roles and development needs of course leaders. An email survey was then distributed to all CCs at Curtin to determine their academic leadership development needs and to inform the structure and delivery of the professional development program. Heads of School were also surveyed using the same questionnaire, to determine what they saw as the development needs of CCs. There were 12 broad areas with options to add open ended comments. Respondents were required to answer each question using a five point Likert Scale. Hard copies of the survey were then distributed as a follow up. A total of 179 course coordinators were identified in the University, and 48 replied which represents a response rate of 26.8% (Ladyshewsky and Jones, 2007). Quantitative results of the survey are shown in Table 3 on page 24.
23
Table 3: Course Coordinator Survey Results (Ladyshewsky and Jones, 2007) Low - - Priority - - High Percentages
Q10: Providing a positive and supportive environment for the teaching team engaged in this course* Q2: Establishing & maintaining the quality of assessment practices within the course* Q3: Ensuring that the assessment practices align with the unit and course learning outcomes* Q7: Having a clear and consistent understanding of the role and responsibilities of the Course Coordinator* Q4: Developing a high performance culture within the course team* Q6: Student management issues* Q5: Undertaking course reviews to enhance the quality of the course outcomes* Q1: Ensuring appropriate and consistent application of the outcome focused education (OFE) framework Q12: Understanding of online teaching and learning technologies Q8: Understand the course management and committee processes Q9: Understanding the course administrative processes. e.g. enrolment, StudentOne etc. Q11: Understanding career paths available to you
Score 5
39 30 30 36 40 24 26 10 10 22 16 14
1
2 0 0 6 6 4 4 6 14 2 10 18
2
10 2 2 10 6 6 6 16 8 16 14 24
3
10 22 30 20 24 26 32 25 26 32 36 28
4
39 46 38 28 24 40 32 43 42 28 24 16
4+5
78 76 68 64 64 64 57 53 52 50 40 30
Note: * Indicates Head of School agreement with Course Coordinator development needs.
24
Qualitative findings of the survey in relation to the three biggest challenges CCs faced in their role were reported by Ladyshewsky and Jones (2007, 88). They found that of the 48 responses received, 40 course coordinators (84%) provided written feedback. Themes that emerged most strongly from the feedback included: Workload was a significant issue; Coping with the growing number of administrative burdens being allocated to academic staff along with complex internal information systems; Prescribing and managing quality assessment practices; Reviewing, planning and monitoring course curriculum load, overlap and strategies; Ambiguity about the role of the course coordinator, scope of influence, decision making power; Finding the time to manage the myriad of student issues and to provide a quality service and as well as finding the resources to support student needs; Supporting staff, managing non-compliant staff, and trying to build a high performance team; and Lack of time to complete responsibilities adequately, which also impinges on research, teaching and professional development. The key themes from the qualitative feedback are highlighted in the SPSS text visualisation shown in Figure 1 below. The SPSS Text Analysis indicates that CCs have difficulty finding adequate time for staff and students, are unclear about responsibilities, and find administrative processes tedious and complex. Figure 1: SPSS Text Analysis of the Course Coordinator Survey Results
Student One (2) Workload (6) Varying abilities (1) Unclear (8) Tedious (3) Admin issues (10) Changes (4) Complexity (8) Development (3)
Students (19)
Finding placements (2)
Staff (10)
Finding time (33)
Responsibilities (8)
Industry (4)
Resources (8) Recognition (3) Processes (14) Multiple venues (5)
Lack of information (9) Lack of support (7) Maintaining consistency (3) Marketing issues (2)
25
Phase 2 Based on this data and input from the Internal Reference Group (IRG) at Curtin an academic leadership development program was designed and written. Survey results were reviewed with the IRG, along with the proposed professional development program. The IRG approved the final structure, style and frequency of delivery. The Project Team then finalised the design of the ALCCP and developed teaching resources and supporting materials, including an extensive range of online learning resources to support a blended delivery approach. A collaborative approach involving the potential users of the ALCCP at the outset of the project was utilised as this has been identified as an important element of effective innovation in higher education (McKenzie et al., 2005). Significantly, the design and development of the Program was based on an award winning model employed in the Graduate School of Business at Curtin (Ladyshewsky, 2003). Phase 3 The ALCCP was then trialled in face-to-face mode in semester two, 2007, at Curtin for the first time. The program consisted of nine modules, each of two hours duration and were conducted every second week from 3-5pm on a Wednesday. Supplementary online resources were made available to participants through Blackboard. Feedback from the first pilot participants was captured at the end of each module, and at the completion of the Program. During Pilot 1 changes were made to the delivery approach and the activities based on feedback and at the close of Pilot 1 all the feedback data (both qualitative and quantitative) was captured. Part of the process of reviewing the materials involved formatting them into templates and developing a consistent visual identity for the ALCCP. A refinement of the online resources resulted in the face-to-face materials being more easily identifiable and user friendly. The Blackboard resources were able to model best practice in the area of online learningthrough their ease of navigation and layoutand reflected one of Curtins key teaching and learning initiatives in relation to flexible delivery. Curtins Teaching and Learning Committee endorsed moving to a single LMS, namely Blackboard. As part of the migration to a single LMS online units have been upgraded into a similar format and standard to that of the ALCCP online resources. The inclusion of a blended learning model option for delivery added a further dimension to the ALCCP by enhancing the CCs knowledge and skills to enable them to act as change agents for flexible delivery.7 During this phase the ALCCP received strong support from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education), who agreed to provide ongoing funding for the Program including Pilot 2. This phase also saw the ALCCP become embedded into the Universitys suite of professional development offerings in partnership with the Universitys Organisational Development Unit, and use of the ALCCPs resources and the projects key learnings into Curtins leadership development program for Heads of Schools. Completion of the ALCCP was also recognised within the TPI system at this stage.
Significantly, a Pilot 2 participant recently adapted an aspect of the ALCCP online Program for their own online unit. This suggests that the inclusion of the online Program resources has had the desired effect, that is, through modelling best practice flexible delivery the ALCCP has influenced online teaching practices.
7
26
Phase 4 The revised phase four saw the second pilot of the ALCCP trialled in semester two, 2008. Prior to Pilot 2 the Program underwent modification to address the issues that arose, and the features of the ALCCP that were rated well enhanced where possible (for example, providing more time for networking). A tenth module was added, which addressed managing staff and student performance and several modules were modified (including extending Developing Academic Leadership Capacity into two modules 8). The inclusion of the online iCVF 360 survey tool (Vilkinas and Cartans 2001, 2006) in Pilot 2 was an important change as the online delivery system was much simpler to manage, the survey tool is tailor made for CCs and therefore a much better diagnostic tool for CCs to gauge their leadership capability. The same evaluation process was used in the second pilot, however, feedback was much improved and therefore far fewer changes were made in the final package. During the second pilot a detailed guide to facilitation of the ALCCP was written capturing the key issues to ensure successful implementation of the Program. This was seen as an important resource to facilitate successful adoption and adaptation of the ALCCP to other universities and, significantly, such documents are recommended for the success of innovative projects in higher education (McKenzie et al., 2005). At this point, the Program resources were finalised and ordered for distribution through the project website. During phase four the CC Role Statement was developed and provided to the broader university for comment. During this period a reunion of Pilot 1 participants was held and they were invited to provide feedback on the draft CC role statement as well as participants within Pilot 2. The role statement was endorsed by the University Academic Board in November 2008 and links with the workload management system were also made to better acknowledge the workload associated with the CC role. The outcomes achieved as a consequence of effective leadership in the role of a CC were also clearly aligned with some of the criteria for demonstrating teaching and learning leadership within the guidelines for promotion. The reunion for Pilot 1 participants also included an opportunity to participate in using the iCVF tool (Vilkinas and Cartans 2001, 2006). Several CCs took advantage of the opportunity. An external evaluator was found for the project and this process put in motion. Phase 5 Phase five was concerned with preparing the revised ALCCP package ready for dissemination through the project website. The final report for Leading Courses was written and the external evaluation report completed. Interviews with Pilot 1 participants were undertaken to ascertain the transfer of training and how well the Programs outcomes had been implemented within CC work settings. At the time of writing the final report these interviews were still in progress.
3.1.2 Dissemination Strategy

The project incorporated strategies that address not only the distribution of the projects outcomes but also enhance the likelihood of its successful dissemination. Some early evidence of successful dissemination is already available with the Program materials being utilised in
In Pilot 2 Developing Academic Leadership Capacity was expanded into two modules and renamed Developing Academic Leadership Capability 1 and 2. The shift to capability from capacity was made so that the content resonated with the approach taken in Learning Leaders in Times of Change (Scott et al. 2008) (which is employed in the introductory module). Capability also better reflects the Programs focus, as it is a more empowering term that suggests developing an used or underdeveloped faculty. Capacity, on the other hand, implies only potential.
8
27
the 2008 ALTC project at the University of Tasmania. Embedding and sustaining leadership development for course coordinators (LE8-816), builds on the ALCCP in its project, which aims to improve the capacity of course coordinators to lead discipline-based curriculum review and to offer peer review of curriculum (Trivett and Lines, 2009). Table 4 below lists the aspects of the project matched against the key features identified by McKenzie et al. (2005) for successful adaptation, adoption and implementation of innovations in higher education. Significantly, the products and outcomes produced from the project demonstrate the qualities desirable in successful innovative projects in higher education. Table 4: Key Features of the Leading Courses Project for Facilitating its Adoption, Adaptation and Implementation Features Present in Successful Innovative Higher Educational Projects (McKenzie et al., 2005, ix)
Offer different and valuable ways of learning and teaching, or enable particular kinds of learning outcomes, or addressed common resource needs or solved common problems.
Leading Courses Project Features
The ALCCP fills a gap in leadership development by targeting CCs, who have traditionally been overlooked for professional development of this kind. The Project approaches learning and teaching quality through the crucial role of the CC who has considerable potential to impact on student learning outcomes. The ALCCP resources are grounded in leadership development theory and draw on a wide range of scholarly papers published in the field of academic leadership. Similarly, the projects method is underpinned by recognised research in academic leadership development and academic staff development. Evidence from the evaluation feedback from Pilot 1 and 2 participants indicates that the ALCCP has been very well accepted by CCs at Curtin. The approach of the Program also mirrors the qualities identified by academic leaders in Learning Leaders in Times of Change (Scott et al., 2008) for leadership development. The ALCCP was also developed based on the work undertaken in creating a leadership program in the Graduate School of Business at Curtin (Ladywshewsky, 2004, 2006).
Recognisable scholarly qualities.
Provide evidence that they worked or were likely to work with the intended learners.
Adaptable, either in themselves or in the ways they could be implemented.
The ALCCP is cross-disciplinary and has a modular structure that maximises the potential to modify the materials and their delivery schedule. The flexible delivery options (fully online/blended) give a further dimension of adaptability. The guide to coordinating and facilitating the Program is extensive, and provides the necessary information to best enable the successful use of the Program and its materials.
28
Building institutional academic leadership capacity at the CC level through the ALCCP is the cornerstone of the project and its distribution to the broader national context has the potential to provide a mechanism for embedding change and second generation innovation (Southwell et al., 2005). Table 5 (below) gives an overview of the distribution and dissemination strategies of the project, including both local and national implications. According to McKenzie et al. (2005), distribution is generally taken to mean making information and resources available whilst dissemination implies embedding innovations. Importantly, lessons learnt from the local Curtin context may assist other universities in embedding the ALCCP or similar programs, and has implications for other ALTC project outcomes and their successful implementation. For example, the focus of the project in anticipating, promoting and encouraging the ongoing relevance of the ALCCP, the CC role and targeting system level outcomes has assisted the enduring impact of the project. In the same way, having the right project team membership to provide the best possible conditions for securing senior management support is pivotal to meeting project outcomes and their dissemination. Table 5: Project Distribution and Dissemination Strategies Distribution Strategies
Project website. Academic papers and conference presentations based on the research and project outcomes. Attendance and presentations at the ALTC workshops and meetings. Use of the ALTC Exchange to promote outcomes from the project. Publishing: Leading Courses: Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Publishing: The Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program: A Guide to Coordination and Facilitation
Dissemination Strategies
Links with other ALTC projects including: LE8-805 The University of South Australia: Development of Academic Leadership within the University sector through the dissemination of a web-based 360 feedback process and related professional development workshop; LE8-824 Murdoch University: Clarifying, developing and valuing the role of unit coordinators; LE8-816 The University of Tasmania: Embedding and sustaining leadership development for course coordinators; and CG8-735 Curtin University: Building course team capacity to identify, model and assess graduate employability skills. In some cases the materials produced as part of the project are being adapted and modified to other universities (for example the University of Tasmanias ALTC leadership project is building on the ALCCP). The overall flexibility of the Program and its resources should actively assist in its adaptation and adoption.
29
Distribution Strategies
Whilst tailored to the CC role the project and its resources have implications across the sector as it can be modified to suit other academic roles given most of the content of the ALCCP is relevant for all academic leadership as are many of the key issues learnt around academic leadership development in higher education. For example, some of the ALCCP resources and project outcomes have been used in Curtins HOS leadership program. The ALCCP is cross disciplinary. The ALCCP has been embedded into Curtins suite of staff development offerings and is now funded by the University. The identification of system level outcomes required to enhance the success of the ALCCP. At Curtin: a new CC Role Statement has been endorsed; the ALCCP is linked with the Teaching Performance Index (TPI); workload models now better recognise the CC role; the ALCCP has also been linked to promotion systems and performance review. Support from senior management was actively sought to ensure the sustainability of the ALCCP.
3.2 Program Method

The academic leadership development model employed in the Program was based on an adaptation of models of education developed by Wolverton et al. (2005), Ramsden (1998), and from the broader leadership field (Antonakis and House 2002). In the revised and final iteration of the Program (trialed in the second pilot) the capability and competence framework for academic leadership presented in the 2008 report on the ALTC project, Learning Leaders in Times of Change, was incorporated into the Programs conceptual framework (Scott et al., 2008). This research into academic leadership was welcome as it provided evidence of the relevance of the ALCCP and its approach within an Australian higher educational context. The framework presented by Scott et al. (2008) took a similar approach to the Integrated Competing Values Framework (CVF) (Vilkinas and Cartan 2001, 2006) employed in the Program as the basis for the 360 survey. Both models provide frameworks for isolating and identifying different capabilities and competencies across different domains, thereby assisting in measuring current leadership skills and in setting leadership developmental goals. In particular, both frameworks reflect the need for a similar range of competencies for effective leadership, although the Learning Leaders in Times of Change framework is focussed specifically on academic leadership rather than leadership in a broad sense.9 Based on these models and theoretical frameworks, the developmental needs of course leaders are targeted at three levels in the ALCCP: personal leadership development conceptual understanding, and skill development. Personal leadership development included: learning to lead through understanding leadership theory and development (focusing on academic leadership), emotional intelligence (enabling, inspiring and motivating others); personal management; creating vision and focusing on
As mentioned earlier, the iCVF was trialed in the second pilot (based on Quinn et al.s (2003) CVF model yet tailored to the CC role and academic leadership). It is also worth noting at this point that whilst the iCVF and Learning Leaders in Times of Change frameworks have similarities the tool developed through the Learning Leaders in Times of Change project provides a tool for self-assessing ones leadership rather than a 360 view of an individuals leadership.
9
30
strategic action; encouraging participants to learn from past experiences through reflective journaling of leadership experiences; observations and reflections of effective and ineffective practice; and writing development outcomes incorporating a peer-coaching approach to implement performance targets (Ladyshewsky and Varey 2005, Ladyshewsky 2006). Conceptual understandings included: the application of key leadership theories and principles to practice; understanding and application of pedagogical concepts in curriculum design, implementation, assessment and evaluation; and the roles and responsibilities of course leaders within a local (university) system and the national higher education context. Skill development included those group academic leadership skills at a departmental/school level necessary to achieve the desired results when working with staff, students and external stakeholders and other academics, for example: communication, team building, conflict resolution, planning and managing resources; recognising, developing and assessing course performance, quality improvement and change management.
3.2.1 The Experiential Learning Cycle

As signalled, the leadership development philosophy underlying the project emphasises selfreflection through peer coaching, journaling and goal setting underpinned by an experiential learning cycle (Kerka, 1996; Kolb, 1984). Consequently these elements are incorporated into the ALCCP as participants are asked to keep a reflective journal or blog, establish peer coaching relationship/s, and use the experiential learning cycle as a method to extend learning and increase transference into the academic setting (Ladyshewsky, 2005). The Integrated Competing Values Framework (Vilkinas and Cartan 2001, 2006) was used to provide participants with considerable information including a detailed report that allows individuals to identify their leadership issues and work on a development plan for implementation and review. The integrated learning approach was adopted to promote reflective growth in participants. Through finding the time and opportunity to obtain non-evaluative feedback from peers, and engaging in continuous self-improvement based on that feedback, more positive outcomes are anticipated from participation in the Program (Raines and Alberg, 2003). According to Bennis (1989) leadership development requires more than training or career planning; what is required is the opportunity to learn through experience in a supportive culture that allows growth and change. Furthermore, Gaither (2004) in his review of academic leadership asserts that experience and observation is critical for learning about leadership. He views leadership development as a continuous learning experience requiring ample opportunities to practice with the right to fail as part of the development process. Interestingly, Scott et al. (2008) argue that a university culture that is more willing to accept poor performance as an opportunity for improvement is much more effective in managing change than one which responds to criticism around poor performance defensively. Thus the ALCCP has the components to enable CCs to address areas that need attention, plan strategies, implement them and reflect on their effectiveness as part of a continual quality management process, which takes place within a supportive learning environment (provided there is adherence to the recommendations made in the ALCCP guide). Change is, thus, a key focus of the ALCCP which aims to foster change capability in CCs and promote a work culture that not only accepts change as an inevitable factor impacting on leadership but one in which leadership development is a process that takes time and experience. Significantly, the ALCCP is strengthened by an underlying emphasis on change
31
management (personal and professional) linked to the CC role through applied learning. Overall the Program is designed to empower CCs to recognise their leadership capacity and to provide them with the necessary tools, conceptual understandings and skills to enhance their leadership, thereby enabling improved course outcomes. Emotional intelligence and team building capability is foregrounded in the Program and reflects a recognition and acknowledgement of the shift from a work culture attuned to individuals to one of cooperation and collaboration (Boud, 1999). I had bells go off with the vision of the different [personality] types and how we struggle with motivating others. I have the desire to enhance my management skills and will be interested in implementing some of these ideas. Pilot 1 Participant. The key learning outcomes of the ALCCP include: Understanding academic leadership in higher education (leadership capabilities required, what best practice looks like, the nature and level of commitment required, extending views of leadership); Identification of participants leadership skills against those required for academic leadership (using the iCVF); Implementation of a personal development plan and life long learning skills to enhance leadership; Review of curricula, learning experiences and assessment appropriate for university learning within a framework of outcomes focused education and evidence based teaching; Knowledge of course management and administrative requirements within the context of university policies and procedures; Application of a course review process for continuous quality improvement; and The development of peer coaching, interpersonal, team management and performance management skills. This includes skill development and awareness of managing upwards and networking. The approach used in this Program reflects the findings published in Learning Leaders in Times of Change (Scott et al., 2008) as it emphasises practice based learning. According to Learning Leaders in Times of Change, CCs expressed a preference for the following: Learning on the job; Being involved in informal/mentoring coaching; Undertaking self-guided reading on leadership; Participating in higher educational leadership seminars; Participating in leadership development programs that are custom-tailored to their needs; Participating in annual performance reviews; and Participating in 360 feedback based on known leadership capabilities. The ALCCP utilises all of these concepts (with the exception of higher education leadership seminars) and provides participants with an opportunity to embed experiential learning principles in their leadership development journey. Throughout the Program a case-based and
32
problem-based learning approach is used which allows participants to critically reflect on the issues and apply the theory underpinning leadership development. Furthermore (and again reflecting the research published by Scott et al. (2008)), the Programs approach employs the elements desired by academic leaders in leadership development, including: the ALCCP is role-specific; it is practice-based; it is peer-supported; and it is self-managed. Facilitators of the ALCCP are encouraged in the guide to model good teaching practice as it has been identified that higher educational leadersjust like university studentswant flexible, responsive, active, problem-based, just-in-time, just-for-me learning methods (Scott et al. 2008, xvii). Similarly, another ALTC funded project found that participants trialing their leadership development tool (the Leadership Capacity Development Framework) identified critical factors for its success, including: formal leadership training and professional development activities; authentic learning activities that are situated in real contexts; engagement in reflective practice; opportunities for dialogue about leadership practice and experiences; and activities that expand current professional networks. (Parrish and Lefoe 2009,1) The ALCCP provides structures that support these crucial elements through its focused attention on the CC role, modeling of good teaching and learning practice, reflective journaling, peer coaching and networking opportunities. Furthermore, the ALCCP contains processes for enabling responsive facilitation through inbuilt formative evaluation practices thereby ensuring that the needs of the participants are met.
3.2.2 ALCCP Structure

This section provides an overview of the Program structure and its potential for adaptation. Figure 2 (page 34) illustrates the Programs structure and individual components. Comprehensive, detailed instructions on the Program delivery are provided in The Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program: A Guide for Coordination and Facilitation.
33
Figure 2: ALCCP Structure

Program Components Workbook/ Folder Objectives To provide a flexible repository for program materials. To provide a clearly organised resource for on-going use. To provide a tool kit of resources for Course Coordinators to manage their role. To create a supportive environment in which Course Coordinators can explore their role, plan their development and share resources. Help support and encourage the forming of a CoP for Course Coordinators.
Supplementary or stand alone
1-10 Seminars (face-to-face)
Supplement the face- to-face component (seminars) with more in depth resources. On-going access to materials as an alumni member of the Program, as any issues arise. Stand alone online program for off- Shore/regional Course Coordinators On-going access to materials as an alumni member of the Program, as any issues arise. Help support a CoP for Course Coordinators as the site develops to become an on-going resource. Acknowledge their achievement.
1-10 Modules (online Program)
Graduation lunch/ function
Recognise the contribution of Course Coordinators Distribute completion certificates. Help support and encourage the forming of a CoP for Course Coordinators. To assess the success/reception of the Program and to enable appropriate responses as Program runs (formative). To gather information about the Programs Success/reception (summative). Provide clear guide-lines and to help avoid common issues that arise in the delivery of academic leadership programs. Enable the adaptation of material to the local university context, where the Program is being delivered.
Evaluation
Facilitators Guide
Short term aims: Enhance the leadership capability of Course Coordinators Long term aims: Improve the student learning experience through improving teaching and learning outcomes including overall course quality
34
The Programs ten modules, and their learning outcomes, are shown on page 36 (Figure 3). Modules are structured consistently with the same elements. The Program provides a basic structure and core materials that can be modified and reproduced in different formats and combinations for delivery, for example, intensive blocks, online only, blended learning, and some variation to the module order. Given the Programs experiential learning approach, gaps between certain modules are required to allow adequate time for reflection. The Program content that addresses curriculum and course design and quality and review are contained within two modules. This is designed to assist adaptation of the ALCCP to different universities since it is only these two modules which require substantial modification as they will need to reflect local university processes and procedures. However, they contain generic pedagogical content relevant to any tertiary institution and models for application and adaptation. For more information on modifying the Program see 1.2.3 Adapting the Program Materials in the ALCCP guide. A series of module resources are available as part of the ALCCP package, which can be modified and adapted, and include: Module Notes PowerPoint slides Relevant worksheets and handouts Reading and internet links At least one practical activity (for face-to-face and online delivery) Discussion activities for online participants Session running sheets for each module (for face-to-face delivery) Online modules containing a wealth of additional resources within a Blackboard framework for adaptation to different learning management systems ilectures (available for several modules). The Program can be delivered both fully online and in face-to-face modes (or through using a blended learning model). The materials provided through the LMS are comprehensive and enable participants to self-pace their learning to some extent by allowing them to engage more comprehensively with content. In the pilot it was found that a minimum of two hours was required for the face-to-face component. More time would have been useful, however, workload and time issues limited CCs capacity to attend longer sessions. To complement the Program design there are pre and post-Program activities incorporated to maximise the benefit from participation. For example, a Pre-Participant survey is included to enable the facilitation team to anticipate prospective participants approach to academic leadership, manage attrition, and work to form the group by providing feedback in the first session on their responses. This process works to begin the dialogue on academic leadership in relation to their role and what they want to achieve as a consequence of their participation in the ALCCP. The graduation function is designed to acknowledge attendance and completion of the ALCCP by the Program Coordinators and Senior Management, value their contribution to the university and contribute to cementing the group socially as the beginning of a CoP.
35
Figure 3: Final ALCCP Modules and their Learning Outcomes

Course Coordinators Program
Session
1. Course Coordinator as Academic Leader 2. Academic Leadership for Excellent Curriculum
Outcomes On successful completion participants can:

Understand the role of a course coordinator as an academic leader Understand the concept of academic leadership in the context of leadership theory Analyse a curriculum map to ensure that graduate attributes are achieved through collective experience of units in a course. Analyse alignment of unit learning outcomes, engaging learning experiences and appropriate assessment. Evaluate the quality of teaching and learning within a course utilising a range of monitoring tools Interpret key performance indicators for annual course review Work with a course team to identify course strengths and devise strategies to maintain them Work with a course team to identify course areas for improvement and devise strategies to address them Use the Integrated Competing Values Framework (iCVF)a leadership measurement toolto gauge personal leadership capabilities Understand the importance of 360 appraisal in leadership development (using the iCVF) Explore the value of peer coaching as a leadership development strategy Recognise how their own personality type supports and limits their leadership style using the MBTI Apply personality theory to manage individuals and teams Review and understand personal leadership results using the Integrated Competing Values Framework (iCVF) Formulate a leadership development plan Strengthen peer coaching relationships Develop strategies to monitor self talk and its influence on personal performance Use a range of processes to reframe and manage interpersonal conflict Recognise key communication competencies for leadership Work effectively with staff and students in their sphere of influence Identify performance problems using a framework Plan a performance coaching conversation Work with their line manager to deal with poor performance issues
3. Leading a Course Review
4. Developing Academic Leadership Capability 1
5. Building the Course Team
6. Building Academic Leadership Capability 2
7. Communicating with Emotional Intelligence 8. Building Performance
9. Leading Change and Managing Resistance 10. Developing Key Relationships 11. Completion Ceremony Lunch
Determine the reasons for resistance to change Apply a range of problem solving models to support the change management process Map the dynamics of their own role and relationship with their Head of School/Area Develop strategies to build influence in key peer relationships Time and venue to be confirmed
36
4. The Program Pilots

The pilots were subject to both formative and summative evaluation processes. Participants were asked to complete feedback forms at the end of each module (Appendix 1) and a more extensive form was provided at the end of the final session (Appendix 2). This means that two data sets are available; data provided at the time of the individual session (rating that session) and data provided at the end of the Program (rating the whole Program). Due to the fact that the evaluation system was designed prior to knowing that a second pilot would be run, and given that modules were moved, modified and one added, comparisons between individual sessions or modules is complicated and not relevant in every case. Table 6 below shows the structure of Pilot 1 and 2 and the modules included in each version of the Program. Table 7 indicates the comparable session or modules for each pilot for the data collected at the end of the sessions or modules. Missing module data can be explained by the different evaluation form used in the final session and the changes made to the ALCCP between Pilot 1 and 2. Table 8 indicates the modules added in Pilot 2. Table 6: Structure of Pilot 1 and 2 Modules Pilot 1 Session/Module
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Course Coordinator as Academic Leader Academic Leadership for Excellent Curriculum Developing Academic Leadership Capacity Leading a Course Review Leading the Course Team Managing Change and Resistance Communicating with Emotional Intelligence Managing Key Relationships Course Coordinator as Coach NA
Pilot 2 Session/Module
Course Coordinator as Academic Leader Academic Leadership for Excellent Curriculum Leading a Course Review Developing Academic Leadership Capability 1 Building the Course Team Developing Academic Leadership Capability 2 Building Performance Communicating with Emotional Intelligence Managing Change and Resistance Developing Key Relationships
37
Table 7: Pilot 1 and Comparable Sessions in Pilot 2Data collected at the end of each session Pilot 1 Session/Module
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. CC as Academic Leader Academic Leadership for Excellent Curriculum Leading a Course Review Developing Academic Leadership Capacity Building the Course Team Managing Change and Resistance Communicating with EI
Pilot 2 Comparable Session/Module

1. 2. 4. 3. 5. 9. 8. CC as Academic Leader Academic Leadership for Excellent Curriculum Leading a Course Review Developing Academic Leadership Capability 1 Building the Course Team Managing Change and Resistance Communicating with EI
Table 8: Modules Added in Pilot 2 Pilot 2 Session/Module

6. 7. Developing Academic Leadership 2 Building Performance
On the final session evaluation form (Appendix 2) participants were, however, asked to rate the modules and thus data on all the individual sessions (from the perspective of participants completing the Program) is available. The analyses of the qualitative data that follow thus reflect the structure of the evaluation process used. Not every module or session has comparable data and the analyses of the pilots are divided into two sections that demonstrate the time lapse between participation and feedback: firstly, percentage agreement given at the time of the session (Table 10), and, secondly, percentage agreement given at the end of the Program (Tables 11 and 12). Following the analyses of the pilots, comparison data between Pilot 1 and 2 is explored more fully and represented in figures based on the percentage agreement on various aspects of the Program and the modules. The comparison data is also structured within the same temporal frame, with figures depicting feedback given at the end of each session and data from the final evaluation.
38
4.1 Pilot 1
The first pilot was held throughout the second semester of 2007. Nine two hour seminars were held fortnightly on Wednesdays from 3-5pm. The seminar content and structure reflected the modules in the initial online version (see Table 6). The online materials offered through Blackboard were available to all participants as supplementary resources and offered more detailed information including access to PowerPoint presentations, Module Notes, further reading and internet links. Initially when the Program was advertised there was an overwhelming demand for places (with 50 people registered and a waiting list of a further ten). However, primarily due to scheduling and workload issues 29 staff completed Pilot 1 (see Table 9). In Pilot 1 both CCs and other staff in coordination roles were invited to attend and included one HOS, fieldwork coordinators and coordinators of large units. The interest in participation from other academic staff most likely reflects the lack of leadership development opportunities at Curtin at that time, which was and is particularly so for staff coordinating fieldwork and large units. Interestingly, several of the participants of the first pilot had already been through the C2010 process and may have developed an awareness of the importance of focusing on course quality and improvement. Many were also keen for developmental opportunities to enable them to better meet the Universitys evolving requirements and improve the performance of their course. Table 9: Pilot 1 Participants Faculty
Health Sciences Humanities Science and Engineering Curtin Business School Centre for Regional Education Centre for Aboriginal Studies Total
Male
4 5 5 1 1 16
Female
8 2 3 13
Total
12 7 5 4 1 29
4.1.1 Feedback on the Modules in Pilot 1

Overall feedback for the individual sessions indicated that participants were very satisfied with the modules. Percentage agreement for overall satisfaction for the first eight modules was 90 or above, with three modules achieving 100 percentage agreement (Table 10). Participants were asked to rate a number of questions and 90% either agreed or strongly agreed with all the statements for six out of the eight modules. Developing Academic Leadership Capacity and Communicating with Emotional Intelligence were rated slightly lower for some statements. For both these modules the quality of the teaching materials were considered slightly less favourably, but in Developing Academic Leadership Capacity the teaching of the session was also rated slightly less favourably. However, the two modules still recorded over 90 percentage agreement for overall satisfaction. The slightly lower percentage agreement for some aspects of Developing Academic Leadership
39
Capacity might be explained as a reaction to the 360 degree survey tool employed in Pilot 1, the Competing Values Framework (Quinn et al., 2003). Unlike the iCVF (Vilkinas and Cartans 2001, 2006), employed in Pilot 2, this tool was difficult to administer (requiring a lot of input from the CCs) and was from a business/management context. Given that it was only in this module that the percentage agreement was lower for the teaching and the materials, it seems reasonable to assume that the CVF (Quinn et al., 2003) had an impact on the modules reception. Significantly, whilst the overall quantitative feedback for the modules in Pilot 1 was excellent, early qualitative feedback (formal and informal) suggested that staff were reacting to the business and management language present in the content. This was an important learning from the project, indicating the need to carefully contextualise all material to the higher education sector and the role of the CC. This is explored in detail in Chapter 5 addressing the key findings of the project.
40
Learning outcomes clearly defined
Activities helped me achieve the learning outcomes Materials helped me achieve the learning outcomes Pilot 1
97% (29) 100% (22) 80% (20) 100% (21) 100% (21) (18) 94% (17) NA (14) 86% (14) 94% (18) 100% (20) 95% 95% 100% (17) 94% (15) NA 100% (14) 94% (18) 100% (20) 96% 97% 100% NA NA NA 100% 100% (21) 100% (18) 94% (17) 100% (14) 94% (18) 100% (15) NA 77% (13) 100% (18) 100% (20) 97% 96% NA 100% (19) 100% (21) 100% (19) 100% (21) 100% (21) NA 95% (19) 86% (21) 95% (19) 100% (21) 95% (19) 95% (22) 100% (18) 100% (23) 95% (20) 95% (19) 100% (19) 100% (18) 94% (17) 93.3% (11) 94% (17) 100% (15) NA 92% (13) 94% (18) 100% (20) 97% 96% NA 87% (16) 100% (29) 94% (17) 93% (29) 100% (18) 93% (29) 95% (23) 90% (21) 100% (21) 100% (21) NA
Quality of teaching helped me achieve the learning outcomes Pilot 1 Pilot 2 Pilot 1 Pilot 2 Pilot 1 Pilot 2
100% (19) 95% (20) 94% (18) 100% (19) 100% (18) 94% (17) 100% (14) 94% (18) 100% (15) NA
Pitching of session was at the right level
Overall satisfaction
Seminar/Module Pilot 2
95% (18) 95% (19) 95% (19) 100% (19) 100% (18) 100% (17) 100% (15) 94% (13) 100% (15) NA 100% (20) 95% NA (18) (15) 95% 100% (12) 93% (14) 95% (14) NA 100% (17) NA 94% (18) 100% (21) 100% 100% (21) 95% (19) 90% (21) 95 (18) 90% (20) 83% (18) 97% (29) 94% (16)
Pilot 1
Pilot 1
Pilot 2
Pilot 2
1. Course Coordinator as Academic Leader
100% (29)
2. Academic Leadership for Excellent Curriculum
91% (23)
95% (24)
4. Leading a Course Review
100% (21)
5. Building the Course Team
100% (21)
NA
7. Building Performance
NA
8. Communicating with Emotional Intelligence
93% (14)
Table 10: Percentage Agreement with Survey Items (Appendix 1) Pilot 1 and 2
9. Leading Change and Managing Resistance
100%
(18)
Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program 98%
10. Managing Key Relationships
100% (20)
Average
97%
96%
41
%=percentage agreement; NA=not available; (parenthesis)= number of respondents
Table 11: Final Session Feedback Data (Appendix 2) Pilot 1 Value of each seminar
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Course Coordinator as Academic Leader Academic Leadership for Excellent Curriculum Leading a Course Review Developing Academic Leadership Capacity Building the Course Team Communicating with Emotional Intelligence Managing Change and Resistance Developing Key Relationships
n
20 22 19 22 20 20 19 20
% Not Useful
0 9 0 0 5 10 16 0
% Useful
30 32 42 64 35 20 37 40
% Very Useful
70 59 58 36 60 70 47 60
Value of aspects of overall program

The online resources were useful Hardcopy resources were useful Program met PD needs in this area Learning outcomes for the program achieved Program overall pitched at the right level Program was well-administered Would have benefited from more social time Felt adequately supported to undertake the Program Views on role as CC have changed as a result of the Program
n
21 24 23 24 25 25 25 25 24
%SD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
%D
0 0 9 4. 8 0 12 12 42
%A
67 50 61 58 60 24 60 48 33
%SA
33 50 30 37 32 76 28 36 25
42
Importance of making CC role more attractive

Clear role description Promotion recognising CC More workload points More administrative support Salary increase Greater level of accountability Greater level of autonomy Access to study leave
n
23 24 24 24 24 24 23 24
% Not Important
9 0 4 4 46 46 30 25
% Important
91 100 96 96 54 54 70 75
Table 12: Final Session Feedback Data (Appendix 2) Pilot 2 Value of each seminar
1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Course Coordinator as Academic Leader Academic Leadership for Excellent Curriculum Leading a Course Review Developing Academic Leadership Capability 1 Building the Course Team Developing Academic Leadership Capability 2 Building Performance Communicating with Emotional Intelligence Managing Change and Resistance Developing Key Relationships
n
11 11 13 13 14 12 13 13 15 16
% Not Useful
0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 13 0
% Useful
36 36 23 46 21 42 23 31 33 25
% Very Useful
64 64 69 54 79 58 77 69 53 75
43
Value of aspects of overall program

The online resources were useful Hardcopy resources were useful Program met PD needs in this area Learning outcomes for the program achieved Program overall pitched at the right level Program was well-administered Would have benefited from more social time Felt adequately supported to undertake the Program Views on role as CC have changed as a result of the Program
n
15 17 17 16 16 17 16 16 15
%SD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
%D
20 6 6 6 7 0 33 0 0
%A
27 24 35 25 31 12 33 47 50
%SA
53 71 59 69 62 88 33 53 50
Importance of making CC role more attractive

Clear role description Promotion recognising CC More workload points More administrative support Salary increase Greater level of accountability Greater level of autonomy Access to study leave
n
15 15 14 14 14 13 14 14
% Not Useful
7 0 0 0 21 15 0 0
% Useful
13 40 21 29 29 31 57 21
% Very Useful
80 53 79 71 50 54 43 79
44
4.1.2 Feedback on Pilot 1 as a Program

The final evaluation survey carried out in module nine showed that 61% of participants who completed the survey agreed that the Program met their professional development needs in this area, whilst 30% strongly agreed. Interestingly, participants rated the modules differently at this time from the evaluations carried out at the end of each session. The most useful module given was the first, Course Coordinator as Academic Leader followed by Developing Key Relationships (Table 11). The aspects of Pilot 1 that were rated most favourably were the hard copy resources and the quality of administration. The online resources were also received favourably with 67% agreeing and 33% strongly agreeing that they found the resources worthwhile (Table 11). What is of particular interest is that only a minority of Pilot 1 participants felt the Program had altered their views of the leadership role of CCs (42% disagreeing, 33% agreeing and 25% strongly agreeingsee Table 11). This is not unsurprising as traditionally university middle managers tend not to identify as leaders (Briggs, 2001).
4.2 Pilot 2
One of the most useful aspects of the module Leading a Course Review, was gaining a much better understanding of how to interpret data to enhance the general/overall course delivery. Pilot 2 Participant. The second pilot was scheduled in the same way (over a semester in two hourly seminars run fortnightly) with the addition of a tenth module (addressing student and staff performance) and the modification and adaptation of several other modules based on feedback from Pilot 1 (see Table 6). The decision to maintain this format into the second pilot was based on feedback from participants in the first, who, overall, liked the existing format. The same evaluative processes were undertaken in Pilot 2. Twenty six CCs completed the Program in Pilot 2 (Table 13) as at this time the Program was offered to CCs only. After the second pilot, 55 academic staff in total had completed the ALCCP. Table 13: Pilot 2 Participants Faculty
Health Sciences Humanities Science and Engineering Curtin Business School Centre for Regional Education Centre for Aboriginal Studies Total
Male
2 2 3 1 8
Female
8 8 1 1 18
Total
10 10 4 1 1 26
45
4.2.1 Feedback on the Modules in Pilot 2

In Pilot 2 the overall satisfaction percentage agreement improved overall, although some aspects were less favourably received (Table 10). Five modules were rated with an overall satisfaction percentage agreement of 100: Course Coordinator as Academic Leader; Leading a Course Review; Building the Course Team; Building Performance; and Managing Change and Resistance. The modules with the lowest overall satisfaction for Pilot 2 were Developing Academic Leadership Capability 1 and 2 (94% each). However, despite being rated slightly less than the other modules, both modules still achieved a percentage agreement above 90 against the six statements. Modules on Course Coordinator as Academic Leader and Academic Leadership for Excellent Curriculum both scored below 90 percentage agreement for one statement (the materials (87%) and the activities (83%) respectively) despite having better overall satisfaction percentage agreement.
4.2.2 Feedback on Pilot 2 as a Program

The final evaluation conducted in module 10 indicated that 35% agreed and 59% strongly agreed that the Program met their professional development needs in this area (Table 12). Of particular note in this end of Program feedback, was Pilot 2 participants agreement that the Program met the learning outcomes and was pitched at the right level. Both of these were rated more highly in Pilot 2. As the approach was changed from Pilot 1 to 2, to better embody the characteristics of successful academic leadership development, it could be assumed that this improvement was due in some part to the changes made in the Program content and the teaching approach. Thanks for the session, the knowledge is valuable well beyond the scope of the course coordination roleit will be transferable to other arenas. Pilot 2 Participant.
46
4.3 Pilot 1 and 2 Comparison Data

The following section provides data showing improved agreement for nearly all aspects of the ALCCP between Pilot 1 and 2 is provided in figures to ensure a clean visual image to allow comparisons.
4.3.1 Feedback on the ModulesPilot 1 and 2

Figure 4 shows the percentage agreement for the same (or similar) modules from evaluations completed at the end of each session. As the module order and titles changed slightly between Pilot 1 and 2, not every module of each pilot has a comparison rating. The figure shows either a similar percentage agreement (for two modules) and an improvement on the remaining modules (five). Figure 4: Percentage Agreement for Pilot 1 and 2 based on Individual Session/Module Pilot 1
100
Pilot 2
% Agreement
80 60 40 20 0 Build Course Team Manage Change & Resistance Communicate with EI AL for Excellent Curriculum Lead Course Review Develop AL Capability 1 CC as AL
Session/Module
47
4.3.2 Feedback on Pilot 1 and 2 as Programs

The addition and adaptation of modules in Pilot 2 explains the extra data in Figure 5 (below). Figure 5 shows a similar overall trend as the data collected at the end of each module. That is, Pilot 1 modules achieved high satisfaction percentage agreement and Pilot 2 modules received slightly improved percentage agreements or the same. The exception, however, is Leading a Course Review. Interestingly, Leading a Course Review was more favourably rated in Pilot 1 for individual session data. Participants perception of the individual modules and the Program as a whole, therefore, shifted as the Program unfolded. Figure 5: Percentage Agreement for Pilot 1 and 2 for each Session/Module Based on the Final Evaluation Pilot 1
100
Pilot 2
% Agreement
80 60 40 20 0 Build Course Team Lead Course Review AL for Excellent Curriculum Communicate with EI Lead Change & Manage Resistance Build Performance Manage Key Relations Develop AL Capability 1 Develop AL Capability 2 CC as AL
Session/Module The final data taken from the extended evaluation in the last session of the ALCCP illustrates percentage agreement for aspects of the Program (Figure 6 on page 49). What has significantly improved is the participants view of leadership in relation to their role as CC; with 50% agreeing and 50% strongly agreeing that their views on their leadership role as a CC had changed as a result of the Program (Table 12). This is important as overall the first cohort in Pilot 1 did not identify themselves as leaders. Whether this can be explained by a difference in the group makeup, the changing understanding of the CC role at Curtin through the C2010 process, or a function of the Program is difficult to determine. Most likely, it is a combination of the above. The other noteworthy shift is in the level of support they felt they had from the University (with 47% agreeing and 53% strongly agreeing in Pilot 2). The significant improvement in percentage agreement on these two aspects hopefully represents a cultural change at work at Curtin by which CCs are being recognised as leaders and are identifying themselves as leaders.
48
Figure 6: Percentage Agreement for Pilot 1 and 2 based on the Final Evaluation Ratings for each Session/ModuleAspects of the ALCCP Pilot 1
100
Pilot 2
% Agreement
80 60 40 20 0 Felt supported by Uni Pitched at Right Level Met Learning Outcomes Online Resources Well administered Leadership Views had Shifted Felt supported by Uni Leadership Views had Shifted Print Resources Met PD Needs
Aspects of ALCCP
The final Figure (7) clearly demonstrates the improvement between Pilot 1 and 2 by illustrating the difference in the percentage of participants who strongly agreed on the eight survey items. Figure 7: Percentage Agreement (Strongly Agreed) for Pilot 1 and 2 based on the Final Evaluation Ratings for each Session/ModuleAspects of the ALCCP Pilot 1
100
Pilot 2
% Strong Agreement
80 60 40 20 0 Met Learning Outcomes Online Resources Print Resources Pitched at Right Level Met PD Needs Well administered
Aspects of ALCCP
49
4.4 Issues and Positives

Throughout Pilot 1 a Program log was maintained, which identified both issues and positives arising from participant comments. Comments were captured from the evaluation forms, email correspondence and a stop, start and continue exercise carried out in Pilot 1 (session 4). Issues were documented with evidence, strategies were developed and changes made in relation to concerns expressed by participants in the Program. During Pilot 1 the project team met weekly to address feedback and adjust content and approach where appropriate. As a result, the feedback in Pilot 1 improved as the Program progressed. Overall, nearly all the issues raised were resolved through the revision of the ALCCP for Pilot 2 and this is reflected in improved evaluation data. Apart from concerns arising from relatively minor administrative and scheduling issues the remaining issues were related to one key theme, that of academic work culture and its practices. This theme influenced both the negatives, or issues that arose, and the positives. When module facilitators were sensitive to academic work practiceseven when participants were being challengedfeedback improved. Underlying and connected to the theme of academic work practices were the issues arising from tensions between higher educational change and traditional ways of doing academic work. In the experience of piloting the ALCCP it became clear that a lack of sensitivity to academic culture could clearly have a detrimental impact on academic leadership development. The key findings from the project, including this important lesson, are addressed in the next chapter of the report and explored in relation to the literature in the field addressing academic culture and its impact on staff development.
4.5 A Note on the Online Program

At Curtin it was not possible to trial the purely online version of the Program in the scope of the project. Whilst overall the participants rated the online resources very highly in evaluations, the actual utilisation of the Blackboard site was not high. In fact, despite requesting on-going access to the materials most have not taken the opportunity to revisit Blackboard. Workload appears to be the major factor precluding its use and more research will be carried out to explore how well the Programs learning outcomes have been transferred to the workplace (Baldwin and Ford, 1988).
50
5. Key Findings
The findings of the project and the two pilotsbased on the evaluation dataindicate that the ALCCP has been very well received by participants and that the revised package offered in Pilot 2 was more favourably rated. This is an accurate representation of the projects key outcome. However, the project team discovered through the process of delivering the two pilots that responsiveness and the capacity to shift approach, content and focus are essential to the successful delivery of the Program. Furthermore, it became clear that the culture of academia including its traditional structures, work and social practices had the potential to disrupt academic leadership development if not approached with awareness, consideration and sensitivity. Most importantly, the approach, content, teaching, administration and materials need to reflect the current academic context and all that this implies. For example, traditionally academic staff development has been seen as an intrinsic part of academic work (Boud 1999, 8). Teaching innovation, research, publications and winning grants are not separate from the normal business of academic life (Boud, 1999) and all imply professional development of some kind. Academics are thus primed to favour professional development that reflects this providing flexible, responsive, active, problem-based, just-in-time, just-for-me learning methods (Scott et al. 2008, xvii). Feedback from the pilots confirms that CCs appreciate the same. What they wanted were theoretical frameworks which had demonstrable practical application to realistic case studies that replicated common issues faced in course coordination. Participants also appreciated the ALCCP being structured and delivered in such a way that was conducive to academic working practices. For example, they wanted to engage critically with the concepts and theories presented in a scholarly manner. They also wanted a Program that was self-manageable, that was adaptable to their immediate needs, and which took into account the workload challenges inherent in their role. A rigid and a directive approach would not have been appreciated and this may explain why the online resources were well received given that they allowed an increased flexibility. If participants were unable to attend a session due to other commitments then they were able to access the relevant materials. In the same way, open and ongoing access to the online resource has meant that as issues arise they are able to revisit, or investigate further, the information available to them. Please, please have an academic leadership program NOT generic management. Pilot 1 Participant (session 1 comment). Too much business speak--did not understand some of the terminology. Pilot 1 Participant (session 1 comment). Initially when the first pilot began participant comments reflected that they were dissatisfied with the leadership and management language present in the approach and content. This resistance can be explained by the tensions between higher educational reform and the old ways of doing business (and their underlying ideological differences). As has been observed:
51
Notions of traditional value bases anchored in a humanistic rather than economic rationale of education, collegiality and peer judgement have been cited as being deeply rooted in the academic profession and non-compatible with modern managerial requirements and as hindering progress and change. (Massy, 2000 and Johnston, 2004; qutd. in Hotho et al. 2008, unnumbered online document) In the words of Yielder and Codling (2004, 315), The collegial approach of the traditional post-war university has given way to the corporate management influences of the last twenty years. Advocates of the former decry the influence of the latter, and vice versa. Interestingly, Ramsden (1998) also spends considerable time discussing traditional academic culture and the challenges it presents to leadership. He argues that there is a persuasive myth present in academic life that management is an intrusive and unnecessary activity which confines academic freedom and wastes the talents of a leader such as the head of department in trivial administrative tasks (Ramsden 1998, 4). Furthermore, Brymans (2007) extensive literature review examining leadership in higher education notes considerable references to managerialism and collegiality and their impact on leadership effectiveness. If an article published last year in the Higher Educational Supplement, titled Three jeers for managerial jargon, is any indication, management practices and the associated changes have not increased in popularity since Ramsdens observation ten years earlier (Moore, 2008). Moore (2008) decries what he believes is an invasion of the academy by an alien code where the never-ending processes of quality assurance, performance management, continuous improvement and so on will succeed in eventually snuffing out all civility and creativity in [universities].10 Parker, in her report for the ALTC, observed that the experience of other leadership projects suggests a similar association in academia between leadership and hierarchy and control (2008). In many respects, for some academics the changes to higher education represents a serious threat to not only the quality of university courses (as drives to become more entrepreneurial increase) but also to their autonomous and collegial working practices. Self-nomination to participate in the Program is thus recommended rather than delegation, as leadership development requires personal change, reflection and a commitment to this process. Significantly, collegiality, a key tenet of academic work, underpins relations in universities and many of the decision making processes (such as committees) (Ramsden, 1998). In fact, middle managers such as CCs are particularly vulnerable to the negative aspects of collegiality within a changing environment as extended effort may be spent achieving decisions with those staff who [are] unduly resistant to change (implicitly the minority) (Hellawell and Hancock 2001, 188). According to Hellawell and Hancock (2001) the most collegial relationships in universities occur at the course team level, and it is this collegial framework (combined with little or no line management authority) which perhaps informs some CCs non-identification as leaders. In an environment where individual, autonomous work is the norm and where collegial relationships are highly rated through peer review processes, academic self-image is more complex to manage than for staff in other work cultures. For example, CCs are not only required to have academic leadership and management capabilities, they have to demonstrate discipline credibility (Hellawell and Hancock, 2001). The self-image of the academic leader, therefore, becomes difficult to manage as the staff they lead are also their immediate peers (Rowley and
Flavell, H., Jones, S., and Ladyshewsky, R. 2008. Academic Leadership Development for Course Coordinators and the Influences of Higher Educational Change. Paper presented at the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2008, Canberra.http://www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/2008/index.shtml
10
52
Sherman, 2003). Such academic leaders may even play subordinate roles within particular course teams (Hellawell and Hancock, 2001: 189). Experience with the ALCCP pilots suggests that care must be taken in managing the self-image of academic staff particularly within the context of the 360 survey and the personality test employed in the Program (in this case the Myers Briggs Type Indicator). Not all staff are comfortable with revealing their results to other participants, thus staff should be given the option of what and how much they reveal. In the same way, the selection of peer coaches as part of the Program should be flexible and be scheduled well into the Program to ensure the cementing of a collegial atmosphere which is conducive to peer learning. The collegial relation between the academic leader and their staff is further complicated by the fact that middle management roles, such as course coordination, are commonly temporary positions: It is somewhat obvious why leadership is a problem here. The person who is responsible for providing leadership is not necessarily willing to be a leader, and knows that leadership must be highly collegial or it will be very difficult to return to a faculty. (Rowley and Sherman 2003,1059) The predilection of academic staff identified in the literature (Scott et al., 2008) towards peer coaching, networking and having the opportunity to work in small groups with staff with similar issues is also likely, at least partially, due to a preference for collegiality (Boud, 1999). The Program pilots indeed confirmed that participants valued peer learning, with an overwhelming number of comments on the value of learning from others and the value in networking and sharing with other CCs. Collegiality, according to Boud (1999), is also the reason why academics appreciate a learning framework that is two-way. In the ALCCP a dialogue between facilitator and group is encouraged and warns against a didactic style of engagement. For the reasons given above, the ALCCP incorporates considerable sensitivity to the issue of collegiality through its role-specific content (emotional intelligence, building the course team, managing change, managing upwards and conflict resolution) and through its administration and approach (outlined in the guide to the Program). Due to the tensions between traditional work practices and culture and the more recent corporate or business approach, the deficit model implied by the delivery of the ALCCP must also be managed sensitively. For example, the Program should ideally be promoted as an opportunity for staff to develop their own career goals. At Curtin the ALCCP is now recognised as part of the Universitys system for identifying teaching performance (the TPI). This is a much more favourable positioning of the Program rather than it being inadvertently viewed as yet another hurdle to overcome. According to Gordon some of the tension, even conflict and opposition that arises in response to professional development is often the perception that any training and development is driven by recent reforms resulting in more appraisal, quality assurance and evaluation of staff performance (1995, 163). Some resistance from academic staff is inevitable in the current climate, however, care, consideration and flexibility can enable facilitators of academic leadership development to win over the minority of participants who are change resistant. As Gordon states:
53
This poses substantial professional and practical challenges to staff developers who must handle such situations with integrity, dignity and sensitivity. In doing so they often need to possess high levels of personal resilience in addition to good facilitative and reflective skills. (1995, 163). Not surprisingly, it is the capabilities required for effective leadership that enable facilitators to successfully achieve the outcomes of the ALCCP. In particular, and given the audience and context, the emphasis in delivery is on transformational leadership capabilities. This was certainly the experience of the Leading Courses project, whereby the project leadership and team dynamic were favourably positioned to enable the team to react to the challenges arising out of higher educational change. Critical reflective practice employed by the project team, an important element in leadership development, also played a role in the projects success. Overall I enjoyed the Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program and gained further insights into administrative hurdles experienced by the coordinators from other disciplines. Pilot 1 Participant. So much useful information--I feel like it was a paper pot of gold. Lots to read. Pilot 2 Participant. A very rich session. Practical strategies pertinent to leading in our academic environment. Pilot 2 Participant. The best thing/course I have participated in at Curtinexcellent. Pilot 2 Participant. The ALCCP has been successful due to the adaptation of the original materials (which incorporated the right elements) to reflect the ethos of higher education institutions, their cultural practices and the discourse of academia (Boud 1999, 10). Its particular success at Curtin has been enhanced by several converging and favourable conditions, including the C2010 process and the Programs support and endorsement by senior staff at the University which has resulted in raising the profile of CCs. The ALCCPs alignment with recognition and reward systems such as workload management, promotional processes, the TPI and performance review has cemented its influence and value. A significant outcome is the notable shift in participant viewsfrom Pilot 1 to 2regarding their leadership capacity as CCs. Pilot 2 participants were much more inclined to identify as leaders. The ALCCP has also gained currency at Curtin, having now been embedded into the Universitys suite of development opportunities for academic staff offered in conjunction with the Organisational Development Unit. At the time of writing this report, over 55 CCs had registered their interest in the 2009 Program.
54
Project Key FindingsAcademic Leadership

There are a number of key findings from the project in relation to academic leadership within higher education. They are: Higher educational reform impacts on leadership development, both as a driver and as a potential constraint for developing leadership capacity; Workload and work practice changes which are not conducive to leadership development (strong emphasis on administrative duties to the exclusion of leadership reflection and development) have a considerable impact. Time release for leadership development for this particular cohort is therefore crucial; There is a need to attend to the issues arising from the tension between traditional academic culture and work practices and the emerging corporate management culture of higher education by avoiding using managerial or corporate terminology; It is important to be aware of, and sensitive to, specific work practices of academia that influence leadership and its development. For example, the revolving door aspect of the CC role emphasises the need for a collegial approach to academic leadership as distinct from other leadership approaches. This is due to the fact that many CCs will move back into peer-based relationships with their colleagues once their appointment in this role is complete; and Staff must be empowered to realise their leadership capacity in the CC role.
Project Key FindingsAcademic Leadership Development

Key findings in relation to the successful provision of staff development in relation to academic leadership for CCs are: Contextualise all material to the CC role; Address the issue of clear role statements for CCs prior to leadership development; Be prepared to meet the needs of a diverse group of staff very busy with teaching commitments; As in good teaching practice, incorporate formative evaluative strategies, be flexible and responsive to the group dynamics and their needs; Be aware of the diverse discipline knowledge of the group; Allow time for peer-to-peer discussion, critique and debate; Critically engage with concepts and theories delivered in the Program; Apply a collegial approach to communications and interactions; Allow plenty of time for networking, socialising and sharing best practice and issues; Employ small group work where possible; Take time to form the group at the outset; Value staff by providing a prestige venue and quality catering; Acknowledge staff commitment through their participation; and Ensure the facilitation and coordination team are experienced and skilled facilitators in the higher educational context, preferably with experience in teaching.
55
6. Conclusions
The Leading Courses project has successfully met the significant outcomes identified in the projects method (Table 1) through developing and trialling what appears, based on initial feedback at Curtin, to be a very useful resource with widespread potential benefits for the sector. The ALCCP is highly relevant as it fills an existing gap in higher educational professional development by providing a flexible academic leadership development package focused on the crucial learning and teaching leadership role of the CC. With its emphasis on course quality and learning and teaching outcomes (including curriculum alignment, assessment and course review) this academic leadership program not only promotes excellence in teaching and learning, but actively challenges CCs to redefine themselves as leaders within a changing tertiary environment. The success of the project in this respect appears to be confirmed by the significant shift in Pilot 2 participants view of themselves as leaders. The projects momentum in raising the leadership profile of CCs at Curtin (which included identifying and addressing systems level outcomes related to the role) has been aided through the Universitys curriculum review process underway at the time of the pilots. However, on face value the ALCCP alone appears to have had some impact on shifting CCs perception of their leadership role and capacity within the University. Furthermore, the project has had success in increasing the profile of leadership in learning and teaching through the recognition of the contribution of CCs. The project did not, however, progress without its share of challenges. The largest of which was the underestimation of the impact of academic culture and work practiceswithin the context of higher educational change and its greater emphasis on managerialismon the leadership program with its reception. This is an issue that is likely to be present for some time. Therefore, the ALCCP resources have been developed to minimise the impact of this significant underlying issue and capitalise on the commitment of dedicated CCs in managing the changing agenda whilst working to provide the best learning experiences for their students. The ALCCP not only provides CCs with role relevant tools to improve curriculum, assessment, and course outcomes, it also provides strategies and development opportunities that give CCs some perspective on how their leadership skills can be enhanced to become change enablers. Significantly, the Program in its current form does not yet have any formal process for assessing whether the learning outcomes have been achieved. This is an aspect of the Program that requires further consideration and development. It is anticipated that an action learning project will be incorporated into the ALCCP at a later date to realise one of the projects initial outcomes, which was the articulation of the ALCCP into a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education/Tertiary Teaching, or alternatively a Master of Business and Administration or Master of Educational Administration. As the project unfolded it became clear that this was not possible within the time frame, nor was the inclusion of a set assessment entirely appropriate given that the workload of CCs emerged as an issue through the course of the ALCCP. Workload issues will need consideration and careful management, prior to the introduction of a mandatory assessable task to the ALCCP as its inclusion may well put overworked CCs off participating. Whilst the ALCCPs lack of formal assessment needs to be addressed, the concurrent issue of workload emerged as a broad underlying challenge that appears to have an impact on participants ability to develop their leadership capability. Research into the transfer of training to the workplace by Pilot 1 participants is currently underway based on a framework developed by Baldwin and Ford (1988). Preliminary qualitative research indicates that the ALCCP has had some impact on participants capacity to better manage and lead as CCs, however, workload has surfaced as a challenge for reflective leadership development, which requires time (as well as support) to carry out the intellectual and emotional work required.
56
One of the difficulties that arose in the project was how to measure CCs capacity to apply the skills learnt back in their faculty. Workload was likely prohibitive for some; what other challenges arise for CCs when they return to the realities of their desk? As Boud (1999, 5) has observed: Well-designed university-wide development programmes are extremely valuable and are often highly regarded by those who participate in them, but nevertheless they are not sufficient for internalization of new practice and implementation in another context to fully occur. The ALCCP provides relevant theories and tools to apply in the CC role, however, it is recognised that strategies for supporting CCs need to be developed as do more effective measures for determining the transfer of training and the challenges to that process. The research into the application of learning from the ALCCP will hopefully shed some light, and the project team recognises the need to provide further resources and support for CCs to continue their leadership development beyond the Program. Some work has already begun in establishing a CoP or alumni of ALCCP participants at Curtin. One of the highlights for many participants, and often commented on, was the opportunity to learn from one another, share best practice and network.11 It helped me to ask new questions about my role in its context, and to reconsider my personality in terms of the workplace. I believe it will have a lasting impact in terms of my interpersonal work relations. Pilot 2 Participant. Just a fantastic program; extremely well run; is there a follow up program which further develops the skills? Well done teama most valuable experience. Pilot 1 Participant.
An unexpected benefit from the first pilot was collaboration on a research project by two participants who were, prior to the Program, unfamiliar with each other and their research.
11
57
References
Antonakis, J, and R. House. 2002. The full range leadership theory: the way forward. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership 2, eds. B. Avolio and Yammarino, F. Elsevier: St. Louis. Baldwin, T. and J. Ford. 1988. Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology 41(1): 63-105. Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, Free Press. Quoted in Bryman, 2007, 8. Bass, B.M.1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8: 9-32. Quoted in Bryman, 2007, 8. Bass, B.M., Jung, D.I., Avolio, B.J. and Y. Berson. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 207-218. Quoted in Bryman, 2007, 8. Bennis, W. 1989. On becoming a leader. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Bolden, R., J. Gosling, and G. Petrov. 2008. Developing collective leadership in higher education. Research and Development Series. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, 1-80. Boud, D. 1999. Situating academic development in professional work: using peer learning. International Journal for Academic Development 4 (1): 3-10. Bryman, A. 2007. Effective leadership in higher education: summary of findings. Research and Development Series. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, 1-40. Briggs, A. 2001. Academic middle managers in further education: reflections on leadership. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 6 (2): 223-235. Carroll, J.B., and M. Wolverton. 2004. Who becomes a chair? New Directions for Higher Education 126: 3-10. DAgostino, F. 2006.Closing the gap in curriculum development leadership. Brisbane: Application to Carrick Institute for Teaching and Learning. http://www.uq.edu.au/teaching learning/index.html?page=61920#dagostino (accessed April 7, 2008). Flavell, H., S. Jones, and R. Ladyshewsky. 2008. Academic leadership development for course coordinators and the influences of higher educational change. In Australian Universities Quality Forum, Quality & Standards in Higher Education: Making a Difference, July 9-11, 2008. Canberra: Australian Universities Quality Agency. Gaither, G. 2004. Developing leadership skills in academia. Academic Leadership 2.1. http://www.academicleadership.org/leader_action_tips/Developing_Leadership_Skills.shtml (accessed August 28, 2006). Gibbs, G. 2006. Departmental leadership for quality teaching: an international comparative study of effective practice. http://www.learning.ox.ac.uk/oli.php?page=72 (accessed October 10, 2006). Gordon, G. 1995. The implications of quality assurance, audit and assessment. In Directions in
58
Staff Development, ed. A. Brew, 162-176. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hellawell, D., and N. Hancock. 2001. A case study of the changing role of the academic middle manager in higher education: between hierarchical control and collegiality? Research Papers in Education 16(2): 183-197. Hotho, S., McGoldrick, J., and A. Work. 2008. New perspectives on academic leadership moving the research agenda. Academic Leadership 6 (3). http://www.academicleadership.org/ emprical_research/449.shtml (accessed December 20, 2008). Johnston, C. 2004. Department heads shirk responsibilities. Times Higher Education Supplement. 9 January 30. Quoted in Hotho et al., 2008, unnumbered document. Kerka, S. 1996. Journal writing and adult learning. ERIC Digest 174. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Ladyshewsky, R., and S. Jones. 2007. Academic leadership and the course coordinator: King Pin in the quality process. In Australian Universities Quality Forum, Evolution and Renewal in Quality Assurance, July 11-13, 2007. Hobart: Australian Universities Quality Agency. Ladyshewsky, R. 2006. Peer coaching: a constructivist methodology for enhancing critical thinking in post-graduate business education. Higher Education Research and Development. 25 (1):67-84. Ladyshewsky, R. 2005. Peer coaching: a practical model to support constructivist learning methods in the development of managerial competency. In Evidence Based Coaching Volume 1 Theory Research and Practice from the behavioural sciences, eds. M. Cavanagh, A. Grant, and T. Kemp, 171-182. Bowen Hills, Australia: Australian Academic Press. Ladyshewsky, R. and W. Varey. 2005. Peer coaching: a practical model to support constructivist learning methods in the development of managerial competency. In Evidence-Based Coaching: Volume 1. Theory, Research and Practice in the Behavioural Sciences, eds. Cavanagh M, Grant A, and T. Kemp, 171-182. Bowen Hills Qld. Australia: Australian Academic Press. Ladyshewsky R. 2004. E-learning compared with face to face: differences in the academic achievement of postgraduate business students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 20 (3): 316-336. Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., and P. Ramsden. (2003). Variation in the experience of leadership of teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 28: 247-259. Massy. W. F. 2000. Overcoming hollowed collegiality: department cultures and teaching quality. In learning from change, ed. D. DeZure, 28-32. VA Stylus. Quoted in Hotho et al., 2008, unnumbered document. McKenzie, J., Alexander, S., Harper, C. and S. Anderson. 2005. Dissemination, adoption and adaptation of project innovations in higher education: a report for the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/webdav/ users/siteadmin/public/dissemination_disseminationadoptionandadaptation_report_2005.pdf (accessed August 12, 2008). Moore, T. 2008. Three jeers for managerial jargon. The Australian Higher Education Review. 30 April: 30.
59
Parker, L. 2008. Leadership for excellence in learning and teaching in Australian higher education: review of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) program 2006-2008. Strawberry Hills, NSW: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Parrish, D., and G. Lefoe. 2009. The green report: the development of leadership capacity in higher education. Strawberry Hills, NSW: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Prosser, M. and K. Trigwell. 1997. Perceptions of the teaching environment and its relationship to approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology 51: 25-35. Quinn, R., Faerman, S., Thompson, M., and M. McGrath. 2003. Becoming a master manager: a competency framework. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Raines, S.C. and M.S. Alberg. 2003. The role of professional development in preparing academic leaders. New Directions for Higher Education 124: 33-39. Ramsden, P., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. and E. Martin. 2007. University teachers experiences of academic leadership and their approaches to teaching. Learning and Instruction 17: 14-155. Ramsden, P. 1998. Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge. Rowley, D. and H. Sherman. 2003. The special challenges of academic leadership. Management Decision. 41 (10): 1058-1063. Scott, G., Coates, H., Andersen, M. and K. Johnston. 2007. Draft key findings, Carrick national leadership project: Learning leaders in times of change, 1-14. Scott, G., Hamish, C., and M. Anderson. 2008. Learning leaders in times of change: academic capabilities in Australian higher education. Strawberry Hills, NSW: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Southwell, D., Gannaway, D., Orrell, J., Chalmers, D. and C. Abraham. 2005. Strategies for effective dissemination of project outcomes: a report for the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Strawberry Hills, NSW: ALTC. Southwell, D., Scoufis, M., and L. Hunt. 2005. Caught between a rock and several hard places: cultivating the roles of the associate dean (teaching and learning) and the course coordinator: Proposal for a Carrick Institutional Leadership project. Trivett, N. and R. Lines. February, 2009. Embedding and sustaining leadership development for course coordinators through tailored support during curriculum review. Whats happening in leadership. Strawberry Hills, NSW: ALTC. Vilkinas, T., Leask, B. and T. Rogers. 2007. Developing the leadership capability of academic coordinators. In Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Annual Conference, July 8-11, 2007. Adelaide: HERDSA. Vilkinas, T., and G. Cartan. 2001. The behavioural control room for managers: the integrator role. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal 22 (4): 175-185. Vilkinas, T., and G. Cartan. 2006. The integrated competing values framework: its spatial configuration. Journal of Management Development 25 (6): 505-521. Wolverton, M., Ackerman, R. and S. Holt. 2005. Preparing for leadership: what academic department chairs need to know. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27 (2): 227-238.
60
Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W.H., Wolverton, M.L. and J. C. Sarros. 1999. A comparison of department chair tasks in Australia and the United States. Higher Education 38: 333-350. Yielder, J. and A. Codling. 2004. Management and leadership in the contemporary university. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 26 (3): 315-328.
61
Appendix 1: Program Session Evaluation Form

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program Date: _________________ Please indicate your response
1. The learning outcomes of this session were clearly identified. 2. The activities helped me to achieve the learning outcomes for this session. 3. The materials helped me to achieve the learning outcomes for this session. 4. The quality of teaching helped me to achieve the learning outcomes for this session. 5. This session was pitched at the right level. 6. Overall, I am satisfied with this session. 7. What were the most helpful aspects of the session? Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
8. How could the session be improved?
10. Any other comments or suggestions?
62
Appendix 2: Final Evaluation Form Pilot 2

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program Final Program Evaluation Survey We would like to evaluate the Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program, and for that we need information from you. Some of the feedback will be about the short-term success of the Program and some will be about longer term evaluation. There are also questions relating to your role as Course Coordinator. The evaluation may result in conference presentations and/ or a paper submitted for publication. Your participation is purely voluntary and if you complete the survey we will assume you consent to allow your responses to be used in this research. Your responses will be anonymous. Please complete the following questions:
1. What is your gender? Program Design and Content 2. As far as you remember, please indicate the value of the individual seminars. 1: Course Coordinator as Academic Leader (Introduction) 2: Academic Leadership for Excellent Curriculum (C2010) 3: Leading a Course Review (Annual Course Review process) 4: Developing Academic Leadership Capability 1 (iCVF) 5: Building the Course Team (MBTI) 6: Developing Academic Leadership Capability 2 (iCVF and development planning) 7: Building Performance (working with staff and students on improving performance) 8: Communicating with Emotional Intelligence Self-talk, active listening, conflict management) 9. Leading Change and Managing Resistance (SWOT, force field analysis, and Ishikawa /Fishbone diagram) 10. Developing Key Relationships (Managing Upwards) Attended Very useful Useful Not Useful Female Male
63
3.
What else would you have liked to have seen included in the Program?
4.
What aspects of the teaching approach did you find most helpful?
5.
Please comment on the value of peer coaching/peer learning, and provide some explanation.
6.
In your opinion what is the optimum format for the program?
Current format 2 hours fortnightly Current format with longer sessions (3 hours) fortnightly Intensive (e.g. 1 block of 2 days) Mix of both (spread across semester with one intensive block)
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Please indicate your response: The online resources available through Blackboard were useful. The hard copy resources were useful. The Program met your professional development needs in this area. The learning outcomes of the Program were achieved. Overall, the Program was pitched at the right level. The Program was well administered. You would have benefited from more social time with Program participants.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
64
15. 16. 17.
You felt adequately supported by the University to undertake the Program Have your views of your leadership role changed as a result of participating in the Program? Listed below are some statements, please indicate whether you believe they are important in making the role of Course Coordinator more attractive. Clear role description. Promotion criteria that more directly recognise achievements as a course coordinator. A higher number of workload points allocated to the role. More administrative support. Level of pay compared to your substantive level. Greater level of accountability. Greater level of autonomy. Access to a period of study leave at the end of a set term as course coordinator. What skills or knowledge gained from the Program have you applied to your work? Very Important Important Not Important
18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
65
Appendix 3: List of Project Conference Presentations and Publications

Flavell, H., Jones, S., and Ladyshewsky, R. (2008). Academic Leadership Development for Course Corodinators and the Influences of Higher Educational Change. Paper presented at the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2008, Canberra. http://www.auqa.edu.au/files/ publications/auqf2008%20proceedings.pdf Jones, S., Oliver, B., Ladyshewsky, R., and Flavell, H. (2008, July). Engaging Academic Leaders: Improving Teaching Quality. Paper presented at the HERDSA Conference 2008, Rotorua, New Zealand. http://conference.herdsa.org.au/2008/pdfs/HERDSAProgramme_v8.pdf Jones, S., Ladyshewsky, R., Oliver, B., Flavell, H., and Geoghegan, I. (2008, January). Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators: Results of a Professional Development Program Pilot. Paper presented at the Teaching and Learning Forum 2008, Perth, Western Australia http://otl.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2008/abstracts.html#jones Ladyshewsky, R., Geoghegan, I., Jones, S., and Oliver, B. (2008). A Virtual Academic Leadership Program Using a Blend of Technologies. International Journal of Learning. 14. www. learning-journal.com Ladyshewsky, R., and Jones, S. (2007). Academic Leadership and the Course Coordinator: King Pin in the Quality Process. Paper presented at the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2007, Hobart, http://www.auqa.com.au/auqf/pastfora/2007/program/papers/e20.pdf Jones, S., Ladyshewsky, R., Oliver, B. and Shortland-Jones, B. (2007, January). Enhancing course coordinators leadership and management for increased student engagement. Paper presented at the Teaching and Learning Forum 2007, Perth, Western Australia, http://lsn.curtin. edu.au/tlf/tlf2007/abstracts.html#jones
Media Coverage of Project

OKeefe, B. On course for better leadership. (2006). The Australian Higher Education Supplement. 21 June, 2006: 33. http://academicleadership.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/ATNJuly.pdf Maintaining course quality a priority. (2006). ATN in Profile. 2.4: 3. http://academicleadership. curtin.edu.au/local/docs/australianjune.pdf
66
Appendix 4: List of Internal and External Reference Group Members

Internal Reference Group Mr Bill Ryan, Director, Staff Services Ms Barbara Goombridge, Manager, Curtin Leadership Program Professor Mario Zadnik, Dean of Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Science and Engineering Professor John Neilson, Head, School of Accounting Professor Alison Preston, Course Coordinator, Graduate School of Business Mr Justin DeSouza, Course Coordinator, School of Marketing Dr Marita Naude, Course Coordinator, Graduate School of Business Dr Brian von Konsky, Course Coordinator, Department of Computing Mr Clive Maynard, Course Coordinator, Electrical and Computer Engineering Ms Jude Comfort, Course Coordinator, School of Public Health Dr Lina Pelliccione, Course Coordinator, School of Education Ms Christine Richardson, Course Coordinator, Media and Information Studies Dr Ian Fitzimmons, Course Coordinator and Head, Department of Applied Geology A/Professor Bruce Hartley, Department of Exploration Geophysics Mr Chris Heelan, Course Coordinator, Centre for Aboriginal Studies External Reference Group Commencing Members Professor Bruce King, Director, Flexible Learning Centre (UniSA) Dr Neil Carrington, Director, Teaching and Learning Support Service (QUT) Professor Shirley Alexander, Dean of Education and Head of Instructional Media Centre (UTS) Dr Robyn Lines, Director, Learning and Teaching Development (RMIT) Professor Bruce Shortland-Jones, Director, Learning Support Network (Curtin) Subsequent Members Ms Deborah Southwell, Director, Teaching and Learning Support Services (QUT) Dr Jo McKenzie, Director, Institute for Interactive Media and Learning (UTS) Professor Margaret Hicks, Director Learning and Teaching (UniSA)
67

LE64 Academic Leadership For Course Coords Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LE64 Academic Leadership For Course Coords Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Leading Courses: Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Final Report

http://academicleadership.dev.curtin.edu.au/course_coordinator 1 Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Leading Courses: Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators

Local Project Outcomes (Curtin University of Technology)

National Project Outcomes

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Leading Courses: Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Final Report

A Guide to Coordination and Facilitation

http://academicleadership.dev.curtin.edu.au/course_coordinator 1 Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

http://academicleadership.dev.curtin.edu.au/course_coordinator 1 Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

4. The Program Pilots

5. Key Findings 6. Conclusions References

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Abbreviations and Acronyms Used

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Project Key FindingsAcademic Leadership

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Project Key FindingsAcademic Leadership Development

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

2. The Context of Leading Courses

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

2.2 The Local ContextCurtin

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

3.1 Project Method and Leadership Development Philosophy

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Leading Courses Outcomes

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

3.1.1 Project Phases

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Finding placements (2)

Finding time (33)

Resources (8) Recognition (3) Processes (14) Multiple venues (5)

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

3.1.2 Dissemination Strategy

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Leading Courses Project Features

Recognisable scholarly qualities.

Adaptable, either in themselves or in the ways they could be implemented.

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

3.2 Program Method

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

3.2.1 The Experiential Learning Cycle

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Program

3.2.2 ALCCP Structure