Departmental leadership of teaching in research-intensive environments Graham Gibbs

Departmental leadership of teaching in research-intensive environments Graham Gibbs

Background: context • Growing phenomenon of institutional strategies to develop teaching • Less progress in UK in implementing ‘learning and teaching strategies’ in research-intensive universities • Moved to Oxford (2004) • National Teaching Fellowship project (2004-7): network of research-intensive universities to discuss teaching • Oxford, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Cornell, Lund, Helsinki, Oslo, Utrecht, Leuven, Sydney, Edinburgh, Copenhagen, NUS, Queens • Case study visits identified some centrally driven strategic teaching development (Utrecht, Sydney, Leuven), but mostly not strategic or centralised • Institution-wide initiatives usually derived from depts. (Stanford) • Even where institutional initiatives, depts. vary in implementation (Sydney) • In UK NSS scores similar for institutions but varied for subjects within institutions

Background: research study • ‘Departmental leadership of teaching in research-intensive environments’ Leadership Foundation/Higher Education Academy • Two departments per university identified through outstanding teaching PIs • Case study visits: documentation, interviews with head, academics, students, to identify role of leadership in teaching excellence • Discussion with network in Utrecht, June 2006

Background: theory • McNay (1995) University cultures • Collegium-Bureaucracy-Corporation-Enterprise • Ramsden (1998) • emphasis on ‘transformational’ leadership • Prosser and Trigwell (1997) • experience of department contexts associated with ‘student focussed’ approaches to teaching • Bryman (2006) • leadership for research productivity sometimes opposite of leadership for teaching excellence • sceptical about transformational leadership in research-intensive cultures • McBeath et al (2004) • distributed leadership (related to organisational culture)

Background: theory • McNay (1995) University cultures • Collegium-Bureaucracy-Corporation-Enterprise • Ramsden (1998) • conceptions of leadership of teaching • Prosser and Trigwell (1997) • experience of department contexts associated with ‘student focussed’ approaches to teaching • Bryman (2006) • leadership for research productivity sometimes opposite of leadership for teaching excellence • sceptical about transformational leadership in research-intensive cultures • McBeath et al (2004) • distributed leadership (related to organisational culture)

Conceptions of leadership of teaching A A focus on the bureaucratic structure and organisation of the department, imposed by the head B A focus on the role, responsibility and practice of the head, who imposes a model of good practice in teaching upon the teachers in the department C A focus of the nature and content of subjects and disciplines, which is discussed with the teachers in the department D A focus on the roles, responsibilities and practices of the teachers in the department, which are discussed and/or negotiated with the teachers E A focus on teaching that emphasises students’ experience of studying, which is discussed and/or negotiated with teachers F A focus on teaching emphasising the students’ experience of studying in a continually changing and developing curriculum. How to change and improve is the subject of systematic discussion and consultation and the head systematically establishes means to enable teachers to develop

Conceptions of leadership of teaching • conceptions of leadership are closely related to the extent to which teachers take a ‘student-focussed’ approach to teaching • …which is closely related to the extent to which students take a deep approach to learning • …which is closely related to the quality of learning outcomes. (Ramsden, Trigwell, Prosser, Martin) • meta-analyses of all educational interventions of all types have confirmed that it is a focus on changing how students learn which has the greatest impact, not a focus on changing teachers, and certainly not a focus on structural or organisational matters (Hattie) • academics describe having more, and more significant, discussions about teaching in departments where there is perceived to be leadership support for such discussions (Roxa & Martensson)

Background: theory • McNay (1995) University cultures • Collegium-Bureaucracy-Corporation-Enterprise • Ramsden (1998) • emphasis on ‘transformational’ leadership • Prosser and Trigwell (1997) • experience of department contexts associated with ‘student focussed’ approaches to teaching • Bryman (2006) • leadership for research productivity sometimes opposite of leadership for teaching excellence • sceptical about transformational leadership in research-intensive cultures • McBeath et al (2004) • distributed leadership (related to organisational culture)

Forms of dispersed leadership • Formal distribution via hierarchical structures – devolving responsibilities to staff to specific roles, identifiable in an organisational diagram • Pragmatic distribution – via ad hoc devolution of tasks to meet demands as they emerge • Strategic distribution – via planned appointment of individuals to contribute to specific initiatives • Incremental distribution – involving giving progressively more responsibility to identified individuals as they demonstrate their growing competence • Opportunistic distribution – where individuals willingly take the initiative to extend their roles • Cultural distribution – where leadership is assumed rather than given and shared in a flexible way enabled by the local culture.

Leadership strategies and tactics associated with excellent teaching • Establishing personal credibility 2 Identifying problems and turning them into opportunities 3 Articulating a rationale for change 4 Devolving leadership 5 Building a ‘community of practice’ • Marketing the department as a (teaching) success • Managing innovation • Involving students

Patterns in leadership of teaching • Department size appears to have little effect: ‘emergent change’ and ‘planned change’ as likely in small and large departments • Discipline has a large effect: change more ‘emergent’ than ‘planned’ in Humanities and Social Science; no examples of emergent change in Science. Entrepreneurial organisational culture much more evident in ‘professional’ subjects.

Disciplinary activity systems • Where subject matter is hierarchically structured, teachers need to agree what courses consist of in order to ensure students’ prerequisite knowledge for later courses • Where research is conducted collaboratively there is a culture of doing things together and talking about it. • Where significant resources are required to undertake research, and it requires much organisation and a hierarchy of staff, everyone is used to funding, planning, organising and supervising others • Where a subject is as much about discourse as subject expertise, it may not matter much what colleagues teach and agreement between teachers is less necessary • Where research is conducted individually and privately, largely without resources, there is little experience of funding and organising (and the organisational structure is hierarchically flat) of co-operating to get things done, or of managing others to work to a pattern.

Patterns in leadership of teaching • Department size appears to have little effect: ‘emergent change’ and ‘planned change’ as likely in small and large departments • Discipline has a large effect: change more ‘emergent’ than ‘planned’ in Humanities and Social Science; no examples of emergent change in Science. Entrepreneurial organisational culture much more evident in Professional subjects. • Experiencing a significant problem or challenge is virtually essential for planned change. Every example of emergent change was associated with no experience of a problem. Entrepreneurial culture was common where there was a problem; a collegial culture where there was no problem. • Cultures either collegial or (collegial + entrepreneurial). Very little bureaucracy … some corporatism

University cultures Collegial culture • freedom to pursue university and personal goals unaffected by external control. Decision-making is consensual, management style permissive. Students are seen as apprentice academics. Bureaucratic culture • regulation, rules, and consistency with standards related to institutional quality assurance procedures. Evaluation is based on the audit of procedures. Decision making is rule-based. Students are seen as statistics. Corporate culture • management style is commanding and charismatic. Decision-making is political and tactical. Evaluation is based on performance indicators and benchmarking. Student are seen as units of resource. Entrepreneurial culture • management style involves devolved and dispersed leadership. Decision-making is flexible and emphasises professional expertise. Evaluation is based on achievement. Students are seen as partners.

Patterns in leadership of teaching • Department size had little effect: ‘emergent change’ and ‘planned change’ as likely in small and large departments • The discipline had a large effect: change more ‘emergent’ than ‘planned’ in Humanities and Social Science; no examples of emergent change in Science. Entrepreneurial organisational culture much more evident in Professional subjects. • Experiencing a significant problem or challenge is virtually essential for planned change. Every example of emergent change was associated with no experience of a problem. Entrepreneurial culture was common where there was a problem; a collegial culture where there was no problem. • Cultures either collegial or (collegial + entrepreneurial). Very little bureaucracy or corporatism • Conceptions of leadership of teaching much more sophisticated than reported in previous studies (85% focus on student experience and discussion compared with <10%).

Conceptions of leadership of teaching A A focus on the bureaucratic structure and organisation of the department, imposed by the head B A focus on the role, responsibility and practice of the head, who imposes a model of good practice in teaching upon the teachers in the department C A focus of the nature and content of subjects and disciplines, which is discussed with the teachers in the department D A focus on the roles, responsibilities and practices of the teachers in the department, which are discussed and/or negotiated with the teachers EA focus on teaching that emphasises students’ experience of studying, which is discussed and/or negotiated with teachers F A focus on teaching emphasising the students’ experience of studying in a continually changing and developing curriculum. How to change and improve is the subject of systematic discussion and consultation and the head systematically establishes means to enable teachers to develop

Leadership of teaching? • Leadership of innovation and change in the department and its degree programmes, from state A to state B • Leadership of individual teachers and their teaching on individual courses (and then support of ‘emergent’ change where this is successful) • Maintenance of a (functioning) collegial culture, with emphasis on quality rather than on change

Case studies Read one of case studies A, B, C or D Discuss in groups of three or four where the others have read different cases What does leadership of teaching consist of in these departments? What relevance do these cases have for leadership of teaching in your context? 45 minutes silent reading followed by small group discussion …..followed by open discussion in the whole group – no reporting by sub-groups

Task In groups of 3 or 4, discuss the characteristics of your own leadership and the extent to which the elements of successful leadership of teaching are evident in your own department…. … and what changes you might be interested in bringing about to lead teaching differently

Departmental leadership of teaching in research-intensive environments Graham Gibbs