ALTC Leadership – National Network in Science & Maths

Project Outcomes & Rationale

(1) This project is designed to develop 100 new leaders of change in university teaching of science and mathematics across Australia.

(2) They will work in teams pursuing twenty-five action-learning projects at universities around the country to create change in policies and improve practices in how science and mathematics is taught.

(3) These new leaders will be supported by communities of practice in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) focused on four key themes – academic standards, laboratory exercises, new educational technology, and a theme selected by national consensus.

(4) Participants will be drawn from a national network consolidated from existing hubs and sustained by distributed leadership and ongoing central coordination. Membership will grow through increased opportunity for collaboration and to reap the institutional rewards of refereed publication in SoTL (i.e., recognition and promotion).

The steering group and the 100 new leaders will drive changes in the policy, culture, and practice of teaching and learning to make pedagogy in science and mathematics more engaging and effective. Currently, didactic lectures, frustrating and boringlaboratory exercises, and heavily weighted exams tend to predominate. Undergraduate teaching is in desperate need of improvement if we are to motivate students and increase their achievements and retention (Baldwin, 2009). Effective teaching strategies will be drawn from international literature and practice, with a particular emphasis on approaches developed through projects funded by the ALTC and its predecessors, thereby improving dissemination.

The effort will be sustained through a national network representing a critical mass of education-focused academics in science and maths, which will be bolstered by new leadership capacity. We are cultivating a promise for ongoing support from the Australian Council of Deans of Science (ACDS) or from individual universities. The project will pursue a needed consensus among SoTL academics and DV-C’s academic onnew modes of refereed SoTL publication that will enable network members to gain recognition within the traditional reward structures of science.

The project is timely because universities are moving toward appointments where the research profile is emphasised ever more strongly than in the past, given the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) framework. Due to pressures for production of traditional research outputs, academics with an interest in education in science and mathematics are facing more competition for their attention than theyfaced ten years ago. An upcoming generation of scholarly educators, who surface in faculty interest groups and conferences, requires mentoring, development, and the opportunity to garner rewards from their pursuit. Our project is designed to develop both the capacity for leadership and the capacity for discipline-based scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education. By enabling achievement of performance goals in both education and research, the intended outcomes of this project promise to engender ongoing political and financial support for our national network, communities of practice, and leadership development efforts from university departments and the Australian Council of Deans of Science.

Approach and Dissemination

Theoretical framework

We are defining “leadership” in the terms of Marshall’s paper for the ALTC (2006) as influence and focusing on what Southwell and Morgan (2009) identified as “transformational leadership.” In these senses, we are not focusing on positional power but at both individual influence and collective influence. The latter aligns with what Palmer (1992) refers to when stating that changes in university teaching require a national “movement.” Hence, we plan to work across the sciences collectively, supporting local action with communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) formed around key themes with an overarching national network.

The planned project will draw on insights on change management and organizational learning. Kotter’s (1996) widely influential work on the stages of creating organizational change was employed by the ALTC-funded Active Learning in University Science (ALIUS) project, and it represents one starting point. Relevant literature on “organisational learning”dates back to Argyris and Schoen’s (1974) development of concepts of collective learning through Senge’s (1990) popularisation of key elements identified as “systems thinking” and “dialogue processes”. Rifkin and Fulop (1997) characterized key opportunities for collective learning occurring when a “learning space” emerges, where relationships of power are suspended, as in peer networks. A complementary line of research and practice is in “appreciative inquiry” (Thatchenkery and Chowdry, 2007), whereby one fosters change by building on strengths, which is relevant for building on successes from previous ALTC-funded projects and individual innovations.

Sustainable change in university science teaching occurs at the departmental level, according to case studies assembled by Tobias (1992) and Gibbs (2005). One can infer from Gibbs that departmental governance represents a key intermediate structure between individual (and disciplinary) practice on the one hand, which Gibbs (2005) portrays as the focus of traditional educational development, and institutional policies as well as practices of hiring and promotion on the other hand. Gibbs (2005) notes:

The kinds of networking, collating and discussion of practice and building functioning communities of practice that are associated with such change in individuals, are reasonably familiar to those involved in teaching development. However it also seems clear that the traditional educational development focus on changing individuals (or on individual practices or on individual courses) is also not enough. Without large scale strategic approaches, especially in crucial aspects of the teaching infrastructure, institutions have over the past twenty years changed much slower than have the environments within which they operate and have as a consequence run into severe problems that individual teachers feel powerless to tackle.

This literature is supplemented by case studies of practice locally and globally in educational settings, which suggest that action-learning projects by educators are particularly effective means of stimulating change (OECD, 2001; Helen Wyatt, School Education Director, personal communication 25 March 2011).

The US-based Project Kaleidoscope (PKAL), which aims to improve university teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, has over two decades come to focus on network building to stimulate broad changes in teaching (2011):

What we are learning validates research on dissemination: how ideas evolve, emerge and are enhanced when like-minded colleagues pursue a common vision. This research also speaks directly to the impact of “near-peers” on influencing and persuading others to explore, adapt and assess approaches having demonstrable impact on strengthening STEM learning at all levels. The range and diversity of networks and collaborations now making a difference at the undergraduate level is remarkable; dissolving boundaries of discipline, geography, spheres of responsibility and career stage as they work to transform the undergraduate STEM learning environment in this country.

PKAL (2011) has been supported by the US National Science Foundation, as well as charitable higher education foundations, to involve academics in “funded projects, national and regional meetings, community-building activities, leadership development programs, and publications that are focused on advancing what works in STEM education.” The PKAL strategy of working across science disciplines is supported by research reviewed by Fairweather (2008), which states that good teaching strategies can be adapted readily to be effective in a range of science disciplines.

Why our approach will enhance learning

This project will enhance learning by building on previous ALTC-funded initiatives that have demonstrated a positive impact on learning by students (and staff). Our aim is to extend the impact of these pedagogical approaches by enhancing means for dissemination among individual educators within our networked community. In addition, members of this network will have leadership training and gain the capacity to influence others individually and to build coalitions to embed change within their departments. Having this impact across a range of departments within a faculty, as we are addressing all science disciplines, and across the many universities in our network, suggests the potential for a much broader impact than a simple invention-dissemination strategy for a single initiative.

Additionally, in the long term, some individuals who gain leadership capacity will circulate among universities as their careers progress, forming new local alliances and progressing the change agenda. An intensive early effort during this project aims to get “runs on the board”by generating both change and publications to address the key performance indicators of university leaders andthereby stimulate ongoing support from the ACDS for coordination of the proposed national network.

Critical success factors include:

  • Focus on local and personal agendas. Engaging our ‘leaders of change’ and their heads of school, deans, and similar stakeholders by making each of our initiatives align with local agendas. For example, heads of school have key indicators of teaching performance addressed by our local action-learning teams; analogously, SoTL-orientated science lecturers have their opportunities for advancement more clearly defined and developed by our national network’s multi-pronged efforts;
  • Conversations and community. Conversations on teaching are enabled in a range of ways (new projects, existing conferences, developmental workshops) to build a sense of collective movement, which can attract and retain science lecturers as well as building their insight and capability;
  • National scope, well-chosen leaders, and concrete projects. The vision for the project, a national network and SoTL communities of practice, is shared across the project’s Steering Committee and with the project’s Advisory Panel members. Committee and panel members have been selected as experienced ‘movers and shakers’ who have insight into how to develop their colleagues and change their institutions and disciplines; and the project plan articulates these aspirations in terms of concrete projects undertaken as learning opportunities, ways to build leadership capacity under the mentorship of project leaders.

Alignment with ALTC objectives

The project aligns with ALTC objectives of creating strategic change by building leadership capacity, establishing strategic alliances, and raising the profile of teaching and its scholarship (SoTL). It does so through communities of practice and national dialogue on key pedagogical issues as well as institutional reward structures. The project will also foster development and dissemination of good practices via networks of peer relationships based variously on location, role, and discipline. Emerging issues are identified through inclusive dialogues with diverse participants across disciplines, in varied ranks and roles, and addressing different segments of student demographics.

Strategies to achieve specific measurable outcomes

Outcome 1. 100 leaders of change.

Basic approach: Leaders of change will be drawn from across the country in a wide range of disciplines in science and mathematics, including associate deans (education) and academic staff developers. Participants will be both senior and junior in level. They will learn about ‘transformational’ leadership through a series of four workshops across the two years of the project (Southwell & Morgan, 2009). Workshops in the series will be run during the same month in each of five regions.

Example: Participants will learn how to employ research evidence and demonstration to persuade colleagues to change traditional lectures to a more interactive format.

Specifics: Recruitment of 100 new leaders of change will occur across a range of networks, education special interest groups, and communities of interest formed around past ALTC projects and initiatives occurring within universities. We will need to recruit fifty science academics from this population. If needed, we can recruit from faculties of medicine and engineering, which face similar pedagogical, cultural, and institutional challenges (a senior member of the Australian Association for Engineering Education has welcomed the opportunity). Another twenty-five participants in the leadership development program will be associate deans (education) in faculties of science (or, if needed, medicine or engineering). The ACDS executive is keen to engage associate deans in change management. A further twenty-five participants in the leadership development program will be academic staff/educational developers. Some of these staff may be asked to participate in more than one action-learning project, if needed, or we may recruit such staff from outside the target university.

Each workshop will include one-half day on leadership principles and strategies and one-half day focusing on the action-learning projects pursued by participants. The first workshops will be held at the national conference, Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (ACSME) (Melbourne, September 2011), with following workshops to be held in capital cities. Academics from regional universities will attend the nearest workshop, travel being funded by their university. The 2012 national conference will be host to the third workshop in the series for all participants, followed by a fourth workshop the following February in their capital city.

The workshop will be led by staff development personnel from one or more of the participating universities. This strategy is essential to establishing the expertise and initiating a tradition for providing development in transformational leadership for junior and senior staff involved in SoTL. Leadership development at universities is traditionally tailored to heads of school, deans, and directors of research institutes. Workshop facilitators will be coached in planning and delivery by project co-leader, Rifkin, who has experience in designing and delivering leadership development programs.

Contributing projects: The ALTC project, Active Learning in University Science (ALIUS), developed “Science Learning Leaders” to “motivate changes in teaching practice of colleagues” (Bedgoodet al, 2009). Valuable lessons from that project have been gained about (1) how to tailor leadership development for science academics and (2) the impacts that they can be expected to have.

The leadership development effort will also build on the insights of ALTC-sponsored projects and fellowships, such as development of associate deans (education); characterisation of leadership effectiveness; leadership development for program, course, and unit coordinators; development of cross-campus, cross-disciplinary, distributed, and emergent-viral leadership; enhancement of leadership of communities of practice (a project now under way); and leader development in maths.

Evaluation: Participants will be surveyed, interviewed, and met in focus groups before, during, and after their workshops to assess their perspectives on what constitutes leadership; the particular challenges that they see in their departments, schools, universities, and disciplines; and how they sense that their capabilities are developing. We will also follow and analyse their reports of the change initiatives that they have been involved in to assess their impact.

Indicators of success:

By the end of the two-year project: (i) approximately three-quarters of the 100 leaders of change will indicate that they feel more capable to drive change within their own departments, (ii) approximately one half will indicate that they feel more capable to drive change within their faculties or collectives beyond their departments, and (iii) approximately one quarter will indicate that they feel they could be influential at the institutional level or within their discipline professional organisations.

By the end of the project: (i) approximately three-quarters of the 100 leaders of change will indicate that they have been or are involved in driving change within their own departments, (ii) approximately one half will indicate that they have been or are involved in driving change within their faculties or collectives beyond their departments, and (iii) approximately one quarter will indicate that they have contributed to or are contributing at the institutional level or within their discipline professional organisations.

Success factors:

  • Learning from project experience.Previous ALTC leadership projects are being drawn on to extract and utilise best practice in leadership training and become aware of the lessons learnt.

Two of the four themes outlined under Outcome 3 have been strategically chosen because of their capacity for leadership development through building on previous successful work funded by the ALTC:

(I) Laboratory practicals: ASELL (Advancing Science by Learning in the Laboratory) with a track record inthe use of evidence in an evaluative framework for learning in laboratories will becombined with inquiry as a pedagogy for the laboratory environment (ALTC project – Enhancing the learning of scientific inquiry skills for bioscience students in Australian universities). This is important as laboratories are a key element in science, and provide an avenue for building leadership capacity not only for regular academic staff but also for demonstrators and postgraduate students.

(II) Standards: LTAS (Learning and Teaching Academic Standards), as threshold learning outcomes tie in with the national quality agenda that will provide the framework for driving change.

  • Learning from executive experience. The Steering Committee comprises accomplished leaders in institutional change and SoTL as role models. Steering Committee members will actively participate in workshops and forge relationships with the leaders of change. Advisory Panel members are even more experienced, and they bring experiences not only from around Australia but from the UK Higher Education Academy and change movements in the US.
  • Ongoing engagement.What keeps our leaders of change engaged in the training, action learning projects, and effort that continues after the end of the project period are a sense of belonging to a larger movement and contributing to national dialogue on key issues as well as building their own capability to achieve goals that they value. Heads of school, deans, and other university administrators will be engaged by a focus in the action learning projects on their local agendas, the key performance indicators that they designate in relation to teaching and learning, e.g., catering to a more diverse student body or retention of science majors into second year.

Long term perspective:

While our new leaders of change develop their capabilities, members of the project Steering Committee will develop their own capacities for driving sector-widechange. We will seek advice from ALTC executives, boards and staff on developing a proposal to take to DEEWR and TEQSA for consistent and reputable means to ‘assess standards for university teaching and learning in the sciences and mathematics’. Members of the Advisory Panel (AL and JR) have expressed particular interest in this project.