Leadership at the “local” level: the learning, teaching and assessment co-ordinator role

1. SRHE Academic Practice Network Leadership at the “local” level: the learning, teaching and assessment co-ordinator role Kate Irving Senior Academic Development Adviser

2. Background to the study • Longitudinal exploration of LTAC and other related roles; • Initial focus on challenges and barriers to this enhancement activity; • Emerging issues: role perception, particularly of leadership and power; • Parallels and differences in other institutions.

3. Context • Role creation as a response to TQEF funding; • Specifically, to institutional learning and teaching strategy development; • Faculty based; 0.2 remission plus 2 increments; 2-year tenure from 2000; • Job description

4. Role development – early stages • Line management – Dean of Faculty; • LTACs met as a group each term; • Shared experience of activities; • Challenges and barriers noted; • Opportunities identified; • Annual reporting to Boards of Studies.

5. Leadership of a wider network • Meetings held to disseminate L & T “news” and developments; • Need for a wider network identified; • Recruitment of local (departmental) “champions” • LTAR (“Representative”) role recognised as a departmental post of responsibility.

6. Data collection • Semi-structured interviews: • LTACs; • Heads of department; • “Supporting” QE roles; • Academic colleagues. • “Desk” research: related documentation.

7. Analysis • Identification of themes and trends; • Grounded theory (Glazer and Strauss, 1967); • Conceptual metaphors (Gibbs, 1992); • Use of MAXqda software to assist in organising data.

8. Results from pilot study • First phase of role…… • Lack of power (dependent on level of academic post held); • Leadership aspects of role not always identified; • Time constraints; • Advantages to personal CPD. • Discipline-specific aspects….

9. Institutional issues….. • Role emerging as an unofficial “go-between”: front line academics and faculty management; • Gradual involvement with specific committees and structures (external audit teams; validations; L & T sub-committees); • Need for a further “tier” at departmental level.

10. Second phase… • Significant institutional change; • Wider range of “enhancement” roles; • Expansion of network – use becoming more “formalised”; • LTAC activity at institutional level; • External influences: focus on “the student experience”; • More engagement with external HE culture.

11. Respondants identified earlier challenges; • Value of sharing experiences (even when different); • Within and inter-departmental links developing; • Impact of local senior management on effectiveness of LTAC role; • Strong support for role(s) in academic communities.

12. Theoretical perspectives… • Lave and Wenger (1991) “Communities of practice” “a set of relations among persons, activity and world, over time and in relation to other tangential and overlapping communities of practice.” (p.98)

13. Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) “sense-making and sense-giving”; • Knight and Trowler (2001) - shared learning in a social group; • Becher and Trowler (2001) - academic tribes and territories;

14. Next phase – institutional context • Range of QE posts extended to include e-learning co-ordinators; • Posts at faculty and department level currently suspended; • Major institutional change continues…

15. External issues • Other HEIs have comparable enhancement roles; • Differences in recognition and reward strategies; • Role often involves teaching on HEA-accredited PG Certificate; • Professional Standards Framework; • TQEF funding ends in 2009.

16. Questions to consider… • What form of leadership is being demonstrated? • How can leadership development programmes and developments such as the PSF be used to support those whose role is to help “front-line” colleagues manage change? • How should HEIs plan for post-TQEF in relation to these roles and for QE more generally?

17. Many thanks for your attention and contributions Kate Irving c.irving@chester.ac.uk