Academic Leader - Sample Newsletter

LeaderACADEMIC

THE NEWSLETTER FOR ACADEMIC DEANS AND DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

VOLUME 26, NUMBER 8

AUGUST 2010

Vision Statements as Empowerment ToolsBy Bill Searle, Ben Hayes, and Kay Weiss,EdD

Dothe words “vision statement”make you wince? Us too! Theymake all of us wince when they

are developed “on high” and “checkedoff” the to-do list without anotherthought.But … and it seems that in higher

education there is always a “but” …When a department/division adopts a

clear vision statement that is used asthe guide to decision making, therecan be a massive long-term impact. Thetypical department/division chair iscalled an academic administrator forgood reason. The job is, by tradition orpractice, largely administrative in nature.Too many tasks are predictable, repeti-tive, often-annoying, complicated, and,well, administrative. Helping a depart-ment/division create, adopt, and live avision statement moves the academicadministrator’s role toward leadership. Itis exactly this leadership that can beused to empower faculty and academicstaff.Our institutions face multiple, often-

conflicting challenges that demand lead-ership, not administration. Effectiveleadership requires time and energy notavailable to traditional academic admin-istrators. An effective vision statementallows for delegation of many decisionsto those who can help create the desiredoutcomes. This frees up some valuabletime.Benefits of having a clear vision state-

ment include:

• Saving immense amounts of time pre-viously spent convincing people to act

• Eliminating or greatly shorteningarguments about what to do and howto do it

• Establishing a clear basis for budgetrequests

• Focusing arguments and discussionson the best ways of achieving theagreed-upon destination rather thanon personal interests

• Providing clear parameters for deci-sion making by all parties

The final point above is critical toempowering people. When the destina-tion is agreed upon, individuals can bedelegated considerable power to makedecisions. The standards are clear. Thegoal is clear. The academic leader nolonger must push faculty and staff to trynew activities, work on improving stu-dent learning, or implement innova-tions. The shared vision pulls people towork collaboratively, as a unit, assistingeach other in achieving a common goal.

Creating a useful visionstatementWhile there are many good articles

and quite a few books on this subject,let’s keep it simple. An effective visionstatement answers three key questions:• Exactly where are we going?• What standards do we employ, andwhat are our key values?

• How will we know if we are makingprogress?

To be accepted, a vision statement must

• be built upon agreement of the peopleinvolved,

• be consistently followed (especiallywhen inconvenient!) by all in thedecision-making process, and

• include regular opportunities for dis-cussion and revision.

When rigorously followed, an effectivevision• creates a common goal,• unites people,• increases trust in leadership (since thebasis for decisions is now clear), and

• supplies a standard for everyone’sfuture actions.

How will this help youempower others?1. Faculty are typically trained as inde-pendent practitioners, whose tradi-tional intellectual model is “findweaknesses in arguments and critiquethem.” This is not conducive to the

In This Issue

A MAGNA PUBLICATION

PAGE 2�

3 Rearranging the Academic Furniture

4Weight Management for Universities:Evaluating Academic Bloat

6 Department Chair Development PilotProgram: Leadership within theInstitutional Context

7 Supporting Faculty in High-ImpactPractices: Catalyzing InstitutionalChange

SAMPLE

ISSU

E

Toord

er visit

www.magnapubs.c

om

or call

1-800-433-0499

2 ACADEMIC LEADER

NAME...From Page <None>

Academic Leader (ISSN 8750-7730) is publishedmonthly by Magna Publications Inc., 2718 DrydenDrive, Madison, WI 53704. Phone 800-433-0499 or608-246-3590. Email: [email protected]. Fax:608-246-3597. Website: www.magnapubs.com. One-year subscription: $208 (Multiple print subscriptionsand Group Online Subscriptions are available.)Photocopying or other reproduction in whole or in partwithout written permission is prohibited. POSTMAS-TER: Send change of address to Academic Leader,2718 Dryden Drive, Madison, WI 53704. Copyright©2010, Magna Publications Inc.

To order back issues ($20 each) or for more informationabout multiple print subscription discounts andGroup Online Subscriptions, call Customer Service at800-433-0499.

Submissions to Academic Leader are welcome. Pleasereview article submission guidelines located atwww.magnapubs.com/aboutus/authorguidelines.html

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or person-al use of specific clients is granted by Academic Leaderfor users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center(CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that$1.00 per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 RosewoodDrive, Danvers, MA 01923; Phone 978-750-8400;www.copyright.com. For those organizations that havebeen granted a photocopy license by CCC, a separatesystem of payment has been arranged.

PRESIDENT: William Haight; [email protected]

PUBLISHER: David Burns; [email protected]

MANAGING EDITOR: Rob Kelly;[email protected]

E-mail editorial comments or questions toRob Kelly, or call him at 608-227-8120.

CREATIVE SERVICES MANAGER: Mark Manghera

ART DIRECTOR: Debra Lovelien

CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGER: Mark Beyer

ADVISORY BOARD:

Virginia Bacheler – SUNY Brockport([email protected]);

James O. Hammons – University of ArkansasFax: 501-575-4681;

Charles F. Harrington – University of North Carolina atPembroke([email protected]);

Lynn M. Little – University of Texas SouthwesternMedical Center at Dallas([email protected]);

Kina S. Mallard – Gordon College([email protected]);

Thomas R. McDaniel – Converse College([email protected]);

Col. Mike McGinnis ([email protected]);

Michael Murray ([email protected]);

Gwendolyn S. O’Neal ([email protected]);

Gerard Rossy – California State University – Northridge([email protected]);

LeaderACADEMIC

The Newsletter for Academic Deansand Department Chairs

effective team behavior necessary tomeet today’s challenges. By workingcollaboratively to build a commonvision, everyone, and especially facul-ty, learns new skills that will, in time,allow campus groups (departments,committees, etc.) to be more effectiveand efficient.

2. A vision statement is an institutionalgoal, not a personal one. Having aclear institutional goal provides pow-erful counterweight to the individu-alistic model that is paramountamong most faculty. People commit-ted to an institutional goal can bedelegated more power because theyknow what is expected and what theywill be evaluated against.

3. The leader must trust that others intheir areas will act responsibly, withsignificant concern for institutionalpriorities. The process of creating adepartmental or divisional visionstatement will give you insights intoindividuals that you would not ordi-narily possess. Your level of trust insome others will be dramaticallyincreased.

4.Others’ trust of you will be raisedbased upon their work with you increating the vision and in the diffi-cult first few months living with it(provided that you are very consis-tent).

5. A clear goal gives everyone a way tomeasure their proposed activities.Because of this, decisions can be del-egated to others for many projects.These decisions can be clearly evalu-ated (provided that people know thattheir actions will be measured againstthe vision statement).

6.Once people know that the basis for

decision making is open and trans-parent, the amount of disruptive anddistrustful organizational politics willalmost always decrease considerably.

7. The vision allows every academicleader to continually focus discus-sions on how the subject at handaffects attainment of the vision. Bydoing this, academic managers areactually mentoring others to struc-ture much more effective discussions.

8. “Eyes on the prize” really doeswork. As people rise above their nar-rowest personal interests, theybecome organizationally oriented. Asthis happens, their judgments arebased on a global perspective. As thishappens, the job of academic admin-istrators at all levels becomes moreabout helping people learn decision-making and leadership skills—inturn, moving the job from academicadministration to academic leader-ship.

To be honest, didn’t most of us thinkwe would have many more chances toprovide and promote leadership thanwe do in a typical academic institution?It is much more fun, much more inter-esting, much more rewarding, and, ohyes, much more difficult to be in aleadership position than an administra-tive one. It is your choice, not yourdestiny!

Bill Searle is a professor of businessadministration/computer information sys-tems at Asnuntuck Community Collegein Enfield, Conn. Ben Hayes is a profes-sor of sociology and the director of facultyand staff development at Kansas CityKansas Community College. Kay Weiss isthe dean of humanities at SanBernardino Valley College in SanBernardino, Calif. �

VISION STATEMENTS...From Page 1

Teaching Professor Conference Call for ProposalsThe Teaching Professor invites presentation, panel discussion, and interactive

poster session proposals for the eighth annual Teaching Professor Conference.For more information, see www.teachingprofessor.com/conference/proposals.

3ACADEMIC LEADER

Rearranging the Academic Furniture

Career Advice

By Jeffrey L. Buller, PhD

Atthe start of a new position, it’snatural to wonder how manynew initiatives you should get

under way quickly and which are betterleft for the future. There are, after all,two conflicting principles at work:

• the window of opportunity that sug-gests it’s easier for new administratorsto make significant changes early intheir positions, when the community’sexcitement is at its highest and peoplemost expect innovations to occur; and

• the notion that “you shouldn’t startto rearrange the furniture until youunderstand the décor,” which sug-gests that academic leaders are betteroff waiting until their learning curveis a little less steep before they startimplementing significant changes.

Certainly, most administrators wouldagree that there’s a desirable midpointbetween trying to change everything inthe first year or two of a position andrefusing to alter anything until after sev-eral years have passed. The trick, ofcourse, is identifying precisely wherethat midpoint lies and understandingthe factors that tend to make eachadministrative challenge unique.If you’re about to embark on a new

administrative assignment, the followingfactors are worth keeping in mind asyou consider how extensively to beginrearranging the academic furniture inthe programs under your supervision.

• What were you hired to do? If youwere brought to your position specifi-cally to be a change agent, or if it isclear that the areas you will lead arelikely to face an imminent disaster ontheir present course, then significantchange as quickly as possible is proba-bly in order. By waiting to see the layof the land, you may inadvertently besending a message to the supervisor or

board that hired you that you’re notprepared to make the extensivechanges you appeared to sanctionduring the interview process. Make itclear that you regard making mistakesas less problematic than taking noaction whatsoever, and be aggressivein pursuing a plan of rapid change.But if you were hired primarily tobuild on an area’s past successes, thentrying to change too much too soon islikely to send precisely the wrongmessage to both your supervisor(s)and your employees. By not waitingto understand all the issues involvedin your programs’ strengths, you mayend up making changes that inadver-tently undermine the very factors thatallowed the institution to succeed inthe past. As a general rule, therefore,if major changes were part of thecharge you received upon being hiredinto your position or if, in your pro-fessional judgment, deviating fromthe current course is the only possibleway to avert a crisis, then proceedrapidly. Otherwise, go slowly, learn asmuch as you can, and focus on mod-est improvements.

• Were you hired into the institutionfrom the outside? If your new posi-tion involves becoming a chair of adepartment where you’ve long servedas a faculty member, provost of aninstitution where you’ve worked forfive or more years as dean, or some-thing similar, it is probably best foryou to proceed with changes that youbelieve to be necessary in a relativelyshort time frame. You’ve already hadan opportunity to identify the majorissues, the causes of the various prob-lems you’re trying to solve, and themost important stakeholders whoneed to be consulted as your propos-als are put into place. But if you’rehired into a new institution from theoutside, you will need to be far morecircumspect about implementing

changes quickly. No matter how simi-lar your new institution is to your for-mer college or university, it is likely tobe far more different than you initial-ly believe. You will need time todetermine whose perspective andadvice you can really trust and whichproposals will need to be conveyed ina vocabulary that doesn’t conjure upmemories of past failures and humilia-tions. You’ll never be able to predictwith 100 percent accuracy preciselywhat will occur as the result of everynew initiative or policy change. Butthe accuracy of those predictions willdecrease precipitously if you beginmaking changes before you’ve hadadequate time to get to know all theparties involved, who the local opin-ion leaders are, how decisions aremost effectively made in this newenvironment, and whose toes youmay accidentally be stepping on.

• Where are the alliances that you’llneed in order to succeed? One of thegreat contributions that Lee Bolmanand Terry Deal have made to theunderstanding of how organizationswork is their analysis that there’s onlyso much we can learn from the policymanuals, organizational charts, andcommittee minutes of the programswe supervise. In addition to the struc-tural frame of each organization,Bolman and Deal also talk about theimportance of the political frame:alliances, coalitions, partnerships, andconflicts. In other words, sometimespeople in any organization support oroppose an idea at least as muchbecause of the person in favor of it asbecause of the idea’s inherent merits.In every situation, it’s important toask: Who are the most importantconstituents for this initiative to moveforward? If you are entering yourposition with their support already in

PAGE 8�

Sample Issue — To order visit www.magnapubs.com or call 1-800-433-0499.Sample Issue — To order visit www.magnapubs.com or call 1-800-433-0499.

4 ACADEMIC LEADER

Program Evaluation

By Kate Forhan, PhD

In April 2010, the Chronicle ofHigher Education introduced a regu-lar feature called “Campus Cuts.” In

its first two months, the column record-ed plans from more than 50 universitiesand colleges to restructure, reorganize,and downsize, including closing aca-demic programs.Historically, new academic programs

have often been introduced by severalmechanisms. An energetic faculty mem-ber is inspired to create a new major, adonor bequest stipulates the develop-ment of an interdisciplinary institute, apresident mandates a “visionary” curricu-lum, or a dean or provost responds to asudden market opportunity. After initialsuccess, the faculty member retires, thepresident moves to a new institution, orthe market changes, and the new pro-gram, launched with such enthusiasm,becomes less and less viable, limpingalong with little administrative or facultysupport. The number of students dwin-dles and the curriculum stagnates. Whilethere are lessons in this parable foreveryone from advancement officers andpresidents to deans and faculty senates,in times of economic prosperity suchprograms are often unobserved.The current economic climate has

caused universities to rethink their aca-demic programs and to identify ways toclose some programs, either for budget-ary reasons or because a new strategicplan is creating a new direction and theuniversity must “disinvest” in order tofind funds for new initiatives.So what is a dean or provost to do?

What criteria should he or she use toevaluate programs? What processes areoptimal for ensuring a successful reor-ganization? What are the most commonmistakes?First, a university with a clear mis-

sion, vision, and strategic plan is in the

strongest position faced with this situa-tion. A strong sense of university identi-ty allows easier identification of pro-grams that were born out of missioncreep and no longer serve the college.Second, a college with periodic aca-

demic program review, either the multi-year cycle utilized by many state systemsor the regular cycle of external degree-related and/or regional accreditation,can help identify programs that are nolonger serving students effectively.Unfortunately, however, current eco-

nomic pressures do not necessarily allowthe evaluation of troubled programs towait until the next review cycle. So whatprocess and criteria should be used?Robert C. Dickeson’s Prioritizing

Academic Programs and Services:Reallocating Resources to Achieve StrategicBalance (2010) is a very useful resourcefor any academic leader faced with thisproblem. Dickeson strongly recom-mends, first, that every program bereviewed simultaneously, from thebotany minor to the women’s golf pro-gram, since the long-term goal is a well-balanced and strategic university.Second, he emphasizes the importanceof obtaining the support of the presi-dent, the chief financial and academicofficers, and the governing board beforebeginning a large-scale evaluation ofprograms.While it is easy to see the wisdom of

these recommendations, most collegesand universities have hundreds of pro-grams, so the logistics of such an under-taking are overwhelming. So is it possi-ble to develop a process that is moresurgical in its approach and relies onavailable information and data to zoomin on specific academic programs? Canprograms be evaluated within only oneschool or college within the institution?What is necessary for success?The dean concerned about closing

academic programs needs the following:

1) the support of the provost and presi-dent to undertake the review, 2) aprocess that is fair and transparent, 3)criteria based on existing data, and 4) acommunication plan.

1) SupportIn order to successfully evaluate pro-

grams, the dean must have the supportof the provost. It is the provost’s respon-sibility to ensure that the president andboard are aware that programs are beingexamined, thus preparing them for theinevitable outcry from current studentsand alumni if a decision is later made tosuspend admission or to discontinueoffering a major. In fact, it is most help-ful to the dean if the provost has man-dated that all academic deans review“weak” programs, defined, for example,as all those that graduate fewer than fivestudents a year.The symptoms of weakness are self-

evident to any experienced dean: Suchprograms have small numbers of majors,they graduate relatively few students ayear, and courses are frequently canceledbecause of low enrollment. They mayalso suffer from poor student advisingand retention. Yet, a small number ofmajors is not in itself a sign of weakness.For example, physics typically attractsfew majors, but physics provides vitalservice courses to biology majors, andfor colleges where general educationrequires a lab science, physics is typicallyless expensive to offer than biology.Other signs of weakness can includepoor faculty productivity and internalconflict, but the wise dean will notinclude these in the evaluation criteria!

2) The processThere are essentially two kinds of

processes: one “hard” and one “soft.” Ahard process assumes the program will

Weight Management for Universities:Evaluating Academic Bloat

PAGE 5�


5ACADEMIC LEADER

be eliminated. Union contracts, gover-nance documents, senate bylaws, andsystem policies all may include provi-sions for program elimination. However,since the dean is attempting to discoverwhether any programs should be consid-ered for formal elimination, a softprocess—that is, an out-of-cycle aca-demic program review that has beentriggered by the provost’s mandate—ispreferable. It is designed to collect theinformation about whether a givendegree or program should be consideredfor formal elimination. This is a vitalstep in raising the university communi-ty’s awareness of the need for change.An effective evaluation process consists

of a task force, a set of “first principles”or “charge,” and a timeline. Why not acommittee? Depending on the institu-tional culture and governance process, acommittee may imply representationfrom every constituency. The role of thecommittee member therefore is to be anadvocate for his or her constituents. Thetask force, by contrast, implies a definedterm and responsibility (or “charge”) andcan consist of a mix of academic com-munity members, including students.The size of the task force is important.Kept small, it can be nimble and is morelikely to be able to make decisions. If toosmall, it cannot provide for smaller workgroups. Most important, however, is thecharge; for example, “By date X, the taskforce is to provide the dean with a reporton academic degree programs accordingto the following criteria.” Note that thetask force does not recommend elimina-tion, closure, or any other step. Theemphasis should be on the fact that thedata will speak for themselves, and it isthe administration, following whateverformal process the university requires,that will make the decision about thefuture of the programs reviewed andensure that the needs of students will bemet, first and foremost. This frees thetask force members to really grapple withthe data as university citizens, protectingthem from lobbying or even potentialbullying.

3) CriteriaThe famous KISS (Keep It Simple,

Stupid) principle is very important inidentifying criteria for program review.A university with a well-establishedoffice of institutional research may beable to provide rich, nationally bench-marked data on areas such as incomegeneration, costs per credit hour, inter-nal and external market demand, reten-tion and graduation rates. Not all insti-tutions are so fortunate. In an environ-ment that is primarily focused on teach-ing, simple metrics of student success—including number of majors, retentionfrom first to second year, and time todegree—may be primary, although thetroubled programs may be so small thatthe data are difficult to obtain. To deter-mine whether these programs are eco-nomically sustainable, it is important tobe able to calculate income generation,costs per credit hour, and credit hoursper faculty. Institutions fortunateenough to participate in the Universityof Delaware’s National Study ofInstructional Costs & Productivity willhave data on cost per credit hour andstudent credit hours per faculty and beable to measure them against those ofpeer institutions, which can be extraor-dinarily helpful. Faculty research pro-ductivity or admissions selectivity datacan also be useful if they can be bench-marked against peer institutions. Oftencited as an important criterion is theprogram’s mission with respect to that ofthe institution itself. Unfortunately, mis-sion statements are often so vague andgeneric that any program can claim tobe mission-driven!

4) Communication planAs with strategic planning and exter-

nal accreditation review, there must be acommunication plan that will address allthe potential stakeholders at the univer-sity. Both the medium and the messagedepend on the audience. Web pages, thestudent newspaper, alumni newsletters,the local press, social media,BlackBoard—all are potential sources ofclarity and support or misunderstandingand vituperation. At the beginning, thecommunication plan may need to

address only the need for programreview, the budgetary situation, and theprovost’s mandate. As the processunfolds and the data reveal to the largercommunity the weakness of some of itsdegree programs, emphasis may need tobe placed on respect for institutionalgovernance procedures and contractualobligations. Critical to avoiding back-lash from students, parents, and alumniis the provision for meeting the needs ofstudents currently in the affected pro-grams. A set of frequently asked ques-tions (FAQ) is very helpful in underlin-ing what the task force is charged toaccomplish and how and by whom theresults of its work will be used. Amethod for obtaining feedback fromvarious constituents and mechanisms foraddressing their concerns through addi-tional FAQs is also important.Finally, it must be remembered that

any out-of-cycle academic programreview will trigger anxiety, and that anx-iety will increase as the university getscloser to implementing the results of itsreview process. That transition itself is avery important stage and must bethoughtfully developed.Although the task of evaluating aca-

demic programs and institutions for“bloat”—and closing, merging, orrestructuring them as a result—is painfuland seems antithetical to the promise ofhigher education in America, it isincreasingly a necessary process, eventhough savings may not materialize forseveral years. Decades of systematic dis-investment in higher education, coupledwith increased and appropriate demandsfor accountability, access, and excellence,have brought us to the point where aca-demic leaders will have to carefully assessall our programs, not only for excellencebut for fiscal sustainability, and we willneed to develop processes by which wecan transition into being more focusedand nimble institutions.

Kate Forhan is provost and vice presi-dent of academic affairs at the Universityof Southern Maine. �

ACADEMIC BLOAT...From Page 4


6 ACADEMIC LEADER

Leadership Development

Department Chair Development Pilot Program:Leadership within the Institutional ContextBy Rob Kelly

WhenTeresa Huether was adepartment chair at St.Louis Community College

at Florissant Valley, she “made everymistake in the book,” she says. Theproblem was a lack of formal prepara-tion for her role as chair. Later, asdirector of the Center for Teaching andLearning, she set out to create a leader-ship development program for chairs.She took a sabbatical to explore ways

to provide leadership development forchairs. She visited 10 institutions,looking for ideas that would makesense for her college, and found thatseveral of the other institutions were inthe same boat—there was little formalpreparation for department chairs.Huether has attended national con-

ferences and workshops on academicleadership and has gathered usefulideas to implement on her campus,but, she says, these events lack theinstitution-specific information to fullyprepare department chairs. “Thenational conferences are fabulous. Theygive you the big leadership ideas, howto lead your department, and how tostep up from a faculty member to aleader. That’s definitely needed, but itdoesn’t get at the nitty-gritty, day-to-day inner workings of the college’s spe-cific context,” Huether says.To suit the specific needs of her

institution, Huether developed a pro-gram that includes an introductory ses-sion, 10 workshops, and several open-ended sessions. She reached out to thecollege’s chairs via email, asking fortheir participation and, if nothing else,feedback on the first session and subse-quent planned sessions. Twelve of thecollege’s 18 chairs showed up for thatfirst session and have helped shape theprogram.

Nitty-grittyHuether begins new chair training

with a four-hour session that has eachnew chair develop individual goals. “Iask them to determine their own per-sonal goals as a chair and to reallythink about cashing in on this oppor-tunity to lead their department ratherthan thinking of [the position] aspaperwork. They write up their goalson a sheet of paper, frame it, and put iton the desk as a reminder,” Huethersays.After working with the new depart-

ment chairs on their goals, Huetherprovides a thorough introduction tothe college’s policies and procedures.She puts together a four-inch-thickbinder that covers all the duties of thedepartment chair, including informa-tion about the faculty union and howto conduct their first departmentalmeeting.

Other helpEach chair is encouraged to attend a

leadership workshop or conference,which the college pays for. In addition,each receives a copy of The DepartmentChair Primer by Don Chu and TheCollege Administrator’s Survival Guideby C.K. Gunsalus.If they wish, chairs are given men-

tors from within their division or fromanother division.

Ten sessionsHuether has put together a set of 10

leadership development workshops(four sessions per semester and two inthe summer) intended to be completedby chairs over a two-year period. Thesesessions are not sequential, so newchairs can begin at any point. Topicsinclude leadership analysis, legal issues,curriculum issues, student services, andfinances, and are led by experts oncampus.

Chair sharesDuring the semester, one hour each

month is devoted to a “chair share,” anopportunity for chairs to discuss anyissue they think is important. Forexample, in one of these sessions, thegroup discussed the legal and safetyissues of a chair taking a sick colleagueto the hospital. In another session, thegroup discussed whether a syllabusshould be considered a contract withstudents.The term for each department chair

is three years, but they often serve sev-eral terms. And even for longtimechairs, the training program has beenrevitalizing, Huether says.

Insights and adviceHuether offers the following advice

for creating an effective chair develop-ment program:

• Provide customized training.Chairs should have input on whatwill be covered in the meetings.

• Be flexible. One way is to offer aseries of workshops that chairs canstart at any point, because not allchairs begin in this position at thesame time.

• Encourage a free flow of knowl-edge sharing. “Chair shares havebeen amazing,” Huether says. This isa great way to address urgent issuesand get input from others who mayhave had similar experiences.

Contact Teresa Huether [email protected]. �


7ACADEMIC LEADER

Institutional Change

Supporting Faculty in High-Impact Practices:Catalyzing Institutional ChangeBy Justine Hernandez Levine and CarlaYanni, PhD

Howcan institutions motivateand sustain significant change?We know that it takes time,

and it doesn’t happen by fiat. Rutgers haslearned this lesson well during the past sixyears; though change began with a majorpolicy and organizational shift, our recenthistory suggests that institutional changemay be most effectively catalyzed by sup-porting pockets of innovation in smallcommunities of faculty members.In the spring of 2004, President

Richard L. McCormick and ExecutiveVice President for Academic AffairsPhilip Furmanski sought to reinvigorateundergraduate education at Rutgers.They appointed a task force comprisedof students, faculty, and staff that, inJuly 2005, issued dozens of recommen-dations. These recommendationsincluded establishing a single set ofadmissions standards and graduationrequirements, merging four liberal artscolleges into a School of Arts andSciences, and rededicating faculty toinstruct and mentor undergraduates,particularly by exposing them to thebreadth of research at Rutgers andopportunities to study abroad.McCormick hosted a series of openforums. He then made his own recom-mendations, based on the findings ofthe task force and views expressed inthe public forums. On March 10,2006, the Board of Governors adoptedthe president’s proposals. The reportand its recommendations came to beknown as the Transformation ofUndergraduate Education, or T.U.E.Student life was centralized to offer

the same opportunities to all students.The T.U.E. also leveraged high-impactpractices: it established the ByrneFamily First-Year Seminar Program,added student learning communities,

and bolstered the undergraduateresearch office (the Aresty ResearchCenter). Because Rutgers in NewBrunswick is spread out across 2,681acres and five distinct geographic areas,or “campuses,” the T.U.E. assigned acampus dean, a faculty membercharged with integrating academic andco-curricular life, to each campus.But the Transformation itself—

despite the standardization of require-ments, creation of a new office, andconsolidation of schools—was incom-plete. What was necessary was a changein the way that faculty members per-ceived themselves as partners in thatenterprise.We realized that all the high impact-

practices that have been leveraged asagents of change during the T.U.E.have built-in opportunities for facultyto get to know one another and collab-orate.Although not originally planned as

such, the campus deans form a facultylearning community, co-sponsoringprograms for faculty and students thatinvigorate intellectual life. The ByrneFirst-Year Seminar faculty membershave periodic gatherings in which theyengage each other not just in discus-sions about teaching but in the practiceof their disciplines and in culturalenrichment opportunities. The Arestyfaculty members collaborate throughtheir students, who meet in peergroups. This has resulted in co-mentor-ing, collaborative grant proposals, andeven joint research projects.Through these social networks, facul-

ty members are learning about teach-ing, approaches to research in differentfields, and successful co-curricular pro-gramming. We are finding that high-impact practices more deeply engagefaculty members, and there is morepotential for cultural change whenthere are built-in opportunities for net-

working and collaboration.In fact, professional staff who direct

these programs originated an intention-al faculty learning community, focusingon reinvigorating teaching, that hasalready shown signs of broader grass-roots cultural change.

Faculty learning commu-nitiesTraditionally, the term “learning

community” has been associated withundergraduate students enrolled in agroup of courses and the instructorswho teach those courses. Beginning inthe 1970s, a new model began toemerge of a learning community byand for faculty members, rather thandirectly for students (Cox, 2001).Milton Cox, pioneer and advocate ofthe faculty learning community con-cept, defines “faculty learning commu-nity” as a group that:• Consists of trans-disciplinary faculty,graduate students and professionalstaff group

• Has 6 to 15 or more (8 to 12 is therecommended size)

• Engages in an active, collaborative,yearlong program with a curriculumabout enhancing teaching and learn-ing

• Attends frequent seminars and activi-ties that provide professional devel-opment and build community

• Is used in the context of the scholar-ship of teaching and learning

• Is goal-oriented, e.g., preparing aninnovative course, assessment, orproject mini-portfolio; engaging inseminars and retreats; working withstudent associates; and presentingproject results to the campus and atnational conferences.Evidence shows that faculty learning

communities increase faculty interest in

PAGE 8�


8 ACADEMIC LEADER

place then you can begin rearrangingthe academic furniture rather quickly.If you need time to build alliances orto understand the political relation-ships of the various players in yourprogram, it’s preferable to proceedslowly.

In this way, there’s no one singleanswer for chancellors, provosts, deans,

and chairs who are wondering howquickly to implement changes after theystart a new position. But by consideringthe three questions outlined above,you’ll develop a better understanding ofjust how quickly you should begin topress your agenda for major initiatives.

ReferencesBolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2003).

Reframing Organizations: Artistry,Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Jeffrey L. Buller is dean of the HarrietL. Wilkes Honors College at FloridaAtlantic University. He is the author ofThe Essential Department Chair: APractical Guide to CollegeAdministration (2006), The EssentialAcademic Dean: A Practical Guide toCollege Leadership (2007), and TheEssential College Professor: A PracticalGuide to an Academic Career (2010).All are published by Jossey-Bass. �

teaching and learning and provide safetyand support for faculty to explore, assess,and adopt new methods (Cox, 2004).But how can they help to create insti-

tutional change?Cox categorized faculty learning com-

munities into two different groups,issue-focused and cohort-focused (Cox,1999). The issue-focused communitiesbring together a group of faculty mem-bers who wish to engage in a cross-disci-plinary study of a specific topic, oftenrelated to teaching and learning. In con-trast, cohort-focused communities focuson the teaching and learning needs of aparticular cohort of faculty within theinstitution, regardless of scholarly inter-est. This is the kind of group we are fos-tering at Rutgers. Not only are the mem-bers learning from one another abouthow to get better results from theirteaching, but they also become the grass-roots recruiters for the Transformation ofUndergraduate Education.Faculty learning communities capital-

ize on the principles behind generallearning organizations, and thus arehighly collaborative. A learning organiza-tion is characterized by its ability toimprove performance by sharing infor-mation within and between organiza-tions. Senge (1990b) defines a learningorganization as one in which "peoplecontinually expand their capacity to cre-ate the results they truly desire, wherenew and expansive patterns of thinking

are nurtured, where collective aspirationis set free, and where people are continu-ally learning how to learn together" (p.3). Our experience suggests that themost successful high-impact practices aresituated in a learning organization.At Rutgers, high-impact practices

(Aresty Research Center, Byrne First-Year Seminars, Campus Deans) are suc-cessful because they capitalize on thepower of the university as a learningorganization. They get people out oftheir departments, providing safe spacesfor innovative thinking. Learning organi-zations depend on inter- and intra- levelcommunication; faculty learning com-munities create the channels for thiscommunication.One possible avenue for promoting

change is to build collaboration intohigh-impact practices; the resultinglearning communities are the sites whereinnovation happens. People then feelconnected to the institution and investedwith others in its success. One could alsouse high-impact practices as a site forembedded faculty development incohort-based learning communities.Activities may include:• Observing others teach/mentor• Planning activities/projects with otherfaculty

• Giving/receiving feedback with peers• Mentoring faculty new to a program• Keeping a reflective log• Developing/maintaining a portfolio• Reviewing student work together

While Rutgers’ story is far from com-

plete, we feel that the formation of facul-ty learning communities offers a modelfor catalyzing successful institutionalchange, and enlisting and supportingfaculty members as partners in learning.

ReferencesCox, M. D. (1999). “Peer consulta-

tion and faculty learning communities.”In C. Knapper & S. Piccinin (Eds.),Using consultation to improve teaching(pp. 39-49). New Directions for Teachingand Learning, No. 79. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.Cox, M. D. (2001) “Faculty Learning

Communities: Change Agents forTransforming Institutions into LearningOrganizations.” In D. Lieberman and C.Wehlburg (eds.), To Improve theAcademy: Resources for Student, Faculty,and Institutional Development, no.19.Bolton, Mass.: Anker.Cox, M. (2004) “Building Faculty

Learning Communities.” New Directionsfor Teaching and Learning. No. 97.Miami, FL: Miami University Press.Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline:

The Art and Practice of the LearningOrganization. New York: Doubleday.

Justine Hernandez Levine is the directorof the Aresty Research Center forUndergraduates at Rutgers University.

Carla Yanni is a professor of art historyand assistant vice president for udergradu-ate academic affairs at Rutgers University.�

REARRANGING...From Page 3

HIGH-IMPACT PRACTICES...From Page 7


Documents

Academic Leader - Sample Newsletter