Building distributed leadership in designing and implementing a quality management framework for Online Learning Environments

Presented byAssociate Professor Michael SankeyDirector, Learning Environments and Media

On behalf of the project team

Introduction

This project was to design and implement a framework that uses a distributed leadership (DL) approach for the quality management of Online Learning Environments (OLE).

L to R: Margaret Hicks (USA), Robert Hollenbeck & Garry Allen (RMIT), Michael Sankey (USQ) Dale Holt, Stuart Palmer (Deakin) Maree Gosper (Macquarie) & Judy Munro (Deakin). Absent: Ian Solomonides (Macquarie).

Project leads

Aim of the project

1. To help managers better conceptualise what needs to be managed well with online learning environments to assure their quality (QA) and continuous quality improvement (CQI). This task takes place in relatively stable organisational environments where most elements are in place, being managed quite effectively, and where associated leadership structures are reasonably functioning.

2. To help leaders better conceptualise what needs to be led and how distributed leadership capacity building might be developed, in times of major flux and instability where institutions are undergoing major renewal and transformation.

Four key aspects

1. Framing the Quality Management of OLEs in Australian HE through distributed leadership

2. Institutional profiling using the Quality Management Framework

3. Actioning the elements of the Quality Management Framework

4. Developing distributed leadership to enhance the quality management of OLEs

Project website:http://myqr.co/I6Ld

Four phases to the project

Phase 1: (Nov 2010-Apr 2011) Development of draft OLE quality management framework and establishment of distributed leadership teams in partner institutions

Phase 2: (May 2011-Dec 2011) Trial and further development of various aspects of draft OLE management framework as supported by distributed leadership teams

Phase 3: (Jan 2012-May 2012) Full scale implementation of OLE quality management framework as supported by distributed leadership teams

Phase 4: (Jun 2012- Nov 2012) Finalisation and evaluation of the OLE quality management framework

6EOLE Quality Management Framework

OLE quality management

QM as it relates to an HE institution: Planning Technologies Organisational structure Evaluation Governance Resourcing

What do the six elements mean?

Planning: external environmental analysis and trend spotting, strategic intelligence gathering, external benchmarking, organisational capacity analysis, institutional purpose, reputation, vision, principles, objectives and strategies, accountabilities, timelines, and resource implications. 

Technologies (for teaching and learning): type, range, integration, promotion, and innovation and mainstreaming of emerging technologies.

Cont…

Organisational structure: nature, range, coordination and delivery of valued services (underpinned by clarity of understanding of needed expertise/staffing capabilities) for staff and students.

Evaluation: stakeholder’s needs, methods, reporting, decision making through governance structures, evaluation relating to the initial selection of new technology, and evidence gathering relating to the on-going assessment of its performance, value and impact.

Cont…

Governance: institutional, faculty and school/department committees and forums (and associated responsibilities and accountabilities), policies and standards.

Resourcing: maintenance and enhancement of technologies, skills recognition and staff development, media production, evaluation activities, governance mechanisms, i.e. all other elements.

The overall model

The Institutional planning and quality cycle, as represented in the framework, is seen to represent ongoing planning, implementing, evaluating, reviewing and improving functions encapsulating all of the organisations core business activities.

10 Assumptions1. Various ICTs constitute an institution’s OLEs and

demand a total approach to quality management.2. Certain ICTs have been designed specifically for

educational uses and are institutionally controlled and supported for mainstream use.

3. Other ICTs (Web2/social-media/cloud-based) are not controlled and supported by the institution.

4. Non-corporate ICTs may be locally developed and supported within the institution, supported centrally by the organisation for limited selective use or located outside the institution for open use.

5. The total QM of OLEs requires the broadest conception of the variety of ICTs their purposes & strategic approaches to the leadership of their use in sustainable & responsive ways.

10 Assumptions cont…6. A QM framework needs to encompass a range of

elements that must be taken into account for deriving the best possible T&L value (experiences & outcomes) from all investments in ICTs.

7. Investments cover staff & student time, production of resources & various budget expenditures on hardware, software and networks.

8. Staff time covers all relevant academic, non-academic & professional staff throughout the organisation.

9. Q’s around how QM can best be done given the changing nature of ICTs & institutional demands placed on leadership to respond to these pressures & trends in positioning institutions to be competitive HE marketplace.

10.While common elements of QM are evident & questions of shared significance identifiable, QM approaches are contingent on institutional histories & future aspirations.

Expectations re. quality of OLEs

A whole-of-institution approach. OLEs are strategically situated in the organisation’s positioning

in the HE marketplace. Strategic positioning to deal with all aspects of the institution’s

curriculum, i.e. design, delivery and staffing. Through a broad range of teaching & support staff, students will

derive the best possible value from the use of OLEs. That OLEs are sustainable & responsive to changing

circumstances within and external to the organisation. Future ICT trend forecasting and the capacity to foster

innovation & the measured integration of ICTs The development of capacities (skills & resources) to best

address each of the six elements in the framework. Given the complexity of the task and the range & types of both

formal & informal leadership expertise involved, an enhanced form of distributed leadership is present.

Building Distributed Leadership

“Distributed leadership essentially involves both the vertical and lateral dimensions of leadership practice. Distributed leadership encompasses both formal and the informal forms of leadership practice within its framing, analysis and interpretation. It is primarily concerned with the co-performance of leadership and the reciprocal interdependencies that shape that leadership practice” (Harris, 2009, p.5).

Harris, A. (2009) (Ed.). Distributed leadership: different perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.

Prominent alignments for HE

Vertically amongst faculty formal leaders in hierarchy Vertically amongst Senior Executive leaders and faculty

formal leaders Horizontally amongst Senior Executive leaders Horizontally amongst faculty formal leaders across

hierarchies Horizontally amongst Senior Executive leaders and

across faculty leadership Informal academic and professional support leadership

horizontally amongst staff at discipline, school, faculty and interfaculty levels/domains

Informal leadership at particular locations in multi-campus environments.

Capacity building

“Capacity building involves the use of strategies that increase the collective effectiveness of all levels of the system in developing and mobilizing knowledge, resources and motivation, all of which are needed to raise the bar and close the gap of student learning across the system” (Fullan, Hill & Crevola, 2006, p.88).

Fullan, M., Hill, P. & Crevola, C. (2006) Breakthrough, CA: Corwin Press.

But why DL for OLEs?

The leadership of quality online learning environments is becoming more complex and demanding as we see the: growing size & reach of uni (some with offshore campus

operations, many involving strategic partnerships), growing number of ICTs which constitute such

environments, loosening of institutional control over certain

technologies used for effective learning and teaching, greater size and more diverse composition of

universities’ workforces and student populations a greater multiplicity of curricular & pedagogical models

which underlie an ever-expanding range of occupations & professions requiring higher level education,

intensifying of national and global competition in the e-learning marketplace.

So, we see that…

No one formal leader at the top, no matter how ambitious and knowledgeable, could possibly contend with the complexity of issues related to the quality management of OLEs.

  Leaders must be mobilized down, across and

throughout the organisation to realise the full benefits of massive institutional investments in OLEs.

Capacity building of DL involves…

1. Enabled individual and collective agency 2. Co-created and shared vision 3. Inclusive of all those who lead 4. Broadest recognition of leadership 5. Communicative and engaging 6. Appropriate responsibilities 7. Meaningful rewards 8. Trusting and respectful 9. Collaborative in development 10. Nurturing of valued professional expertise11. Valuing professional forums and communities 12. Continuity and sustainability

Planning & Budgeting

University Strategic Plan

Operational plan Budget plan

L&T Op’ plan ICT Op’ plan L&T Budget ICT Budget

L&T/ICT Road map

Planning activity

Technologies

Learning & teaching systems

group

Emerging technologies

Coretechnologies

Supportedtechnologies

Allowedtechnologies

The role of Mentors and Champions should not be underplayed

Threshold standards level playing field

Defined minimum standards

1. An introductory message, posted before the start of semester, which: welcomes students to the course; introduces the teaching team for the course; describes how the StudyDesk space will be used throughout the semester;

and explains how students may obtain support by appropriately directing

academic or technical. enquiries.

2. Checking of discussions and other student access areas on at least three [3] working days per week in order to: monitor and moderate comments and discussion by students; manage course operation by responding to student enquiries and learning

activities.

3. Student requests for clarification or assistance should be responded to as soon as possible, but certainly within 48 hours during the working week.

Technologies (for T&L)

OrganisationalOverall ICT

Governance/StrategyCommittee

L & T Systems

Student Management

Finance systems

Corporate Communications

HR Systems

Faculties Support ICT staff Students Unions

Marketing

AdminTraining

Systems

Ass/Dean

Academic

Library

U-Grad

P-Grad

ETC...

Organisational structure

Academic strategy and policy

Corporate strategy, funding and policy

Governance

Vice Chancellors committee

Academic Board/Senate

University Council

Learning and Teaching Committee

ICT Governance /StrategyCommittee

Learning & teaching systems group

Governance activity

Planning & Budgeting

University Strategic Plan

Operational plan Budget plan

L&T Op’ plan ICT Op’ plan L&T Budget ICT Budget

L&T/ICT Road map

Resourcing

Actioning relationships amongst elements

The ACODE Benchmarks

Currently 8

1. Institution policy and governance for technology supported learning and teaching

2. Planning for, and quality improvement of the integration of technologies for learning and teaching

3. Information technology infrastructure to support learning and teaching

4. Pedagogical application of information and communication technology

5. Professional/staff development for the effective use of technologies for learning and teaching

6. Staff support for the use of technologies for learning and teaching

7. Student training for the effective use of technologies for learning

8. Student support for the use of technologies for learning

6EOLE Quality Management Framework

Questions...http://myqr.co/I6Ld