Learning Leadership

Faculty and Administrative Practices That Advance Learning

Pete Turner, PhDResidential Educational Faculty

Estrella Mountain Community College

How Many of You are

- Faculty?

Senior Administrators (Presidents or Vice-Presidents)?

Deans or middle-level administrators?

Support Staff?

Of effective faculty? Of effective administrators?

In the name of learning, what are the leadership characteristics and

practices . . .

Not Appointed ElectedBut Informal “Grassroots” (Burke, 2010; Kezar & Lester, 2009)

Faculty members influencing their peers Amend and improve practices Name of student learning

Faculty Leadership

Learning Leadership

Background

Purpose

Lit Review

Findings

Implications

Recommend

So What’s This About?

Background

Starts with Teacher Leadership• Most significant in reforming K-12 education

(Danielson, 2006; Donaldson, 2006)

• More responsible for bringing about change than any other force (Reeves, 2008)

And what about informal (grassroots) faculty leadership (IFL)?• Essentially undefined, little documentation

(Shugart, 2010; Turner, 2013; Wilson, 2010)

• Calls for more research (Burke, Kezar & Lester)

So . . .

Led to research project Literature review Case Study involving

Three of original Vanguard Colleges Documents examination Senior administrator (10+ yrs. at that college)

interviews Faculty Surveys

Determine current IFL practices, examples Explore future areas for IF leaders Identifying administrative practices advancing

IFL Delineate administrative practices impeding

IFL

Purpose

Literature Review

Informal Faculty Leadership Formal vs. Informal (Burke, 2008; Kezar & Lester, 2009;

Mayrowetz, 2008) IFL in the Learning College and Post-Secondary

Education Collaborative teams (O’Banion, 2007; Shugart, 2010; Wilson,

2010) Faculty Inquiry Groups (Faculty, 2008; Huber, 2008) Grassroots leadership (Burke, 2010) – new

technologies, new pedagogies Focus on teaching and learning (Shugart, 2010)

Literature Review

Administrative actions advancing IFL Supporting actions (Wechsler, 2007)

Collaborative Narrow focus on teaching and learning, broad

perspective of college High value for role of faculty in change All levels involved in innovation

Servant leaders (Grosso, 2008)

Literature Review

Administrative actions impeding IFL Impeding actions (Kezar, 2009)

Initiative overload “Institutional isomorphism”

“Bureaucratic Baloney” (Reeves, 2008) Leaders don’t model behavior they preach “Polar opposite of culture of evidence” Traditions rule over data-driven decisions Reliance on purpose (as opposed to results)

Findings

Examination of Documents

High level of consistency Common themes:

Learning Collaboration Innovation Diversity

Findings

Faculty Member Surveys

Current/future examples: Collaboration Mentoring (faculty-faculty, faculty-student) Center for Teaching and Learning Innovative ideas with sharing

Findings

Faculty Member Surveys

Current/future examples: Action research Service learning Technology Faculty-driven professional development

Findings

Faculty Member Surveys

Administrative Practices Advancing: Characteristics of administrators

Facilitative, encouraging, communication, trust, transparency

Collaborative: horizontal and vertical Allocation of resources (CTL, technology, etc.) High value for faculty innovators Provide needs and then freedom

“Get me what I need then get out of the way!”

Findings

Faculty Member Surveys

Administrative Practices Hindering: Character deficits

Micromanaging Secretive, lack of transparency Poor communication skills Collaboration deficit, especially horizontal Failure to show appreciation/recognition

Organizational design issues Structural designs, campus layout Not supporting innovation Not allocating resources

Findings

Faculty Member Surveys

Administrative Practices Hindering: Requirements not related to teaching/learning

Paperwork Out-of-class assignments, tasks Committee assignments not related to learning

Impediments to collaboration Not modelling Not walking talk Not removing structural roadblock

Role of deans, other middle-level managers

Findings

Administrator Interviews

Current/future examples Characteristics of IF Leaders

Focused on learning Energetic, enthusiastic: “passionate innovators” Never satisfied, always looking for better way Influential: always sharing and contributing

Purveyors of innovative practices Service learning Experiential learning Authentic assessment High engagement pedagogies Use of cutting edge technology

High value for informal faculty leaders – aura of mutual admiration

Findings

Administrator Interviews

Administrative practices advancing Characteristics of administrators

Self-critical, open to change Focus on learning

Culture of collaboration Inclusive of faculty in discussions, decisions Deep conversations Open to suggestions

Continual, rigorous, transparent system to evaluate current systems/practices

High value for informal faculty leaders

Findings

Administrator Interviews

Administrative practices advancing Facilitative

Dedication of budget, resources Ongoing faculty development, faculty involvement Moving innovation to institutionalization

Hiring consistent with learning Peer-to-peer training Induction/mentoring program

Celebration of IFL

Findings

Administrator Interviews

Administrative practices/structures hindering

Financial stressors Governance systems, political agendas Middle level managers (deans, etc.)

Enrollment first Budget second Learning third

Environmental obstructs

Speaking of enrollment . . .

Implications Derived from Convergence

High value held for IFL and leaders: significant/necessary vehicles for change

Continual focus on learning, collaboration, innovation

Programs: Service Learning Mentoring CTL/faculty-driven professional development Emerging technologies

Deans/middle level managers focused on learning

Recommendations

Regarding Professional Development Administrators

Provide resources Let faculty drive it

Faculty members Understand importance of PD Share best practices Strive for continual growth

Recommendations

Regarding Programs (Service Learning, Mentoring, Emerging Technologies) Administrators

Well-resourced and supported? Move to more integrated and essential part? Faculty have critical role in driving/implementing?

Faculty members Be open to change Understand connection of change to learning

Recommendations

Regarding Administrative Practices Challenges in moving innovation to

institutionalization Faculty used as “champion innovators”? If perceived as top-down Dedicate the resources

Faculty members Understand processes, protocols to be followed Understand challenges admin faces

Learning Leadership

Background

Purpose

Lit Review

Findings

Implications

Recommend

So What’s This About?

Of effective faculty? Of effective administrators?

So now, in the name of learning, what are the leadership

characteristics and practices . . .

Burke, K. (2010). Distributed leadership and shared governance in post secondary education.

Management in Education 24(2), 51-54. Retrieved from: http://mie.sagepub.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/content/24/2/51.abstract

Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Donaldson, G.A. Jr. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose, and practice. New York: Teachers College.

Faculty inquiry in action: Guidelines for working together to improve student learning (2008). The Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching. Retrieved from: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/faculty-inquiry-action-guidelines-working-together-improve-student-learning.

Grosso, F.A. (2008). Motivating faculty through transformational leadership: A study of the Relationship between presidential leadership behaviors and faculty behaviors. Dissertation, The Catholic University of America, # 3310021.

References

Huber, M.T. (2008). The promise of faculty inquiry for teaching and learning basic skills.

A Report from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching:Strengthening Pre-Collegiate Education in Community Colleges. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503130.pdf.

Kezar, A. (2009). Change in higher education: Not enough or too much? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 32(6), 18-23.

Kezar, A., Lester, J. (2009). Supporting faculty grassroots leadership. Research in Higher Education 50, 715-740. DOI 10.1007/s11162-009-9139-6.

Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in the field. Educational and Administration Quarterly 44(3), 424-435.

O'Banion, T. (2007). Leadership for learning. Community College Journal, 78(2), 45-47. Retrieved from Research Library. (Document ID: 1383351301).

References

Reeves, D. B. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Shugart, S. (January 8, 2010). From an interview with the president of Valencia College (a Vanguard College) conducted by Peter Turner, Doctoral candidate, Northcentral University; at Estrella Mountain Community College, Avondale, Arizona.

Turner, P. (2013). Informal faculty leadership that transforms: Evidences and practices for the Learning College. Dissertation, Northcentral University. UMI # 3571494

Wechsler, J.K. (2007). The presidents’ role in the learning college project: A multiple case study. Abstract of Dissertation, Argosy University.

Wilson, C. (August 23, 2010). From a telephone interview conducted by Peter Turner, Doctoral candidate, Northcentral University; and Learning College Project Director at the League for Innovation in the Community College.

References