Clarifying, Developing and Valuing the Role of unit Coordinators as … · 2010-11-15 ·...

Clarifying, Developing and Valuing the Role of Unit Coordinators as Informal Leaders of Learning in Higher Education 1

Clarifying, Developing and Valuing the Role

of unit Coordinators as Informal Leaders of Learning in Higher Education

Final Report

2010

Murdoch University Curtin University of Technology

Report prepared by: Susan Roberts Linda Butcher

Miriam Brooker

Project Team: Susan Roberts

Rick Cummings Renato Schibeci

Sue Jones Linda Butcher

Rob Phillips


Support for this project has been provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd. This work is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- Non-commercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Australia Licence. Under this Licence you are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work and to make derivative works. Attribution: You must attribute the work to the original authors and include the following statement: Support for the original work was provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Non-commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build on this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work. Share Alike: If you alter, transform, or build on this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/au/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second St, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA. Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, PO Box 2375, Strawberry Hills NSW 2012 or through the website: http://www.altc.edu.au. 2010


Acknowledgments The project team would like to thank the more than 120 Academic and General Staff from 22 universities across Australia who responded to invitations to participate in focus groups, interviews, forums, workshops and meetings during the 18 months of the Project’s duration. It is to you that this project is dedicated. The author acknowledges and sincerely thanks her project team for their significant contribution and input to this Project, without which it would not have been successfully completed. To the following people my special thanks: Linda Butcher, Project Manager, whose organisation skills are second to none; whose gentle reminders helped me stay on track and whose creative ideas led me through and around blocks that threatened to drive me off course. I freely admit that I could not have driven this project without her support, persistence and wisdom. Miriam Brooker who stepped in to assist me in the final months to analyse my interview data, write the literature review in this report and travel the thousands of kilometres with me during the roadshow to observe in meetings, take notes, analyse them, evaluate and then debrief with me. Professor Rick Cummings for his insightful reflections and critiques of my ideas and writing and for his feedback always tactfully imparted. To the Project Evaluator, Associate Professor Rob Phillips who kept us all ‘honest’ with his monitoring and follow-up of actions, his invaluable critiques and direction. Associate Professor Renato Schibeci, and Sue Jones for their valuable suggestions during project meetings, and for reading and commenting on my reports. Elaine Lewis for undertaking the extensive web audit and reporting, and Dr Sally Knowles and Dr Katherine Choules for researching and writing the annotated bibliography. Carol Adair for the time consuming formatting and editing and, finally, special thanks go to reference group members Professor Denise Chalmers and Dr Christine Brown for their direction and guidance at critical points in the project.


Report Contents

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................. 3 Report Contents ..................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables and Figures ...................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 1 | About this study ......................................................................................................10 Overview ...............................................................................................................................10 Literature Review ..................................................................................................................12

Chapter 2 | Methodology...........................................................................................................23 Overview ...............................................................................................................................23

Chapter 3 | Clarifying the Role ..................................................................................................31 Overview ...............................................................................................................................31

Chapter 4 | Challenges and the Support that Counts ................................................................45 Overview ...............................................................................................................................45 Developmental challenges ....................................................................................................46 Addressing the Developmental Challenges ...........................................................................49 System level challenges associated with the Role.................................................................55 Addressing system level challenges ......................................................................................60

Chapter 5 | Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................64 Overview ...............................................................................................................................64 References............................................................................................................................66

Appendices ...............................................................................................................................70


Executive Summary This study entitled Clarifying, Developing and Valuing the role of Unit Coordinators as Leaders of Learning in Higher Education, and funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) has successfully produced the outcomes proposed: in particular, an evidence-based job description that clarifies the role of the Unit Coordinator (also known as Unit Chair, Unit Convenor, Course Coordinator, Subject Coordinator, and Programme Coordinator at universities around Australia) and highlights the role’s fundamental learning leadership components. A person specification of the competencies and capabilities needed to perform the role effectively has been developed, as have unilateral criteria for probationary, performance and promotional reviews. Induction and professional development proformas have also been devised to facilitate the provision by universities of targeted support for new and experienced Unit Coordinators.

A number of factors provided the stimulus for the study. Previous studies have focused on formal leaders in the higher education hierarchy, and on teachers and teaching, but an examination of relevant literature revealed that the role of Unit Coordinator has not been explored in any depth. This is in spite of the important role they hold in the academic structure through their part in working directly with students, in curriculum design and delivery and the associated impact on the student learning experience. In addition, a finding that the Federal Government views the higher education system as making a fundamental contribution to the future of Australia in ways that involve Unit Coordinators at the forefront led the project team to assert that this important role needed to be clarified to enhance understanding and recognition and enable targeted development. In clarifying the role it was found that, as a minimum standard, the Unit Coordinator is responsible for managing and coordinating a unit of study, the students who enrol in the unit and, depending on the size and nature of the unit, guest and sessional staff. As the person in charge of a unit, the Unit Coordinator is also responsible for collaboratively building networks with key stakeholders, setting the example in disciplinary practice, adopting scholarly teaching practices, developing and continually refining units, maintaining unit quality and disciplinary integrity, and looking after the interests of their students. On the other hand, Unit Coordinators who are regarded as leaders of learning proactively and professionally deliver and model scholarly teaching approaches to students and staff that reflect contemporary disciplinary content and practice. They are also successful in inspiring and motivating students, and providing them with an excellent learning experience. The study found that not all Unit Coordinators were considered, or considered themselves as learning leaders. However, participants felt comfortable with the notion that learning leadership was something to aspire to; that it could be developed and that it was a quality that should be recognised and rewarded by universities. A number of participants remarked that there seemed little difference between a Unit Coordinator who exhibits learning leadership and one who exhibits excellence in teaching. Given the significance of curriculum design and delivery in the role, and with the support of the literature, we argue that it is excellent teaching that leads to and inspires learning. It follows, then, that an excellent teacher is a learning leader. To identify the support and development considered most helpful to Unit Coordinators in the performance of the role, it was decided to explore the challenges and constraints they encounter. We found that the number of duties


encompassed by the role, and the competencies and capabilities required in executing the Unit Coordinator’s role effectively, have rendered it both complex and demanding. Particular areas of challenge mentioned by participants include starting out in the role; handling first years and large classes (usually hand in hand); managing casual/sessional staff; keeping up with and learning new technologies; understanding and maintaining unit quality and feelings associated with being undervalued and isolated. Other challenges relate to operations and policy; the teaching versus research agenda; lack of time and inequitable workloads; locating, employing and retaining casual/sessional staff; internationalisation of the curriculum, and handling emotional labour. Of note is that any one of the challenges articulated by study participants has implications in regard to a Unit Coordinator’s performance. Good practice may be compromised which, in turn, may impact on the quality of education provided to students. Removal or, at least, amelioration of impediments to a Unit Coordinator’s effective performance and learning leadership by the universities in which they work will demonstrate their recognition of the contribution made by Unit Coordinators to the achievement of strategic goals. It is argued that such efforts will, in turn, enhance the Unit Coordinator’s sense of value and their effectiveness as both a teacher and a leader. In addition to leadership training offered to academics outlined in an appendix of the report, the deliverables of the study are conveyed in the form of a separate booklet resource. This booklet contains a number of proformas which, when used collaboratively by Heads of Schools, Teaching and Organisational Development Units, and HR Departments will enable the more effective targeting of professional development, improved handling of many of the challenges faced by Unit Coordinators, and clearer pathways for universities to acknowledge excellence.


Project Outcomes and Impacts The project was designed to achieve the following outcomes: o A definition and enhanced understanding of the role of Unit Coordinators in

respect to their influence on and leadership of learning; o A definition of the competencies that depict good practice leaders of learning and

the detailing of both roles and competencies in the form of a job description; o Compilation of a database of good practice professional development (PD)

resources specifically about ‘leading for learning’; o Creation of leadership development modules where gaps are identified in

existing programmes; o Creation of performance criteria guidelines and benchmarks in line with job

descriptions for consideration by university management and promotions committees, and;

o Adaptation of available recognition and reward strategies according to individual motivators and universities’ funding arrangements.

The study was conducted in four phases over a period of 18 months. The first phase focused on planning, staffing and an audit of Australian university websites to locate any information publicly available about Unit Coordinators and learning leadership as applied in this context. The data obtained during the audit was analysed and tabulated throughout the audit period. The second phase involved establishing a process for assembling focus groups, running the groups in three of the five West Australian universities, and data analysis. The third phase comprised organising and convening interviews at three universities with Unit Coordinators from a range of disciplines, and associated analysis, while the fourth involved dissemination, reporting and seeking feedback from a wide audience. The project advanced knowledge about the role of a Unit Coordinator as a leader of learning in higher education. This role has not previously been examined, nor has significance been attributed to learning leadership, largely because it is not considered as leadership in the formal and traditional sense. Learning leadership was found to sit alongside distributed and collegial models of leadership to which a level of informality has been attributed. Critical to this project’s success was an engaged and helpful project team, an experienced and very well organised project manager and an evaluator whose role extended to one of critical friend to the project team. A potential impediment to the project’s success was the lack of time to collaborate more widely with key stakeholders, and to embed and disseminate the project outcomes. However, good budget management by the project team enabled the project leader and an assistant to undertake a six-city road show in eastern Australia to disseminate and seek feedback on the key deliverables of the project. This proved invaluable for networking and refining the deliverables for wider use. An elaboration of a Unit Coordinator’s role in the form of a job description, and support described in a variety of HR typical documents is not amenable to everyone. However, sufficient flexibility is built into the proformas developed to enable users to pick and choose what they consider useful within their own contexts.


Dissemination Created for dissemination are this report and a booklet of proformas specific to the Unit Coordinator and containing:

• Lecturer A – E job description (synthesized from data); • Statement of responsibilities; • Job description; • Person specification; • Proposed induction; • Development framework for developing capability; • Development matrix; • Proposed professional development; and • Probationary, performance development and promotional criteria.

These are available and freely accessible on the following website: http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/project/ucall/ and will be available on the ALTC exchange: http://www.altcexchange.edu.au Linkages Linkages exist, informally, between this study and at least two on-going ALTC studies. These are:

Coalface subject coordinators – the missing link to building leadership capacities in the academic supply chain (LE8-814) (Project Leader: Judy Nagy, Deakin) and

Subject coordinators: leading professional development for sessional staff (LE9-1212) (Project Leader: Geraldine Lefoe, UOW). Evaluation An evaluation report describing the formative and summative processes used throughout this study has been forwarded separately to the ALTC. It is too early to discern the impact of the project outcomes on the sector. However, the project’s value has been reinforced time and time again by project participants from universities around Australia, some of whom are policy makers.


List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. ....A ‘typical’ job description: Lecturer ...................................................... 12 Table 2. ....University websites explored during the web audit .............................. 24 Table 3. ....Australian universities that participated in the desktop audit................ 24 Table 4. ....Australian universities not included in the desktop audit...................... 25 Table 5. ....Equivalent titles for the Unit Coordinator ............................................. 32 Table 6. ....Job description for Unit Coordinator .................................................... 34 Table 7. ....Competencies and capabilities required by Unit Coordinators to

perform their roles effectively .............................................................. 38 Table 8. ....Learning leadership responsibility 1: in Unit Coordinator’ JD............... 41 Table 9 .....Aspirational characteristics expected of a learning leader ................... 43 Table 10. ..Proposed induction for the new Unit Coordinator ............................... 50 Table 11 ...Proposed professional development schedule .................................... 52 Table 12 ...Minimum performance standards expected of a Unit Coordinator

(Lecturer A/B, C-E) ............................................................................. 62 Figure 1....A ‘typical’ job description for Lecturer with unit coordination

responsibilities highlighted. ................................................................. 26 Figure 2....A developmental framework for developing Unit Coordinators’ capability ................. ........................................................................................................... 51 Figure 3....An illustration of the ‘weight’ of operational administration in a

Unit Coordinator’s role ........................................................................ 56


Chapter 1 | About this study

Overview This report describes the rationale, methodology, findings and outcomes of the study entitled, Clarifying, Developing and Valuing the role of Unit Coordinators as Leaders of Learning in Higher Education (UCaLL). The study was funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) through their Leadership for Excellence in Learning and Teaching Programme. The study builds on a previous ALTC project that encouraged Unit Coordinators to lead curriculum renewal and pedagogical enhancement within their Schools at Murdoch University. The Enhancing the Student Education Experience through School-based Curriculum Improvement Leaders [CILP] project (2008) reasoned that those working most closely with students are best placed to impact on the quality of student learning through their application in classrooms of appropriate and innovative pedagogy and curriculum design. On this basis, the project team argued that Unit Coordinators hold an important teaching and learning leadership role in the academic structure, which should be acknowledged and developed (Cummings, Roberts, & Schibeci, 2008). The CILP project also raised questions about how non-positional leaders (those without assigned power) enact leadership or lead change. The project provided support and professional development to Unit Coordinators to encourage them to set up and lead curriculum improvement within their Schools. Although some embraced the project opportunities and went on to lead change within their school communities, not all Unit Coordinators were comfortable with the idea that they could play a leadership role. “Many Curriculum Improvement Leaders (CILs) indicated they were reluctant to describe themselves as leaders. Nor were they comfortable calling themselves leaders, because of the perceived power asymmetries associated with leadership” (CILP Report, p. 18). The current project builds on the CILP by arguing that the leadership role of Unit Coordinators needs to be more clearly understood, developed and acknowledged, with a view to supporting Unit Coordinators as “informal leaders of learning” (ALTC proposal, p. 3). The study also relates to another ALTC project led by Curtin University, the Leading Courses: Academic Leadership for Course Coordinators Project [ALCCP], 2008. This project focused on developing leadership among Course Coordinators (those academics with responsibility for a course or programme of study leading to a degree award). The project team argued that course coordinators “carry much of the leadership responsibility for ensuring their courses are of high quality and industry relevant” (Jones, Ladyshewsky, Oliver & Flavell, 2008, p. 16), but are often under prepared for the role and have little or no line management authority. The ALCCP provided professional development and support to course coordinators to develop their leadership capabilities. The project team observed that the ‘revolving door’ aspect of the role meant that many course coordinators were only temporarily appointed, and would eventually move back to peer-based relationships. This fact led its own set of challenges. Similar to the CILP (above) course coordinators did not always welcome the designation of ‘leader’, since this was associated with corporate management influences and was seen as a threat to collegial relationships (Jones, Ladyshewsky, Oliver, & Flavell, 2008). The current project explores similar issues, but at the Unit Coordinator level particularly.


The desire to focus a study on the ‘coalface’ academics, i.e. those who work most proximally with students to shape and lead their learning, was compelling for reasons in addition to those already outlined. First, previously funded ALTC leadership projects have concentrated on higher education Executive Leaders, Directors, Heads of Schools and Academic Chairs but few, if any, studies have been conducted on Unit Coordinators who design and deliver the curriculum and pedagogy that impact directly on the quality of student learning. Second, in line with this, studies undertaken by Cohen and Bunker (2006) and Debowski and Blake (2004) called for clarification of the role to enhance understanding of its many facets, and to provide baseline data upon which to design development programmes that might help to improve the quality of curriculum and scholarship. Third, it was our view that insufficient attention and value have been placed on a role that is integral to the core business of a university, and the person who performs the role. This view was inspired by Ramsden’s findings (1993, p. 16) that “teaching and student learning are parts of the same whole” and, “it is the behaviour of the lecturers and the way they design courses which facilitate deep learning, rather than some essential characteristics of individual students” (1994, p. 21). Other reasons for engaging with this study are more global, and relate to the expectations of the Australian Government on higher education outcomes. The higher education system is seen by the Federal Government (Dept of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008) as making a fundamental contribution to the future of Australia in the following ways. It:

plays a vital role in Australia’s intellectual, economic, cultural and social development;

educates the future professional workforce; creates future leaders; provides jobs for Australians; drives much of our economic and regional success; facilitates cultural and trade links with other countries; plays a key role in the growing knowledge and innovation based economic

health of Australia; promotes the tolerance debate that unpins Australian society; and enriches our social and environmental landscape.

Higher education related policy generated by the Federal Government is forwarded to relevant senior university executives who delegate to ensure the objects are met in their universities and that the relevant support and infrastructure are installed. In some universities these have been well funded and resourced; while in others little attention has been provided to those, such as Unit Coordinators, who play a significant part in the achievement of Government and university declarations. The (hidden) role of a Unit Coordinator Examination of websites that might have helped clarify the role of the Unit Coordinator identified nomenclature for those who teach students and look after a subject or unit, as either ‘Lecturer’ or ‘Teacher’. Job descriptions for ‘Unit Coordinator’ and like titles from other universities were not found during searches conducted at that time. Rather, as depicted in a ‘typical’ job description for an advertised position of a Lecturer (A – E) and synthesised from the data elicited from the university website audit, unit or subject coordination was found to be just one responsibility encompassed in the role (see Table 1) and was, to all intents and purposes, hidden. It was also referred to as a task, which indicated to us a poor understanding of what differentiates a responsibility and task, with implications that will be discussed later. A further finding from web searches revealed little differentiation between the two roles of Lecturer and Unit Coordinator.


Table 1. A ‘typical’ job description: Lecturer A – E Responsibilities and Tasks (undifferentiated)

1 Deliver lectures and seminars to undergraduate and postgraduate students

2 Initiate and develop teaching materials

3 Conduct tutorials and workshops

4 Mark and grade student assessments and exams

5 Provide leadership to students in the subject matter

6 Consult with students

7 Unit/subject coordination

8 Conduct research, write papers and publish in refereed journals

9 Attract competitive grants

10 Supervise postgraduate students

11 Participate in community service

12 Participate in professional and community activities

13 Comply with EEO and OHS guidelines

14 Administration compliance

The literature review that follows highlights the significant issues emerging from searches undertaken on the academic’s role, leadership applied at this level and the support and development needed to improve quality and efficacy.

Literature Review The Broader Context: Higher Education Policy in Australia and Abroad Expectations of higher education institutions have recently shifted toward placing greater emphasis upon the quality of teaching and learning provided to students. This is because “there is a strong link between students’ retention and success and the extent to which they are engaged with their fellow learners and their teachers during their studies” (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008, p. 69). The number of older part-time students enrolling in higher education has increased over recent years, and this has also contributed (amongst other things) to higher expectations of the quality of student interactions with staff and of the teaching and learning provided. Some notable trends in the Australian higher education system have also been associated with a lessening in the quality of teaching provided within the higher education context. For example, the Bradley Report identifies higher student-staff ratios since 1990, higher numbers of casual staff involved in teaching, and fewer full-time staff involved in the delivery of courses as factors that have contributed to negative student experiences at universities around Australia. Australia was noted to have fallen behind its major competitor countries (such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom) on key teaching and student experience indicators.


In response to the Bradley Report the Australian Government has committed to improving students’ learning experiences to boost higher education retention and completion ratios within Australia (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). The government has established the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) in order to “place a renewed emphasis on learning and teaching quality as the bedrock of the Australian higher education system” (Australian Government, 2009, p. 15). The Australian government has also adopted a new approach to higher education funding, based on responding to the needs of students and student demand.

A new approach to higher education funding is needed; one based on acknowledging the primary importance of students and their learning in order to meet Australia’s future economic needs; an approach that moves from Government dictating and rationing the supply of university places to a position where our task is to meet and fund the needs of Australian students and the broader community (Australian Government, 2009, p. 17).

From 2012, funding for Australian public universities will be based on student demand. With regard to measures of quality student experiences and engagement in their education, Bradley and colleagues (2008, pp. 78-79) identify the following six (out of 12) factors that relate (completely or partially) to the role of Unit Coordinators:

Teachers who are accessible and responsive to learners; Interaction with teachers that builds a commitment to the students’ chosen

disciplines; Two-way communication about matters that pertain to their academic

progress; Being treated as an individual; A welcoming and inclusive environment; and An accessible and sophisticated online learning environment.

It is apparent, therefore, that Unit Coordinators play a front-line and important role with regard to achieving government identified priorities for the higher education system. Chalmers (2007) reviewed the indicators of quality teaching and learning in higher education across Australia and several OECD countries. Overall, the establishment of national quality audit and accreditation systems and the desire for standardised measures of learning and effectiveness was “a pervasive trend across all of the countries reviewed” (p. 7). Whereas European countries were veering more toward quality auditing and accreditation mechanisms (less direct involvement from governments), the United States was veering toward the use of standardised measures and indicators (greater government oversight of higher education institutions). Australia has a long-standing quality framework for higher education, including the administration of national student course experience and graduate destination surveys (Chalmers, 2007). Chalmers observed that higher education was being increasingly viewed as an economic commodity with an emphasis on the importance of linking higher education to graduate employment outcomes. However, she argued that it is important that the information generated by quality teaching and learning indicators “…does not dictate the approach taken” (2007, p. 73). Furthermore, she commented that indicators need to inform quality teaching and learning practices and governance decisions, particularly at the local level (individual and institutional performance). Chalmers concluded that, “Rather than focusing on collecting information primarily at the national level, it would be more effective if information is gathered at the institutional level and focused on the progress made, with funding


and rewards based on demonstrated progress” (2007, p. 76). This would help to account for the inherent differences that exist between different institutions, and allow for a range of indicators of intra-institutional performance, which would be “… most likely to lead to an enhanced learning environment which benefits students” (2007, p. 76). Teaching Quality Chalmers (2007) provided an overview of the quality processes and trends in teaching and learning within Australia and overseas (OECD countries). Quality teachers were identified as “those who integrate established theories of learning in their practice of education in order to understand how students develop and learn” (p. 84). This includes the elements of curriculum design; the teaching style employed; and approaches to assessment, and their subsequent impacts upon student learning (Chalmers, 2007). A student-centred learning approach was identified as being the most strongly supported indicator of quality teaching and learning within the report, and is applicable at all levels of the university. This approach includes:

Setting high but achievable expectations of students; Encouraging a deep or mastery student learning approach; Encouraging student experimentation in the learning process; and Accounting for student needs.

Teaching scholarship includes a range of approaches, skills and behaviours that characterise teachers of quality. Healey (2000, p. 172) identified that a scholarly approach to teaching includes:

Being familiar with the latest ideas in one’s subject; Being informed by current ideas for teaching that subject; Evaluating and reflecting on one’s teaching practice and the student

learning that follows; Communicating and disseminating about the teaching and learning

practices of one’s subject; and Investigating questions related to how students learn within a discipline.

However, in addition to student perceptions and teacher qualities, staff experiences and satisfaction are important factors contributing to the quality of teaching and learning within the higher education context (Chalmers, 2007). Staff perceptions that quality teaching is rewarded by the institution contribute to more effective teaching, more satisfied students and a positive institutional context. Although staff satisfaction and experiences are supported as being important indicators within the literature, measures of these factors are not common at the institutional level (Chalmers, 2007). Bellamy, Morley and Watty (2003) surveyed 3,000 academics employed in business disciplines in Australian universities and researched the reasons why they became academics, why they remain academics, and any conditions related to the achievement of ideal work satisfaction for them. Fewer than half of the 1262 respondents felt that their contributions were valued, with a sense of being valued rising with the respondent’s position or level. They concluded:

Important factors in becoming and remaining an academic included (in order of importance): flexibility, autonomy, teaching, research, and belonging to a community of scholars (Bellamy, Morley, & Watty, 2003, p. 26).

Increasing demands on lecturers within the university system may work against their ability to provide quality learning experiences for their students. Knight and Trowler (2000) researched the socialisation experiences of new academics in Canadian and English universities and concluded that:


The pressure to give research precedence over teaching, the diminution of resources, the codes of signification associated with the teaching effort and the unintended as well as the intended consequences of many other features of the work context militate against the teaching and learning practices we have identified as beneficial (Knight & Trowler, 2000, p. 77).

In addition, there is research evidence to suggest that teachers’ experiences of academic leadership have a bearing upon their adopted approach to their teaching. “In higher education, it would seem that lecturers and heads of department perceive differences in the forms of leadership they experience, with a persistent dichotomy between authoritarian, self-interested control and collaborative but firm management being evident (Martin, Trigwell, Prosser, & Ramsden, 2003, p. 248). Martin and colleagues conducted a study that included interviews with heads of department (regarding their leadership of their department), subject coordinators of large first-year units (regarding a recent teaching leadership challenge), and unit teachers (regarding their perceptions of leadership) within those units. Overall, they found that when subject coordinators experienced leadership that focused on the nature and content of the subject or discipline, teachers in their units felt resentful about ideas being imposed on them. However, if a subject coordinator focused on leadership through attention to student experiences, the teachers in their unit experienced leadership as being collaborative. “We would argue that this empirical relationship has a theoretical foundation: a focus on student experiences is consistent with a shared vision of the aims of teaching” (Martin et al., 2003, p. 257). Therefore, the quality of teaching provided within a unit is also indicative of the way that leadership is experienced or enacted within the department itself. Teaching & Learning Leadership Debowski and Blake (2004) define teaching leadership as “where an individual seeks to influence the teaching practice of others” (p. 2) and point out that this kind of leadership occurs at all levels of the university, from the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Academic) or Deputy Vice-Chancellor through to the Unit Coordinator. However, they also argue that each position within the university will be associated with qualitatively different kinds of teaching leadership, including differing curriculum and pedagogical bases. “A Unit Coordinator, for example, must ensure that the unit reflects the most advanced representation of the curriculum, and that the teaching and learning processes are ethical, fair and engaging” (p. 5). Debowski and Blake (2004, p. 3) outline the following academic leadership roles for Unit Coordinators:

Ensures the unit reflects the coverage and depth required, as well as being up-to-date and relevant to student needs;

Develops and provides guidance on effective standards relating to academic principles, assessment, content and support of student needs;

Provides support and encouragement to tutors, students and colleagues associated with the unit;

Evaluates the unit quality and outcomes and ensures feedback is reflected in revisions to the unit.

There are some important similarities in the leadership challenges faced by Course Coordinators (known also as Program Chairs) and Unit Coordinators. Due to their responsibility for overseeing a whole course or major, Course Coordinators are “the next leader above the Unit Coordinator in the hierarchy in the university” (Cohen, Bunker & Ellis, 2007, p. 2). However, although Course Coordinators have broader responsibilities compared with Unit Coordinators, both positions require the provision of teaching and learning leadership, and staff management.


Curtin University, for example, outlines four key leadership aspects in the Course Coordinator’s role statement (http://otl.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning/course_coordinator_role_statement):

Provide leadership in course/major development, curriculum design, development, implementation, and evaluation;

Provide leadership at a course level for implementation of Curtin’s teaching and learning priorities, such as first year experience, work-integrated learning, improving graduate employability; international/intercultural/Indigenous perspectives, and interdisciplinary experiences;

Support the implementation of the university, the Faculty, and the School’s plan in relation to teaching and learning; and

Promote and support innovative and effective teaching and learning practices in delivery of the course.

The leadership demands and qualities associated with each of the roles outlined above are different in some important ways, particularly in their scope. However, Unit Coordinator and Course Coordinator positions both evoke challenges regarding the leadership of colleagues. Overall, the main leadership challenge experienced by unit and Course Coordinators appears to be a concern about assuming a managerial-like stance toward colleagues, which is perceived to be a threat to the ongoing wellbeing of those relationships. Non-positional and Distributed Leadership Non-positional leadership is a term used to describe leadership that occurs purely through recognising and acting on opportunities to exert influence without being in a formal managerial position or role. It was noted above that some Unit Coordinators and course coordinators who participated within the CILP and ALCCP projects did not like to have the term leadership associated their position. This is likely to be due to a strong association between leadership and management. Lesley Parker’s review of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s Leadership Programmes 2006-2008 outlines the difficulty that many projects experienced with establishing participant buy-in due to leadership being associated with,

An authoritarian, hierarchical model (of which participants had negative impressions or experiences), and that the position of the participants was that they were dealing with colleagues or peers, in which case the authoritarian model was seen as inappropriate (Parker, 2008, p. 14).

However, Parker also observed that academics involved in ALTC projects that developed leadership capacity eventually perceived their leadership role differently. Having given themselves “permission to lead”, these participants described “leadership as distributed, networked, inclusive and action-oriented” (Parker, 2008, pp. 21-22). These leaders developed a sense of agency and felt empowered to initiate and model change and good practice. Bolden, Petrov and Gosling (2008) identify that higher education institutions incorporate a variety of leadership roles, and they made a differentiation between those with formal line-management and budgetary control (vertical function) and “those with more cross-cutting roles dependent on interpersonal and social influence” (pp. 1-2) (horizontal function). In general, there is a lack of literature on informal leadership practices within the university system, since it is far more common to focus on positional forms of leadership. Scott, Coates and Anderson (2008) conducted a study on academic leadership capabilities in the learning and teaching area and focused upon the formal roles of the Pro-or Deputy-Vice Chancellor, Dean, Assistant Dean, Head of School/Department, Head of


Programme and Director of Teaching and Learning. They acknowledged that their study excluded “those individuals who may not occupy formal leadership positions but who enact it in their day-to-day work. There is, however, a need for specific research on the area…” (p. 116). Within the UK contexts Smith (2005) found examples of informal leadership, and commented that,“these less formal roles have attracted far less attention among higher education leadership researchers who have mainly concentrated on institutional, school/faculty and departmental leadership” (Smith, 2005, p. 16). Bryman (2007) defines dispersed leadership as the distribution of leadership across a range of individuals, rather than locating it with one person. Bolden and colleagues (2008) differentiate between formally delegated distributed leadership (top-down influence) and leadership that is informally dispersed across the organisation (bottom-up and horizontal influence). This latter form of distributed leadership fits well alongside notions of professionalism, or as Ramsden (1998) puts it, “people who set their own standards, have a vision and commitment beyond the organisation, who can be guided but not compelled, who seek a collective vision but who believe in independence” (Ramsden, 1998, p. 257). However, Ramsden points out that paradoxically, the more leadership is distributed, the more important it is to have “clear objectives and high level vision at the centre to which local leaders are committed” (p. 257). According to Bryman (2007), a common vision can be difficult to achieve given the propensity of academic staff toward autonomy and individualism in their working practices. By the same token,

Managing change and leading institutions in new directions can no longer be supported strategically by a hierarchical leadership organisation that supports the notion of heroes or born leaders. There is a need to foster and support a distributive perspective of leadership capacity development that incorporates the collegial sharing of knowledge, practice and reflection (Parrish et al., 2008, p. 4).

A key challenge for the higher education context appears to be how to align top-down and bottom-up styles of leadership in a way that promotes cohesion and balance. Bolden and colleagues noted that this balance was often difficult to achieve.

In institutions where a predominantly ‘managerial’ or top-down approach to leadership dominates, senior university managers may be perceived, at the school/department level, to be micro-managing and interfering unnecessarily in academic affairs. By contrast, interviewees in universities with highly devolved decision-making structures frequently expressed a desire for stronger direction and greater clarity of organisational priorities to help guide their activities (Bolden et al., 2008, p. 2).

Collegiality Support and respect for the collegial relationships of Unit Coordinators (and academic staff in general) within the university system is a promising way of developing effective leadership in teaching and learning. As part of describing the higher educational context, Bryman (2007) commented that, “The significance of fostering a collegial climate of mutual supportiveness and the maintenance of autonomy do seem to be particular desiderata in the academic context” (p. 2). Nick Zepke (2007) argued that this culture (namely distributive leadership) could play an important role in higher education; mitigating the accountability-driven higher education world. He proposed that whereas accountability is a term currently used to refer to internal systems requiring efficiency and auditability; it can also “refer to the mutual responsibility that people have for each other” (p. 302), within their collegial networks.


Researching from the perspective of managers and leaders within the higher education context (United Kingdom), Bolden and colleagues (2008) found that their participants highlighted the importance of informal networks and relationships. They stated that, “This ‘social capital’ is integral to the manner in which leadership and management are enacted across the organisation and contributes strongly to a shared sense of engagement, ownership, purpose and identity” (p. 2). However, they also highlighted that this more informal aspect of organisational functioning was often ‘neglected’ and that this could lead to confusion in the way that personnel exercised their roles and responsibilities. Conflicting policies or procedures can promote dysfunctional behaviour within the higher education system, particularly if they undermined collaboration and teamwork (Bolden et al., 2008). Gron (2002) refers to ‘concertive action’, a particular form of distributed leadership, which draws attention to the multiplicity of leader functions within a group. Zepke (2007) defines concertive action as “the actions performed by a number of interdependent people working together to achieve common goals” (p. 303). The people making up the group act conjointly, meaning that “agents synchronise their actions by having regard to their own plans, those of their peers, and their sense of unit membership” (Gronn, 2002, p. 431). From this perspective, accountability means mutual responsibility, and collegiality is an important way of enacting leadership. A collegial approach to leadership incorporates the notions that: (a) achievement is enabled by networks of collaboration and support; (b) leadership is mutual and relies on egalitarian interactions; and (c) leaders promote conditions conducive to collective learning and continuous improvement (Fletcher, 2002). This approach may be contrasted with ideas about “individual, heroic action” that identify leadership as being an inherent quality of a single person (Fletcher, 2002, p. 1). A collegial approach to leadership is not without its challenges, however. Within the preface to her book Disappearing Acts, Fletcher writes,

This is a book about relational work and the disappearing acts that render it invisible in today’s workplace. It is written for the many people who find that the off-line, backphase, or collaborative work they do, and the relational skills that this kind of work requires, are not recognized or rewarded at work (p. ix).

In addition to a lack of institutional recognition, an emphasis on collegial, bottom-up and horizontal leadership should neither ignore nor negate power asymmetries between peers, “in knowledge, in status, in assigned tasks, in identities, in rights and obligations, in trust and so on…” (Knowles & Choules, 2009, p. 4). Knight and Trowler (2001) acknowledge that workgroups are not always homogeneous or cohesive. “Rather they are often fractured and in tension…” However, they go on to point out that, “Resulting conflicts and clashes are inevitable and can be a source of dynamism and learning within the system…” (p. 58). Emotional Labour Student perceptions of the quality of their teaching and learning experiences (both at the unit and degree or graduate level) currently drive the development and improvement of teaching within the higher education context. Unit Coordinators clearly have an important role to play in influencing or affecting the teaching and learning experiences of their students; directly (through their curriculum design and pedagogy) and indirectly (through the guidance that they provide to teaching staff working within their unit). The emotional component of the efforts that Unit Coordinators would make to satisfy students is referred to as emotional labour. Constanti and Gibbs (2004) argue that higher education teachers undertake


significant emotional labour. This ‘requires’ them to both please students (customers) and achieve profits for management. Emotional labour has been broadly defined as, “the effort which is required to display that which are perceived to be expected emotions” (Ogbonna & Harris, 2004, p. 1189). Based on the theoretical work of Hochschild, emotional labouring can occur when a person displays emotions that they are not actually feeling, or when suppressing emotions that are not considered appropriate to the demands of the workplace (Naring, Breit & Brouwers, 2006). Emotional labouring is considered to be particularly apparent in service jobs where employees are required to please the customer (Naring, Briet, & Brouwers, 2006). Ogbonna and Harris (2004) researched emotional labouring amongst university lecturers and found that all 54 interviewees identified four or more examples of emotional labour (without prompting). In addition, the majority of participants considered emotional labour to be fundamental or central to their work. Ogbonna and Harris argue that, “The increasing management utilisation of student teaching quality evaluations to assess and control the performance of academics appears to be driving ‘student-focused’ emotional labour” (2004, p. 1192). The current government policy emphasis on student satisfaction and tying this to university funding intensifies emotional labouring amongst higher education teachers (Constanti & Gibbs, 2004). According to Barrett (2004), emotional labour is associated with higher levels of workplace stress, and can have “a negative impact on the recruitment and retention of teaching staff” (Barrett, 2004, p. 93). Emotional labour can occur when lecturers feel compelled to provide entertaining and engaging lectures in response to student expectations, regardless of any work-related or personal stressors. Emotional labour also occurs in response to workload increases (superordinates requests) and with students requesting a personal consultation. In these instances, lecturers may suppress frustration or annoyance, feigning willingness, or try to generate the emotional response (calm, patient), that they believe students deserve. “Lecturers undertake a wide range of disparate tasks (for example, teaching, research, administration, management, and student counselling) with each requiring varying degrees of emotional display over an extended period” (Ogbonna & Harris, 2004, p. 1186). Ironically, the levels of emotional labour that teaching staff experience in their day-to-day work can have an impact on the quality of the teaching that they provide to students, as outlined in the following section of the review. Professional Leadership Development How can Unit Coordinators be best prepared to fully embrace the teaching and learning leadership aspects of their role, and maintain productive and beneficial collegial relationships also? The final section of this literature review addresses some of the professional development ‘wisdom’ that emerged from the literature with regard to preparing Unit Coordinators for leadership. According to Debowski and Blake (2004), each level or position within the higher education system is associated with different developmental needs with regard to leadership training and development, indicating the need for leadership training to be specifically tailored to the role concerned. “This may be attributed to the more specialised needs of the academic leader needing to be reflected in any programmes offered. The development of programmes which enable stronger linkages to the real work context ensure relevance and increase the likelihood of transferral back into work processes (Debowski & Blake, 2004, p. 6).


One critical aspect of promoting leadership development amongst Unit Coordinators may be clarifying the nature of their teaching and learning leadership role. Cohen, Bunker and Ellis (2007) explored the role of Unit Coordinators of large units at Edith Cowan University with a view to identifying their experiences and needs. They found that Unit Coordinators held differing views of the most salient aspects of their role, which had implications for the kinds of supports that they considered that they needed. Some Unit Coordinators were concerned about the recording and accountability aspects of their role, others focused on the teaching-research nexus and discipline based pedagogy, whilst others focused on individual student development (Cohen, Bunker, & Ellis, 2007). Cohen and colleagues identified that staff often did not always have a complete view of the skills required to perform their role effectively. That is, in addition to managing university systems effectively, the role required “expertise in designing learning, academic counselling and managing casual staff” (2007, p. 7/10). Staff tended to focus on one aspect of the role, or upon one kind of leadership as important. Overall, Cohen, Bunker and Ellis (2007) argue that it is important that Unit Coordinators understand their role and have adequate training and support to fulfil it. Lefoe and colleagues (2008) worked as a team on the Development of Leadership Capacity in Higher Education project (an inter-university project involving the University of Wollongong, University of Tasmania, Flinders University, and La Trobe University, funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council). The project intention was to promote leadership capacity amongst scholars using a distributive model of leadership. The project generated useful knowledge about how best to support and engage scholars in collegial and collaborative processes to improve the quality of their teaching and learning (Lefoe, Parrish, Hart, Smigiel, & Pannan, 2008). It was concluded that leadership capacity for higher education can be developed through (p.7):

Formal leadership training and professional development activities Authentic learning that is situated in real contexts Engagement in reflective practice Opportunities for dialogue about leadership practice and experiences, and Activities that foster broader individual networks.

Chalmers (2007) argues that the nature of academic staff development can have a positive effect on student learning. “Institutions that support excellence in teaching directed at the improvement of student learning, and give weight to teaching behaviours that contribute to learning in their reward structure, are more likely to enhance student learning” (Chalmers, 2007, p. 82). Based on the information presented within this review, this would include supporting collegial teams as a key means of developing leadership in teaching and learning at the Unit Coordinator level. Conclusion The ideas outlined present a number of challenges for Unit Coordinators that move well beyond the traditional focus on students’ ability, motivation, cognition and the expectations they have of their students’ success or failure. They highlight the importance of Unit Coordinators’ own knowledge of traditional learning theories, their self-concept as leaders of learning, their personalities and their motivations for teaching. Professional development, which addresses these and other components, such as self-knowledge, the means to inspire in their students a love for learning and designing and managing units in context are, therefore, suggested as needed by all Unit Coordinators who lead students (and staff). Of a more generic nature, Marshall


(2006) also proposes the development of group and team processes, staff and project management and improved communication skills. Given the range of skills required for effective learning leadership, coupled with the feelings by Unit Coordinators of isolation, a loss of collegiality (Hargreaves, 2004), uncertainty about roles, role conflict, goal fuzziness, and a sense of being marginalised (Karpiak, 1997), clarification of the role is further justified. Other reasons, including the expectations placed on Unit Coordinators to contribute to community service and research, coupled with heavy administration and workloads that derive from hard managerialism, in addition to inadequate departmental management (Knight & Trowler, 2000) suggest a need to clarify roles and provide targeted support. In spite of the complex nature of these issues and identified need, anecdotal evidence suggests that only in some universities are Unit Coordinators required to have qualifications that might prepare them for the role. In spite of this minimalist expectation, findings suggest that induction and orientation into the role may only comprise a few hours’ attendance at presentations about university administration processes or, worse still, solely through links on intranet sites. Professional development is, in many cases, optional. Graduate Certificates in Higher Education are offered by several universities across Australia, but a requirement to complete the Certificate, in part or in full, is written into employment contracts in only some universities. That is, completion of some form of study to improve teaching scholarship in classrooms is not compulsory. HR operatives and Associate Deans of Teaching and Learning participants remarked that this factor diminishes the efficacy of their role in enhancing quality. They also observed that the people that don’t need the training are the ones that attend; those that don’t need it stay away. Finally, while some universities request evaluation of Unit Coordinators by students, in others, the choice is optional. When Unit Coordinators do nominate for evaluation, the results are analysed and may be forwarded to discipline Deans or Heads of School. However, in the event that a Unit Coordinator regularly receives poor evaluations, there are few structures in place to counsel or refer them to an academic support unit for professional development. Any of these factors has the potential to diminish the quality of education provided to students. Notwithstanding that many Unit Coordinators are offered jobs at universities on the basis of their expert knowledge of a discipline, their experience in the profession or their experience teaching at other universities, there is a transition phase during which Unit Coordinators must learn about their new environments. All organisations, whether they are universities or commercial, tend to be culturally, structurally and politically different. This means that, not only do Unit Coordinators have to adapt to a different socio-political environment, they must also learn about and understand the curriculum and pedagogical approaches used by that institution. Ideally, mentoring programmes are in place to support them through their transition, but the evidence suggests that these are offered haphazardly. For all of these reasons and, as a means of acknowledging the importance and value of the role, a decision was made to explore what Unit Coordinators do; what they need to do to fulfil the expectations and demands made upon them, and what meaningful interventions are needed to develop and support them. To this end, the outcomes of this study, outlined below, are intended to address these issues.

the roles of Unit Coordinators will be defined and understood in respect to their influence on and leadership of learning;

the competencies that depict good practice leaders of learning will also be defined and both roles and competencies will be detailed in the form of job descriptions;


a database of good practice professional development (PD) resources specifically about ‘leading for learning’ will be compiled;

where gaps are identified in existing programmes, leadership PD modules will be developed;

performance criteria guidelines and benchmarks will also be developed, in line with job descriptions, for consideration by university management and promotions committees, and;

a variety of recognition and reward strategies that may be adapted according to individual motivators and universities’ funding arrangements will be devised.

These outcomes are intended for disbursement across all Australian universities, directly and through the ALTC Exchange, to use and adapt to their own contexts as they see fit. To explore the issues, a methodology was devised to conduct the study and is outlined in the next section.


Chapter 2 | Methodology

Overview The initial project proposal planned a two-pronged approach to the study, comprising a web audit and focus groups. Eventually, the study was conducted over four phases during an 18-month period, which are described below. The first phase focused on planning, staffing and the conduct of an audit of Australian university websites to locate any information publicly available about the role of Unit Coordinators and understandings in relation to learning leadership. The data obtained during the audit was synthesised and tabulated throughout the audit period. The second phase involved establishing a process for assembling focus groups, running the groups in three of the five West Australian universities, and analysing the data derived. The third phase comprised organising and convening interviews at three state universities with a range of Unit Coordinators and associated analysis, and the fourth encompassed reporting, dissemination and the seeking of feedback. Phase 1: Project initiation, staffing and web audit During the first two months of the Project’s term the Project’s management team engaged in detailed planning. During the planning phase, a search began for a Research Assistant (RA) whose primary role, at this point, was to conduct an audit of the websites of all Australian universities. The audit’s purpose was three fold: to ascertain the extent of publicly available information about the duties encompassed in a Unit Coordinator’s role as a means of accumulating baseline data; to identify any support resources available to Unit Coordinators in respect to professional development and Awards, and to identify the criteria used in the performance related areas of probation, promotion and performance reviews.

A systematic approach was adopted during the web audit, which entailed ensuring that university websites in different category types and in the different states and territories of Australia were progressively examined. Each website was accessed to obtain information in the areas identified by the Project Leader, including the criteria used for meeting probation, promotion and peer review requirements. The relevant information was printed and filed, and progress was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet. In cases where no relevant information was available on the university websites, the Human Resources departments of these universities were contacted by telephone and email to ascertain willingness to provide the data sought. Upon completion of the web audit the Research Assistant compiled a report on the findings, which have been integrated into relevant sections of this report. Table 2, over page, categorises the Australian universities according to affiliation in which ‘like’ universities are grouped. The key to the five established affiliations is found beneath the table.


Table 2: University websites explored during the web audit

University Affiliation

ATN Curtin QUT RMIT UTS UniSA

5

Go8 Adelaide ANU Mel-bourne Monash UNSW UQ Sydney

UWA 8

IRUA CDU Flinders Griffith JCU La Trobe Murdoch UoN

7

Catholic ACU

National (3)

Notre Dame

(2)

5

Regional UB CQU CSU SCU (2) USQ USC UTAS

UoW 9

Not attached Bond Deakin ECU Mac-

quarie UNE Swin-burne VU

UC UWS 9

Total 43

Key: ATN - Australian Technology Network of universities Go8 - Group of Eight IRUA - Innovative Research universities Australia Catholic - Catholic universities Regional - Regional universities Not attached - No connection found In summary, data was located from 36 university websites (see Table 3). Several universities were not included in the audit because the sought after information was not accessible from the websites due, in part, to the requirement for a university staff login. To address this issue, telephone and email requests were directed to the non- participating universities. Information was, subsequently, provided by one Catholic university and additional information was found from external web sources (employment sites). Of the public universities contacted some either did not respond or maintained that the requested information was confidential. Table 3: Australian universities audited by affiliation and location

ATN Go8 IRUA Catholic Regional Not Attached No. partic. & %

5/5 WA Curtin UWA Murdoch Notre

Dame* ECU 100%

9/12 NSW UNSW;

Sydney UoN ACU Sydney

CSU; SCU

Macquarie; UNE & UWS* 75%

9/9 Vic RMIT Melbourne;

Monash La

Trobe ACU

Ballarat UB Deakin; Swinburne & VU 100%

3/3 SA UniSA Adelaide Flinders

100% 1/1

NT CDU 100%

1/2 ACT ANU

50% 7/10

Qld QUT UQ JCU ACU Brisbane

USC; Central Qld & CQU

70%


1/1 Tas UTAS

100%

36/43 4/5

80% 8/8

100% 6/7

86% 4/5

80% 7/9

78% 7/9

78% 84%

* = limited information obtained from external sources. Table 4: Australian universities not included in the desktop audit

University affiliation

Telephone/email contact No website review No.

ATN UTS 1

Go8 0

IRUA Griffith 1

Catholic NDU - Sydney 1

Regional Wollongong USQ 2

Not attached Bond; UC 2

Total 7

Observations Two overarching observations are drawn from the desktop audit. First, the desktop audit of university websites, with a focus on Unit Coordinators, provided evidence of considerable variation across the participating Australian institutions in the following areas: job descriptions, probation, promotion, performance development review, professional development, awards and HR contacts. Unit coordination was often found to be an assumed task or a responsibility, with little or no recognition in performance development review, professional development and Award processes. During the web audit phase, the data obtained were analysed and compiled into a generic job description for the role of Lecturer. At the same time a set of responsibilities and tasks was emerging for ‘unit coordination’ and it soon became clear that a ‘new’ role was in the making. Over several weeks, these responsibilities (highlighted in Figure 1, over page) formed the basis for defining and clarifying the Unit Coordinator’s role. As far as we could ascertain, this was the first time the two roles of Lecturer and Unit Coordinator have been differentiated (see Chapter 3 for elaboration).


Figure 1: A ‘typical’ job description for Lecturer with unit coordination responsibilities highlighted Why a job description? The job description was the proforma selected for the purpose of defining, designing and clarifying the Unit Coordinator’s role because it contains in one, compact document the written duties, responsibilities and tasks of a role (a pattern of behaviours characteristic of a given context, Jones & Holdaway, 1996), job (a paid occupation, task, assignment or function) or position (designation, rank or post) in an organisation. These three descriptors - role, job and position - are used interchangeably in organisations but are considered similar enough in definition for any one of them to be used in a description. For this study, the descriptor job (description) has been selected and will be used throughout this report. Discussions about the role of a Unit Coordinator are in reference to the performance and behaviours in the conduct of the job. Recent approaches to job description design acknowledge the dynamic nature of these documents, which are intended to give an incumbent a snapshot of what the role entails at any given time. The ‘modern’ job description constitutes a framework or guide, if you like, to performance expectations on the job and, often, duties are included that enable flexibility in the performance of the role. Flexibility may be compromised, however, when changes occur in a role and HR Departments are not informed, thereby, inhibiting adjustments to other relevant processes, such as performance review, promotion, etc. Job analysis was the process used to analyse the data about the role obtained in the web audit and subsequent focus groups, interviews, etc, and job design was used to decide which responsibilities and tasks should be encompassed by the role and how they are grouped. These two processes - job analysis and job design - are

Responsibilities and Tasks (undifferentiated) 1 Teach undergraduate and postgraduate students

2 Initiate and develop subject materials

3 Deliver lectures and seminars

4 Conduct tutorials, workshops and labs, as appropriate to subject

5 Mark and grade student assessments and examinations

6 Unit/subject coordination

7 Conduct research, write papers and publish in refereed journals

8 Community service

9 Supervise postgraduate students

10 Consult with students

11 Provide leadership

12 Participate in professional and community activities

13 Comply with EEO and OHS guidelines

14 Administration

The study identified the following 7 key responsibilities of a Unit Coordinator: 1. Lead a unit of study in a Programme,

or Programmes. 2. Liaise, collaborate and network with

stakeholders. 3. Develop and maintain unit curricula

and resources that reflect a command of the field of learning.

4. Employ scholarly teaching practices that influence, motivate and inspire students to learn.

5. Maintain and continually improve on quality benchmarks.

6. Locate, manage and supervise sessional staff, including transnational staff (as relevant).

7. Comply with operational administration requirements.


key to deciding ‘what’ should be encompassed in the job, ‘how’ the job should be performed, and what skills and other attributes are needed to perform it. Job analysis has been called the ‘building block of everything that [HR] does’ (Cascio, 1991) because subsequent HR decisions “require some type of information that is gleaned from job analysis, including work redesign, human resource planning, selection, employee learning and development, performance management, career planning and job evaluation” (DeCieri, et al., 2003, p. 125). Many job descriptions also contain a person specification. This is a written record of the requirements of a person to adequately perform a role and usually includes the knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KASOCs) of the desired candidate. In this report, KASOCs will be substituted by the terms competencies and capabilities to align with the definitions adopted by Scott, Coates and Anderson (2008) and to maintain consistency. Scott et al, saw competencies “as identifying what has to be known or performed, in what context, and to what standard” (p. 10). Boyatzis (1982), Whiddert and Hollyford, (2003), and Marshall, (1996) contributed to a more holistic definition, as follows:

Competencies involve the possession of the particular knowledge, traits, motives and skills essential to performing a specific job to a specified standard in a particular setting.

Capabilities, on the other hand, involve “that level of talent, gift or capacity required to produce productive outcomes and deliver innovations under testing, uncertain and constantly shifting human and technical structures” (Scott, Coates & Anderson, 2008, p. 11). To meaningfully synthesise and classify the large number of traits, talents, gifts, skills and motives generated during the web audit and focus groups (see Appendix 4), and to then group them in to competencies and capabilities in line with the above, the following tool was adopted: The Employability Skills Framework (a joint initiative of the Business Council of Australia (BCA); The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI); The Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST); and The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA)). This framework was selected because the non-technical, enabling skills and competencies outlined in the Framework have been assessed as playing a significant part in contributing to an employee’s effective and successful participation in the ever-changing workplace. They support the successful accomplishment of task-based activities central to any job and they are all highly transferable. This means that whatever has been learned in previous jobs, the success of an employee will be predicted on their ability to draw on past experiences and apply them in a new context (Australian Government; Department of Education, Science and Training, 2006). The resulting job description and person specification for the role of Unit Coordinator are found in Chapter 3 (p. 34), and also in a separate resource Booklet. Phase 2: Focus group preparation and analysis After the website audit was completed, a series of focus groups were organised with samples of Unit Coordinators. The purpose of the focus groups was to provide a forum for them to explore and discuss their perceptions of the role; the competencies and capabilities needed to perform the role, and any support they have received to perform their role more effectively. The focus groups were also intended to introduce and explore the notion of Unit Coordinators as ‘leaders’ of learning.


In preparation, representatives from the five WA universities were contacted and asked to provide assistance in setting up the focus groups at their institutions. A sample of 200 Unit Coordinators was initially planned with four focus groups of 10 people at each of the five universities. However, eventually, a sample of just 35 Unit Coordinator participants were organised into four focus groups at three of the five universities. This was substantially fewer than our original proposal due to the difficulties associated with accessing a cross sample of interested participants who were available at the nominated times. The nature of academic work, which involves classroom teaching, student consultations and a variety of other activities that render them pressured and time poor, meant our expectations were unrealistic and, as it turned out, unattainable. The draft job description and person specification, drawn up after the web audit and job analysis, were expanded into poster sized documents for use during focus group sessions. The focus group facilitator asked a series of questions related to the two posters (see Appendix 2 for questions and activities) to further distil the responsibilities and tasks drawn up and to appropriately rearrange the tasks allocated to each responsibility. In groups, the Unit Coordinators wrote on the posters and then the whole group reviewed and discussed them. With the key responsibilities written on a whiteboard by the facilitator, the former activity was followed by a discussion about which of the various support mechanisms offered in their university would be helpful in developing and enhancing their performance and motivation. Finally, a question was asked of participants about the extent to which their role encompassed elements of leadership. There was some hesitation in responses at this point, because it was a notion that few of them had considered. The Project Manager attended all sessions and recorded them. Despite the small number of participants, the data obtained from the focus groups were rich, and the candour of participants encouraging and refreshing. As before, the data was analysed by a process of sorting into responsibilities and tasks, and KASOCS. The new data on support and learning leadership were analysed via keyword coding and entered into a table (see Appendix 4) first, and after further coding this data was entered into the third iteration of job description. Phase 3: Interviews When it became evident that we could not arrange for Unit Coordinators to come to the proposed focus groups, a decision was made by the Team to approach individuals to interview and capture the ‘experience’ of unit coordination. Selection was via targeting Unit Coordinators invited to the focus groups at the universities. Ten questions were formulated and asked of participants, with further probe questions asked where clarification was needed (see Appendix 3). In all, 21 interviews were conducted and taped. Tapes were transcribed and a new Research Assistant was contracted to analyse the data through coding and emergent themes. The data that derived from interviews, from which additional challenges and constraints to effective performance emerged, lead the Project Leader to devise a proforma for inducting new Unit Coordinators into their role. This was not originally planned. In addition, a developmental framework (see Booklet p. 12) began to form in her mind for capturing the new or novice Unit Coordinator at the point of entry into the role, and supporting them with decreasing intensity as they gain more experience. Ideally, the experienced and accomplished Unit Coordinators will transfer their knowledge and experience to other new peers. This sort of approach is known as scaffolding. In conjunction with the two proformas, above, a set of criteria was emerging that links the three ‘performance related’ HR processes; probation, promotion and performance development reviews, during which assessments may be made about


professional development needs (PD). To assist Heads of Schools or Deans Teaching and Learning with identifying relevant PD, another proforma was devised. Known as a Developmental matrix (see Booklet p. 13) this links development needs directly to the responsibilities and tasks outlined in the job description, and competencies outlined in the person specification. Phase 4: Reporting and dissemination This phase focused on the collation of findings, fine tuning proformas, producing other deliverables originally proposed, and writing a final report. Emphasis was also placed on disseminating the findings and proformas within Western Australia and across Australia. During the course of the project, the Project Leader participated and presented in forums and workshops, as follows:

The Teaching and Learning Forum, January, 2009 (Curtin University of Technology);

ALTC Project Leaders Workshop, February, 2009 (Hobart); HERDSA conference, July, 2009, (Darwin); The European Conference of Educational Research, September, 2009

(Universitat Wien in Vienna); UCaLL forum, October 2009 (Murdoch University); NEST forum, December, 2009 (Murdoch University); ALTC Project Leaders Workshop, February, 2010 (Melbourne); UCaLL dissemination Road show, March, 2010 (at universities in

Brisbane, Canberra, Wagga Wagga, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide); and the

HERDSA conference, July 2010, (Melbourne). The road show, which was wholly organised by the Project Manager in the latter part of the Project, was a dissemination highlight. This 10 day trip involved travelling interstate to meet fellow ALTC Project Leaders, Directors and Associate Deans of Teaching and Learning, Heads of School, Unit Coordinators and senior Human Resource and Organisational Development personnel. During meetings, feedback was sought on the layout and content of proformas, collated in Booklet form, and we discussed how they might be used and applied within the different university contexts. A research assistant travelled with the Project Leader to provide another perspective during discussions, take notes, analyse them and assist with evaluation of the meetings. Her synthesised notes and other, contextual issues that arose during discussions have been incorporated in the relevant sections of Chapter 4. A number of benefits derive from a road show such as this, including raising one’s professional profile, meeting academic colleagues, and putting names to faces. Particularly from Western Australia, the ‘tyranny of distance’ (Blainey, 1966) inhibits opportunities for frequent professional networking with those in the Eastern States, and the shared outcomes that derive from this experience. In addition to the above, this road show enabled feedback from participants, face to face; and observation of their reactions and levels of engagement with project outcomes that, in our view, generated data far richer than any that might be derived through electronic media. Being open to critique and feedback from participants and the multiple perspectives accrued has also enhanced the utility and efficacy of both the proformas and ideas reported herein. As one participant stated;

I perhaps would not use the architecture, but you have offered rich descriptors which flesh out the teaching part, the administration part and the leadership part of the role. It becomes a value-add beyond the base line position. You have defined what that value add is and what it means in practical terms.


At the conclusion of the Project, further dissemination is proposed by sending through documental links to participants and notifying the relevant centres in universities who will be asked to circulate outcomes more widely. In Chapter 3, the Unit Coordinator’s role is described and clarified using the data collected as part of the Project methodology.


Chapter 3 | Clarifying the Role

Overview This chapter describes the process by which the role of the Unit Coordinator was clarified, as derived from the results of this study. First, though, is a definition of a unit (of study) to help ensure common understanding. Second, the distinctions between the roles of Unit Coordinator and Lecturer are described. Third, the results of the methodology are reported, fourth, the results from both focus groups and interviews and the emergent role formation are described and, fifth, the notion of Unit Coordinators as leaders of learning is explored. What is a unit? The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) defines a unit of study as a subdivision of a course, subject, or programme of study or training undertaken by students in an educational environment (http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Resources/Documents/AIPMay08.doc). Units vary between universities, Faculties and Schools in a number of ways; either by accreditation and quality guidelines, size, structure, whether it is a ‘core unit’ taken by students across faculties and schools, or more defined by discipline. Of note is that some universities also call their units, courses. Each variation, but particularly the size of a unit, creates its own pressures on Coordinators (see Chapter 4 for elaboration). The issue of unit ‘ownership’ arose through the study and seemed important to Unit Coordinators who had ‘inherited’ units from unit ‘owners’ or creators. Many found it difficult to make changes in the first year or two because of the ‘sensitive’, ‘defensive’ or ‘precious’ reactions of unit ‘owners’. Of significance was the intellectual content contained within unit guides that generally comply with a standard format established and guided by university policies. The content within a unit guide is written by a Unit Coordinator who, thereafter and implicitly, becomes the ‘owner’ of the unit, although, less formally than the intellectual ownership of a journal article or book chapter to which attribution must be made when quoted in other works. While beyond the scope of this report, the matter of ownership, copyright and attribution may be worth exploring further to help clarify this particular issue. The Role of a Unit Coordinator Job descriptions for the role of Unit Coordinator were not found on university websites during the web audit. Instead, there was evidence of wide variation in position details, responsibilities involved and statements of tasks to be undertaken located in public domains for the information of intended job applicants to the role of Lecturer. For example, a position for a Lecturer Level A/B at one New South Wales university briefly outlined five responsibilities with no elaboration of tasks; a Lecturer Level B at another NSW university listed 12 responsibilities (including subject coordination) with no elaboration of tasks; whereas a Lecturer/Senior Lecturer Level B/C at a Northern Territory university stated three responsibilities with between three and six tasks associated with each responsibility. The web audit also uncovered a variety of alternate names for a Unit Coordinator. This created difficulties with data analysis for the Research Assistant because she wasn’t sure if she was analysing the same, or a different role. To illustrate how this confusion arose, following is a table (Table 5) of alternate names for a Unit Coordinator, which were recorded during the road show.


Table 5: Equivalent titles for Unit Coordinator

Alternate names of the Unit Coordinator

Alternates names of the Program Chair

Institution & Short Name

Subject Coordinator Subject Convenor Charles Stuart University (CSU)

Unit Chair Course Coordinator/ Leader; Program Chair

Deakin University (Deakin)

Unit Coordinator Programme Coordinator Edith Cowan University (ECU)

Topic Coordinator Course Coordinator Flinders University (Flinders)

Course Convenor Program Coordinator (informal role)

Griffith University (Griffith)

Subject Coordinator Course Coordinator La Trobe University (La Trobe)

Unit Convenor Program Convenor/ Directors

Macquarie University (Macquarie)

Unit Coordinator Program Chair Murdoch University (Murdoch)

Unit Coordinator Course Coordinator Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

Course Coordinator Offerings Coordinator; Program Manager

RMIT University (RMIT)

Unit Convenor Program Coordinator Swinburne University of Technology (Swinburne)

Course Coordinator (Faculties = Colleges)

Major Coordinator, Year Coordinator

The Australian National University (ANU)

Course Coordinator Program Director The University of New South Wales (UNSW)

Unit Coordinator Course Convenor The University of Queensland (UQ)

Unit Coordinator Program Coordinator The University of Western Australia (UWA)

Unit Convenor Course Convenor University of Canberra (UC)

Course Coordinator Programme Director University of South Australia (UniSA)

Course Coordinator Program Coordinator University of the Sunshine Coast (USC)

Unit Coordinator Course Coordinator Victoria University (VU)

In respect to unit coordination it was found during the web audit that it may or may not be stated as a responsibility or a task in a Lecturer’s job description. For example, at one NSW university the Lecturer/Senior Lecturer Level B/C description did not mention ‘unit coordination’; at a Western Australian university the Lecturer Level C description mentioned it as one of the tasks associated with the ‘teaching and learning’ responsibility; and at another NSW university the Lecturer Level B position included ‘subject coordination’ as one of the responsibilities. Finally, a job description for a Senior Lecturer from a university in Tasmania provided detailed information about Course Coordinator roles and responsibilities. This university’s website explicitly stated that its Course Coordinator’s site had been “developed to support the work of Course Coordinators in Schools and Faculties to improve the undergraduate experience and retention rate.” In summary, it can be argued that unit coordination in some cases was an assumed responsibility, in others a task or a responsibility, and in one case the role was explicitly supported with detailed documentation about the role and associated responsibilities. A responsibility is defined as a job duty or task to which a level of accountability is attributed. A task, on the other hand, is a duty, activity or ‘piece’ of work that forms part of a responsibility. As illustrated, above, it is quite common for developers of job descriptions to blur distinctions between responsibilities and tasks and, hence, obscure any messages that an employer might want to communicate to


a candidate about their expectations of the role and its accountabilities. This highlights the importance of clearly defining a person’s role in a job description and aligning key accountabilities with performance related processes to facilitate mutual understanding by both an employer and a new employee. At this point it is considered appropriate to include the outcomes of discussion by participants about their perceptions of the two roles which are attributed the titles of Unit Coordinator and Lecturer. This follows. Distinction between a Unit Coordinator and Lecturer During the study, participants sought clarification on how the two roles, of Unit Coordinator and Lecturer differ. Discussions were inconclusive, but it was generally agreed that any confusion between the two roles and titles is the result of the (historical) naming and classification of an Academic as Lecturer A – E in higher education pay scales across the country, which was first noted during the web audit. Lecturer Levels A – E are universally classified across Australia as follows, although the alternate titles outlined are specific to The University of Western Australia at this point in time: Lecturer A Associate Lecturer, or Lecturer Lecturer B Lecturer, or Assistant Professor Lecturer C Senior Lecturer, or Associate Professor Lecturer D Associate Professor, or Professor Lecturer E Professor, or Professorial Fellow, or Winthrop Professor (UWA) A Lecturer’s (A – E) role is defined by universities in promotional matrices, which outline what is expected of a Lecturer at the different promotional levels and how competencies might be demonstrated in order to be considered for promotion. In the matrices examined during the web audit, it was found that a primary responsibility is lecturing or teaching, but unit coordination as a responsibility to aspire to or improve upon was rarely mentioned. On the other hand, examples of how ‘leadership’ might be demonstrated were outlined in some matrices from Lecturer B level. Participants revealed, however, that this minimum standard was not always followed, citing examples of Units being coordinated by Lecturer As whose experience and qualifications are generally less than those at higher levels. There was consternation about this in relation to pressures on Unit Coordinators and the quality of education provided to students. Job description: Unit Coordinator During the development of a clearly defined job description for the role of Unit Coordinator, there were a number of iterations. The volume of data, which was being appended during the road show, meant that analysis was still occurring right up to and during the writing of this report. The booklet, (published now as a separate resource) which illustrates the ‘almost final’ version of the job description, was adjusted to accommodate the matters raised by participants, such as how the job description might be used, by whom and in what forum. This led to a re-defining of proformas and the development of additional ones that address the ‘how’, ‘who’ and ‘what’ questions asked by participants. During earlier job analysis and job description definitions, first five, then six and, finally, seven key responsibilities emerged for the role of Unit Coordinator. These have been critiqued and are now agreed, as follows:

1. Lead a unit of study in a Programme, or Programmes; 2. Liaise, collaborate and network with stakeholders; 3. Develop and maintain unit curricula and resources that reflect a command of


the field of learning; 4. Employ scholarly teaching practices that influence, motivate and inspire

students to learn; 5. Maintain and continually improve on quality benchmarks; 6. Locate, manage and supervise sessional staff, including transnational staff

(as relevant); and 7. Comply with operational administration requirements.

Following a forum held in October 2009 involving participants from four Western Australian universities, and a reference group member, a decision was made to align the wording of responsibilities with the ALTC Teaching Excellence Award criteria. The rationale for this was three fold: first, most universities propose candidates for this Award and many of the supporting processes recognise and align with them; second, the emphasis on teaching and learning (scholarship) in the role was clearly acknowledged by the project team and study participants by this stage of the study; third, it is teaching and learning that underpin the learning leadership component of the role. In the final iteration of the job description derived from this study (see Table 6 below) both responsibilities and examples of tasks that might be encompassed within each responsibility, are elaborated. Throughout its development, consideration was given to the range of student diversity, including external, transnational and equity students, and learning styles; university policies; academic quality regulations and guidelines; graduate attributes; the context of the degree/course/programme structure and appropriate sequencing. A summary statement of the job is also provided to help Unit Coordinators understand the purpose of their role. Table 6: Job description Unit Coordinator Job Summary: The Unit Coordinator is responsible for leading, managing and coordinating a unit of study, the students who enrol in the unit and, depending on the size and nature of the unit, guest and sessional staff. As the person in charge of a unit, the Unit Coordinator is also responsible for setting the example in disciplinary practice, adopting scholarly teaching practices, developing and continually refining Units, maintaining unit quality and disciplinary integrity, looking after the interests of their students, and building collaborative networks.

Responsibility Task Examples

1. Lead a unit of study

Confidently and enthusiastically model innovative, creative and scholarly teaching practices to sessional staff and students using a range of teaching strategies and techniques that engage, inspire, motivate and provide them with an excellent learning experience;

Utilising your extensive knowledge, expertise and experience in a subject/unit/discipline, develop and refine (innovative) learning activities;

Proactively advocate for, protect and support the goals and aspirations of students;

Contribute on a range of committees, and proactively build and establish relationships and networks with colleagues in the same and other Schools, programme coordinators, transnational (or equivalent) partnerships office, student support services and the academic community;

Set high standards and expectations in curriculum and pedagogy, communicate them to sessional staff and students and monitor for quality; and

Champion and defend the integrity of Units to programme coordinator (or equivalent), Head of School, or Faculty, as appropriate.



2. Liaise, collaborate and network with stakeholders

Build and maintain relationships with colleagues in the same and other Schools, Heads of School, Programme Coordinators (or equivalent), transnational partnerships office (as appropriate), student support services, and the academic community to:

a. maintain, relevance, alignment and efficacy of a unit with a course or programme;

b. facilitate a coherent student experience; c. maintain up-to-date knowledge and teaching approaches

relevant to unit and/or discipline; d. facilitate positive work environments; and e. knowledgably inform students about available services and

support on campus. Organise guest speakers who are experts in the discipline/profession

to provide alternate perspectives; and Attend PD and conferences pertinent to unit and discipline and report

outcomes, as appropriate.

3. Develop and maintain unit curricula and resources that reflect a command of the field of learning

Analyse contemporary literature, texts and emerging themes in the discipline and select for inclusion in unit content; and

Design and create, in collaboration with peers, unit or Study Guides and proformas, teaching materials, notes, readers, etc, that link curriculum, assessment and pedagogy appropriate to the discipline and mode of delivery.

4. Employ scholarly teaching practices that influence, motivate and inspire students to learn

Develop and maintain scholarly and student centred approaches to teaching in order to:

a. Engage, influence, inspire and motivate students to learn; b. Enhance independent learning, decision making;

employability skills, research skills, responsibility for self, and professionalism in students;

c. Appropriately prepare students for the workforce; d. Demonstrate to students how others should be treated; e. Inspire interested students to take up an academic career;

and f. Empower students to become leaders.

Be available to students to: a. Protect, advocate for and support their interests; b. Provide pastoral and counselling support, as needed; c. Empathetically advise and guide all sub-groups towards

participating and achieving success in their units; and d. Handle their enquiries and provide advice on issues such as

exams, deferrals, pre-requisites, etc. Be particularly sensitive with first year students and help to facilitate

their transition into university learning; Prepare lectures, tutorials, laboratories, workshops and the relevant

teaching strategies and techniques for flexible and transnational delivery;

Integrate a variety of assessment strategies, including formative and summative assessment that facilitate and foster independent learning and adapt to different contexts;

Provide timely, meaningful feedback to students on their assessments; and

Monitor on-line discussions for academic relevance and assessments for plagiarism, as appropriate.



5. Maintain and continually improve on quality benchmarks

Identify key graduate attributes and provide clear statements of learning objectives;

Align assessment activities with learning objectives; write clear assessment criteria and include appropriate levels of complexity;

Align the teaching and learning activities to the objectives and assessments, to facilitate student engagement with the subject deep learning;

Ensure unit materials accommodate flexible access, are well-organised and presented in a professional format;

Produce unit materials and monitor progress to ensure they are available to students on time;

Provide high levels of support and quality feedback to students; and Submit units for regular reviews and evaluations and enhance as

recommended.

6. Locate, manage and supervise sessional staff, including transnational staff (as relevant)

Recruit quality sessional staff; Arrange face to face or on-line meetings to provide information and

materials required for the unit; Mentor, coach and assist with professional and career development,

as needed, to improve their skills; Moderate teaching approaches and student assessments; Compose explicit instructions and guidelines; and Communicate discipline and culturally specific codes of conduct that

facilitate appropriate handling of student misdemeanours.

7. Comply with operational administration requirements

Resourcing and preparation pre-semester:

Advertise for and recruit students, as required; Check and monitor student enrolments; Arrange for printing and copying of unit materials, including unit

Guides, CDs, etc; Liaise with:

a. Bookshop and Library for purchase of texts and access to reading materials; and

b. Timetable and rooming administrators to book teaching areas appropriate to unit.

Load materials onto Blackboard/on-line learning management systems and student databases, and set up self and students;

Order equipment and materials, as needed; Arrange for recording of lectures; Create email lists of students; Organise fieldwork, labs and tutorials, as appropriate; Complete any forms, contracts, etc, on behalf of staff and students; Complete workload models and other bureaucratic requirements; and Place notices about availability for student consultation on office door

and with reception.

Administration during semester: Manage and monitor student databases; Attend, prepare for and contribute to School and unit related

meetings; Advise (new) colleagues about administration processes; Photocopy student assessments (if no admin support); Organise ethics applications, as needed; Handle student deferments, appeals and other requests; Handle alignment or accreditation requirements; Collate and record assessment results; Calibrate, collate and submit student marks at end of semester; Act as student support officer; Select students for Awards; and Tidy up after guest presenters.


To enhance the utility of this job description a number of suggestions made by study participants during the road show have been incorporated. Concerns were expressed as to its purpose and whether ‘in the wrong hands’ it would be used as a disciplinary tool. This has been addressed by clearly stating its’ purpose in the booklet. The ‘dot point lists’ of tasks, which participants claimed were not exhaustive, on the one hand, and on the other, diminished their importance was addressed by stating that the tasks were ‘examples’, only, of units of work embraced by a responsibility. The responsibilities are the significant components of the job description that are generally used in accountability processes, such as performance reviews and promotion decisions. There was a further request for the publication of a booklet for Unit Coordinators, which outlines the role and describes the ‘what’ and ‘how’ be created instead, such as Edith Cowan University’s Unit Coordinator Handbook, or Curtin University of Technology’s Teaching and Learning at Curtin, or Flinders University’s Education at Flinders handbooks. While these booklets are written in a user-friendly style and provide a handy reference tool, it was observed by a number of participants that ‘nobody uses them; rather they pick things up as they go along’. Other feedback indicates that handbooks are also limited for use on an annual only basis and need frequent updating. Finally, it was observed by some participants that a tension exists between the procedural and aspirational components of the role as described in a job description. The procedural side of the job description should, ideally, be handled by university HR departments. Meanwhile, the aspirational components have been addressed through the creation of a Developmental Framework and Matrix (see booklet). From a different perspective, a question was asked about whether Unit Coordinator selection panels base their decisions on the qualities and skills a candidate possesses, or whether Unit Coordinators are appointed using other criteria and are expected to just ‘grow into the role’. Speaking generally, Unit Coordinators have been selected by universities using the job descriptions in place for the position of Lecturer, in which unit coordination is just one responsibility. As indicated previously, the web audit found that some universities outline the qualities and skills needed to perform the role, and others don’t. We argue that the selection process, to date, for Unit Coordinators has been missing important steps and documentation, which have now been created. It follows, then, that many Unit Coordinators have grown into the role because the role has been unclear and the induction offered has not previously targeted the specific needs of Unit Coordinators. Having reflected on the concerns and issues raised by road show participants we acknowledge that there is no perfect tool or architecture that will meet all of the contextual requirements of the different university users. Notwithstanding this, improvements and contextual changes may be made to the job description and person specification created for this role in ways that meet the different requirements. They may also be readily adapted for use by HR departments in recruitment and selection processes, Heads of School to explain to novice Unit Coordinators what their role entails, and by Unit Coordinators, themselves, as a reference point and guide. Competencies and Capabilities The web audit elicited a number of selection criteria in advertisements for Lecturers, which were, initially, re-grouped and re-categorised in to the knowledge, skills, abilities, other characteristics (KASOCs) needed to perform a Unit Coordinator’s role effectively. Selection criteria are traditionally based on the items included in a job description. As noted previously, selection criteria found on university websites targeted those seeking a job as Lecturer, although, 13 universities surveyed


specifically mentioned ‘unit/course coordination’ in the selection criteria for the positions under investigation. For example, one job description at a WA university listed ‘coordinate units and/or courses’ as a required ability. The attributions of ‘unit coordination’ were also found to vary between universities as a skill (in six universities across Australia), an ability (five universities across Australia), or another characteristic (one university). Because unit coordination has not been previously analysed, the audit found no selection criteria specific to the role. As indicated in the methodology, this study utilised the skills and abilities attributed to Lecturer as a basis for building a picture of those needed for unit coordination. In line, with this, and having decided to group KASOCs into competencies and capabilities, Table 7, below, lists those required by Unit Coordinators to perform their roles effectively. These can be utilised in the following HR-related processes, including recruitment, induction, performance reviews and professional development to build capability, in addition to the technical knowledge and skills that a new Unit Coordinator might bring to the job. Table 7: Competencies and Capabilities required by Unit Coordinators to perform their roles effectively

Competency and/ or Capability

What a Unit Coordinator needs to know

At the Level of the: The University University policies, procedures, strategic direction, administration, web-

sites, teaching calendars and ICT systems; Equity, Access and other students services offered by the university; University ‘promises’ in respect to learning outcomes and professional

competencies; Academic/professional standards and expectations including ethical

codes of conduct; Transnational and indigenous cultures and communication systems; Academic Quality Assurance regulations; Industrial relations and dispute resolution; OSH and equal opportunity statutes and guidelines; Copyright regulations; and The multiple ways students learn. School and discipline Course and career pathways; Scholarly and innovative approaches to teaching including use of

relevant computer software and new technologies; Where a unit ‘fits’ within a program or course and the course itself; Professional partnerships and links to industry and the broader

community; and Grant organisations.

Knowledge of:

Self Current subject and discipline research, theories, concepts,

technology, etc; Teaching style; Leadership and management style; and Leading authors, websites and journals relevant to discipline.



What a Unit Coordinator needs to know

Use and apply relevant discipline, student learning and management technologies, to:

Create more effective and efficient work practices; Integrate ICTs across a curriculum; and Model effective use of a range of discipline specific technologies

across a curriculum.

Planning, coordinating and organising, to:

Prepare for, administer and resource units before and during semesters and meet all timelines relevant to providing students with a quality, discipline specific learning experience; and

Monitor compliance with university requirements and respond accordingly.

Communication, to:

Speak, listen, write, teach, facilitate, demonstrate, moderate, negotiate, network and collaborate to a high standard;

Relate well with, and to others, individually and in teams; Help engage students, colleagues and staff in learning; Develop and maintain professional partnerships; Lead, manage, supervise, mentor and coach staff; Resolve disputes; Participate in and contribute to conferences, workshops, subject,

School meetings and other team based activities, etc Advocate on behalf of students and staff, as needed; and ‘Constructively dissent’.


What a Unit Coordinator needs to be able do

Teamwork, to: Engender productive working relationships and outcomes.

Problem solving, to:

Practically apply discipline specific concepts; Make appropriate judgements about students; Analyse contemporary literature, texts and trends for inclusion in unit

content; Conceptualise content in such as way that it is practical and applicable; Identify alternate solutions to address crises or potential crises; and Critically review and filter knowledge and information before delivering

to others.

Self management, to:

Engender job satisfaction and growth; Mitigate against behaviourally inappropriate impulses, including anger; Recognise when too much is being taken on; and Apply appropriate behaviours to differing contexts, including: academic and team leadership; independent or collaborative work; encouragement; perseverance and courage; managing people, time, projects and performance; adaptability, flexibility and tolerance; a positive outlook; attention to detail; pro-activity; professionalism; and reflective practice.

Initiative and Enterprise, to:

Generate innovative ideas and outcomes; Produce productive student outcomes; Lead and inspire excellence in teaching and learning; Appropriately level content by year of study in a program; Design, develop, evaluate and renew quality curriculum materials; and Discover what is allowed and expected by the university.


Leading for Learning The aim of this section is to examine the role of Unit Coordinators as leaders of learning and explore the extent to which any manifestation of ‘informal’ leadership differs from other, formal, positional leadership exhibited in higher education. The section responds to Scott, Coates and Anderson’s (2008) proposition that “the role and nature of informal leaders at universities” should be investigated (p.68) and their comment that “every one is a leader in their own area of expertise”. Ingram, (1993) and Debowski and Blake (2004) also observed:

Teaching leaders operate at all levels within a university (Ingram, 1993). They may be found in a range of roles, including heads of school, discipline leaders, program chairs, or Unit Coordinators. While the complexity and scope of these roles differ, they all play a significant role in influencing teaching and learning (Debowski & Blake, 2004, p. 3).

The evidence from this study suggests that a deeper understanding of the Unit Coordinator’s role in terms of learning leadership is absent. In particular, discussions revealed uncertainty and confusion in respect to two areas: first, how leadership manifests at the Unit Coordinator level and, second, whether displays of leadership are even important. The two areas are examined, in turn, in respect to the perceptions of one’s peers, students and staff. Peers Leadership of a unit implies ownership and primary responsibility, as discussed earlier in the Chapter. It follows, then, that the Unit Coordinator becomes the ‘face’ of a unit; its’ advocate. They are responsible for how well it works and how well their duties are done. During this study, terms used to describe how participants perceive leadership include: ‘networking’, ‘inclusivity’, ‘collegiality’, ‘collaboration’, and ‘collective responsibility’. Also mentioned were the ideas of ‘emergent’, ‘overt’ and ‘covert’ leadership. One participant observed that ‘support and collegiality go hand in hand’, which implies that Unit Coordinators perceive support being shared, horizontally, between peers, with a form of collegial power being distributed equitably ‘across’. This differs from a vertical ‘power over’ approach implied in hierarchical leadership. Other participants mentioned ‘positional’ leadership in association with Unit Coordinators of many years experience. They observed that these Unit Coordinators perform ‘unofficial’ leadership responsibilities involving both strategic and operational elements. And, yet, others talked about peers in terms of the ‘stand out’ teacher who possesses the right personality and attributes to ‘step up’ compared to ‘those who will just keep the wheels turning’ and ‘do only what is required of them’. They provided examples of what these attributes might look like in practice:

become a ‘lead’ teacher who models good practice and “spreads the word” about teaching scholarship;

are knowledgeable about the scholarship of teaching and pedagogy and are experts in their field of study.

portray confidence, enthusiasm, creativity and innovation and are proactive in ever looking for opportunities to lift the bar in the key aspects of their job;

interpersonal skills are of a level that facilitates empathy, negotiation and advocacy on behalf of their students and enables the building of relationships and networks with a range of stakeholders;

initiate and set up a teaching and learning committee; are knowledgeable about and disseminate information about the course of

study they are enrolled in;


initiate the pairing up of new Unit Coordinators with (renowned) good practitioners to facilitate learning;

report back to peers what is learned at conferences and industry associations;

research contemporary pedagogical theory and effective teaching practice and disseminate it among peers;

are current with generational theories and apply in practice; perform at a high level; and act like a leader and ‘are’ a leader.

On many occasions, large units and leadership were mentioned in conjunction with one another. Leading a large unit involves managing and coordinating the interests of several hundred (generally) first year students and, possibly, several tutors. Participants commented that large units require a vast range of competencies and capabilities, with leadership a key competency of a Unit Coordinator because of the numbers involved. Participants also talked of describing the role in ‘a more active and empowering way”, [which] “helps us to value ourselves and what we do’. Meanwhile, it was also suggested that there was some suspicion associated with being put up as a leader and, therefore, ‘owning’ a unit. It is viewed as being difficult to think of oneself as leader if one does not feel valued by their university. The quote below illustrates this tension.

At first Unit Coordinators feel flogged by day-to-day work, but then evolve to being able to see the leadership aspects of their role and inspire others.

There is another view that ‘anyone who comes to be an academic in a university is a leader and those skills should be nurtured in the university’. A number of participants remarked that there seemed little difference between a Unit Coordinator who exhibits learning leadership and one who exhibits excellence in teaching. Given the significance of curriculum design and delivery in the role, and with the support of the literature, we argue that it is excellent teaching that leads to and inspires learning. It follows, then, that an excellent teacher is a learning leader. Placing this responsibility ‘up front’ serves to position a Unit Coordinator for what is expected of them. For this reason, and to remind Unit Coordinators of its significance, leading a unit of study in a program has been placed first in the job description (see Table 8). Table 8: Learning Leadership: Responsibility 1 in the Unit Coordinator’s job description

Responsibility Task examples

1. Lead a unit of study in a program, or programs

Confidently and enthusiastically model innovative, creative and scholarly teaching practices to sessional staff and students using a range of teaching strategies and techniques that engage, inspire, motivate and provide them with an excellent learning experience;

Utilising your extensive knowledge, expertise and experience in a subject/unit/discipline, develop and refine (innovative) learning activities;

Proactively advocate for, protect and support the goals and aspirations of students;

Contribute on a range of committees, and proactively build and establish relationships and networks with colleagues in the same and other Schools, program coordinators, transnational (or equivalent) partnerships office, student support services and the academic community;


Set high standards and expectations in curriculum and pedagogy,

communicate them to sessional staff and students and monitor for quality; and

Champion and defend the integrity of Units to program coordinator (or equivalent), Head of School, or Faculty, as appropriate.

In drawing all these threads together, the image emerges of a Unit Coordinator who is also perceived as a learning leader. It follows that experienced Unit Coordinators, who are also stand out teachers, are responsible; involve themselves in strategic initiatives; engage in networking; comply with operational requirements and include their peers in a form of collegial support are more likely to be regarded as learning leaders than those who ‘just keep the wheels turning’. Successful large class Unit Coordinators are also viewed as leaders, by default, because of the complexities and vast levels of responsibility involved. The attributes outlined above were referred to as ‘aspirational’ by participants. Students Participants argued that leading the students enrolled in a unit represents the core of learning leadership exhibited by learning leaders. This is based on a premise that a learning leader has the capacity to ‘engage, inspire, motivate and provide students with an excellent learning experience’ if they adopt the following standpoints:

nurturing and encouraging; guide them towards achieving their goals vocationally and in research; apply a rigorous scholarly approach to their teaching. seek feedback and suggestions about the unit (through student

evaluations); encourage interdisciplinary collaboration; allow time for students to reflect on and synthesise what is important in

their discipline area; give students space to direct their own learning; identify student knowledge and interests and teach to them; and help to shape them towards independence and lifelong learning and to

adopt a world view as educated and responsible citizens. These ideas align with Chalmers’ (2007) finding that a student-centred learning approach is the most strongly supported indicator of quality teaching and learning (and leadership), and is applicable at all levels of the university. This approach includes:

Setting high but achievable expectations of students; Encouraging a deep or mastery student learning approach; Encouraging student experimentation in the learning process; and Accounting for student needs.

Staff Large numbers of casual sessional staff are employed in the higher education sector today. Particularly when new in the role, these staff require guidance and direction to help maintain consistency and quality in the unit and to develop their skills and competence in an academic environment. Participants commented that it is important that learning leaders apply a positive mentoring culture with staff which would, they argued, ‘leave the discipline better off’. Participants provided examples of ways that a learning leader may apply and maintain a positive culture with staff, which includes:

communicating and modelling clear standards and professionalism; encouraging staff to advance in the discipline, move through the ranks and


nurture future experts; training and bringing staff up to date in teaching practice; respecting their professionalism and seeking their input; viewing them as surrogates and working collaboratively with them where

possible; holding regular meetings to mentor and encourage reflection; developing materials and encouraging them to be student centred; and suggesting new initiatives to staff and making sure they happen.

In some universities, administration staff are allocated to Unit Coordinators. Their role must also be managed. Learning Leadership From the evidence imparted through the course of the study we consider that we are now in a position to define what it means to be a leader of learning:

The Unit Coordinator, who is regarded as a leader of learning, proactively and professionally delivers and models scholarly teaching approaches to students and staff that reflect contemporary disciplinary content and practice. They are also successful in inspiring and motivating students and providing them with an excellent learning experience.

Participants suggested that achievement of the ‘ideal’ in terms of the student learning experience requires enactment of leadership characteristics by Unit Coordinators in the daily conduct of their roles. Examples of these characteristics are highlighted in Table 9. Table 9: Aspirational characteristics expected of a learning leader

Responsibility Unit Coordinators who exhibit learning leadership are usually::

1. Lead a unit of Study in a Program, or Programs

Collaborative and consultative with Program Chair and peers/colleagues and actively contribute to program improvements in a team based setting;

Enthusiastic teachers, curriculum innovators and creators who model scholarly teaching practices to sessional staff and students using a range of teaching strategies and techniques;

Demanding in the standards and expectations they set in curriculum and pedagogy;

Knowledgeable and expert in a subject/unit/discipline; they integrate their own related research into unit content, have a publication record and demonstrate potential to attract research funding;

Proactive in establishing and building relationships and networks that facilitate quality unit and student management;

Good staff managers and mentors, as relevant. Confident and professional in demeanour; Well regulated with their interpersonal skills; i.e. they are

inclusive, respectful, empathetic and relate well to others; and Very well organised.

It would be unfair to suggest that inexperienced Unit Coordinators, in particular, will possess all of these characteristics. The study also found that that not all Unit Coordinators consider themselves as learning leaders. We emphasise, therefore, that these characteristics are aspirational, but also argue that, should a Unit Coordinator possess the motivation and capability, and a university commits to the


resources, targeted professional development can shape Unit Coordinators towards meeting these targets. What’s in a name? At various times during the project’s duration, participants were asked whether their current title of Unit Coordinator, or equivalent, should be altered to Unit Leader to reflect the learning leadership nature of the role. Comments about this suggestion follow:

Being called Unit Coordinator is more equitable than being called unit leader. It is a better title and describes what I do. It is the nature of the job to be collegial; there would be opposition to changing the name. Heads of School are likely to assert they are the true leaders in the School. Leadership often gets confused with management. I would argue that you can be a leader and not be a manager in any shape of form. Management stuff is often administration-y. A lot of the role is administration – not leadership. The term might be constraining – leader of learning. It’s not the way all see it. To formalise and change the title to Leader of Learning might crush it; take the magic out of it. I think we should be regarded as professionals, not leaders.

On the basis of these comments, it is suggested that titles remains as they are. However, we argue that the variety of titles used across Australian universities that also mean ‘Unit Coordinator’ would benefit from some form of standardisation to enhance mutual understanding about the role.


Chapter 4 | Challenges and the Support that Counts

Overview In this chapter we examine the challenges that constrain the Unit Coordinator’s potential from their perspective. The primary rationale behind this examination is to provide further, more contemporary contextual evidence in support of the literature. Previous ALTC studies found that the Unit Coordinator is not isolated in experiencing trials. For example, Scott et al., (2008) outlined those experienced across the higher education hierarchy, from DVC to Program Coordinators. Jones and Ladyshewski (2009) focused on the challenges articulated by Academic Coordinators. At all levels of learning leadership, challenges and problems exist. The foremost message received from Unit Coordinators, however, was that the number of duties encompassed by the role, and the competencies needed to perform it effectively, have rendered the role both complex and demanding. Of note, is that each or any of the challenges mentioned by study participants have implications in regard to a Unit Coordinator’s performance. Effectiveness and good practice may be compromised, and this potentially impacts on the quality of education provided to students. The findings of this study have confirmed the need for greater proactive support devoted to the Unit Coordinator in the performance of their role. So, this chapter describes, too, how the various challenges and constraints identified by Unit Coordinators have been addressed through the study’s outcomes. The proformas, which are collated into a separate booklet resource, will be introduced and explained as relevant to the challenge described. The challenges are grouped under two main headings; Developmental and System Level challenges. We propose that Developmental challenges may be addressed by HR Departments and Teaching and Learning Units working together to create a comprehensive and cohesive system of support on behalf of Unit Coordinators, using the proformas as a base. In respect to the system level challenges described, it is requested that the relevant policy makers within universities consider each, to determine how relevant support might be provided. The proformas and the suggestions made for clarifying, developing and valuing the role of the Unit Coordinator have been designed with four criteria in mind. They:

1. fulfil the outcomes and deliverables proposed for this study; 2. address, as far as possible, the challenges and constraints raised by Unit

Coordinators during the study; 3. will enhance understanding of the role by all levels of academia; and 4. will, potentially, ‘enable’ the Unit Coordinator to perform their role more

effectively. The ‘developmental’ challenges, identified and elaborated below, that have been dealt with at some level through this study include:

Starting out as a Unit Coordinator; Handling first years and large classes; Managing casual staff; Keeping up with and learning new technologies; Understanding and maintaining unit quality; Being valued; and Isolation.

The system level challenges also described and proposed for consideration by university Policy makers include:


Operations and policy; Managerialism and the research agenda; Time and workloads; Locating, employing and retaining casual staff; Internationalisation of the curriculum; Understanding and maintaining unit quality; Being valued; and Emotional Labour.

Developmental challenges Starting out as a Unit Coordinator Unit Coordinators complained of role fuzziness, especially in the early stages of employment in the role. They claimed that not knowing how their role is defined and structured, or what it actually involves, reduces their efficacy. They also asked whether there is a Unit Coordinator ‘type’ and, if there is, what it looks like as an example of what to aspire to, and how one might resolve the differing standards and expectations between co-coordinators of a unit, which confuses students. When Unit Coordinators first start out, there is evidence of ‘just-in-time’ preparation and learning on the job, because of the demands involved, as demonstrated in the following quotes:

Well, I’m just reading for next week’s lecture; I know it is a bit rushed. But when you’re first starting out, that’s sometimes how it works. It is tough and too scary. Not a good way to work but sometimes you have to. It’s certainly not good for the blood pressure. I took over responsibility for coordinating the unit and the person who had previously been the Coordinator delivered the lectures and that was her commitment. So, I came from knowing nothing at all about what was required as a Unit Coordinator; I knew nothing about any of the systems or any of the processes here at all. So it was a very extensive learning experience; the logistics of it, the administration of it, all that sort of stuff.

There were claims of considerable ‘trial and error’ associated with becoming a Unit Coordinator because of the poor introduction to systems when they commence in the role. This necessitates them adopting their own systems of trialling something and if it works, improving on it or, if not, starting again with a new plan. Starting out ‘without any curriculum’ in place was referred to as ‘particularly hard’ because, often, little guidance is provided. On the positive side of this issue, however, one Unit Coordinator found it beneficial to design a unit from the ground up because they now had ‘intimate knowledge of the subject and its structure’. Handling first years, large classes and multiple campuses Large units are defined as:

Typically first or second year core units, which may be undertaken by more than one course cohort. unit coordinators for these units tend to have an above average assessment workload and a significant management responsibility for tutors and/or demonstrators, who support the learning in the unit. Coordinators of these units play an important role in students’ transition to university. The student experience within these units forms initial and lasting impressions of teaching and learning in the university context (Australian universities Teaching Committee


(AUTC) Large Classes Symposium (2002)). It was acknowledged by many participants that teaching first year units involves considerable responsibility and a lot of duties! Participants remarked that a coordinator of first years handles a great deal more pastoral care than for, say, third years. Unit Coordinators in charge of first years must be more mindful of the steps that need to be taken to teach and guide them, the learning processes that they embrace and the assumptions they make about the knowledge and self-confidence of their students. A lot of time is also consumed by mediating over student issues and paperwork. Large classes provide other challenges for Unit Coordinators in terms of coordination, timetabling, marking and managing students and staff over several campuses. One Unit Coordinator finds large classes at senior levels of a degree especially challenging, particularly in trying to deliver in-depth assessment. She claimed that this was ‘her biggest, biggest issue’. Another stated that there was little room to change teaching material in large units. In the handling of large Units, there was a suggestion put forward that management could be via a team of Unit Coordinators who may share the coordination and administration as well as the content delivery in a cycle of leadership over a number of semesters or years. Participants argued that this arrangement could potentially share the load, encourage collegiality and, ideally, involve the Program Chair whose job is to ensure alignment and fit of Units within a program. It is also a good practice for planning succession, and helps to reduce the impact if an experienced Unit Coordinator suddenly leaves. In addressing these significant issues, participants agreed that the ‘system’ did not provide sufficient workload allowances to affected Unit Coordinators, nor do they explicitly acknowledge the impact on Unit Coordinators of the issues associated with class sizes and year levels, particularly at first and second years. On the other hand, they concurred that, while ‘busy and challenging’ such high level responsibility ‘enables a lot of learning’. Locating, employing, managing and retaining casual staff Two weeks before semester starts, some Unit Coordinators find more students enrolled in their Units than planned for. Within short time frames there is a related need to find one or more tutors to take classes, leading one Unit Coordinator to state, ‘you feel like you’re begging people to do favours for you, [so] you try and twist someone’s arm to come and do another workshop’. Trying to find suitable tutors was an issue as are the logistical challenges involved in ensuring sessional staff are catered for in respect to timetabling and meetings. Employing the ‘wrong’ sessional staff because recruitment skills are lacking, or when a Unit Coordinator does not know what to look for, or there is turnover have the potential to threaten a unit’s integrity. Moderation of sessional staff is considered critical to maintaining consistency with content delivery and in assessments. According to one Unit Coordinator this involves ‘a lot of meetings; a lot of time; a lot of resources; a lot of organisation and many, many challenges’, as illustrated below:

My greatest challenge, continuing challenge is the selection and maintenance and retention of sessional staff; constantly looking for new people, changes all the time. I try to maintain some sort of unit integrity on an ongoing basis from all the incredible changes that are taking place.


Keeping up with and learning new technologies A new Unit Coordinator, particularly, must learn two essential computer software systems when they commence work in a new university: first, the student learning management system on which unit guides, lecture notes, etc. are uploaded and, second, the student database management system. On top of this may be new software and other technologies related to the subject or discipline taught. Becoming a confident user takes time that is often slotted into all the other tasks which vary ‘from the sublime to the very, very kind of ordinary and administrative’. This was not alleviated by the IT ‘service failures’ and slow response times that were also mentioned as challenges. Understanding and maintaining unit quality In respect to unit quality and quality control, the issues most mentioned as potentially compromising quality were those related to sessional staff and the Coordinator in charge of the unit. Quality issues that arise with sessional staff relate to the fact that most are ‘casuals’ and are working to help finance their studies. Some take tutorials because they intend to pursue an academic career and value the experience tutoring provides. However, to maintain consistency and quality in a unit, sessional staff rely on the information Unit Coordinators provide them about university and School protocols and teaching approaches and their moderation of marking and assessments. If these three key functions are not undertaken, quality will be compromised. A unit’s quality is determined, largely, by a Unit Coordinator meeting guidelines provided by the university coupled with their expertise, experience, knowledge and motivation to create a unit that will provide students with an excellent learning experience. However quality control of large units and those run over multiple campuses (on and off shore) remain as significant issues, in terms of consistency in marking of assessments and providing equal opportunity for students, as demonstrated by the following comments:

The quantity of assessments can override quality in that some Unit Coordinators do it that way because they always have. I know the importance of assessment and getting it right, i.e. assessing at the right level but sometimes time restrictions prevent me from drawing up better assessments. How about maintaining the quality that involves large units where you have got numerous tutorials that require monitoring for quality and consistency of delivery, to give students that equal opportunity.

Isolation There is a perception that, in Western Australian universities, at least, Unit Coordinators work in ‘silos’. This means that many are shut away in their offices trying to focus and get their work done as opposed to meeting peers and Program Chairs to share ideas and seek input. Participants informed us of new Unit Coordinators’ feelings of isolation because they don’t know what they don’t know and don’t know whom to ask to find out.


Addressing the Developmental Challenges Induction and relevant professional development are the proposed methods of addressing the above challenges. Definitions and the significance of both in terms of adding value to the Unit Coordinator and organisation are outlined below. Examples of induction and professional development programmes in place in Australian universities are also described, and were considered during the development of the proformas for induction and PD (see booklet and Tables 10 & 11). The proformas for induction and professional development were devised to assist new Unit Coordinators starting out, the handling of first years and large classes, managing casual staff, keeping up with and learning new technologies, and understanding and maintaining unit quality. It is suggested that well-developed induction and PD systems will potentially ameliorate feelings of isolation, also, because during either process someone may be appointed, or ‘buddy up’ with them to look after new Unit Coordinators and provide advice and assistance as needed. These claims are explained within the context of a Developmental Framework, designed to illustrate the evolving nature of the role in a continuum from Novice (new), to Competent and Experienced (1 – 3 years) to the Very Experienced & Highly Accomplished (4+ years) Unit Coordinator (see Figure 2, over page). All of the proformas developed are grounded within this Framework. Induction for new Unit Coordinators Induction is a process of introduction and initiation of employees into an organisation. Findings from the web audit and road show reveal that induction programmes vary quite considerably in their depth and efficacy across universities. Some are quite innovative, involving a contribution by the Vice Chancellor or Deputy Vice Chancellors in some cases, while others are minimalist. Foundation programmes are offered at Curtin University of Technology, The University of Western Australia (with clear set of responsibilities and a check list) and The University of Sydney; a five-day intensive is offered at the University of Wollongong and an induction checklist was found at Murdoch University. We were informed about The University of Notre Dame’s supportive staff culture that embraces the permanent and high numbers of sessional staff. Of special note is The University of Queensland’s Innovative Induction of new Coordinators of Large Units in the Bachelor of Education: Development of staff management and leadership (Faculty of Education) programme which arose through their Coordinators of Large Units Faculty-based project scheme 2002. Several universities have prepared induction booklets, which are distributed to new academics, and others have prepared checklists for supervisors to run through with their new staff. However, participants indicated that booklets are not read and questioned whether checklists are comprehensive enough to acculturate new staff into the organisation, given the number of layers in the system. Participants proposed that new Unit Coordinators be helped to create a vision and career goals for themselves in the role, and then followed up with steps to achieve them. Furthermore, they argued that a university which offers new Unit Coordinators with enriching induction, orientation and development experiences early on, is more likely to encourage their buy-in and engagement. This is a highly desirable outcome to aspire to, to potentially mediate against staff turnover and provide a consistent and better teaching outcome for students.


In determining what induction and development is needed when a new Unit Coordinator is recruited into the role, it is important to be aware of their previously followed pathways. For example, they:

might have been an industry specialist who is changing their career direction;

may have worked in another university; or may have worked in the current university in a different role, Faculty,

College or School. Quite commonly industry specialists are appointed to a Lecturer C position because of the higher pay scales at this level, although without teaching experience or qualifications. Participants claimed the extra challenges associated with these appointments from the perspectives of those who take on the role (as professionals with no teaching experience), and the colleagues who are expected to assist them. With the above background in mind, the following proforma (Table 10) was created for the new or novice Unit Coordinator which is deemed flexible enough to be contextualised (in content) for different universities and satisfies a recommended focus on the fundamentals first. It has also been designed around what is likely to disadvantage students if not covered early in their tenure. Table 10: Proposed induction for the new Unit Coordinator

Module Content ideas (not comprehensive)

New to university: Policies and procedures relevant to creating and teaching a unit;

Strategic direction and quality guidelines; Health and safety guidelines and procedures; Equity and diversity principles; Ethics policy and compliance requirements; HR access and support; Grievance procedures; Student services offered; Teaching support and professional development offered; and Student management system and access.

New to School: The role explained; Standards and expectations explicitly and clearly stated,

particularly in relation to curriculum and assessment; Career pathways outlined in conjunction with Probation,

Performance Review and Promotional procedures; Student programmes and unit/s fit; and Academic operational and administration compliance

expectations.

New to Role Introduction to: It has been assumed that a new U/C will more than likely ‘inherit’ a unit already operating.

Teaching scholarship – what it means in practice; Principles of unit Design; Assessment rationale, practice and policy; Multiple learning styles, i.e. processes of student learning; Building networks and communities of practice with peers; Recruiting, managing and coordinating a unit, staff, students

and self; and Planning, organising, prioritising and coordinating.

This proforma may also be integrated into a ‘one stop site’ for procedural matters and helpful information that relate to the Unit Coordinator’s role. A good example of this is one devised by and in use at the University of South Australia located at: www.unisa.edu.au/staffdev/quick.asp.

Clarifying, Developing and Valuing the Role of unit Coordinators as Informal Leaders of Learning in Higher Education 51

Figure 2 Developmental Framework Developing Unit Coordinators' Capability Advance Career path

Lecturer A/B Lecturer B/C Lecturer C/D/E

New to Role/Novice

Professionals Experienced Very Experienced &

& Competent Highly Accomplished

Framework designed to illustrate the evolving nature of the role in a continuum from Novice (new), to Competent and Experienced (1 – 3 years) to the Very Experienced & Highly Accomplished (4+ years) Unit Coordinator, and the ‘scaffolding’ of support as a Unit Coordinator gains more experience.

Induct at Uni & School levels. Include discussion about role definition and expectations

Legend

HoS or Program Chair sets up and provides structured mentoring and/or coaching in conjunction with probationary and career goal setting

Informal mentoring and/or coaching in conjunction with probationary and career goal setting. Commence mentoring of others, as desired Mentor others Mentoring

HoS or Program Chair encourages Unit Coordinator to register for student evaluations. HoS analyses and provides feedback

Student evaluation analysed and feedback provided

Student evaluation analysed and feedback provided

Student evaluation

HoS reviews role and career goals in conjunction with Performance Review

Role and career goals reviewed in conjunction with Performance Review

Role and career goals reviewed in conjunction with Performance Review

Performance Review

Proc

esse

s an

d Pe

ople

/Uni

ts in

volv

ed

Agree on leadership, management and personal development goals identified and agreed

Prob

atio

n to

per

man

ent (

HH

OS)

Leadership, management and personal development goals identified and agreed

Leadership, management and personal development goals identified and agreed

Professional & career development

Support Needs High

Low


52

Professional Development Professional development or training is defined in terms of the planned processes that grow, realise or modify a person’s capacity and potential in attitude, knowledge and skilled behaviours through learning, which add value to individuals, teams or organisations (Smith, 1998). Learning may also occur on the job and this is known as experiential learning. Kolb (1984) defines this form of learning as the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. The web audit located information about professional development from all university websites, although the depth of information about programmes varied considerably. Twenty two university websites referred to leadership courses. For example, a university in WA offered a ‘Women in leadership programme’; another WA university offered a ‘Leadership pathways’ course; a NSW university offered a ‘Management and leadership’ course; a Northern Territory university offered ‘Staff leadership’, and a university in South Australia offered ‘Leadership in university teaching’. Seven university websites (across Australia) specifically mentioned training or forums relevant to unit/Course Coordinators. For instance, a WA university course was entitled ‘Academic leadership for Course Coordinators’; a NSW university offered a ‘Course Coordinators Conference’, and another NSW university offered a ‘Course coordinators workshop’. Having found a variety of PD options available to academics and also determining that similar ALTC projects to this one are intending to develop PD modules, a decision was made not to create a set of learning modules for the Unit Coordinator, as originally proposed. Instead, a PD schedule is suggested for Unit Coordinators, as stated previously, using the job description and person specification proformas as frameworks for identifying gaps and suggesting development. For example, any leadership training offered, of which a number of options are presented in Appendix 5, is expected to provide opportunities for sharing issues and identifying shared ground across disciplines. The content ideas contained in the schedule (see Table 11) were proposed by study participants to address and potentially overcome the challenges mentioned. Table 11: Proposed Professional Development schedule

Module Content ideas (not comprehensive)

Leading and managing a unit, staff and students

define and elaborate on concepts, styles; differentiate between leading, managing, moderating,

supervising, coordinating and ‘adminis-trivia’; understand and communicate teaching, unit and ‘professional’

standards; and contextualise for the unit, the role, staff, students and self.

Unit Design steps in process of developing, evaluating and renewing high quality curriculum materials and assessment;

outline of factors that need to be considered for inclusion, eg, assessment-curriculum-pedagogy link, student diversity, graduate attributes, etc; and

overview of whole program/course and where a unit fits.

Teaching scholarship

define and interpret meaning of scholarly and student-centred approaches to teaching and learning;; and preparing lectures, tutorials, laboratories, workshops, etc, and apply relevant teaching strategies and techniques for flexible and transnational delivery.


Multiple (student) learning styles

concepts and theories; and apply to teaching approaches in context.

Assessment the various rationales, models, approaches and policies; highlight importance of providing precise and timely feedback;

and application within unit curriculum.

Transnational education and pedagogy

explore the contemporary literature and how research outcomes might be applied in the different contexts; and

adoption of a global perspective.

Use and application of relevant technologies

Discipline specific and student management computer and other technologies and apply at the system, student and discipline level to:

o Create more effective and efficient work practices; o Integrate ICTs across a curriculum; and o Model effective use of a range of discipline specific

technologies across a curriculum.

Planning, organising and coordinating

Explore the different tools and approaches and apply those relevant to context, eg, first years, large cohorts, administration requirements to: Prepare for, administer and resource Units before and during

semesters, and meet all timelines appropriate to providing students with a quality learning experience; and

Monitor compliance with university requirements and respond accordingly.

Define according to context and practice speaking, listening,

writing, teaching, facilitating, demonstrating, moderating, negotiating, networking as appropriate, in one-on-one and team based forums to facilitate: Student, peer and staff engagement; Networking and relationship building; Development of professional partnerships; Staff management, mentoring and coaching; Dispute resolution; Engagement and participation in conferences, workshops,

subject and School meetings, etc; Advocacy on behalf of students and staff, as needed; and ‘Constructive dissent’.

Communication

team building; team roles; and why teams?

Team work

Problem solving Examine and understand steps in process and apply through

case studies to: Analyse contemporary literature, texts and trends for

inclusion in unit content; Make appropriate judgements about students; Conceptualise content in such a way that it is practical and

applicable; Identify alternate solutions to address crises or potential

crises; and Critically review and filter knowledge and information before

delivering to others. Self regulation and management

Undertake reflection and explore the principles of emotional intelligence in relation to self and to facilitate: Handling of emotional labour and emotional dissonance; Coping with competing demands; Job satisfaction and growth;


Mitigation against behaviourally inappropriate impulses, including anger;

Recognising when too much is being taken on; and Application of appropriate behaviours to differing contexts,

including: academic and team leadership; independent and collaborative work; providing encouragement; perseverance and courage; managing people, time, projects and performance; adaptability, flexibility and tolerance; a positive outlook; attention to detail; recognising when action is required; professionalism; and reflective practice.

Innovation, initiative and enterprise

Define, differentiate and apply in context to: Generate innovative ideas and outcomes; Produce productive student outcomes; Lead and inspire excellence in teaching and learning; Appropriately level content by year of study in a program; Design, develop, evaluate and renew quality curriculum materials;

and Discover what is allowed and expected by the university.

There were thoughts of extending this schedule and providing ideas for different training approaches. However, this did not eventuate in any detail due to time constraints. Instead, four narratives have been created as examples of the sorts of challenges Unit Coordinators might face to identify learning gaps and provide a basis for learning (see Appendix 6). In respect to the medium used, and providers of professional development in universities, the following are suggestions. It is likely that the extent and coverage of media PD will vary according the resources available.

Centralised Teaching and Learning Units; Foundation modules; Higher education Certificates and/or Diplomas; Tertiary Teaching modules; Schools of Education, Psychology, Business, Media and

Communications; Peer Mentors and/or Buddies; On-line just-in-time, just-for-me case studies and narratives; Unit Coordinator blogs; Wikis; Communities of Practice; and Links to relevant and appropriate websites.

Mentoring and Coaching There is a great deal of literature available on use of these approaches to professional development, however, it is beyond the study’s scope to elaborate on how they work except to offer an observation by one participant who commented that “mentoring is about building capacity and grooming people over time so there is no hole left when someone is promoted or leaves”. Also raised during the study were the pros and cons associated with both mentoring and coaching. Study participants suggested the idea of engaging with a ‘structured mentoring’ model for new or novice Unit Coordinators which alters to


a more informal association when Unit Coordinators get to know their peers (see Developmental Framework, Figure 2). While the model proposed is the ideal there are also disadvantages associated with using an informal mentoring approach. These include: a few people being left to carry the load; advantage being taken of their good will, and there being no basis upon which to make allowance for the time allocated to mentoring in a workload calculation. Another disadvantage is the ‘hit and miss’ nature of informal mentoring, which evolves around who might be accessible and available to provide support and information at a time of need. There also lies a danger of passing on misinformation with the wrong or untrained person.

System level challenges associated with the Role Operations and Policy At the operational level, several examples were provided by Unit Coordinators as constraints. There is a perception that team coherence is affected by the ’revolving door’ nature of temporary or short term contract appointments to the role; there is a lack of parity between what is expected of a Unit Coordinator and the salaries paid and, there is the last minute rush associated with finding out student numbers just prior to, or in the first week of the beginning of semester. In some universities there is no system timetable to help Unit Coordinators meet deadlines and websites are poorly constructed, creating difficulties in finding information. The practice of unit co-ordination was also mentioned as creating imbalance in the ‘voice’ of Units shared by two or more co-coordinators. Other matters raised include poor alignment between systems and operations that result in administration and technology failures, and so on. Administration overload was considered a major challenge. Inequity appears in regard to who is provided with administration support and who misses out. The decisions made about administration provision appear haphazard, and in recent years, cuts in staffing and a consequential shift in tasks to the Unit Coordinator have resulted in an increase in the administration tasks being undertaken by them. Some of these tasks include, data entry, ‘highly paid’ photocopying, sorting out enrolment problems, checking dates and deadlines, ordering and retrieving AV equipment and a range of other tasks that must be complied with to maintain efficiency. Administration was referred to by Unit Coordinators as the ‘practical, mundane stuff’. Participants indicated that they have mostly now resigned themselves to performing administration as part of their role. However, this does not mean they like it or find it satisfying, as illustrated in the following comments:

Administration tasks take a lot of time; 80% of time on things related to teaching but are not teaching; The load of administration is onerous regardless of student numbers; Too much time on administration leaves little time to focus on improving student learning; Administration curbs creativity and new and innovative ways of teaching and engaging students; New Unit Coordinators have so many administration tasks that time for PD is curtailed;


Workplace agreements include more administration which is linked to performance and keeping your job. You have no choice. It is punitive.

Many Unit Coordinators view administration as a type of emotional labour; as a burden that weighs them down and depletes the time and energy that should be going into improving teaching and learning. Figure 3 illustrates this imagery. Perhaps the views can best be summed up in this comment: ‘administration enervates; other aspects (of the role) energise’. Figure 3: The ‘weight’ of operational administration in a Unit Coordinator’s role A contrary view about administration was also expressed by one participant, however.

Getting Unit Coordinators to use administration assistants is a struggle – they believe they do the tasks better themselves meaning quality and consistency (in teaching) suffer.

Other operational challenges mentioned include an overload of policies (rules) which are presented in such a way that Unit Coordinators feel they are doing the wrong thing even if they follow them to a the letter. They expressed their attempts at balancing corporate expectations with autonomy and self-management; the high teaching with high administration and a ‘dumbing down’ of curricula to cater to the lower ability students now allowed into universities. Many mentioned the frequency with which change and restructuring occur in their universities and the requirement to make quick adjustments at short notice, with the result that Unit Coordinators just ‘shut down’. Finally, it was observed that conditions for tutors vary between those teaching external and internal students. Tutoring ‘internal’ based students involved a greater workload. Also mentioned was a view that an emphasis on i-lectures inhibits flexibility in pedagogy, such as use of problem based learning, and changes being made to unit content in one School that must also account for the ‘rest of the program’ which might be located in your School, or in another.


Tensions and power imbalances are the result. Managerialism and the Research Agenda During the late 1980s and into the present the Federal Government reduced funding to universities while, at the same time, increasingly required them to justify their expenditure of the ‘public’ funds they were allocated, as illustrated by the following:

Those who run universities are expected to ensure that value is provided and [there] is greater concern with the overt management of sites, finance, staff, students, teaching and research. universities are also being exhorted to raise both the standards of educational provision and the quality of their teaching, learning and research outcomes, whilst prevailing governments and funding council policies also required annual so-called ‘efficiency gains’ to be made, resulting in a declining unit of resource per student taught, less money for equipment and a decrease in research resourcing (Deem, 1998, p. 48).

The consequence of reduced funding from the Federal Government also meant that universities have had to find funds from elsewhere. Research bodies, such as the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), supply large pools of money which has led Academic Leaders to push the research agenda over teaching because research applications bring in grant funds and ‘kudos’, while teaching spends those funds. Although understanding the reasoning behind this ‘push’ towards a research agenda Unit Coordinators commented that it is ‘destructive of good pedagogical practice’; of units cancelled because of low student numbers and ‘space’ no longer being available in a program, which discourages them; of conflicting messages received about the value of teaching; the difficulty in ‘demonstrating teaching quality over research quality’ and the imbalance between the commitment (in time and resources) required in teaching and curriculum development at the expense of research. Time and workloads Lack of time was a continuing theme during discussions, with an underlying view emerging that insufficient time is allocated in workload models to enable Unit Coordinators to do their jobs (let alone well), as illustrated by the following comment:

I would just love to have time and space that lets you do the reflection, the forward planning, that lets you actually develop an argument that you can carry forward, that is, having a space to do that reflection.

Of particular note was the perceived lack of equity in workload allocation between Unit Coordinators who manage first year units with several hundred students enrolled and possibly dozens of staff and locations across several campuses, compared to a Unit Coordinator of a Masters unit, for example, with just 20 students enrolled. Several times the issue of a new or less experienced Unit Coordinator managing these large and complex units while the more experienced and senior academics coordinate the more desirable, smaller and intellectually challenging units and the associated time differentials, was mentioned. Other time pressures relate to a desire to ‘make our Units really good’, and providing meaningful feedback to students, rather than ‘off the cuff comments’ which become the trade off for lack of time. Time to create valid and reliable assessments was also considered ‘critical’ for both Unit Coordinators and


students. One participant commented that ‘not enough is being made of the importance of assessment in discussions with new Unit Coordinators’. In response, assessment has been brought further up front in the job description to emphasise its importance. Other comments are in relation to research, which is considered integral to learning leadership.

You don’t necessarily have to undertake research or keep your knowledge current or to maintain understanding of changes in the field. You just need to read the research. I’ve got a pile of books on my table – about 13 – that I haven’t had a chance to read yet, so I am finding that one particularly difficult. So, if you were sleepless you’d know what to do. Oh, I wish was an insomniac sometimes just so I had time to read them. All of a sudden, you hit a brick wall when first semester comes around again when you’ve got heavy, heavy teaching loads, plus you’ve gathered all this research from the second and, unless you’ve got lots of experience, this can get you into a heavy situation in first semester.

This same Unit Coordinator added that ‘everything starts to suffer, particularly your personal life’ and so some decisions have to be made about how time is allocated, although, ‘there’s not a lot of incentive apart from your own personal drive to do that’. Other Unit Coordinators mentioned that, although a limited time is allocated to attendance at School meetings, ‘meeting Chairs don’t shut down conversations and so the allocation is pushed out and the time is gone’. The overall view of Unit Coordinators is that they have a formidable workload, even without a lot of student contact, but the challenge remains how they cope and ‘not to get stressed or ill’ as a result, through lack of time and support. Internationalisation of the curriculum Challenges relating to the internationalism of the curriculum, from multiple perspectives, have been emerging during the past ten or so years since universities have begun arranging ‘partnerships’ with learning institutions off-shore commonly in South East Asia and the Middle East. There are many different ‘models’. Unit coordination may be managed from the primary campus located in Australia using e-learning systems and communications and occasional fly-in: fly-out contact with the Unit Coordinator, plus use of local tutors. Other satellite campuses have also been set up under Australian leadership and management but local teaching staff are employed. A third perspective is where groups of international students elect to study in an Australian university for anything from one semester to an entire undergraduate or post-graduate program and immerse themselves in Australian higher education culture. Study participants commented on their belief that infrastructure, systems and processes have been slow to anticipate and deal with the implications of adopting a global perspective and internationalising curricula. Some of the challenges mentioned include:

student enrolment data not being loaded pre-semester and Unit Coordinators not knowing who or how many students are enrolled;

consequential delays in students getting pre-semester access to the learning systems and materials;

adjustments by Unit Coordinators and tutors (whether in Australia or overseas) of the multi-modal forms of delivery;


teaching spread across the entire year to fit in with international teaching schedules and few breaks;

poorly resourced libraries in home countries; access to Australian libraries hindered by bureaucracy and cost; assignments of quality low and difficult to meet minimum standards due

to poor English speech and grammar; employing unqualified tutors and partner institutions not compelling

them to take basic teacher training; sessional staff use of a didactic teaching approach which is the

antithesis of approaches used in Australia; moderation and monitoring of tutor delivery and assessments from afar; finding available opportunities to instruct new Unit Coordinators and

sessional staff in student learning management systems in a time, cost and procedurally efficient manner; and

issues about ‘engagement’ of international tutors with the culture and procedures of the home university, leading to high turnover.

At the individual level, it was found that Unit Coordinators involved with internationalisation experience having to take off overseas at, sometimes, short notice to address issues; poor recognition in performance development and promotional criteria for the responsibilities performed extra and outside of the ‘norm’, and inflexible HR processes. One Unit Coordinator who has been involved with international unit coordination since its inception has met many of the challenges head on and, largely in their own time, has advocated constantly to ‘facilitate the teachers (overseas) doing their jobs better’. Their claim is that student results have improved as a consequence. While the frustrations continue, particularly in regard to on-going marketing to encourage international student enrolments progressing at a faster pace than the underlying infrastructural support, the Unit Coordinator’s approach is now ‘watchful’. They have learnt to ‘focus their energy on what is important’ and made a decision to ‘hang in there and try to head off any problems before they get too big’, underpinned by their belief that the role they perform is valuable and useful. Being valued (or not) A consensual view held by Unit Coordinators was the lack of value and recognition exhibited by their universities in respect to their role. One participant remarked:

I’m surprised that undervaluing is so far down on your list [of challenges]; in my experience many Unit Coordinators feel undervalued.

Participants observed that indications of ‘undervaluing’ are: insufficient pay and status for the role they perform and their importance to the achievement of a university’s goals; allowing lower paid and less experienced Lecturer As to take on unit coordination with implications for quality; the role not being recognised in promotional processes; not being heard, and insufficient levels of administration support being provided to them in their teaching role, (whereas researchers are able to buy in administration). There was also a claim that, in some cases, tutors are engaged in unit Coordination, but only paid a tutor’s wage. There was the feeling that saying “no” when asked to take on more and so attempting to set limits for themselves meant that, at times, Unit Coordinators were compromising their obligations and promotional potential. Other Unit Coordinators expressed a view that taking on unit coordination inhibited their chances of promotion because of the time demands inherent in the role which


limited opportunities to conduct research (from which greater value and kudos derive). Participants working in research intensive universities remarked that this last issue presents a significant challenge to Heads of School who are making determined attempts to shift the mindset of experienced researchers towards unit coordination and adopting teaching scholarship. Social networking and meaningful conversations Participants in the study indicated that, in terms of meaningful support, most value lies in the opportunities afforded for networking with their peers and how one might go about establishing a ‘community of practice’. It was suggested by one participant that Unit Coordinators ‘need power in both individual and big picture arenas’ to get ahead. Emotional Labour While it would appear that most Unit Coordinators generally accept ‘all the stuff that has to happen in order for the learning environment to be right for the students’ there is an emotional component integral to their efforts to satisfy students and provide them with a holistic learning experience, known as emotional labour. The wide ranging and, often, disparate tasks that Unit Coordinators undertake on a day by day basis, and attempts by them to maintain control and emotional equanimity over these in a managerial environment may contribute to emotional labour. In turn, this is associated with higher levels of workplace stress with implications on retention (Barrett, 2004). This is illustrated in the following comment:

You want to do everything right; you want everyone to think she’s got it under control…. but it’s emotionally challenging as well, because of the associated stress and feeling.

Nevertheless, while the above suggests that the challenges of performing a Unit Coordinator’s role are vast and on-going, more often than not, people do remain in the role for many years. Feedback suggests that Unit Coordinators remain with all its complexities for, largely, individual reasons. However, it is primarily a passion for their subject and love of students and teaching that dominates ‘reasons for remaining’. Only when these passions are subsumed by the negative aspects of the role, do Unit Coordinators consider leaving.

Addressing system level challenges Many of the challenges described as being associated with the ‘system’ may well be resolved through alignment of the three performance review and career progression processes which share the same criteria. Underpinning many of the challenges are the issues of value, recognition and transparency. Transparency relates to the approach an organisation assumes in managing and developing performance and awarding promotions to those who meet and exceed the relevant criteria. The ideal approach involves openness, fairness and equity. Examples of criteria that will facilitate recognition of the Unit Coordinator’s role and enhance process transparency are outlined in a proforma called Probation, Performance Development and Promotional Criteria (see Table 12). These are proposed for inclusion in future versions of performance related evaluations. Below, the findings from the web audit are outlined for each of probationary, performance review and promotional criteria. As with other findings, these predominantly related to the position of Lecturer, which led the team to devise


new evaluation criteria for unit coordination. Probationary Criteria Probationary criteria were identified in the web audit at 20 universities, and were deduced from an additional 10 universities by analysing the Performance Development Review criteria. No information at all was available for six of the universities (across Australia). The criteria found for Lecturers coming off probation ranged from those established by employee and supervisor to a maximum of 11 evaluation criteria. Examples of the criteria listed include: qualified with higher degree, teaching development, research, teaching undergraduates, professional development undertaken, supervision, time management, teaching and learning, research and scholarship, leadership, management, service to the university, administration and projects. Performance Development Review The number of criteria identified in university Performance Development Review documents (PDRs) ranged from two at one NSW university (teaching, research supervision) to nine at a university in WA (standards of performance, goal setting, review of progress, future requirements, performance and remuneration, skills knowledge & attributes, support needed, behaviours outputs & achievements, developmental requirements). Criteria common to many PDRs included teaching, research and service; however, ‘leadership’ was only explicitly mentioned in the criteria of twelve universities. Furthermore, only three universities specifically mentioned effective unit/course coordination in the PDR criteria. An investigation into performance development reviews also resulted in a brief examination of an HR benchmarking programme that has some relevance to the present study. The website at QUT provided information on this HR benchmarking programme. This university was a participant in the Australian universities HR Benchmarking Programme, conducted by the Queensland University of Technology (2009) since 2005. This ongoing programme includes universities from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the South Pacific. It is measuring and comparing HR statistics across a wide range of activities, including some under investigation in the current study. On the university website access is provided to the 2008 report (2005-2007 data) comparing that university with other regional universities and with the Australian sector. Findings from this report demonstrated, for example, that the Academic Promotion Success Rate increased from 62.5% in 2006 to 68.6% in 2007; and Doctoral Qualifications for Level C-E were higher at that university than in the rest of the regional sector, whereas Level A and B numbers were significantly lower than sector scores. Promotional Criteria The number of promotional criteria identified ranged from two at a university in the NT (teaching, scholarship) to eight at a university in NSW (research/teaching track, achievement examples, linkages, quality & impact, research productivity, leadership, current & previous positions, standards). Promotional criteria common to many universities included qualifications, teaching, research and service, with ‘leadership’ explicitly stated in the criteria of 17 universities. However, ‘unit/course/program coordination’ was only explicitly mentioned in the criteria of nine universities. Good examples of promotional criteria (with links to Minimum Standards for higher education Academic Staff and unit/course/program coordination) can be viewed on the Flinders (2008) and Charles Darwin (2008) websites.


Table 12: Minimum performance standards expected of a Unit Coordinator (Lecturer A/B, C-E)

Leadership Scholarship of Teaching Professional Development Compliance

Lecturer A/B, C-E who is a Unit Coordin-ator

Practices innovative curriculum design and pedagogical approaches;

Proactively collaborates with Program Chairs;

Contributes to program improvements; Appropriately champions a unit; Supports students well; Maintains consistently high standards of professional behaviour; Contributes to and supports a collegial and supportive work environment; and Initiates unit coordination and teaching outside of the norm, eg international teaching.

Retains students; Records reflections on teaching practice for peer review; Registers for student evaluation of teaching and submits results to Head of School; Incorporates feedback from student evaluations into unit guides and teaching practice; Develops high quality learning resources and materials; Includes current literature in unit up-dates; Clearly articulates links between curriculum, pedagogy and assessment; Ensures assessments are valid and reliable; Provides timely and meaningful feedback to students; Applies for teaching excellence Awards; Mentors and supports peers and sessional staff in teaching scholarship; and Shares academic and teaching expertise.

Completes Grad Cert, (or equivalent), in Higher Education; Undertakes other, relevant post-graduate studies; Completes and is awarded a Doctorate; and Undertakes PD relevant to role and in teaching scholarship.

Practices OSH guidelines in workplace practice; Considers diversity & equity in curriculum and pedagogy design; and Meets operational administration deadlines.

Recognition and Reward Enhancing clarity and transparency of each of the above three performance related processes helps address issues of recognition and value because aspiring Unit Coordinators know precisely the standards and expectations of them and the means to achieve them. Information sought during the web audit about rewards and recognition or benefits in place for Lecturers/Unit Coordinators was found at 30 universities. However, it was not specific to Unit Coordinators. Typically, awards were for teaching excellence, performance excellence, research excellence, community engagement and value-adding to the university. Rewards and recognition were dispensed in monetary and non-monetary (such as, citations and health and wellbeing initiatives) forms, and were usually linked to the PDR and promotional processes. Specific examples of rewards and recognition for university lecturers illustrate the type of information available from different university websites. For example, one university in WA listed three award categories: ‘Teaching excellence’, ‘Programmes that enhance learning’, and ‘Citation for outstanding contribution to the standard of learning’. At one university in NSW awards included: ‘The leadership award’, ‘Teaching and learning project grants’, ‘Teaching and learning


awards and citations’ such as the ‘Vice Chancellor’s (VC’s) award for teaching excellence’, ‘VC’s award for programmes that enhance learning’ and the ‘VC’s citation for outstanding contributions to student learning’. The website for a university in South Australia provided staff with information about awards, recognition and benefits, for example, the ‘VC's award for excellence in teaching’, ALTC fellowships and grants, the ‘Arthur Keain staff development award’, and the ‘Staff award for outstanding contribution to [the] university’. In summary, most Australian universities had in place, in a readily accessible website format, information about rewards, recognition and benefits for Lecturers. The number and frequency of the awards, as well as what individual universities categorise as ‘rewards and recognition’, vary across universities. Of note, though, in relation to this study, is the finding that the awards focus on teaching rather than on the vital roles and responsibilities of Unit/Course Coordinators.


Chapter 5 | Conclusion and Recommendations

Overview This study set out to clarify, develop and value the role of Unit Coordinators as informal leaders of learning. These aims were achieved largely as a result of a well-designed methodology and the contributions of engaged participants and a supportive project team. While not originally intended, this study also explored the challenges and constraints experienced by Unit Coordinators, which were described in the report to enhance awareness and understanding among academics and associated staff of their particular issues. With the data gathered and analysed, the following have been created:

an evidence-based job description which clarifies the Unit Coordinator’s role;

a person specification of the competencies and capabilities needed to perform the role effectively;

recommended induction and development modules; a revised set of criteria for use in probationary, performance

development and promotional evaluations that will potentially enhance recognition and transparency of process; and

a list of leadership training available for academic and general staff at universities across Australia.

Study Solutions Clarity in defining the role of Unit Coordinators, along with the accurate targeting of gaps in competencies, the provision of relevant professional development and avenues to acknowledge excellence, will assist universities to resolve issues surrounding the following challenges and to potentially enhance retention of quality Unit Coordinators.

Starting out as a Unit Coordinator; Handling first years and large classes; Managing casual staff; Keeping up with and learning new technologies; Understanding and maintaining unit quality; Being valued; and Isolation.

System Level Recommendations To enhance recognition of the contribution delivered by Unit Coordinators to university strategic goals, to demonstrate the value held by universities of their Unit Coordinators, and to help alleviate any stresses associated with emotional labour a number of recommendations are made to policy makers for their consideration. It is at the higher, more influential levels of a university that adjustments can be made to policies, systems and processes, with further benefits being accrued from adopting coherent and systematic approaches to improving support for Unit Coordinators. Findings indicate that many universities already have relevant systems in place, however, for the Unit Coordinators who work in universities that don’t, the following recommendations are made in respect to: Operations and policy;

Identify a person in student services who plays a key role in linking unit related policy with Unit Coordinators and students to ensure compliance


and the right information is imparted to students; Notify Unit Coordinators before semester begins of student numbers to

enable them to set up databases and locate staff (as appropriate); Identify the specific administration support that would relieve Unit

Coordinators of their load, and explore recruiting extra administration staff;

Better align systems and HR processes and communicate changes to affected people;

Improve communication systems between Schools and departments where there is shared coordination and Units;

Review unit relevant policies to ensure rules and guidelines are logical and fair;

Monitor flexibility of ‘flexible learning’ to ensure that all pedagogical approaches are catered for;

Create and update a university wide calendar of key dates, events and deadlines;

Employ a department/School/unit administration manager – ‘a bridge in the middle’ - who can: o undertake or delegate administration duties appropriately; o develop and manage, implement and monitor induction and

mentoring on behalf of Unit Coordinators; and o assist with locating and recruiting sessional staff (and with

associated administration); Acknowledge the workload and time involved in handling large student

cohorts, developing quality units and assessment, administration and mentoring with formal and fairer allowances; and

Address the issue of short term contracts which are unsettling and impact on teaching quality;

Managerialism and the research agenda;

Redress the imbalance between the value placed on research, which is ‘supported’ by universities because research ‘opens doors to receive funds’, and the value placed on quality teaching; and

Allocate workloads fairly and consider the time involved in teaching and preparation, in addition to student assessments, follow up and support;

Internationalisation of the curriculum;

Recognise and address the issues that particularly relate to internationalisation of the curriculum with a comprehensive analysis and review of current systems and developing a coherent approach;

Understanding and maintaining unit quality;

Implement and develop minimum standards (proforma provided) for Unit Coordinators that reflects the key responsibilities of the role in respect to probation, performance review and promotion, and support with a transparent process; and

Monitor the appointments of Lecturers to unit coordination to ensure inexperienced and unqualified people are not given the responsibility;

Valuing Unit Coordinators;

Implement an Award for excellence in unit Coordination; and Consider developing a system of ‘lead Unit Coordinators’ who ‘spread

the word’ and meaningfully support their peers. This report and the booklet resources are freely available now on http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/project/ucall/ and will be placed on the ALTC Exchange (see www.altcexchange.edu.au) later on in 2010.


References Australian universities Teaching Committee (AUTC) Large classes (retrieved

from: http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/largeclasses/case_studies/CaseStudy-15_QUT.htm on 13 April 2009).

Barrett, S. (2004). Emotional labour and the permanent casual lecturer: ideas for

a research project. International Education Journal, 4(4), 92-101. Bellamy, S., Morley, C., & Watty, K. (2003). Why business academics remain in

Australian universities despite deteriorating working conditions and reduced job satisfaction: an intellectual puzzle. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(1), 13-28.

Blainey, G. (1966). The Tyranny of Distance: How Distance Shaped Australia's

History. MacMillan. Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian

Higher Education (Final Report). Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

Cascio, W. (1991). Applied Psychology in Personnel Management, (4th ed),

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Chalmers, D. (2007). A review of Australian and international quality systems and

indicators of learning and teaching. Chippendale, NSW: The Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Ltd.

Cohen, L., Bunker, A., & Ellis, R. (2007). Exploring the role of Unit Coordinators.

Paper presented at the Research and Development in Higher Education: Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship, Canberra: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.

Commonwealth of Australia (2009). Transforming Australia's Higher Education

System. Canberra: Australian Government. Constanti, P., & Gibbs, P. (2004). Higher education teachers and emotional

labour. The International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4/5), 243-249.

Cummings, R., Roberts, S., & Schibeci, R. (2008). Enhancing the student

educational experience through school-based curriculum improvement leaders. Perth: Murdoch University.

Debowski, S., & Blake, V. (2004, 9-10 February). The developmental needs of

higher education academic leaders in encouraging effective teaching and learning. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Murdoch University, Perth.

Curtin University of Technology Course/Major Coordination – Roles Statement

http://otl.curtin.edu.au/teaching_learning/course_coordinator_role_statement/Course_Major_Coordination_Role_Statement_Dec_08.pdf (retrieved January 22nd, 2010).


DeCieri, H., Kramar, R., Dowling, P.J., Holland, P., Teicher, J., & Van Gramberg.

B. (2003). Human Resource Management in Australia: Strategy, People, Performance. Macquarie Park, NSW: McGraw Hill Australia Pty Ltd.

Deem, R. (1998). 'New Managerialism' and higher education: the management of

performances and cultures in universities in the UK. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 47-70.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR)

(retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/training_skills/policy_issues_reviews/key_issues/nts/glo/utoz.htm on 6 March 2010).

Employability Skills Framework. Retrieved 28 February, 2010 from:

http://www.training.com.au/documents/Employability%20Skills_From%20Framework%20to%20Practices.pdf

Fletcher, J. K. (1999). Disappearing acts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Fletcher, J. K. (2002). The greatly exaggerated demise of heroic leadership:

gender, power, and the myth of female advantage, CGO Insights (Vol. Briefing Note Number 13). Boston: Centre for Gender in Organizations / Simmons College of Management.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership

Quarterly, 13, 423-451. Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: a

discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2), 169-189.

Jones, D. & Holdaway, E. (1996). Post-secondary department heads:

expectations for academic leadership and authority. International Journal of Educational Management, 10(3), 10-20.

Jones, S., Ladyshewsky, R. K., Oliver, B., & Flavell, H. (2008). Leading courses:

academic leadership for course coordinators (Final Report). Perth, WA: Curtin University.

Knight, P., & Trowler, P. (2000). Department-level cultures and the improvement

of learning and teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 69-83. Knowles, S., & Choules, K. (2009). UCall annotated bibliography on educational

leadership: ALTC Leadership for Excellence in Learning and Teaching Programme (LELTP) grant. Perth: Murdoch University.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning

and Development.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Lefoe, G., Parrish, D., Hart, G., Smigiel, H., & Pannan, L. (2008) Distributive

leadership for learning and teaching: Developing the faculty scholars model. NSW, Australia: CEDIR, University of Wollongong.

Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Ramsden, P. (2003). Variation in the

experience of leadership of teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 247-259.


Naring, G., Briet, M., & Brouwers, A. (2006). Beyond demand-control: emotional labour and symptoms of burnout in teachers. Work & Stress, 20(4), 303-315.

Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. (2004). Work intensification and emotional labour

among UK university lecturers: an exploratory study. Organization Studies, 25, 1185-1203.

Parker, L. (2008). Leadership for Excellence in Learning and Teaching in

Australian Higher Education: Review of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Programme 2006-2008. Retrieved from http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/webdav/site/carricksite/users/siteadmin/public/review_leadershipprogramme_parker_2008.pdf

Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Scott, G., Coates, H., & Anderson, M. (2008). Learning Leaders in Times of

Change. Sydney: ALTC & ACER Smith, A. (1998). Training and Development in Australia. Sydney: Butterworths. Smith, R. (2005). Departmental leadership and management in chartered and

statutory universities: a case of diversity. Educational Management Administration Leadership, 33, 449-464.

Data obtained from the following university websites: Central Queensland University. (2009). HR benchmarking reports. Retrieved

February 9, 2009, from http://hr.cqu.edu.au/FCWViewer/view.do?page=8241

Charles Darwin University. (2008). People management and development:

Academic staff promotion process; Academic promotion application guide; Minimum standards for higher education – classification standards. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from http://www.cdu.edu.au/pmd/

Charles Sturt University. (2008). Forums, networks and conferences: Course

coordinators forum; Second course coordinators conference. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.csu.edu.au/division/humres/org-dev/forums/index.htm#two

Curtin University of Technology. (2008). Academic leadership for course

coordinators. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/seminars/index.html

Flinders University. (2008). Policies and procedures: Promotion; Minimum

standards for academic levels; Academic profiles. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from http://www.flinders.edu.au/ppmanual/staff/minstandardacadlevel.html

Monash University. (2008). Academic staff development and support: Team

leaders workshop. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/staff-development/ws/lm/tlw.html

Murdoch University. (2008). Carrick Institute project proposal: Clarifying,

developing and valuing the roles of Unit Coordinators as informal leaders of learning in higher education.


Queensland University of Technology. (2009). Universities’ HR Benchmarking Programme. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://www.hrd.qut.edu.au/hrbenchmarking/

Southern Cross University. (2008). HR services training calendar: Course

coordinators workshop. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://www.scu.edu.au/admin/hr/index.php/38/

The University of Newcastle. (2008). Centre for teaching and learning: Course

coordinators: get ready for ’09. Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/unit/ctl

The University of Queensland. (2009). Staff development programme:

Information for presenters and coordinators; Course coordinator handbook. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://tedi.uq.edu.au/sdh/presenters.asp

University of New England. (2008). Organisational development: Supervision

skills. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://www.une.edu.au/od/odonline/pd/supervision.php

University of Tasmania. (2008). Course coordinator’s website. Retrieved October

8, 2008, from http://www.utas.edu.au/course_coord/


Appendices Appendix 1: Focus Group Methodology Focus Question Activity Resources Comments In your handout, three are number of key responsibilities and tasks undertaken by Unit Coordinators, obtained from a web search of Australian universities and a previous focus group. Please peruse and record on a post-it note any other responsibilities and/or tasks that you perform that are not listed in the handout.

Participants individually record on yellow Post-It Notes what they do as Unit Coordinators, i.e. one task or responsibility per post-it note.

Packs of Yellow Post-It Notes for each participant.

Participants to stick their Post-It Notes on the whiteboard/s (other media) under the categories of: Developing and revising unit Curriculum; Teaching and Pedagogy (including IT); Management and Supervision of Sessional Staff; Liaison and networking; unit Resourcing; Administration.

Categories written on A4 paper or cardboard for placement on the whiteboard.

The categories are revealed once participants have finished their initial writing.

What knowledge, skills and/or abilities do you need to be effective in your role as a leader of student learning?

Participants individually record on blue Post-It Notes what knowledge, skill and/or ability are needed to perform effectively in each category. One item per note.

Blue Post-It Notes.

Participants to stick their Post-It Notes under the categories. What kind of support do you need/want to enhance your effectiveness in your role?

With the list or key responsibilities, skills/abilities provided, with space to add any others introduced in the previous session, participants to rate the importance of each to them personally. They are then to indicate whether they receive support and the type.

A sheet with the categories and K, S, As listed with rating scale.

These rating should reveal tasks of high importance which may only be receiving low levels of support.

Participants will discuss the critical/important issues that have emerged around support.

Recording equipment and notes to record discussion.

To what extent does your role encompass elements of leadership, i.e. who and what are you required to lead as part of your role?

Participants discuss the focus question on learning leadership.


Participants will have the opportunity to discuss workload issues.



71

UCaLL Fo c u s G r o u p s P r o c e s s a n d S c h e d u l e 5 mins Introduction 10 mins Generate tasks in role of Unit Coordinator with individuals using

yellow stickers

10 mins Classify these tasks under role categories introduced on wall charts. Facilitator to read out the notes under each category and ask for any after-thoughts to be recorded on post it notes and added.

10 mins Under each category, individuals to generate on blue post-it notes the knowledge, skills and/or abilities needed to effectively carry out their role.

20 mins Using the ‘map’ provided generate the support needed/wanted to enhance your effectiveness in their role. Compare this with what support they actually get.

10 mins Discuss what has emerged as the most critical areas of support needed.

10 mins Discuss their role as leaders of learning.

10 mins Provide an opportunity to discuss workloads.

5 mins Conclusion

See table attached for further detail. Q u e s t i o n s u g g e s t i o n s Could you please tell us what you do as a Unit Coordinator? What knowledge, skills and/or abilities do you need to be effective in your role as a leader of student learning? What kinds of support do you need/want to enhance your effectiveness in the role? To what extent does your role encompass elements of leadership, i.e. who and what are you required to lead as part of your role?


UCaLL

Support from the institution comes in a variety of forms, eg, comprehensive socialisation and/or induction (I), higher education (HE), training (T), short courses (SC), mentoring (M), coaching [C], rewards [R], awards (A) and other forms of support (O) 1. Could you please rate, using the following scale, how important is it to you that you receive support in the following (see table below): 1 2 3 4 5 Very important Important Not at all important 2. Could you please indicate whether you receive any form of support in each of the following and if so, the form in which it is received? Please use the letters in parenthesis (above) to indicate the form.

Rating Support Y/N, & Form

Key Responsibilities: Developing and revising unit Curriculum;

Teaching and Pedagogy (including ICT);

Managing and Supervising Sessional Staff;

Liaison and networking;

unit Resourcing;

Administration.

Knowledge: Ethical codes of conduct;

Academic integrity

Relevant subject knowledge

Skills and/or Abilities: Scholarly and innovative approaches to teaching and learning including use of new technologies

Developing, evaluating and renewing high quality curriculum and programme materials

Leading, innovating and inspiring excellence teaching and learning

Managing and supervising casual teaching staff, including dispute resolution

unit coordination

Productive team membership

Modelling effective use of ICTs across a curriculum

Excellence in interpersonal interactions, communication and self management

Developing and maintaining professional partnerships and links to industry and the broader community


Contributing to conferences, workshops, etc

Administrative activities relevant to the unit Appendix 2: Interview Questions asked of Unit Coordinators 1. Please tell my about your experience as a Unit Coordinator. 2. On a rating scale of 1 – 10, with one ‘not at all’ and ten ‘extremely’ how

would you rate your overall job satisfaction? Can you provide a brief explanation for that rating.

3. Has there ever been any suggestion about professional development made during your performance reviews?

4. To what extent does the university provide professional development for you in your role as Unit Coordinator?

5. To what extent does the university acknowledge and value your role as Unit Coordinator?

6. How would you define “leadership of learning” in the university context? 7. Do you perceive any leadership aspects of your role and, if so what are

they? 8. Do you perceive any constraints to performing your role to your potential? If

so, what are they?


Appendix 3: Summary data on Focus Groups and Interviews Unit Coordinators at Western Australian universities were invited to participate in focus groups and/or in-depth interviews. In total, 52 participated in this data collection and 49 completed a summary of their experience, outlined in this report. Focus Groups were held at Curtin university of Technology, Murdoch university and Notre Dame university with a total of 31 participants. The 21 interviewees came from the university of Western Australia, Murdoch university and Curtin university of Technology. Experience The number of years as a Unit Coordinator varied between 30 years and 1 year with the majority having more than two years experience in the role.

1 – 2 years 5 3 – 5 years 10 6 – 10 years 12 12 – 16 years 5 20 – 30 years 7

The Unit Coordinators who participated had a stable background with 22 having worked within one institution and 14 at two universities. Only one person had worked at three universities in the role. However four distinctive institutions are represented in this study. These Unit Coordinators were asked to identify the number of units they were currently responsible for.

Not currently 5 One unit 13 Two units 8 Three units 7 Four units 1 Five units 2

One Unit Coordinator who was leading five units was also responsible for a sixth unit at a regional campus. Discipline area A broad range of discipline areas were represented by the participants however many respondents did not complete this question.

Psychology 3 Media and Communication 1 Education and Science Education 2 Health Professional Education 1 Soil Science 1 Biological Science, Environmental Biology, Molecular Biology

3

Biostatistical analysis & research design 1 Mathematics & statistics 1 Information technology, Business Information Technology

3

Forensic science 1


Sustainability 2 Chiropractic-Radiology 1

Teaching qualification Although 29 participants did not have a teaching qualification 20 held the following qualifications reflecting the shift towards a growing recognition in the higher education sector for the value of such qualifications.

PhD (education) 1 Masters in Education 5 Masters of training and development 1 Grad Dip Ed & Master Ed 1 Graduate Certificate Education only 2 Graduate Diploma in Education only 4 Bachelor of Education 3 Tertiary Teaching Course & BA Education

1

Tertiary Teaching Course only 1 WACOT registered due to secondary experience, Secondary Science

2

Student numbers The trend toward increasing student numbers was reflected in these Unit Coordinators’ experiences.

1 to 20 students 13 21 to 50 students 19 51 to 100 students 23 101 to 300 students 24 Over 300 students 9

The Units In the units coordinated in the prior three years Unit Coordinators described their units as addressing predominately undergraduate but not first year level (40) with 28 coordinating first year units and 22 postgraduate units. Two coordinators identified UPC and honours under the “other” category. The following unit types were identified.

Course work 39 Field work 7 Postgraduate research or project based

16

Service units 13 Professional Continuing Education 2 Other 2

Other factors governing the unit and affecting the role of the Unit Coordinator were:

Field trips & off campus student experiences

15

Industry requirements 6


Professional registration standards 6 Other compliance issues 2 Work Integrated Learning placements 8

The delivery modes reported reflected the full range commonly used in higher education.

Face to face 33 Face to face and online 27 Distance/External 25 Off Shore 10 Online only 7

Supervision The numbers of tutors being supervised and assisting Unit Coordinators in delivering units over the previous three years were reported as:

No tutors 15 1 to 5 tutors 31 6 to 10 tutors 9 Over 10 tutors 8


Appendix 4: Collation of data from web audit, focus groups and T & L forum outcomes 2009 Key Responsibilities (web audit) Responsibilities/Tasks Focus Groups T & L Forum

Involved in leading a unit Adhere to course guidelines (Curric) Assist in the development of cross disciplinary teaching in schools and across other schools (Ped) Attend academic/department/faculty meetings and panels (Admin) Comply within the university’s quality assurance principles (Curric & Ped) Consult with students and course coordinator/program chair (Admin) Cooperate with other staff to ensure effective delivery of courses and a positive work environment (Network) Coordinate, advise and assist students and casual tutors (Ped) Design (Curric): assess tutorials and pracs and assist in both develop, evaluate and improve curriculum develop a positive academic environment for high levels

of engagement with students and the achievement in learning and teaching

maintain high quality teaching curriculum and materials and assessments

design courses for flexible delivery and deliver lectures, tutes and pracs using innovative, stimulating course materials for under and post graduates

initiate and develop subject materials Lead: curriculum design and development enhancements of quality in teaching and learning teaching activities participate in field trips Maintain currency in the subject and in effective learning and

teaching practice in the field involvement in professional, industry and community

bodies

Develop and revise unit Curriculum (Curric) Create/design/prepare/write: unit materials, including unit/study guides, teaching

materials and notes, readers assessments exams, deal with deferred exams, create alternative

exams for deferred/supp interesting tutorial activities unit guide and reader including finding new and

emerging themes and materials and way of presenting etc

workshops and labs Find/collate additional reading, etc materials Organise: course content timetable/schedule for unit send unit materials, study guides, notes and readers to

print room Review, revise and update unit learning guide, unit reading materials Teaching and Pedagogy (including IT) Assist with ethics, etc Decide what material is presented Design assessment tasks (different each year) Give lectures Make sure sources of information are relevant to lecture material Mark and grade assessments, assignments, exams and provide detailed feedback to students about their work Monitor the unit Respond to student enquiries Run tutorials of 2 hours each approx 3 per week Set up LMS system for unit needs (eg group work) Student support, enquiries, counselling on performance Teach: on-campus workshops

Admin connected to the unit All matters related to: students in unit – learning, support, blood, sweat & tears effective design, development, implementation and

evaluation of unit relationship between unit/course/wider university selection, support, management of team of teaching

staff Apply for new equipment Assignment guide Collate and enter marks Coordinate: communicate with all members of the teaching team

(staff and sessional sessionals staff teaching the unit Counselling (staff and students) Create and manage LMS Dealing with students within the unit Design and locate all learning resources Design curriculum Develop resources including lab manuals, text books Employ tutors & demonstrators Evaluate and monitor student grades Facilitate quality improvements Facilitate students to achieve optimum outcomes (experience) Field questions, complaints re unit Have a: clear vision for what you want to achieve presence for students and staff Industry liaison Innovation Interaction with others and find out who has relevant information and materials Keep on-line material up to date Know how this visions fits with everyone else’s


a positive academic environment for high levels of engagement with students and the achievement in learning and teaching

high quality teaching curriculum and materials Mark and record tutorials and assessments Participate in student recruitment, selection, placement and supervision Plan, implement and monitor field work Supervise: casual tutors teaching materials and assessments

students how to run blogs in lectures, PPts, Tutes, Workshops Track students performance Tutor external students Write exams Liaison and networking Guest Lecturers: Organise guest lecturers through contact with the

careers centre about who to invite from industry, etc contact guest lecturers within the university to see if

available to give lecture Organise course topics/lectures and who will teach them eg. guest lectures Organising guest lectures and payment Students: cultivate on line discussion about course issues and

topics by students and staff deal with students enquires before semester starts and

during Handle student enquires: extensions queries re. assignments (AU students in unit) Manage online discussions Send regular email updates to students Student advice and counselling External students: contact on regular basis – not all use LMS create email lists of external students Coordinate: “streamed” materials within some units. combined until exams with other U.C’s Administration arrange printing of manuals arrange recording of lectures assist in timetabling of unit budget

Knowledge Lots of admin Monitor student progress Organise full time and part time staff Patience Prepare lectures and tutorials Prepare/write unit outline or CMS Set exam timetable Set feedback Time Unit review Update curriculum as needed WebCT, Blackboard Write assessment material & prepare grades Write unit plan/handbook each semester Involved in Leading Staff Administration Be a social worker for sessional staff Choose appropriate sessionals Design and provide teaching guides & materials Developing marking key to help them assess correctly Developing staff Diplomacy Directing sessionals to resources in the school Ensuring all have access to materials Ensuring consistency of message amongst staff Equity Guidance Help with any difficulties they have with certain student re regulations, etc Imparting information/materials Inculcate major (maybe unwritten) purposes Induction in development, decision making Induction into culture (pedagogy) Induction to Uni Make them aware of LMS Make them feel welcome & comfortable Managing staff style vs student reaction Mark some assignments they are not sure of Meetings before each lecture/tute Negotiate unit outlines that suit their skills and


calibrate, collate and submit marks at end of semester compile marks database complete contracts for part-time tutors provide tutors with course lists decide text books needed and order them during semester meet with students individually about

the enrolment esp. in who 1-3 when new ………… just before semester check on enrolments in Callista make sure material is loaded onto web CT organise appropriate spaces in which to teach the

course run a blog Manage and Supervise unit Staff Tutors: appoint liaise with and arrange meetings, etc provide teaching materials create assessment guides moderate marking Mentor: in participatory techniques course themes, etc support as they develop pedagogy Coordinate: guest lecturers lab set up Manage workloads for colleagues in the unit Train demonstrators Unit Resourcing Check student enrolments on Callista Design online content, lectopia, etc Organise: tutors classroom/teaching space animal ethics field work exercises Photocopying extra materials Put unit on LMS using ‘course genie’

qualifications if both teaching or make sure they understand what need to be taught Open door policy – time to listen and appreciate feedback Organise student grades for submission Passing on my teaching & learning philosophy Patience PD Producing resources for assessment Professional support and guidance Provide all materials & resources Provide relevant information, resources, materials, facilities Provide tutorial plans & resources Providing an avenue for escalation of hard problems Same as any other project team Standardise marking Supporting: Training and mentoring sessionals Tutors manuals & materials Tutors meetings to familiarise staff with what students have to do and who is the best person to see re IT, admin support, etc


Unit budgets Other: Before semester: discuss possibility of any dollars for tutors advertise new units update advertising material and make flyer and put up

around uni Animal ethics for unit Decide how student performance is assessed

Key Capabilities Knowledge Academic integrity Eligibility for professional registration &/or accreditation Ethical codes of conduct Subject and discipline at doctoral level University policies & procedures

Develop and revise unit curriculum: subject content (expertise in) professional demands/ requirements/ expectations (external) good technical/professional understanding Teaching and Pedagogy (including IT): academic standards/expectations curriculum design the different ways that students do and can learn the student cohort – that is present in that year/semester the subject unit content and many other things thorough knowledge of understanding multiple ways in which students learn Liaison and networking Administration courses, programs and enrolment processes to be able to assist students. teaching policies university policies and regulations and how it operates university policy on eg. assessment unit rules etc. understanding of university admin and IT systems (Callista etc) Manage and Supervise unit Staff Unit Resourcing Knowledge of self


Skills Administration Analytical Communication - written, oral & online Coordination of staff activities of units/subjects/courses Curriculum design Demonstration Developing learning & assessment materials Flexible & on-line delivery Interpersonal – patience, diplomacy, empathy, perspective Leadership – guiding, supporting Management Negotiation and collaboration Organising – time Pedagogical strategies to enhance learning Planning Problem solving Teaching Team work Diligence

Develop and revise unit curriculum Attention to detail Teaching and Pedagogy (including IT) Listening Intercultural Facilitation IT (Lectopia, LMS, Excel, Smartboard, multimedia presentations) Communication in different forums and at different levels Staff management and mentoring In identifying a ‘teaching moment’ Unit design and delivery Liaison and networking Negotiation skills necessary with staff, admin and students Administration Administering and organising Manage and Supervise unit Staff Communication (modes of communicating, effective communication) Interpersonal (how to get along with people and encourage them) People management Communicating with students & staff Communication skills Conflict resolution Unit Resourcing IT savvy Online/web design Other: TIME - management – availability Time management (personal and unit related)


Ability to: Provide academic leadership Contribute to: academic environment developing effective teams Design and implement projects Develop and maintain strategic teaching relationships internal and ext. to the Uni innovative approaches to course delivery including new technology scholarly & innovative approaches to T & L practice high quality curriculum and program materials Foster a cooperative work culture links with the broader community student achievement Integrate ICT across curriculum Lead curriculum & pedagogical reform innovate & inspire excellence Lecture & tutor Manage and coordinate course/unit casual teaching staff Relate to students from diverse backgrounds Use effective teaching methodology for individuals and groups Work both independently and collaboratively

Develop and revise Unit Curriculum Write Make units relevant with practical components/workshops Clear idea of goals/outcomes and ability to transfer to unit design Teaching and Pedagogy (including IT) provide support for writers communicate design appropriate learning tasks for internal workshop experiences and for external

students encourage self-motivation among students – relearning course assessments give constructive feedback that is honest and encouraging make fair and valid judgements about assignments transfer knowledge – lectures, tutes and readings etc Liaison and networking Administration Organise many activities & people Forward plan Manage and Supervise unit Staff plan ahead and organise resolve conflicts across power differentials Unit Resourcing make a case for resources, etc Other stay interested in content and process of own learning adapt to changing environment (sudden and long-term) care for students learning process and for the whole person


Other Focus Group 1 T & L Forum Commitment and personal values to equity and diversity to applying policies & legislation to the role, including

OSH & EEO to involvement in professional and community activities

relevant to discipline area Contribution to academic & community life Establishment of collaborative networks Maintenance of professional workplace behaviours Participation in staff development and performance reviews Perform in a manner that reflects and responds to continuous improvement Support the vision of the Uni Understanding of quality assurance Competencies: Communication Effective and supportive teamwork Leadership On-line delivery PD & engagement with research, admin and community Research Strong personal qualities and collegiality appropriate to develop a positive academic environment Subject and/or technical Teaching

Develop and revise unit curriculum Teaching and Pedagogy (including IT) Assist students to listen and talk to each other Good communicator Cross cultural awareness Faith in students Good facilitator Interest in: teaching developing new approaches developing new material Like interacting with students Need to understand how students learn, and understand how to be an effective teacher Passion for your subject Patience Pedagogical understanding (how people learn, how to develop material that enhance learning etc) Real practical experience of what is being taught Unit design/delivery Wide experience of appropriate pedagogies Liaison and networking Being available to students and tutors Counselling skills Flexibility Gender sensitivity Good listener and counsellor Lateral thinking and creative abilities Need links and networks to industry and government to source eg. field work, guest lecturers etc. Networking with other coordinators to eliminate duplication Patience! For students and bureaucracy! Watch and maintain boundaries Administration Manage and Supervise unit Staff

A sense of perspective Be a change agent Be informed about the ways students can complete a degree, eg equity, part time Being able to think on your feel Care for your students Caring Clear communication with students and sessionals Content knowledge; professional, discipline Curriculum content Diplomacy Emotional intelligence Engaging Ensure consistency between sessionals How this unit relates to the course Inspiration It helps if you’re a good teacher too Kindness to other staff, sessional, students Management Mentoring ability Organisational Patience Pedagogy People management, interaction with global, national, local, students, teaching teams, across formal levels Planning Reflection Research/passion for new up to date material Technical abilities Time/stress management University policy, procedures, rules Ask what can be learnt, versus what is personality


Unit Resourcing Good administrator to: organise guest lectures teaching resources tutors Other: Curiosity Organising Patience and empathy Respect of others needs and current issues they deal with

Definitions Competency (say Scott et al, 2008) – describes the work related skills and behaviour needed to effectively perform in a role; has achieved the required level of skill and ability; A knowledge, skill, or attitude needed by a learner to enter, maintain, and/or advance in a subject area or in the workforce; has met established minimum standards of skills and knowledge and is thus eligible for promotion, graduation, certification, or other official acknowledgment of achievement. Capabilities – an aptitude that may be developed; the power or ability to generate an outcome. Curriculum – The prescribed classes or course work needed to complete a program of study leading to a degree or certificate; refers to both the content (the material to be learned), and process of learning (the actions and resources involved in teaching and learning). Pedagogy – strategies of instruction, or a style of instruction; the technique used by an instructor to foster and facilitate learning by another; the art and science of teaching; teaching method: the principles and methods of instruction. Unit/Subject/Course – Term used for individual subjects. Each course is made up of a number of units of study; a cohesive and intentional plan for teaching and learning developed to address content standards in a meaningful way.


85

Appendix 5: Examples of Leadership Training found during a web audit of universities across Australia ACT The Australian National University Academic Leadership and Management: Participants will explore the challenges of academic leadership and management and the skills and strategies required to meet these challenges. http://cedam.anu.edu.au/professional-development University of Canberra Professional Management Programmes: Leadership Skills. This course is designed for supervisors and managers with an interest in further strengthening their leadership skills. The focus of the course will be geared to the interests of participants and to the particular leadership challenges that they face in the workplace. http://www.canberra.edu.au/pmp/programme/courses/leadership-skills Making Room to Lead: A Leadership for Learning and Teaching Network at UC. MAKING ROOM TO LEAD is all about developing leaders for learning and teaching at the University of Canberra, using a distributed leadership model. http://www.canberra.edu.au/llte/attachments/pdf/brochureJan2009.pdf New South Wales Charles Sturt University Leadership and management professional development activities: In keeping with its commitment to continuous professional development, the university offers leadership development at two levels. http://www.csu.edu.au/division/hr/developing-and-supporting/leadership-devl/professional-devel-activities.htm The Leadership in Learning and Teaching Programme is offered annually for Heads of School and Sub-Deans (Learning and Teaching). http://www.csu.edu.au/division/landt/profdev/contPDleadership.htm Macquarie University Leadership and Assessment: Strengthening the Nexus. The purpose of the project is to develop, through a distributed leadership model, multi-level academic leadership across the institution. http://www.mq.edu.au/ltc/projects/leadership.htm Postgraduate Programme in Higher Education: The programme has specialisations in Learning and Teaching, eLearning and Leadership and Management. Special conditions and incentives for Macquarie Staff are available. http://www.postgrad.mq.edu.au/


Southern Cross University Management Development: The programme has the following components: Team Leader Workshop, Next Generation of SCU Leaders, Heads of Schools Development Strategy, Women in Leadership Network, Managing Performance Conversations. http://www.scu.edu.au/admin/hr/index.php/33/ The University of Sydney Leadership in Learning and Research Workshops http://www.usyd.edu.au/learningsolutions/leadership/learning_research.shtml Personal effectiveness as an academic leader http://www.usyd.edu.au/learningsolutions/leadership/core_senior_leaders/personal_effectiveness.shtml University of New England Staff Leadership Programme: Current leadership theory and practice utilised in the most successful enterprises will be introduced by experienced staff from across UNE. http://www.une.edu.au/od/courses/leadership.php Academic Leadership Programme: This programme is a joint initiative with TLC and HR. The programme initially targeted Course Coordinators, Discipline Convenors and Academic Coordinators. http://blog.une.edu.au/tlcnews/2009/09/30/academic-leadership-programme/ University of New South Wales UNSW has bee selected to be part of the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of learning and teaching leadership (CASTL) programme. http://learningandteaching.unsw.edu.au/content/LT/leadership/UNSW_initiatives.cfm?ss=2 Leadership in learning and Teaching: L&T@UNSW supports the development of leadership in learning and teaching in various ways. You can access information below regarding current UNSW initiatives: http://www.learningandteaching.unsw.edu.au/content/LT/leadership/Leadership_home.cfm?ss=2 University of Technology, Sydney Staff Development programmes: Leading at UTS http://www.hru.uts.edu.au/professional/development/leading.html University of Western Sydney The Professional Development Unit provides professional development, training and support for: enhancing management and leadership capabilities, individual capabilities and team development and performance by offering learning and development courses and programmes; provides support to colleges, divisions, schools and units in their planning, quality management and change processes; and coaching for managers in effective leadership, management and work practices.


http://www.uws.edu.au/campuses_structure/cas/structure/dcss/professional_development The University of Newcastle Leadership Development Programmes for staff http://www.newcastle.edu.au/service/organisational-development/leadership-development-programmes.html 2009 Leadership Development Programme: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Divisions/Services/Human%20Resource%20Services/Organisational-Development/HEW7-9-leadership-programme-2009.pdf University of Wollongong Educational Leadership: Staff development in 4 schools http://www.uow.edu.au/about/teaching/cases/educationalleadership/index.htm Northern Territory Charles Darwin University The Australian Women and Leadership Forum ‘Darwin Leadership Voice’ (2007) http://ext.cdu.edu.au/newsroom/a/2007/Pages/2232.aspx Queensland Australian Catholic University (none found) Bond University Centre for Leadership Studies http://www.bond.edu.au/faculties-colleges/faculty-of-business-technology-and-sustainable-development/research/research-centres/centre-for-leadership-studies/index.htm CQ University Australia Learning and Teaching Presentations (inc. Leadership) http://atsie.cqu.edu.au/FCWViewer/view.do?page=8012 most available to view as mediastreams. Academic Leadership Group: provides a forum for academic staff in leadership positions http://www.isrd.cqu.edu.au/FCWViewer/view.do;jsessionid=8a4d179b30daaa72ee3d08494c6da26abe7c4d022cf8.e34MaxeRbhuObi0TbNuMbhqSaxz0n6jAmljGr5XDqQLvpAe?page=5017


Griffith University Professional Development Network Leadership Conference 2009 http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/professional-development-network-leadership-conference-2009 Women in Leadership https://intranet.secure.griffith.edu.au/employment/staff-development/leading-and-managing/women-in-leadership James Cook University Teaching and Learning Development: Sustaining distributive leadership in learning and teaching: http://www.jcu.edu.au/tld/JCUPRD_051877.html Queensland University of Technology Mid Career Academic Development Programme. Inc. Building leadership capability (Academic and Self leadership) http://www.hrd.qut.edu.au/staff/development/academic/mcad.jsp Team Leadership Programme http://www.hrd.qut.edu.au/staff/development/leadership/ Strategic Leadership Programme http://www.hrd.qut.edu.au/staff/development/leadership/ Women in Leadership http://www.hrd.qut.edu.au/staff/development/leadership/ Southern Cross University Management Development Strong Leaders raises the capability of their staff by continuously developing both themselves and others. SCU has implemented a dedicated management development programme eg. Team Leader Workshop; Women in Leadership Network. Also, professional management development programmes are offered by a range of external providers. http://www.scu.edu.au/admin/hr/index.php/33/ The University of Queensland Staff Development Programme Leadership in Teaching and Learning: Coordinating and designing courses at UQ. University of Southern Queensland Management and Leadership Development Programme is aimed at building capacity in the areas of people management, personal leadership, strategic management and business sustainability. http://www.usq.edu.au/hr/odt/mldevp/mgtldprog Management and Leadership development: Mentoring programme for new supervisers and managers. Targeted at new employees with supervisory responsibilities – either managers new to USQ or an existing staff member new to managing people. http://www.usq.edu.au/hr/odt/mldevp/supvment


http://www.uq.edu.au/staffdev/index.asp?ProgrammeType=CURRIC&Programme=LEADTL&strProgrammeName=Leadership+in+Teaching+and+Learning University of the Sunshine Coast (none found) South Australia Flinders University Requirements for leading and managing academic staff. 3 programmemes. 1. Leadership, 2. Leading teaching and learning, 3. Management of casual teaching staff members. http://www.flinders.edu.au/teaching/quality/requirements-for-academic-staff.cfm Support for academic staff The goals of the Academic Development Team in the Staff Development and Training unit are to: Provide leadership in the Scholarship of Teaching; Develop leadership capacity across the university. http://www.flinders.edu.au/teaching/support/support_home.cfm University of Adelaide Heads of School Leadership Programme http://www.adelaide.edu.au/hr/development/programmes/head-school/ Resources for Leadership in Teaching Portfolio The university has a number of plans, policies and procedures relating to learning and teaching. A list of these relevant to staff in leadership positions in the university follows: https://www.adelaide.edu.au/clpd/lta/download/resources_leadership01.pdf The CLPD provides a range of services to University of Adelaide teaching staff including leadership development, course design, teaching methods, online education, assessment and evaluation. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/clpd/lta/ University of South Australia Workshop: Leadership and being a leader in Teaching and Learning http://unisanet-apppro.levels.unisa.edu.au/registerit/PD-programmeDetailsFC.asp?ID=17682 The Leadership Dimensions forums and workshops provide opportunity for development and networking for senior professional staff at UniSA. http://www.unisa.edu.au/staffdev/leadership/dimensions.asp Women’s development programme offers a range of specific women’s development programmes, which provide women with opportunities to engage in constructive development activities and to link their individual learning needs with organisational priorities. http://www.unisa.edu.au/staffdev/women/workshops.asp


Tasmania University of Tasmania 2010 Teaching Development Grants http://www.teaching-learning.utas.edu.au/news/news/2009-teaching-development-grants Women in Leadership http://www.utas.edu.au/staffdev/leadership/women_leadership.htm Roles and responsibilities of unit coordinators www.educ.utas.edu.au/TandL/Policies/CC_UC_roles_June2008.pdf Exceptional leadership workshop http://www.utas.edu.au/philosophy/cape/leadership.html Victoria Deakin University Teaching and Learning Communities (TLC) – Course Leaders Forum http://www.deakin.edu.au/alt/mw/tlc/ La Trobe University Academic staff interested in participating in a Leadership in Learning and Teaching Project can view at: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/teaching/dvc/projects/distributive-leadership.html This year's Colloquium will focus on two main themes – Curriculum Design & Evaluation and Student Experience, Teaching and Learning Centre, Academic Staff Development Programme http://www.latrobe.edu.au/ctlc/workshops/schedule.php?fldWorkshopTID=4 Monash University Leadership and Management Development Monash's Senior Leadership and Management Development Approach supports the university’s leaders and managers through the provision of targeted skills development, information and networking. http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/human-resources/leadership-development/ RMIT University RMIT Leaders Programme 2008-2009 The programme is designed for TAFE, academic and general staff who report to a member of the senior leadership group (including Heads of School, Executive Directors or equivalent), and have operational and strategic management responsibility within a defined work area. http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=rx53zi2yzxwa1 Women and management at RMIT: special events to support leadership development of female staff.


http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=hf36aiuifyce;STATUS=A?QRY=women%20in%20leadership&STYPE=ENTIRE Swinburne University of Technology Leadership and Management Short courses: staff training http://www.industry.swinburne.edu.au/short-courses/categories/management-leadership.html The University of Melbourne Teaching@Melbourne is an integrated series of seminars and workshops that provides insight into the complexity of university teaching, and practical strategies for enhancing teaching effectiveness. http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/academic_dev/tam.html Academic leadership programme http://hr.unimelb.edu.au/development/courses/academic-leaders University of Ballarat PD with the Institute Professional and Organisational Learning (IPOL), including Leadership and higher educational Development http://www.ballarat.edu.au/ipol/ Victoria University (none found, except for TAFE staff) Western Australia Curtin University Academic Leadership Course for Course Coordinators http://academicleadership.curtin.edu.au/ALCCP/index.cfm Edith Cowan University Management for Performance (MPS). The Management for Performance System (MPS) is an initiative that supports the university’s goal to strengthen our leadership capacity and build a strong performance culture. http://www.hr.ecu.edu.au/mps/html/what-mps.cfm Murdoch University Academic Women in Leadership and Development (WILD) http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/asd/wominit.html Higher Education Leadership and Management Programme (HELM) http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/asd/helm.html The University of Notre Dame (none found) (Fremantle, Broome, Sydney)


The University of Western Australia Pathways to Leadership. This programmeme is for faculty managers, school/centre managers and managers of sections and units in central administration who wish to further enhance their leadership skills. http://www.osds.uwa.edu.au/programmemes/pathways On Track Academic Development. On Track encourages participants to explore their own capabilities and career preferences, build effective mentoring, teaching and research strategies, develop stronger networks with industry and senior researchers, and enhance their academic work-role management. http://www.osds.uwa.edu.au/programmemes/on_track Leadership Development for Women http://www.osds.uwa.edu.au/programmemes/ldw


Appendix 6: Examples of Narratives (case studies) pertaining to the Unit Coordinator Narrative 1

Collegial Conversations and the Silos Effect I was in the group of new hires, and there a couple of other people who, because I’ve had a little more experience at the tertiary level, I was able to offer support, and we’d talk. I enjoy sharing ideas so we arranged to work on our unit outlines together. It’s good to co-write you know, as you have a work in progress to be able to have someone keep reviewing the document to make sure that you’re on track with your learning outcomes and your assessments are realistic and valuable. That provided some good learning opportunities, yeah; it’s my preferred way of doing it now. I’ve made some good networks into other universities as well, through past colleagues and people that I’ve met at conferences. There was one person that was really doing fantastic stuff with their online unit and it was great to get a measure of what’s out there for what I want to introduce here. I communicate with people across Australia and that’s great…I’m in touch with an honours coordinator in Queensland, so I email, I talk to her you know how do you deal with your research emphasis and you know how does your university see the honours from the art perspective, you know and I talk to design staff. I also have a colleague at a local university who also teaches contemporary performance that I know because we went to; we did our PhDs together in Queensland so I kind of just know her. I guess we do sort of talk about content and delivery a little bit and you know I have some contacts in Queensland, which is where I did my undergrad and my PhD. I go to drama conferences and stuff so I kind of get my staying up to date with what’s happening kind of that way I suppose. I’m pretty lucky in that I’m a net worker and I know quite a lot of people so if I want something or I need something I know who to ask and I’m usually pretty well supported. It has given me a strong sense of where my unit sits in the overall programme and these conversations have given me valuable insights into the overall package that students access when they study in our school. I know that good collegiality isn’t a universal experience and I also recognise that there are staff in our school that don’t wish to work this way. A friend of mine reporting having to keep pestering the woman down the corridor (the only one who seemed to be there and with her door open) and felt like she was competing with all the students that regularly went to that staff member…I remember her really struggling to work out how to manage her new role as unit coordinator and it took her ages to find out who to ask for what issues. I can imagine that working in a school where this ‘silos effect’ is in operation would be very isolating. I’ve also had the experience of co-coordinating a unit with someone who had been teaching that unit for years. Because I wasn’t the ‘main’ coordinator my ideas were not acted on, and when changes were made to the unit it was without my involvement and agreement. There was no middle ground and there was little support for change in that unit because other staff identified the unit as ‘belonging’ to that person. unit coordinators who work in a tunnel vision kind of a way really stem the flow of collegial learning! I much prefer to work with people in a team environment and I’m grateful that my school generally supports team learning around issues such as assessment.


Narrative 2

Jumping in at the deep end I came into this role by taking over from Shirley (the previous unit coordinator). She was the only person that really gave me an update on the two units, since there was nothing from my department, no preparation, no support. So I’ve basically sniffed my way through… follow the scent, sniff out the trail, followed my nose, I got a whiff of what I was to do. I started two weeks before I had to coordinate the unit and so it was like I was really in at the deep end and I just had to figure out how to do it myself. I had to write the unit outline literally two weeks before the semester started so yeah I don’t know how it worked but it worked somehow yeah. I just got informal supervision or mentoring from the staff around me…it helped like I had a few people in the hallway in the rooms next to me who I kind of just, you know started asking questions and they could answer them sometimes tell me where to go to get them answered. It was just pretty much jump in and work it out yourself. I just grabbed what I could when I could; I just made the best use of whoever was around and was constantly harassing the IT support people because you know I had very little training or experience regarding the IT side of things. You know I didn’t get a lot of support to become a coordinator and who knows whether I’m doing the right or the wrong things, I wouldn’t have a clue and I’ve identified that I don’t, I don’t have a, there’s not a lot of people I can talk to about those sorts of matters. But that’s probably as you say, you know lots of people would be in that space. Narrative 3

Leading the teaching team I am the unit coordinator for a large unit, with varied content, and I rely on sessional staff to present lectures and assist with the administration and marking for the unit. This year my student numbers fluctuated a lot and I wasn’t able to finalise my staff arrangements until very late in the piece. At the last minute I needed to hire a couple more casual tutors and I had to take on people that had only just graduated and had no teaching experience whatsoever. Every year it is a new learning experience for the teaching staff and for me it is a new teaching experience in terms of getting those people up and running. It’s a big job coordinating sessional staff and there is plenty of potential for issues!! Casual staff don’t have an office, a phone, or a computer on campus and it’s difficult for them to develop a sense of belonging and it’s very almost impossible getting them all together at one time. I work hard to keep in touch with them, making sure they’re all teaching the same thing, that there’s a sort of sense of benchmarking across the units, and that their feedback and subsequently the student feedback is incorporated into subsequent versions of the same unit. So yeah it’s kind of a bit of a multi task position I suppose. All being on the same page and getting them all together is a real challenge. Coordinating tutors effectively is really important in terms of providing a good quality unit for students and in terms of making my job manageable. I mean we’ve


come up against a few problems and it’s mainly with tutors and providing resources and samples for students and all that material development is very, very difficult and demanding and I’m trying my best. I guess it can be stressful when ultimately you know I’m accountable for the unit. So if something was to go wrong it kind of falls onto me to deal with it and sometimes it can make life difficult. High level plagiarism incidents or if one of my tutors is not performing well or there are some issues between students and a tutor yeah…it would be where the tutor is probably, probably not good in terms of teaching. They might be good out in the field but they’re just not coming across in the classroom or if they are, they’ve got some personality issues. I have had an incident with a new tutor who created a lot of issues in a unit that I was coordinating so I tried to deal directly with her and it didn’t really produce a very good outcome so I had to take it to the head of school…this issue took up a lot of my emotional time and energy and could have potentially derailed the unit. It’s not always as good as I want it to be because of time… as a unit coordinator you give and take, you have moderation meetings, you help them along, you produce the materials, you give the resources and I need to find the time for it all. What I’ve tried to do or work out is how do you allow for sessional staff, ‘cause I mean they’re often an expert in their field that’s why they’re there, but they don’t really have a lot of power really. So I’ve tried to allow them to also work to their expertise. So that might be things like you know at the end of the semester kind of having an hour coffee with them or whatever and saying ok how did it go, what worked, what didn’t work, what do you think could be improved in terms of content and delivery; and I always try to make sure they get paid to do that. I also try to support them and to give them clarity about what I expect from them. By having regular tutor meetings I can ensure that we’re actually all on the same page at least in the philosophy as well as the content. I’m actually for my tutors and again I always like the fact that tutoring is a really good way to learn… I was actually getting them to understand or to look at, to reflect on what they were trying to do when they were teaching and understanding the philosophy behind what they were doing. I think it’s always useful to do that, and that was fun. I actually like that sort of stuff. Narrative 4

Spread too thin I’m teaching a first year unit and its got two hundred students enrolled in it. I reckon I’ve got about 40% of those students contacting me each week, that’s you know 80 emails a week that I have to respond to. I try to keep my responses short, but many students require a personal relationship with me and the range of issues is enormous. You know even if you only take one or two minutes per email, it would take up three hours of my day! If it was only that, it might be manageable… if it wasn’t for the admin. The admin is killing us as academics! I just feel like I’m being micromanaged! You know you have to use this spreadsheet to enter your grades, you have to do this textbook policy, you have to use this late assessment form, instead of just writing it on the assignment and these things just take up so much time. Each of them independently I don’t have a problem with but when you start putting it altogether it just takes so much time. And then when you do take the time to fill out some complicated form, when I send it through it gets sent back to me because there is now a different form for that issue (arrrrgh!).


I’m really cognisant of hearing the first year coordinators say “I just don’t have time,” they don’t have time to clear their emails let alone go for professional development, because they’re just spread so thin! And I’m not sure that the new workload formulas coming in will take account of all the fiddly work that I do. So then as a coordinator that’s just like the death knell. To me if someone was dealing with those administrative things then I would be able to focus on what really is important and what I’ve been educated to do. It’s all the mindless to-ing and fro-ing and tying up of loose ends (of which there are many). I have absolutely no background in working out budgets…number crunching is just not my thing. I’ve had a go at training up tutors for some of these tasks, but as casuals there’s not much incentive for them to stay longer than a semester, and then it’s a case of having to train someone else up. What I want to do is I want to teach and I want to be a creative researcher. I don’t want to be an administrator and I feel like I’m sort of 70% administrator and that’s not what they employed me for, it’s not my skill base and it’s not my passion either. You just lose the time to be creative because you’re spending all your time doing the admin. And I think the unit coordinators role needs to be creative. They need to be coming up with new and innovative ways of teaching and engaging students.

Clarifying, Developing and Valuing the Role of unit Coordinators as … · 2010-11-15 ·...

Documents

Transcript of Clarifying, Developing and Valuing the Role of unit Coordinators as … · 2010-11-15 ·...