Bridging the gap with teamwork: collaborative leadership for communities of practice in the learning and skills sector

Collaborative approaches in leadership and management are increasingly acknowledged to play a key role in successful institutions in the learning and skills sector (LSS) (Ofsted, 2004). Such approaches may be important in bridging the potential 'distance' (psychological, cultural, interactional and geographical) (Collinson, 2005) that may exist between 'leaders' and 'followers', fostering more democratic communal solidarity. This paper reports on a 2006-07 research project funded by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) that aimed to collect and analyse data on 'collaborative leadership' (CL) in the learning and skills sector. The project investigated collaborative leadership and its potential for benefiting staff through trust and knowledge-sharing in communities of practice (CoPs). The project forms part of longer-term educational research investigating leadership in a collaborative inquiry process (Jameson et al., 2006). The research examined the potential for CL to benefit institutions, analysing respondents' understanding of and resistance to collaborative practices. Quantitative and qualitative data from senior managers and lecturers was analysed using electronic data in SPSS and Tropes Zoom. The project aimed to recommend systems and practices for more inclusive, diverse leadership (Lumby et al., 2005). Collaborative leadership has increasingly gained international prominence as emphasis shifted towards team leadership beyond zero-sum 'leadership'/ 'followership' polarities into more mature conceptions of shared leadership spaces, within which synergistic leadership spaces can be mediated. The relevance of collaboration within the LSS has been highlighted following a spate of recent government-driven policy developments in FE. The promotion of CL addresses concerns about the apparent 'remoteness' of some senior managers, and the 'neo-management' control of professionals which can increase 'distance' between leaders and 'followers' and may de-professionalise staff in an already disempowered sector. Positive benefit from 'collaborative advantage' tends to be assumed in idealistic interpretations of CL, but potential 'collaborative inertia' may be problematic in a sector characterised by rapid top-down policy changes and continuous external audit and surveillance. Constant pressure for achievement against goals leaves little time for democratic group negotiations, despite the desires of leaders to create a more collaborative ethos. Yet prior models of intentional communities of practice potentially offer promise for CL practice to improve group performance despite multiple constraints. The CAMEL CoP model (JISC infoNet, 2006) was linked to the project, providing one practical way of implementing CL within situated professional networks.The project found that a good understanding of CL was demonstrated by most respondents, who thought it could enable staff to share power and work in partnership to build trust and conjoin skills, abilities and experience to achieve common goals for the good of the sector. However, although most respondents expressed agreement with the concept and ideals of CL, many thought this was currently an idealistically democratic, unachievable pipe dream in the LSS. Many respondents expressed concerns with the 'audit culture' and authoritarian management structures in FE. While there was a strong desire to see greater levels of implementation of CL, and 'collaborative advantage' from the 'knowledge sharing benefit potential' of team leadership, respondents also strongly advised against the pitfalls of 'collaborative inertia'. A 'distance' between senior leadership views and those of staff lower down the hierarchy regarding aspects of leadership performance in the sector was reported. Finally, the project found that more research is needed to investigate CL and develop innovative methods of practical implementation within autonomous communities of professional practice.

"Practise what we preach": a social constructivist approach to blended learning

This presentation reports on the formal evaluation, through questionnaires, of a new Level 1 undergraduate course, for 130 student teachers, that uses blended learning. The course design seeks to radicalise the department’s approach to teaching, learning and assessment and use students as change agents. Its structure and content, model social constructivist approaches to learning. Building on the student’s experiences of and, reflections on, previous learning, promotes further learning through the support of “able others” (Vygotsky 1978), facilitating and nurturing a secure community of practice for students new to higher education. The course’s design incorporates individual, paired, small and large group activities and exploits online video, audio and text materials. Course units begin and end with face-to-face tutor-led activities. Online elements, including discussions and formative submissions, are tutor-mediated. Students work together face-to-face and online to read articles, write reflections, develop presentations, research and share experiences and resources. Summative joint assignments and peer assessments emphasise the value of collaboration and teamwork for academic, personal and professional development. Initial informal findings are positive, indicating that students have engaged readily with course content and structure, with few reporting difficulties accessing or using technology. Students have welcomed the opportunity to work together to tackle readings in a new genre, pilot presentation skills and receive and give constructive feedback to peers. Course tutors have indicated that depth and quality of study are evident, with regular online formative submissions enabling tutors to identify and engage directly with student’s needs, provide feedback and develop appropriately designed distance and face-to-face teaching materials. Pastoral tutors have indicated that students have reported non-engagement of peers, leading to the rapid application of academic or personal support. Outcomes of the formal evaluation will inform the development of Level 2 and 3 courses and influence the department’s use of blended learning.