Governance and effectiveness in regional planning: an analysis of North American, European, and Australasian practice

Over the past several years, there has been resurgent interest in regional planning in North America, Europe and Australasia. Spurred by issues such as metropolitan growth, transportation infrastructure, environmental management and economic development, many states and metropolitan regions are undertaking new planning initiatives. These regional efforts have also raised significant question about governance structures, accountability and measures of effectiveness.n this paper, the authors conducted an international review of ten case studies from the United States, Canada, England, Belgium, New Zealand and Australia to explore several critical questions. Using qualitative data template, the research team reviewed plans, documents, web sites and published literature to address three questions. First, what are the governance arrangements for delivering regional planning? Second, what are the mechanisms linking regional plans with state plans (when relevant) and local plans? Third, what means and mechanisms do these regional plans use to evaluate and measure effectiveness? The case study analysis revealed several common themes. First, there is an increasing focus on goverance at the regional level, which is being driven by a range of trends, including regional spatial development initiatives in Europe, regional transportation issues in the US, and the growth of metropolitan regions generally. However, there is considerable variation in how regional governance arrangements are being played out. Similarly, there is a range of processes being used at the regional level to guide planning that range from broad ranging (thick) processes to narrow and limited (thin) approaches. Finally, evaluation and monitoring of regional planning efforts are compiling data on inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. Although there is increased attention being paid to indicators and monitoring, most of it falls into outcome evaluations such as Agenda 21 or sustainability reporting. Based on our review we suggest there is a need for increased attention on input, process and output indicators and clearer linkages of these indicators in monitoring and evaluation frameworks. The focus on outcome indicators, such as sustainability indicators, creates feedback systems that are too long-term and remote for effective monitoring and feedback. Although we found some examples of where these kinds of monitoring frameworks are linked into a system of governance, there is a need for clearer conceptual development for both theory and practice.

Developing a culture to support peer review of teaching in higher education

This presentation addresses issues related to leadership, academic development and scholarship of teaching and learning, and highlights research funded by the Australian Office of Learning and Teaching (OLT) designed to embed and sustain peer review of teaching within the culture of 5 Australian universities: Queensland University of Technology, University of Technology, Sydney, University of Adelaide, Curtin University, and Charles Darwin University. Peer review of teaching in higher education will be emphasised as a professional process for providing feedback on teaching and learning practice, which if sustained, can become an effective ongoing strategy for academic development (Barnard et al, 2011; Bell, 2005; Bolt and Atkinson, 2010; McGill & Beaty 2001, 1992; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000). The research affirms that using developmental peer review models (Barnard et al, 2011; D'Andrea, 2002; Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004) can bring about successful implementation, especially when implemented within a distributive leadership framework (Spillane & Healey, 2010). The project’s aims and objectives were to develop leadership capacity and integrate peer review as a cultural practice in higher education. The research design was a two stage inquiry process over 2 years. The project began in July 2011 and encompassed a development and pilot phase followed by a cascade phase with questionnaire and focus group evaluation processes to support ongoing improvement and measures of outcome. Leadership development activities included locally delivered workshops complemented by the identification and support of champions. To optimise long term sustainability, the project was implemented through existing learning and teaching structures and processes within the respective partner universities. Research outcomes highlight the fundamentals of peer review of teaching and the broader contextual elements of integration, leadership and development, expressed as a conceptual model for embedding peer review of teaching within higher education. The research opens a communicative space about introduction of peer review that goes further than simply espousing its worth and introduction. The conceptual model highlights the importance of development of distributive leadership capacity, integration of policies and processes, and understanding the values, beliefs, assumptions and behaviors embedded in an organizational culture. The presentation overviews empirical findings that demonstrate progress to advance peer review requires an ‘across-the-board’ commitment to embed change, and inherently demands a process that co-creates connection across colleagues, discipline groups, and the university sector. Progress toward peer review of teaching as a cultural phenomenon can be achieved and has advantages for academic staff, scholarship, teaching evaluation and an organisation, if attention is given to strategies that influence the contexts and cultures of teaching practice. Peer review as a strategy to develop excellence in teaching is considered from a holistic perspective that by necessity encompasses all elements of an educational environment and has a focus on scholarship of teaching. The work is ongoing and has implication for policy, research, teaching development and student outcomes, and has potential application world-wide.