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.

Three parallel programming paradigms: Comparisons on an archetypal PDE computation

Three paradigms for distributed-memory parallel computation that free the application programmer from the details of message passing are compared for an archetypal structured scientific computation -- a nonlinear, structured-grid partial differential equation boundary value problem -- using the same algorithm on the same hardware. All of the paradigms -- parallel languages represented by the Portland Group's HPF, (semi-)automated serial-to-parallel source-to-source translation represented by CAP-Tools from the University of Greenwich, and parallel libraries represented by Argonne's PETSc -- are found to be easy to use for this problem class, and all are reasonably effective in exploiting concurrency after a short learning curve. The level of involvement required by the application programmer under any paradigm includes specification of the data partitioning, corresponding to a geometrically simple decomposition of the domain of the PDE. Programming in SPMD style for the PETSc library requires writing only the routines that discretize the PDE and its Jacobian, managing subdomain-to-processor mappings (affine global-to-local index mappings), and interfacing to library solver routines. Programming for HPF requires a complete sequential implementation of the same algorithm as a starting point, introduction of concurrency through subdomain blocking (a task similar to the index mapping), and modest experimentation with rewriting loops to elucidate to the compiler the latent concurrency. Programming with CAPTools involves feeding the same sequential implementation to the CAPTools interactive parallelization system, and guiding the source-to-source code transformation by responding to various queries about quantities knowable only at runtime. Results representative of "the state of the practice" for a scaled sequence of structured grid problems are given on three of the most important contemporary high-performance platforms: the IBM SP, the SGI Origin 2000, and the CRAYY T3E.

Innovations in learning and teaching approaches using game technologies - can "The Movies" teach how to make a movie?

The use of games technology in education is not a new phenomenon. Even back in the days of 286 processors, PCs were used in some schools along with (what looks like now) primitive simulation software to teach a range of different skills and techniques – from basic programming using Logo (the turtle style car with a pen at the back that could be used to draw on the floor – always a good way of attracting the attention of school kids!) up to quite sophisticated replications of physical problems, such as working out the trajectory of a missile to blow up an enemies’ tank. So why are games not more widely used in education (especially in FE and HE)? Can they help to support learners even at this advanced stage in their education? We aim to provide in this article an overview of the use of game technologies in education (almost as a small literature review for interested parties) and then go more in depth into one particular example we aim to introduce from this coming academic year (Sept. 2006) to help with teaching and assessment of one area of our Multimedia curriculum. Of course, we will not be able to fully provide the reader with data on how successful this is but we will be running a blog (http://themoviesineducation.blogspot.com/) to keep interested parties up to date with the progress of the project and to hopefully help others to set up similar solutions themselves. We will also only consider a small element of the implementation here and cover how the use of such assessment processes could be used in a broader context. The use of a game to aid learning and improve achievement is suggested because traditional methods of engagement are currently failing on some levels. By this it is meant that various parts of the production process we normally cover in our Multimedia degree are becoming difficult to monitor and continually assess.