Leadership and learning: facilitating self-directed learning in enterprises

Purpose - To show that a key aspect of learning and development of individual employees is that of self-directedness. This paper will consider the role of the leader in facilitating workforce development in terms of employees' self-directedness for learning. The research was designed to investigate the views that 'learning leaders' in organizations have towards the development of self-directedness in employees; and to identify strategies that are feasible in developing self-directedness in operating organizations.

Design/methodology/approach - Draws on a national research project undertaken in 12 organizations in Australia, representing a range of sizes and a number of industry sectors. Data collection involved interviewing learning and development managers in each organization to gauge the relative feasibility of the implementation of a number of pre-identified strategies designed to develop self-directedness among employees within operating work environments.

Findings - Showed that: learning managers and leaders were generally well disposed towards the development of self-directedness, and some had already moved to do so; and identified a number of possible strategies for implementation of varying degrees of feasibility. The paper will consider these findings in relation to the concept of a 'learning leader'.

Research limitations/implications - Although the research was conducted in a diverse set of 12 enterprises, applicability of the results across an even wider set of enterprises would need to be tested.

Originality/value - The findings of this research provide guidance to learning and development personnel on feasible strategies to use within their own organization to assist with the development of self-directed learning among employees.

Deakin as a national leader in teaching and learning

Deakin University has set itself the ambitious goal of becoming a national leader in teaching and learning and in the provision of high quality flexible education. The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Sally Walker, recently reinforced the target of Deakin being in the top third of Australian universities in relation to teaching and learning by 2012.

Delivering the link : using student feedback studies to improve student learning in dissertation studies

Student feedback is essential to enable lecturers to understand whether attempts to improve learning and education experience lead to improvement (George and Cowan, 1999; Gibbs, 1993). Current UK practice relies largely on end of module questionnaires to feedback levels of student satisfaction (Cowan, 2002), however there are inherent weaknesses in this approach; it seldom leads to change for that particular cohort; it relies on uncorroborated opinion, and finally, it may derive from superficial feedback from a minority of students with the remainder suffering from questionnaire fatigue.

This research project involved a cohort of final year building surveying students at Sheffield Hallam University, in England, who were undertaking a dissertation in two modules. During 2002/3 the use of Blackboard software had also been adopted by the module leader as an educational tool to support student learning in the module. The lecturer wanted to identify how students used Blackboard and what they thought about the most appropriate use of the medium. The research methodology sought to redress some of the issues identified above with student feedback, regarding timing of feedback, implementation of change during the teaching period and the lack of depth in the data. Using principles adopted by Angelo and Cross (1993), this research formatively evaluated student perceptions and levels of satisfaction with the dissertation module, the teaching materials, the workshops, the supervisory arrangements and relationships. This paper presents the findings of the research and illustrates the changes that were made during the year and the student’s views of these changes. The paper demonstrates how linking teaching with research has been delivered at Sheffield Hallam.

Rethinking a learning environment strategy

I have committed a significant period of time (in my case five years) to the purpose development of learning environments, with the belief that it would improve the self-actualisation and self-motivation of students and teachers alike. I consider it important to record and measure performance as we progressed toward such an outcome. Education researchers and practitioners alike, in the higher (university/tertiary) education systems, are seeking among new challenges to engage students and teachers in learning (James, 2001). However, studies to date show a confusing landscape littered with a multiplicity of interpretations and terms, successes and failures. As the discipline leader of the Information Technology, Systems and Multimedia (ITSM) Discipline, Swinburne University of Technology, Lilydale, I found myself struggling with this paradigm. I also found myself being torn between what presents as pragmatic student learning behaviour and the learner-centred teaching ideal reflected in the Swinburne Lilydale mission statement. The research reported in this folio reflects my theory and practice as discipline leader of the ITSM Discipline and the resulting learning environment evolution during the period 1997/8 to 2003. The study adds to the material evidence of extant research through firstly, a meta analysis of the learning environment implemented by the ITSM Discipline as recorded in peer reviewed and published papers; and secondly, a content analysis of student learning approaches, conducted on data reported from a survey of ‘learning skills inventory’ originally conducted by the ITSM Discipline staff in 2002. In 1997 information and communication technologies (ICT) were beginning to provide plausible means for electronic distribution of learning materials on a flexible and repeatable basis, and to provide answers to the imperative of learning materials distribution relating to an ITSM Discipline new course to begin in 1998. A very short time frame of three months was available prior to teaching the course. The ITSM Discipline learning environment development was an evolutionary process I began in 1997/8 initially from the requirement to publish print-based learning guide materials for the new ITSM Discipline subjects. Learning materials and student-to-teacher reciprocal communication would then be delivered and distributed online as virtual learning guides and virtual lectures, over distance as well as maintaining classroom-based instruction design. Virtual here is used to describe the use of ICT and Internet-based approaches. No longer would it be necessary for students to attend classes simply to access lecture content, or fear missing out on vital information. Assumptions I made as discipline leader for the ITSM Discipline included, firstly, that learning should be an active enterprise for the students, teachers and society; secondly, that each student comes to a learning environment with different learning expectations, learning skills and learning styles; and thirdly, that the provision of a holistic learning environment would encourage students to be self-actualising and self-motivated. Considerable reading of research and publications, as outlined in this folio, supported the update of these assumptions relative to teaching and learning. ITSM Discipline staff were required to quickly and naturally change their teaching styles and communication of values to engage with the emergent ITSM Discipline learning environment and pedagogy, and each new teaching situation. From a student perspective such assumptions meant students needed to move from reliance upon teaching and prescriptive transmission of information to a self-motivated and more self-actualising and reflective set of strategies for learning. In constructing this folio, after the introductory chaperts, there are two distinct component parts; • firstly, a Descriptive Meta analysis (Chapter Three) that draws together several of my peer reviewed professional writings and observations that document the progression of the ITSM Discipline learning environment evolution during the period 1997/8 to 2003. As the learning environment designer and discipline leader, my observations and published papers provide insight into the considerations that are required when providing an active, flexible and multi-modal learning environment for students and teachers; and • secondly, a Dissertation (Chapter Four), as a content analysis of a learning skills inventory data collection, collected by the ITSM Discipline in the 2002 Swinburne Lilydale academic year, where students were encouraged to complete reflective journal entries via the ITSM Discipline virtual learning guide subject web-site. That data collection included all students in a majority of subjects supported by the ITSM Discipline for both semesters one and two 2002. The original purpose of the journal entries was to have students reflectively involved in assessing their learning skills and approaches to learning. Such perceptions were tested using a well-known metric, the ‘learning skills inventory’ (Knowles, 1975), augmented with a short reflective learning approach narrative. The journal entries were used by teaching staff originally and then made available to researchers as a desensitised data in 2003 for statistical and content analysis relative to student learning skills and approaches. The findings of my research support a view of the student and teacher enculturation as utilitarian, dependent and pragmatically self-motivated. This, I argue, shows little sign of abatement in the early part of the 21st Century. My observation suggests that this is also independent of the pedagogical and educational philosophy debate or practice as currently presented. As much as the self-actualising, self-motivated learning environment can be justified philosophically, the findings observed from this research, reported in this folio, cannot. Part of the reason for this originates from the debate by educational researchers as to the relative merits of liberal and vocational philosophies for education combined with the recent introduction of information and communication technologies, and commodification of higher education. Challenging students to be participative and active learners, as proposed by educationalists Meyers and Jones (1993), i.e. self-motivated and self-actualising learners, has proved to be problematic. This, I will argue, will require a change to a variable/s (not yet identified) of higher education enculturation on multiple fronts, by students, teachers and society in order to bridge the gap. This research indicates that tertiary educators and educational researchers should stop thinking simplistically of constructivist and/or technology-enabled approaches, students learning choices and teachers teaching choices. Based on my research I argue for a far more holistic set of explanations of student and staff expectations and behaviour, and therefore pedagogy that supports those expectations.

Improving student learning in dissertation research through feedback studies. The Sheffield Hallam Building surveying experience

According to George and Cowan (1999) student feedback is essential to enable lecturers to understand whether attempts to improve learning and educational experience lead to improvement. Current UK practice uses end of module questionnaires to feedback levels of satisfaction (Cowan, 2002). There are inherent weaknesses, namely that it seldom leads to a change for that particular cohort of students, secondly it relies on uncorroborated opinion, and may derive from superficial feedback from a minority of students with the remainder suffering from questionnaire fatigue. Finally the data may not be especially relevant to a particular module, a particular weakness (Heywood, 2000).

Using principles identified by Angelo and Cross (1993), this research adopted a methodology to formatively evaluate student perceptions and levels of satisfaction with the dissertation module. Using a cohort of Building Surveying students at Sheffield Hallam University, in England, views on course materials, the use of Blackboard software, the workshops and the relationships with supervisors were gathered and analysed.

A number of measures were identified as a result of this study, that may, if implemented, improve student learning. Examples are the use of checklists for student for each research / dissertation stage to ensure nothing is forgotten. Provision of additional ‘drop in’ workshops where students could see the module leader with specific issues. Additional optional workshops for questionnaire coding and review of previous theses for example.

It will not be possible to measure whether this student cohort’s learning and performance improves until the summer of 2003 and the final dissertations are assessed. A statistical analysis, comparing their dissertation marks against marks for other topics will show whether there is improvement in marks as a result of this student feedback study. The 2002/3 cohort result can also be analysed against previous cohorts to establish whether any improvement is evident.

Knowledge mobilization on decision making for school improvement : Canadian principals learning network.

Principals duties have expanded beyond instructional leadership. Roles now include being curriculum leader, supervisor, manager, head of finance, administration, compliance, and legal matters, and so on. These additional responsibilities impact their decision-making in relation to teaching, learning and school improvement in general. How, and on what basis, they make these decisions is crucial both to their development as instructional leaders and to educational reform processes. To contribute to knowledge on principals’ decision making skills, we have created a strategic knowledge mobilization initiative called 'Canadian Principals Learning Network (CPLN)'. Through a variety of face-to-face and online activities, it collaboratively links together an international group of practicing principals and university-based researchers with related expertise. This paper describes the initiative and outcomes.

Enhancing and assessing group and team learning in architecture and related design contexts

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTeamwork skills are essential in the design industry where practitioners negotiate often-conflicting design options in multi-disciplinary teams. Indeed, many of the bodies that accredit design courses explicitly list teamwork skills as essential attributes of design graduates e.g., the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA), Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) of the United States and the Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust). In addition to the need to meet the demands of the accrediting bodies, there are many reasons for the ubiquitous use of teamwork assignments in design schools. For instance, teamwork learning is seen as being representative of work in practice where design is nearly always a collaborative activity. Learning and teaching in teamwork contexts in design education are not without particular challenges. In particular, two broad issues have been identified: first, many students leave academia without having been taught the knowledge and skills of how to design in teams; second, teaching, assessment and assignment design need to be better informed by a clear understanding of what leads to effective teamwork and the learning of teamwork skills. In recognition of the lack of a structured approach to integrating teamwork learning into the curricula of design programs, this project set out to answer three primary research questions: • How do we teach teamwork skills in the context of design? • How do we assess teamwork skills?• How do design students best learn teamwork skills?In addition, four more specific questions were investigated:1. Is there a common range of learning objectives for group-and-team-work in architecture and related design disciplines that will enable the teaching of consistent and measurable outcomes?2. Do group and team formation methods, learning styles and team-role preferences impact students’ academic and course satisfaction outcomes?3. What combinations of group-and-team formation methods, teaching and assessment models significantly improve learning outcomes?4. For design students across different disciplines with different learning styles and cultural origins, are there significant differences in performance, student satisfaction (as measured through questionnaires and unit evaluations), group-and-team working abilities and student participation?To elucidate these questions, a design-based research methodology was followed comprising an iterative series of enquiries: (a) A literature review was completed to investigate: what constitutes effective teamwork, what contributes to effectiveness in teams, what leads to positive design outcomes for teams, and what leads to effective learning in teams. The review encompassed a range of contexts: from work-teams in corporate settings, to professional design teams, to education outside of and within the design disciplines. The review informed a theoretical framework for understanding what factors impact the effectiveness of student design teams. (b) The validity of this multi-factorial Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams was tested via surveys of educators’ teaching practices and attitudes, and of students’ learning experiences. 638 students and 68 teachers completed surveys: two pilot surveys for participants at the four partner institutions, which then informed two national surveys completed by participants from the majority of design schools across Australia. (c) The data collected provided evidence for 22 teamwork factors impacting team effectiveness in student design teams. Pedagogic responses and strategies to these 22 teamwork factors were devised, tested and refined via case studies, focus groups and workshops. (d) In addition, 35 educators from a wide range of design schools and disciplines across Australia attended two National Teaching Symposiums. The first symposium investigated the wider conceptualisation of teamwork within the design disciplines, and the second focused on curriculum level approaches to structuring the teaching of teamwork skills identified in the Framework.The Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams identifies 22 factors impacting effective teamwork, along with teaching responses and strategies that design educators might use to better support student learning. The teamwork factors and teaching strategies are categorised according to three groups of input (Task Characteristics, Individual Level Factors and Team Level Factors), two groups of processes (Teaching Practice & Support Structures and Team Processes), and three categories of output (Task Performance, Teamwork Skills, and Attitudinal Outcomes). Eight of the 22 teamwork factors directly relate to the skills that need to be developed in students, one factor relates to design outputs, and the other thirteen factors inform pedagogies that can be designed for better learning outcomes. In Table 10 of Section 4, we outline which of the 22 teamwork factors pertain to each of five stakeholder groups (curriculum leaders, teachers, students, employers and the professional bodies); thus establishing who will make best use the information and recommendations we make. In the body of this report we summarise the 22 teamwork factors and teaching strategies informed by the Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams, and give succinct recommendations arising from them. This material is covered in depth by the project outputs. For instance, the teaching and assessment strategies will be expanded upon in a projected book on Teaching Teamwork in Design. The strategies are also elucidated by examples of good practice presented in our case studies, and by Manuals on Teamwork for Teachers and Students. Moreover, the project website ( visited by representatives of stakeholder groups in Australia and Canada), is seeding a burgeoning community of practice that promises dissemination, critical evaluation and the subsequent refinement of our materials, tools, strategies and recommendations. The following three primary outputs have been produced by the project in answer to the primary research questions:1. A theoretical Framework of Effectiveness in Student Design Teams;2. Manuals on Teamwork for Teachers and Students (available from the website);3. Case studies of good/innovative practices in teaching and assessing teamwork in design;In addition, five secondary outputs/outcomes have been produced that provide more nuanced responses:4. Detailed recommendations for the professional accrediting bodies and curriculum leaders;5. Online survey data (from over 700 participants), plus Team Effectiveness Scale to determine the factors influencing effective learning and successful outputs for student design teams;6. A community of practice in policy, programs, practice and dialogue;7. A detailed book proposal (with sample chapter), submitted to prospective publishers, on Teaching Teamwork in Design; 8. An annotated bibliography (accessed via the project website) on learning, teaching and assessing teamwork.The project has already had an international impact. As well as papers presented in Canada and New Zealand, the surveys were participated in by six Canadian schools of architecture, whose teaching leaders also provided early feedback on the project aims and objectives during visits made to them by the project leader. In addition, design schools in Vancouver, Canada, and San Diego in the USA have already utilised the Teacher’s Manual, and in February 2014 the project findings were discussed at Tel Aviv University in a forum focusing on the challenges for sustainability in architectural education.