Change leadership, management and strategies to promote quality university teaching and learning

377

Chapter 15

Change Leadership,
Management and Strategies
to Promote Quality University
Teaching and Learning
Lynne Hunt
University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Denise Chalmers
University of Western Australia, Australia

ABSTRACT
This chapter provides an overview of change leadership and management strategies to promote the quality
of university teaching and learning. It draws attention to the organisational contexts of universities that
encompass change leadership processes, emphasizing the need for whole-of-university approaches and
‘joined-up’ policies, plans and procedures that support teaching. The discussion is organized in terms of
five principles of action (McInnes et al., 2012). These are (1) Shape the strategic vision that puts student
learning and student experience at its core; (2) Inspire and enable excellence; (3) Devolve leadership
of learning and teaching; (4) Reward, recognize and develop teaching; and (5) Involve students.

INTRODUCTION
Evidence shows that students want, and need, the full support of teachers and university services to maximize their opportunities for learning (Scott 2005). This means that faculties, libraries, administration,
and student support and learning technology services must coordinate their work through ‘joined-up’
policies, plans and procedures. The leadership and management goal is whole-of-university change to
‘get the context right’ for teaching and learning. To explore how this is done, the chapter is organised
around McInnes, Ramsden and Maconachie’s (2012) five principles for action by senior university leaders because these sustain a sharp focus on student learning outcomes. Change leadership strategies are
conceptualized as push and pull drivers of change. Push factors refer to quality assurance and compliDOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch015

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.


Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

ance with teaching and learning standards. These are normally monitored by external authorities. Push
factors are based on the management principle that what gets measured gets done. Pull factors include
incentives to enhance teaching such as awards, fellowships, grants, and career enhancement strategies
such as professional development and promotion based on evidence of teaching excellence.

BACKGROUND
Traditionally, universities have focused attention on the core business of research, leaving faculties and
individual teachers to determine teaching practices and programs. However, the massification and globalization of higher education mean that universities must now promote teaching excellence in systematic
ways to ensure effective learning experiences for all students. The focus on teaching and learning has
been prompted by external and internal pressures. External drivers of change include reduced funding,
increasing numbers of students, increased competition from private and public institutions, external
quality audits, and developments in communications and information technology that have changed the
educational landscape to make online, blended and flexible learning not only viable but necessary (Hunt
& Peach, 2009;Scott et al., 2008). Internal pressures for change arise from the strategic vision of each
university and locally determined priorities.
University education is now understood by governments to be a significant business opportunity. In
Australia, for example, higher education earned a record $17.6 billion in 2014, making it Australia’s
fourth largest export (The Department of Education and Training, June 2015). Understandably, the
income-earning capacity of higher education has focused the attention of governments around the world.
They now want to ensure that they are getting a good outcome from their investment in universities. As
a consequence, governmental agencies have emerged to assure and promote quality in university education. Over 200 national and regional quality agencies, many established by government charter, attest
to the level of interest in ensuring the quality of national higher education systems and, in particular,
university teaching quality (The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education nd). The leadership and management task is to ensure that each university meets the standards
for quality teaching.
Internationally, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports on a

range of higher education indicators through their Education at a Glance reports, providing opportunities for national benchmarking. International rankings, such as the QS World University Rankings and
the Times Higher Education World University, use metrics to rank individual institutions. Whilst these
rankings are contested in regard to the indicators and weightings used, they are important for the prestige
they bestow and their role in attracting students and funding. For example, governments in China and
Chile will only fund scholarships for their students in universities with high rankings. So far, rankings
are based largely on research metrics but attention is now turning to the identification of metrics to
inform international ranking tables associated with the quality of teaching and learning. Benchmarking
and ranking against standards assures comparability of university qualifications and student learning
outcomes and it facilitates the mobility of students and university teachers between institutions and nations. For example, the capacity to promote such mobility was a key driver in the establishment of the
European Bologna Process in 1999.
Governments ‘push’ universities to enhance teaching through requirements to comply with quality standards. Examples of quality agencies established to do this include the Malaysian Qualification
378



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

Agency and The Indian National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). These assess and
accredit higher education institutions in accordance with national standards for teaching, learning, curriculum, and student services. Governments have also implemented incentives to enhance the quality
of teaching, learning, curriculum and the student experience. National examples of capacity-building
organisations that encourage teaching excellence include the Higher Education Academy (HEA) in the
United Kingdom. It has a mission to support and improve ‘learning outcomes by raising the status and
quality of teaching in higher education’. In Australia, the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) and
its antecedent organisations, have offered teaching awards, fellowships and grants to promote teaching
and learning. In the USA, the Carnegie Foundation has a long history of promoting the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning (SoTL) through strategic projects and awards. In and of themselves, organisations such as these are important in the enhancement of university teaching and learning, but they also
have an extended and trickle-down effect on institutional practices. For example, almost all Australian
universities have established awards for teaching excellence aligned with the OLT and many have allocated significant funding for strategic initiatives in teaching and learning (Chalmers & Thompson,
2008). These international and national agencies set the targets and build capacity for institutional change
leadership and management to promote university teaching and learning.

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER
Institutional Change Leadership
A key message in this chapter about change leadership to promote excellent teaching and learning is that
a whole-of-university approach is required to produce sustainable outcomes. This is not always easy to
achieve because universities are complex organisations with multiple and competing goals to promote
teaching, research and enterprise.
For Cuthbert, universities are characterised by: problematic goals, in that there is no universally shared
view of the purpose of a higher education; unclear technology, meaning that we do not know how to
make sure that either teaching or research takes place successfully; and fluid participation, referring
to the tendency for academic staff not to relate very closely to their ‘home’ institution, but often to be
better networked with colleagues in other institutions. (Blackmore, 2012, p. 273)
To bring order to this complex context, this discussion about institutional change leadership is organised in terms of McInnes, Ramsden and Maconachie’s (2012) five principles for action by senior
university leaders to achieve quality in teaching and learning. These are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Shape the strategic vision that puts student learning and student experience at its core.
Inspire and enable excellence.
Devolve leadership of learning and teaching.
Reward, recognize and develop teaching.
Involve students.

379




Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

Principle 1: Shape The Strategic Vision
McInnes et al. (2012, pp. 13-15) suggest that a strategic vision encompasses: applying up-to-date
knowledge of how teaching influences student learning; identifying the institutional factors that affect
student success; conceptualizing the future student experience; assessing the current performance of the
institution; and balancing collegial and managerial imperatives. This section will explore these issues
under three headings: Strategic visions; joined-up policies and plans; and teaching and learning projects.

Strategic Visions for Quality Teaching and Learning
The specific strategic vision of a university informs current and prospective students, and staff, about its
distinctive approach to teaching and learning. For example, the vision for teaching and learning at the
University of Southern Queensland (USQ, 2013-2015) is about personalized learning: ‘We promise to
partner with learners in the pursuit of their study objectives regardless of their background, location or
stage in life’. In order to pursue this vision, the university promises, inter alia, to provide students: access
to learning through online and blended learning opportunities; a range of pathways to higher education;
and support services that respond to individual student needs.
Strategic visions normally reflect international, national and local issues – the latter referring to matters such as the size and nature of a university’s student population. They also draw on evidence about
how students learn, contemporary understandings of which cohere around the importance of students’
active engagement in learning (see Stewart, 2012). Of late, these pedagogies have been summarized into
a ‘flipped classroom’ approach defined by Sankey and Hunt (2014, p. 28) as:
The term ‘flipped’ refers to the provision of tailored online resources and associated learning activities
that facilitate student preparation for classroom or online discussion time focused on the application and
consolidation of planned learning outcomes. ‘Essentially, what was traditionally completed at home as
homework has been flipped to become the focus of classroom learning’ (The Queensland Government,
2012). In simple terms, flipped university classrooms represent a move away from standard lectures
and tutorials and a move towards learning experiences based on a series of deep learning activities
including workshops and mediated online discussion.
A university’s strategic vision also shapes its curricula. For example, some universities distinguish
themselves by offering problem-based learning (Brodie, 2012), research-led curricula (Jenkins &

Healey, 2012), or a particular focus on open and online learning (Reeves & Reeves, 2012). Others,
such as Middlesex University, offer work-integrated curricula described by Garnett (2012, p.166) as an
acknowledgement ‘that work has learning needs (i.e., workers require specific knowledge and skills)
but also that high-level learning can take place at work, through undertaking work and for the specific
purposes of work’.
A university’s strategic vision charts a course of action for leaders and managers that is codified in the
subsequent development of mission statements and goals, which direct and inform university management. For example, one of the goals arising from the Strategic Vision of Charles Darwin University is
‘To become a recognised national leader in the tertiary education of Australian Indigenous students, and
in the teaching, research and understanding of Indigenous knowledge systems’ (Charles Darwin Univer-

380



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

sity, 2012). Statements at this level become quite specific and inform the development of a university’s
policies and plans. In the teaching and learning domain, policies can include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Curriculum design.
Review and accreditation of degree programs.

Assessment and moderation.
Student feedback and evaluation.
Teaching standards.
Graduate attributes.
Retention and progression.
Student academic skills support.
Academic integrity.

New strategic visions for teaching and learning require new policies as Hunt, Huijer and Sankey
(2011, pp. 187-188) noted in their case study about the redesign of learning spaces: ‘key policy changes
included the introduction of a Fleximode Policy to diminish differences in the design of learning experiences between on-campus and distance education students and to guarantee to students appropriate and
equal access to learning resources’.

Joined-up Policies and Plans
A university’s vision for teaching and learning is brought to fruition in its strategic plan, normally of three
to five years’ duration. This informs the shorter-term, operational plans of departments. Hunt and Peach
(2009) argue that the purpose of teaching and learning policies and plans is to ‘get the context right’ to
support student learning. This is important because, to learn effectively, students prefer a coordinated
response to their needs: ‘efficient and responsive administrative, information technology, library and
student support systems actively working together to support … operation[s]’ (Scott 2005, p. 13). The
implication of Scott’s findings is that collaboration between university departments is necessary to provide
what students need to support their learning. This means that policies and plans should be aligned to
the common cause of teaching and learning excellence – what might be called ‘joined-up’ policies and
plans. Hunt & Peach’s (2009, p. 7) case study of one university’s change initiative to support teaching,
shows how the concept of students’ ‘learning journeys’ was used as the organising principle to ensure
that policies and processes were joined-up:
The concept of the student learning journey informs all planning. It is a relationships-based and holistic
approach that focuses attention on the student as a whole person, as opposed to the student as the subject
and object of a series of unrelated interactions with an organisational bureaucracy. The aim is to ensure
connectedness between the responses provided by the university at different points in a student’s journey.

Teaching and Learning Projects
The implementation of policies and plans may be organised as projects which can be monitored through
normal project management processes, albeit in modified form (Hunt & Sankey 2013, p. 266):

381



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

There is a difference between the necessarily punctilious approaches to, for example, engineering projects and those pertaining to human service (education) organisations. Engineering projects require an
exactness that is difficult to incorporate into community development. However, the elements of setting
targets, estimating timelines, measuring outcomes and establishing communication plans can all be
used … to ensure maximum outcome.
Hunt and Sankey’s (2013) case study of whole-of-university change identified ten teaching and learning projects to provide services for students and staff (See Figure 1). Whilst this set of ten projects is
not definitive (other universities will have different priorities and projects), the case study does offer a
useful starting point for scoping a reasonably exhaustive range of teaching and learning change leadership projects at institutional level.
Figure 1 illustrates the importance of incentives to promote teaching. These include the development
of teaching awards and grants in the Teaching Excellence and Academic Professional Development
projects. It also shows quality assurance projects, for example, the Evaluation Project, and it indicates
the need to plan support services for both staff and students.

Principle 2: Inspire and Enable Excellence
The second of McInnes, Ramsden, and Maconachie’s (2012, pp. 19-23) five principles for action is
about inspiring and enabling teaching excellence. According to them, this involves: maintaining personal
credibility through leadership in interpreting and shaping the national policy landscape; leading from a
strong evidence base; presenting the vision as achievable with early wins and long term change in sight;
developing a focused learning and teaching plan, securing sufficient funds to support the vision; creating
conditions that enable academics to strive for excellence in teaching; and stimulating staff engagement.

Figure 1: Learning and teaching projects (Source Hunt & Sankey, 2013)

382



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

This section will explore these issues under three headings: Securing financial support; building an
evidence base; and enabling staff engagement.

Securing Financial Support
Gibbs’ (2010) argued that the best educational outcomes for students arise from the manner in which
resources are used. Institutions must plan their use of resources to make the most of the students they
have. Gibbs (2010, p. 5) claims that what really matters are the ‘well understood pedagogical practices
that engender student engagement’ these he identifies as ‘class size, the level of student effort and engagement, who undertakes the teaching, and the quantity and quality of feedback to students on their
work’. Ewell (2008, pp. 10-11) agrees noting that ‘one of the most pervasive and unassailable myths
about higher education has to do with the relationship between outcomes and money’. He concluded that
‘it is not how much is invested in a given collegiate experience that is important; it is how intentionally
these resources are directed’.

Building an Evidence-base to Enable Teaching Excellence
In their discussion of turnaround leadership, Fullan and Scott (2009, p. 80) note that: ‘A university
culture, characterised by a commitment to continuous evaluation, inquiry, and quality improvement
concentrates on using evidence to identify what aspects of its current provision are working well and
what most needs enhancement’. The growth of evidence-based approaches to change leadership may be
seen in the emergence of organisations such as the Higher Education Institutional Research networks in
the UK and Ireland (HEIRNETWORK). These are networks of practitioners working to support teaching
and learning through informed management decision-making. The emergence of learning analytics also
demonstrates an increasing thirst for information about learning and teaching outcomes.

In her succinct summary of the ways in which evidence about teaching and learning outcomes
might be secured, Krause (2012) notes a range of strategies including: student evaluations of teaching;
professional accreditation; reviews of degree programs; evaluation of student support services such as
the library; curriculum design and delivery standards; and peer review of teaching. In fact, measures
of teaching and learning outcomes are now widely available at international, national, institutional and
discipline-based levels (Chalmers, 2008).
Comparative analysis of the relative success of strategies designed to support teaching and learning
may be secured through criterion based or quantitative benchmarking processes. According to McKinnon et al. (2000), benchmarking:
has three potential uses. It provides senior staff with tools to ascertain performance trends in the university and to initiate continuous self-improvement activities. Second, it is sufficiently well developed
for use by groups of universities wishing to compare performance on all or some of the areas covered.
Third, some of the benchmarks can be used by universities now to ascertain their competitive position
relative to others.
There are now international discipline standards that facilitate benchmarking. For example, the
TUNING Project (Tuning Educational Structures in Europe) has developed generic and subject specific
competences for undergraduate degree programs in Europe. This has followed from the national higher
383



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

education discipline-based standards developed by the British Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). It has
been expanded into the USA and other countries.
While much of the data collection has been at international and national levels, Chalmers (2007)
advocates a shift in focus to intra-institutional measures of teaching and learning performance. To inform
this process, Chalmers et al. (2014) trialed a framework of good practice principles and evidence-based
measures of teaching performance. It is based on seven criteria of good teaching which can be used as
a basis for management planning. The criteria are:
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

Design and planning of learning activities.
Teaching and supporting student learning.
Assessment and giving feedback to students on their learning.
Developing effective learning environments, student support and guidance.
Integration of scholarship, research and professional activities with teaching and in support of
student learning.
6. Evaluation of practice and continuing professional development.
7. Professional and personal effectiveness.

Enabling Staff Engagement in Teaching Excellence
Strategies to engage staff in the promotion of teaching excellence include participation in university
teaching and learning and course approval committees as well as professional development programs. In
the UK, universities have established introductory teaching programs accredited by the national Higher
Education Authority. These are assessed against the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF).
Some 65,000 university academics have completed an accredited program (HEA, 2014). In Australia,
there is more variation in professional development programs across the university sector, though most
universities do offer introductory teaching programs (Hicks et al., 2010). Some universities now require
all new academic staff to complete a Graduate Certificate in Tertiary Teaching to be eligible for a tenured
position. Such requirements for formal qualifications to teach in universities reflect international trends
to professionalise university teaching (Chalmers et al., 2014).
The establishment of professional development programs is an important task for university managers
because they are demonstrably effective in encouraging teachers to adopt a reflective, learning-focused
approach to university teaching (Postareff et al., 2007; Gibbs, 2010; Chalmers & Gardiner, 2015). The
implementation of such programs may also be a required management task because the provision of
professional development is used in quality audits as a measure of an institution’s commitment to teaching (HEA, 2009). Even so, the effectiveness of professional development programs has been contested
because access to these programs can be limited for part-time and casual teachers (Anderson, 2007).

While universities rarely exclude their part-time and limited-term staff from professional development
programs, few pay additional salary costs to ensure attendance. With increasing numbers of academic
staff in limited-term positions, this presents a serious challenge to universities seeking teaching excellence (Probert, 2013).

384



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

Principle 3: Devolve Leadership of Learning and Teaching
The third principle for action concerns leadership itself. McInnes et al. (2012) maintain that this principle
encompasses: ordered flexibility in the approach to implementation; aligning faculty and departmental
leadership of teaching with institutional goals; building a critical mass of leaders of learning and teaching; and promoting collaborative approaches to the improvement of learning and teaching. This section
of the chapter discusses leadership under four headings: Leaders and managers; teaching and learning
leaders; formal and informal leadership; and whole-of-university change leadership.

Leaders and Managers
There is a distinction between leadership and management (Marshall et al., 2011). In the domain of teaching and learning, management is concerned with essential functions such as the allocation of teachers
and students to classes, employment of casual teachers and tutors, and the collection and reporting of
assignments and grades. In contrast, leadership is normally described in terms of vision: ‘leaders are said
to be transformative – that is, they enable people not just to do the same things better, but to do better
things, at a different level’ (Blackmore 2012, p. 270). Leadership is important because, as Scott et al.
(2008, p. xiii) emphasized, ‘Change does not just happen – it must be led, and led deftly’.
Teaching and learning managers and leaders find their tasks challenging because there is a perceived
antithesis between the academic collegiality normal to a university context and some of the teaching
quality assurance processes described in this chapter. For example, Coady (2000, p. 10) refers to corporate university leaders as ‘myopics’, who think that the purpose of ‘tertiary training is to grind out
graduates at a certain rate for consumption by society’. This antithesis makes leadership challenging as
Scott, Coates and Anderson (2008, p. 10), found. The learning leaders they interviewed, described their
task of leading as ‘Getting butterflies into formation’ and ‘Trying to drive a nail into a wall of blancmange – little resistance but no result’.

Who Are the Teaching and Learning Leaders?
Most universities now have senior leaders and managers whose role is focused on students and their
learning. In addition, new leadership roles have emerged with specific responsibilities for the quality
of teaching and learning. There are now Deputy Vice-Chancellors (Vice Presidents) ‘Education’ and/or
‘Quality’ and, reporting to them, Pro Vice-Chancellors (Education/Teaching and Learning), who have
university-wide responsibility related to teaching, students and/or the curriculum. Similarly, in the organisational structure of faculties, schools, or departments there are roles such as Associate Deans (Teaching
and Learning) as well as Curriculum Coordinators. The expertise and knowledge about teaching and
learning of people in these positions is variable and sometimes limited (West et al., 2011). This may be
because, as Gibbs, Knapper and Pininnin (2009) found, the skills required for teaching leadership are
distinct from formal departmental leadership.
Specific programs for curriculum coordinators have been developed in Australia (see Jones et al.,
2009; D’Agostino & O’Brien, 2009; Trivett, et al., 2011; LeFoe et al., 2011). Inter alia, these focus on
matters such as reflective practice, leadership theory, communication skills, pedagogy, curriculum design,
assessment and evaluation. The principles on which they are based are adapted here from Jones et al.

385



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

(2009) as a model for the development of courses elsewhere. In general, such courses are not generic.
Rather, they are tailored to local contexts and specific disciplines. Accordingly, they are:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Role specific, practice based, authentic and custom-made.
Based on peer learning, providing opportunities for dialogue, networking and shared experiences.
Self-guided.
Supported through coaching and mentoring.
Linked to annual performance review systems.
Organized in terms of skill development such as team building, conflict resolution, and
communication.

Many universities provide teaching and learning leadership through academic development units,
otherwise known as teaching and learning centres. These advise upwards to senior managers and work
outwards across faculties and departments to support and implement university teaching policies and plans.
Teaching and learning centres variously include functions such as student learning support, information
and learning technology specialists, instructional design, student feedback and evaluation functions, and
the coordination of teaching excellence initiatives such as teaching grants and awards. Teaching and
learning centres are typically responsible for professional development, in particular induction to teaching programs and foundation courses such as Graduate Certificates in Tertiary Teaching. Their websites
contain self-help information and best practice exemplars. It is customary to deploy instructional or educational designers to assist academics with curriculum development and assessment alignment (Angelo,
2012). Empowering community of practice strategies have emerged to create opportunities for university
teachers to engage with their own immediate issues (Cox 2006; McDonald et al. 2012). A model of what
academic development units normally do may be gleaned from the benchmarking standards developed
by the Council of Australian Directors of Academic Development (CADAD). Their Benchmarks identify
eight strategic domains of leadership and management normally seen in teaching and learning centres.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Strategy, policy and governance.
Quality of learning and teaching.
Scholarship of teaching and learning.
Professional development.
Credit-bearing programs in higher education.
Curriculum development.
Engagement.
Academic development unit effectiveness.

Similar benchmarks prevail in the domain of learning technology services: the ACODE Benchmarks
for Technology Enhanced Learning (2014) capture the following eight dimensions of leadership and
management that are normally required to promote online and blended learning:
1.
2.
3.
4.
386

Institution-wide policy and governance for technology enhanced learning.
Planning for institution-wide quality improvement of technology enhanced learning.
Information technology systems, services and support for technology enhanced learning.
The application of technology enhanced learning services.



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

5.
6.

7.
8.

Staff professional development for the effective use of technology enhanced learning.
Staff support for the use of technology enhanced learning.
Student training for the effective use of technology enhanced learning.
Student support for the use of technology enhanced learning.

Formal and Informal Leadership
Ramsden (1998, p. 4) claims that leadership is the concern of all who work in universities. He describes
it as, ‘a practical and everyday process of supporting, managing, developing and inspiring academic colleagues … leadership in universities can and should be exercised by everyone, from the vice-chancellor
to the casual car parking attendant’. In saying this, he draws attention to the wide range of informal
teaching leadership roles that are critical, though little understood. For example, a new group of potential leaders is emerging with, as yet, indistinct roles. These are the winners of national teaching awards,
grants and fellowships. The majority of these do not have formal roles in the promotion or development of teaching and learning in their universities, yet, increasingly, their expertise is being engaged to
enhance teaching and learning. Smigiel et al. (2011) trialed a faculty scholar program in six Australian
universities to develop the leadership skills and capacity of this group of academics, who were invited
to devise and implement a teaching and learning initiative in their faculty to provide examples of how
universities might foster their development as future leaders of teaching and learning. Blackmore (2012,
p. 268) argues that leadership is an implicit feature of university life. Everyone is a leader of teaching
and learning: ‘academic work is inherently an act of leadership because academics should always be
at the forefront of what is being thought and done in their domains of knowledge and practice’. This is
intellectual leadership (Macfarlane, 2011) of which teaching forms a part.
The leadership initiatives so far described are primarily targeted at tenured or full-time academics,
however, a considerable proportion of teaching in universities is undertaken by casual staff and postgraduate students (Probert, 2013). So Blackwell (2012) asked, ‘how is it possible to lead from behind
and below – from the position of a part-time tutor’s role? … Even if they can do little at this stage, these
are the academic leaders of the future’. A partial answer may be seen in the Postgraduate Teaching
Internship Scheme described by Partridge et al. (2013, p. 119) as a program of study designed to teach
postgraduates how to teach. The work-integrated program is:
scholarly, work-based and firmly embedded in the organisational structures of the university. It is based
on reflective practice and the exchange of ideas and it incorporates the principles of adult learning. In

the context of postgraduate education, it extends postgraduate student learning beyond discipline-based
study and enhances the teaching-research nexus and postgraduate students’ career prospects.

Whole-of-University Change Leadership
Barr and Tagg’s (1995) foundational observations about promoting teaching and learning emphasized
that pedagogy and organisation are intertwined. This means that new pedagogies must be supported by
holistic, organisational change otherwise the outcomes of piecemeal changes will be distorted by old
and established management practices. If the structures, processes, procedures and culture of the whole
university are not addressed in a coordinated manner, the risk is that universities will interact with students ‘only in discrete, isolated environments … [and] the sum of the student’s experiences [will be] a
387



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

series of discrete, largely unrelated … classes’ (Barr and Tagg, 1995, p. 7). As Bamber et al. (2009, p.
3) observed ‘changing only an element at one level may have limited, local and provisional success ...
because the rest of the system is not touched and established patterns prevail over the single change’.
Accordingly, approaches to change leadership and management at institutional level have coalesced
around the notion of learning organisations (Senge, 2006) and learning paradigms. According to Tagg
(2003, p. 31) this means that transforming universities:
will require changing the governing organizational paradigm to one that places the end before the means
… What the Learning Paradigm proposes is simply to take hold of the horse and lead it to its proper
position in the front of the cart, to put purposes before processes. ‘The key’, as Edgerton (1997) points
out, ‘is to think first in terms of student learning, and then reengineer the way academic work gets done
from this perspective.
The need for whole-of-university approaches was borne out in a study of distributed leadership and
the introduction of new learning management systems: ‘there needs to be a shared understanding of what
is required by all stakeholders so that everyone’s efforts … contribute to a shared strategic direction for
the online learning environment. It is not enough to set up strategic planning … outside the users and

then communicate it to them’ (Holt et al., 2014, p. 82). Their evidence indicated that everyone must
understand why changes to learning management systems are necessary. Yet, there are countervailing
analyses of distributed leadership based on perceptions of universities not only as discursive, collegial
environments but also hierarchical organisations that deliver services. As one senior manager observed,
it’s all very well to have engagement in decision-making but, at some point, somebody is accountable
for the implementation of teaching infrastructure, such as learning management systems:
If they can come up with a real description of how distributed leadership can be used for Online Learning
Environments (OLE) it will be helpful … Responsibility and accountability are not always attached to
leadership … managers expect to be able to control the resources they pay for. So, [of] leaders … filling
‘influencer’ roles … it is worth asking: What’s their leadership potential if they are managed ‘locally’
competing with the central organisation that is trying to managing the OLE change? (Hunt, 2012, p. 87)
Whole-of-university change requires leadership at all levels. Exactly how that might happen is a
debatable and a matter for local decision-making because:
change led from inside a department has its advantages and may be highly effective, but it has its own
challenges. Subject teachers frequently report that the changes they would like to see happen are impossible to bring about, once they return to their home department after taking part in a professional
development program. The advantage for people advocating change, sometimes termed ‘change agents’,
within a department is that they have an intimate knowledge of the department and its ways of working.
The disadvantage is that they have no external status or support. (Blackmore, 2012, p. 269)

Principle 4: Reward, recognize and Develop Teaching
The fourth of McInnes, Ramsden, and Maconachie’s (2012, p. 19-23) five principles for action is about
recognizing and rewarding teaching. This principle includes setting clear institutional expectations
388



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

about the nature and outcomes of effective teaching; ensuring that faculty deans and heads of departments acknowledge and reward the teaching function of individuals and academic units; linking formal
rewards such as promotion, awards, and financial incentives to teaching excellence and the performance

of academic units; aligning professional development opportunities with strategic learning and teaching
goals; and promoting the university as a successful teaching institution.
In the early 1990s, in some western countries, there was a growing realisation that the reward and
recognition systems in universities favoured research over teaching, particularly in regard to promotion
and tenure. There was an evident need to redress the balance. Chalmers (2011) described the three common mechanisms that were then established to reward and recognize teaching as: (1) annual awards for
good teaching; (2) offering programs (grants and professional development) to improve teaching; and
(3) giving teaching more importance among the criteria for evaluating staff for performance review and
promotion.

Awards for Teaching
Awards for teaching in universities were introduced to signal that teaching is valued (Jackson, 2006;
Skelton, 2004). The UK national teaching fellowships were established in 2000 (Gosling, 2004). Many
North American universities already had established teaching awards (El-Khawas, 1996), with national
teaching awards and fellowships conferred by organisations such as the Carnegie Foundation, 3M and
professional associations. In the UK and Australia, the introduction of national awards schemes has been
credited with prompting universities, that previously had no teaching awards schemes, to establish their
own at institutional level (Chalmers & Thomson, 2008).
Awards normally take the form of one-off rewards of a single payment that can be spent on approved
activities such as professional development, conference attendance, and computer equipment (Jackson,
2006). While the intent of awards was not only to recognize but to further encourage teaching excellence,
their one-off nature has been challenged (Frame et al., 2006; Young, 2006; Menges, 1996) because other
career incentives, such as promotion and tenure, are of a continuing nature, with salary and increments
that continue throughout an academic career. Further, while awards were established with the best of
intentions, and they can enhance individual careers, there is little evidence that these have contributed to
addressing the prestige imbalance between teaching and research (Huber, 2004; HEA, 2009; Chalmers,
2011). The best that can be said, at this stage, is that such awards have demonstrated an investment in
the domain of teaching and learning that have provided incentives to individuals and to teaching teams.

Tenure and Promotion
Over the last three decades, there has been a major shift in the commitment of universities to improve

tenure and promotion systems, and to redefine and expand the definition of university work to recognize
teaching (Braxton et al., 2006; Diamond, 2002; Paulsen & Feldman, 2006). This has resulted in the development of teaching criteria and standards on which to make decisions about tenure and promotion.
The Australia University Teaching Criteria and Standards (AUTCAS) project (Chalmers et al., 2014),
made significant progress in clarifying teaching criteria and evidence to assist senior leaders to make
judgments about teaching performance. It also clarified expectations for teachers, thereby helping them
to engage in the development of their own teaching capacity and career progression.

389



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

While initiatives such as AUTCAS signal substantial progress towards recognizing and rewarding
teaching, there is still much that needs to be done because the evidence suggests that rewards continue
to be directed to those engaged in discipline-based research and publications rather than to excellent
teachers (Chalmers, 2011). Cashmore et al. (2013) documented the progress made in UK universities
in regard to the reward and recognition of teaching. While they found general progress, there remained
substantial variation between different types of universities and within disciplines. Of greatest concern
was the limited progress made in embedding teaching criteria and establishing standards in institutional
systems and policies, and the persistent skepticism among academic teachers who thought that their
teaching contributions would not be recognized and rewarded with career progression (European Union,
2013; Locke, 2014). These trends are also evident in Australia, where the extent to which teaching performance standards are detailed, embedded and enacted in policy, processes and systems remains highly
variable (Chalmers et al., 2014).
With increased focus on gaining research funding and the status it confers, especially in international
university rankings, the separation of those who research and those who teach remains distinct with
increasing numbers of teaching-only and research-only positions (Probert, 2013; Trowler et al., 2005).
The language used in workload policy and associated guidelines highlights this role separation, with
universities ‘freeing up’ the time of researchers by allocating more teaching to the ‘non-research’ staff.
Hardre and Cox (2008, p. 19) found that academic staff identified as being insufficiently research productive were assigned increased teaching loads, while those who were sufficiently productive were ‘spared’

increased teaching loads. The clear and consistent message is that successful academics do disciplinary
research while less successful academics teach.

Peer Review
Peer review is increasingly specified by institutions and national organisations to support claims for
teaching quality. It has been encouraged by universities and promoted through national projects. This has
given rise to a substantial literature that includes good practice examples. The majority of the projects
have focused on peer review for teacher development within an institution (Harris et al., 2008; Nash
& Barnard et al., 2014; Sachs et al., 2013). Two Australian projects focused on peer review in online
teaching contexts (McKenzie et al., 2011; Wood et al., 2011). Crisp and colleagues (2009) established a
project on ‘Peer Review of Teaching for Promotion Purposes’. It incorporated teacher observation and
external peer review of documented evidence. They concluded that ‘summative peer review of teaching
has the ability to improve both the status and the quality of teaching at tertiary level, by encouraging the
promotion of exceptional teachers and academics engaged in the scholarship of teaching at all levels’
(2009, p. 5).
Peer review of teaching has now been expanded beyond an emphasis on classroom observations
to different aspects of teaching. For example, the University of Western Australia recommends that
ten dimensions of teaching are suitable for peer review, only one of which is observation of classroom
practice. These include course and unit content; learning materials and resources; assessment practices;
management; leadership roles; evaluation of teaching; and scholarship related to teaching and postgraduate supervision. Top-down peer review initiatives are typically unsuccessful because they are seen
as surveillance. The preferred approach is to engage staff in their own career enhancing peer review
processes (Sachs & Parcell, 2014).

390



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

Rewarding Academic Units and Departments

Probert (2015) argues that a focus on disciplines and departments is critical if quality in teaching and
learning is to be sustained. For example, the University of Sydney was one of the first Australian universities to allocate a fund to reward departments that demonstrated excellent teaching evidenced by
a number of indicators including: scores from student satisfaction surveys; number of academics who
had completed the Graduate Certificate of Tertiary Teaching; attendance at and contribution to teacher
development courses; competitive teaching grants and publication in teaching journals. Those departments that did well on these indicators received additional funding (Asmar, 2002).

Principle 5: Involve Students
The fifth and final principle for action to promote teaching and learning relates to students. McInnes
et al. (2012, p. 35-37) maintain that this principle encompasses: reviewing the relationship between all
aspects of university life contributing to, or hindering, student engagement and designing systems that
promote student involvement in academic quality processes; seeking student advice to improve teaching, curriculum and the student experience; and providing incentives for faculty deans and heads of
departments to encourage students to engage in learning communities. This section of the chapter will
explore student involvement and engagement noting the student learning journey planning framework,
curriculum issues, academic skills support and student involvement in governance.

Student Learning Journey
A student learning journey (SLJ) planning framework begins with a review of the relationship between
all aspects of university life that contribute to, or hinder, student engagement and learning. It offers a
‘joined-up’ approach focused on integrated policies, plans and services for students from pre-entry to
alumni. This approach was described in Hunt and Peach’s case study (2009, p. 10), which showed ‘that
support for students’ learning moves beyond pedagogy and curriculum to include matters such as marketing, recruitment, enrolment, timetabling and graduation’. Their case study reveals how a university’s
strategic vision, goals focused on student learning, holistic SLJ planning, targeted projects (see Figure
1), and a renewed policy framework can dissolve the boundaries between the academic and administrative functions of a university.
A holistic planning framework incorporating the academic and administrative functions of a university not only involves students, it is for and about them. It also has import for the strategic objectives
of universities seeking to improve their retention rates because it addresses key transition points for
students when they are at increased risk of dropping-out of university. For example, many universities
now respond to students’ needs at point of entry to university through orientation programs that facilitate
students’ engagement with faculties, departments and support services, such as the library and technical
assistance (Kift, 2009).

391



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

Student Involvement Through the Curriculum
The greatest potential for student involvement is through their studies, simply because this is the main
reason they attend university. Curriculum quality is, therefore, a core function of policy and planning
processes as Angelo (2012. p. 95) noted in his account of backwards curriculum design:
In most universities, academic policies, procedures and guidelines – and the available resources – set the
context and practical limits within which subject design choices can be made. For that reason, it is critical
to become familiar with relevant policies, procedures, guidelines and teaching and learning resources.
The purpose of planning is to ensure that quality learning opportunities are locked into curricula, as
Angelo (2012, p. 110) observed: ‘Simply put, a well-designed learning-centred curriculum is one that
helps all willing and able students achieve and demonstrate the expected standard of learning more effectively, efficiently and successfully than they could on their own’.
A specific example of engaging students through the curriculum may be found in Kift’s (2009) articulation of six First Year Curriculum Principles that are supportive of first year learning engagement,
success, and retention. These are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Transition
Diversity
Design
Engagement
Assessment

Evaluation and monitoring

Kift’s own university initiated change to enhance the first year learning experience based on these
principles. In particular, new assessment policy and protocols were introduced to ensure, among other
things, that the necessary skills and content knowledge needed to complete an assignment are taught or
practiced to maximise students’ opportunities for success. Further, first year university teachers were
required to facilitate early assessment so that weak students might be monitored and assisted to ensure
that they achieve success at university.
According to Brown and Race (2012, p. 91):
Assessment is the engine that drives student learning … assessment is the basis of the qualifications
students want to take away from higher education as their passport to the rest of their careers. Nothing
you do for your students is more important than assessing their learning fairly, openly and in a wellplanned way.
Assessment in university degree programs can be formative – that is, part of the process of learning.
Or it can be summative, meaning that it is an evaluation of the extent to which students have learned.
Either way, as Brown and Race (2012) argue, assessment is integral to student learning and engagement.
It is now common practice to use Biggs’ (1999) principles of constructive alignment to ensure strong
alignment between learning objectives, teaching and learning activities, student assessment, marking

392



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

schema, graduate skills, and learning outcomes. The leadership and management task is to ensure that
policies, procedures and course approval processes support curriculum alignment.

Student Support Services
Success in assignments is dependent on the extent to which students have acquired necessary academic
skills. Some (Chalmers & Fuller, 1996; Northedge 2005) argue that these should be taught in and through

the curriculum rather than through services outside the curriculum. Northedge (2005, p. 13) reasons
that separate support services for academic skills risk alienating rather than involving students because
they may be seen as remedial support for ‘weak’ students:
so that non-traditional students are effectively treated as ‘charity’ cases, rescued from ignorance. The
existing edifice of elite education is simply extended by adding a large paupers’ wing. ‘Proper’ students continue to define the norms, while the rest tag along behind. Yet such a response fails to meet
the underlying aims of broadening education. Instead, it creates an underclass of students, who become
alienated from the knowledge dangled beyond their reach and eventually emerge from their encounter
with education with a sense of personal inadequacy rather than empowerment.
Assumptions about student support can no longer be based on traditional notions of on-campus students
in full-time study. The advent of learning technologies, in particular learning management systems, has
given rise to ‘any place any time’ learning and the need for student support to be aligned accordingly.
For example, Hunt and Sankey (2013, p. 274) described the development of a virtual learning centre for
off-campus and distance education students which deployed:
virtual classroom technologies for individual or small group consultations. Other tools include, phone,
email, online chat, online workshops and peer assisted learning sessions - also facilitated online. More
recently, online student mentors have been established along with an academic technology advocate
position to help students unfamiliar with online learning technologies.
Whether online or on-campus, student support services are normally tailored to students’ diverse needs.
For example, international students and students who are not native speakers of the local language may
require special language assistance. Students living with disability may need large text reading material,
audio loops, or mobility assistance. Particular religious groups have need of prayer rooms, and students
who are parents will need child care services whilst students from low socio-economic backgrounds
may be in need of scholarships. Given these diverse needs, some universities have developed separate
equity and diversity services to ensure that all students are fully supported in their learning journeys.

Student Involvement in Evaluation
Student involvement in the development and evaluation of curricula normally occurs through completion of student feedback surveys. Most universities now have formal student feedback processes, in
many cases, online. However, as Hunt and Sankey (2013) argue, genuine quality improvement arises
not from the data collection but from ‘closing the loop’. Their case study shows how all relevant data,
such as grade distributions, student retention rates, and student feedback, were collated and fed back

393



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

to staff teaching a specific degree program. Teaching teams should normally meet at least once a year
to examine and to respond to the data and to report on what they have done to address any emergent
problems. The two key points are that:
1. Quality is locked-in to the accountability processes.
2. Academics are resourced with one-stop-shop data about the degree programs they teach.
Hunt and Sankey (2013, p. 274) describe ‘closing the loop’ as an ‘empowering process because staff
have considerable control. This is an improvement on surveillance models of course review [because it]
serves to support reflective practice’ Student involvement in review processes can include discussion
of previous student feedback at the start of subsequent courses and explanations of what has been done
to ameliorate students’ learning opportunities. In some cases, universities provide examples of student
feedback in their online description of courses.

Student Involvement in Governance and Quality
Some universities have developed student charters that articulate what students might expect from their
university, for example, participation in decision-making. In addition, it is customary for universities to
have policies and formal committee structures that ensure student involvement in governance. Often, but
not necessarily, their participation is brokered through student guilds, sometimes known as unions. In
contrast, students in some Swedish universities have created their own processes of engagement through
largely autonomous, self-funded programs to support fellow students in their study and personal development. For example, students at Uppsala University have initiated several ongoing volunteering, peer
and study support programs and offer an accredited subject that develops students’ leadership capacity.
These initiatives are supported by the university senior leadership and documented and published in the
university’s quality enhancement program (personal communication, 2013).

CONCLUSION: ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS

This book characterizes universities in terms of ‘domains of support services’, and this chapter has
explored the specific domain of teaching and learning. The change leadership and management issues
raised in the chapter are organized in terms of McInnes, Ramsden and Maconachie’s (2012) five principles for action to enhance university teaching and learning. The specific issues raised in the context
of each principle were selected to present best practice from around the world. The structure of the
chapter, therefore, offers a range of approaches and change leadership and management strategies that
can be tailored to the needs of a particular university. The purpose of using this framework is to show
that services to support teaching and learning should be joined-up to provide a supportive context for
teaching and learning excellence. The principles, and strategies discussed in this chapter are as follows.
Principle 1: Shape the strategic vision that puts student learning and student experience at its core
◦◦
Strategic visions
◦◦
Joined-up policies and plans
◦◦
Teaching and learning projects
394



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

Principle 2: Inspire and enable excellence
◦◦
Secure financial support
◦◦
Build an evidence base
◦◦
Enable staff engagement
Principle 3: Devolve leadership of learning and teaching
◦◦

Leaders and managers
◦◦
Teaching and learning leaders
◦◦
Formal and informal leadership
◦◦
Whole-of-university change leadership
Principle 4: Reward, recognize and develop teaching
◦◦
Awards for teaching
◦◦
Tenure and promotion
◦◦
Peer review
◦◦
Rewards for academic units and departments
Principle 5: Involve students.
◦◦
Student learning journey
◦◦
Student involvement through the curriculum
◦◦
Student support services
◦◦
Student involvement in evaluation
◦◦
Student involvement in governance and quality
The promotion of excellent teaching and learning is a continuous cycle of leadership, decision-making
and quality improvement. This is based on strategic visions for teaching and learning that incorporate
what the curriculum might look like in a particular university. Examples include work-integrated learning; problem-based learning; research-led and inclusive curricula; as well as curricula that facilitate

transition, such as the first-year curriculum. Professional development opportunities, notably foundation
of teaching courses and graduate certificates in university teaching, are essential to the promotion and
development of excellent teaching, as is the establishment of reward systems that incorporate awards,
fellowships, grants and career enhancing opportunities for promotion based on teaching excellence. An
emerging direction is the establishment of reward systems for academic units or departments. Ultimately,
sustainable outcomes will be achieved through reflective practice at all levels of a university, examples
of which include closing the loop on evaluation processes and peer review. This chapter also noted the
different forms of leadership that may be required in complex university contexts, with particular reference to the importance of formal, informal and distributed leadership. Ultimately, the push and pull
drivers of change selected and managed by each university will determine the outcomes of local efforts
to enhance university teaching and learning.

REFERENCES
Anderson, V. (2007). Contingent and marginalized: Academic development and part-time teachers. The
International Journal for Academic Development, 12(2), 111–121. doi:10.1080/13601440701604914

395



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

Angelo, T. (2012). Designing subjects for learning: Practical, research-based principles and guidelines. In
L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 93–111).
Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Asmar, C. (2002). Strategies to enhance learning and teaching in a research-extensive university. The
International Journal for Academic Development, 7(1), 18–30. doi:10.1080/13601440210156448
Australasian Council on Open, Distance and e-Learning (ACODE) (2014). Benchmarks for technology
enhanced learning. Retrieved from />Bamber, V., Saunders, M., Trowler, P., & Knight, P. (2009). Enhancing learning, teaching, assessment
and curriculum in higher education. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning — a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning., 27(6), 12–26. doi:10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher
Education: Open University Press.
Blackmore, P. (2012). Leadership in teaching. In L. Hunt, & D. Chalmers, D. (Eds), University teaching
in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 268-281). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Bologna Process. (n. d.). Retrieved from />Braxton, J. M., Luckey, T. M. Jr, & Helland, P. A. (2006). Ideal and actual value patterns towards domains
of scholarship in three types of colleges and universities. New Directions for Institutional Research,
1(29), 67–76. doi:10.1002/ir.172
Brodie, L. (2012). Problem-based learning. In L. Hunt, & D. Chalmers, D. (Eds.), University teaching
in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 147-165). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Brown, S., & Race, P. (2012). Using effective assessment to promote learning. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers
(Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 74–91). Melbourne, Australia:
ACER Press.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (n. d.). Retrieved from />Cashmore, A., Cane, C., & Cane, R. (2013). Rebalancing promotion in the HE sector: Is teaching excellence being rewarded? York: HEA.
Chalmers, D. (2007). A review of Australian and international quality systems and indicators of learning and teaching V1.2.
Chalmers, D. (2008). Indicators of university teaching and learning quality.
Chalmers, D. (2011). Progress and challenges to the recognition and reward of the scholarship of teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(1), 25–38. doi:10.1080/0729
4360.2011.536970

396



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

Chalmers, D., Cummings, R., Stoney, S., Tucker, B., Elliott, S., Wicking, R., & Jorre de St Jorre, T.
(2014). Australian university teaching criteria and standards project. Retrieved from />Chalmers, D., & Fuller, R. (1996). Teaching for learning at university. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Chalmers, D., & Gardiner, D. (2015). An evaluation framework for identifying the effectiveness and
impact of academic teacher development programmes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46(Sept),
81–91. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.02.002

Chalmers, D., & Thomson, K. (2008). Snapshot of teaching and learning practice in Australian universities. Retrieved from />Charles Darwin University Strategic Plan 2012-2014. (n. d.). Retrieved from />sites/default/files/CDU_Strategic_Plan_2012-14_web.pdf
Coady, T. (Ed.), (2000). Why universities matter. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin. Council of Australian
Directors of Academic Development (CADAD). Benchmarking performance of academic development
units in Australian universities. Retrieved from />section/78/Benchmarking_Report.pdf
Cox, M. D. (2006). Phases in the development of a change model: Communities of practice as change
agents in higher education. In L. Hunt, A. Bromage, & B. Tomkinson (Eds.), The realities of change in
higher education: Interventions to promote learning and teaching (pp. 64–77). London, UK: Routledge.
Crisp, G., Sadler, R., Krause, K., Buckridge, M., Wills, S., Brown, C., . . . Brougham, B. (2009). Peer
review of teaching for promotion purposes: A project to develop and implement a pilot program of peer
review of teaching at four Australian universities. Retrieved from />D’Agostino, F., & O’Brien, M. (2009). Closing the gap in curriculum development leadership.
Diamond, R. M. (2002). Defining scholarship for the twenty-first century. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 90(Summer), 73–79.
El- Khawas. E. (1996). Campus trends: Adjusting to new realities. Higher Education Panel Report, 86.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
European Union (2013, June). High level group on the modernisation of higher education. Report to the
European Commission on improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education
institutions. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Ewell, P. T. (2008). No correlation: Musings on some myths about quality. Change, 40(6), 8–13.
doi:10.3200/CHNG.40.6.8-13
Frame, P., Johnson, M., & Rosie, A. (2006). Reward or award? Reflections on the initial experiences
of winners of a National Teaching Fellowship. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
43(4), 409–419. doi:10.1080/14703290600974016

397



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Garnett, J. (2012). Authentic work integrated learning. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University
teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 165–180). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. Retrieved from />files/dimensions_of_quality.pd
Gibbs, G., Knapper, C., & Piccinin, S. (2009). Departmental leadership of teaching in research intensive
environments. Research and Development Series. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
Gosling, D. (2004). The impact of a national policy to enhance teaching quality and the status, England,
the United Kingdom. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(3), 136–149. doi:10.1108/09684880410548762
Hardre, P., & Cox, M. (2008). Evaluating faculty work: Expectations and standards of faculty performance
in research universities. Research Papers in Education, 24(4), 383–419. doi:10.1080/02671520802348590
Harris, K.-L., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin, M., & James, R. (2008). Peer review of teaching in Australian higher education: A handbook to support institutions in developing an embedding effective policies
and practices. Retrieved from />Hicks, M., Smigiel, H., Wilson, G., & Luzeckyj, A. (2010). PATHE Preparing academics to teach in
higher education. Retrieved from />Higher Education Academy (HEA). (2009). Reward and recognition of teaching in higher education.
Interim report. Leicester, UK: Higher Education Academy and GENIE Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, University of Leicester.
Higher Education Academy (HEA). (nd) Mission, vision and values. Retrieved from https://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/about-hea/mission-vision-and-values
Higher Education (HEA). (2014). Fellowships. Retrieved from />Higher Education Institutional Research in the UK and Ireland (HEIRNETWORK). Retrieved from
/>Holt, D., Bennett, L., Challis, D., and colleagues. (2014). Strategic leadership for institutional teaching
and learning centres: Developing a model for the 21st century.
Huber, M. T. (2004). Balancing acts: The scholarship of teaching and learning in academic careers.
Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Hunt, L. (2012). Report on the audit of the OLT project: Building distributed leadership in designing
and implementing a quality management framework for online learning environments. Retrieved rom
/>
398



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

Hunt, L., Huijser, H., & Sankey, M. (2011). Learning spaces for the digital age: Blending space with
pedagogy. In M. Keppell., K. Souter, & M. Riddle (Eds.), Physical and virtual learning spaces in higher
education: Concepts for the modern learning environment (pp. 182–197). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.
Hunt, L., & Peach, N. (2009). Planning for a sustainable academic future. In iPED Research Network
(Eds.), Academic futures: Inquiries into higher education and pedagogy (pp. 1-14). Newcastle-uponTyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hunt, L., & Sankey, M. (2013). Getting the context right for quality teaching and learning. In D. Salter
(Ed.), Cases on quality teaching practice in the social sciences (pp. 261–279). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-3661-3.ch016
Jackson, M. (2006). Great classroom teaching and more: Awards for outstanding teaching evaluated.
International Journal of Educational Management, 20(4), 261–278. doi:10.1108/09513540610665388
Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2012). Research-led undergraduate curricula. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers
(Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 128–144). Melbourne, Australia:
ACER Press.
Jones, S., Ladyshewsky, R., Oliver, B., & Flavell, H. (2009). Leading courses: Academic leadership
for course coordinators. Retrieved from />Kift, S. (2009). Articulating a transition pedagogy to scaffold and to enhance the first year student
learning experience in Australian higher education. Retrieved from />Krause, K. (2012). A quality approach to university teaching. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 235–252). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
LeFoe, G., Parrish, D., Malfroy, J., McKenzie, J., & Ryan, Y. (2011). Subject coordinators: Leading
professional development for sessional staff. Retrieved from />course/section/100/ALTC_report_23-5v2.pdf
Locke, W. (2014). Shifting academic careers: Implications for enhancing professionalism in teaching
and supporting learning. York: HEA.
Macfarlane, B. (2011). Intellectual leadership in higher education. London: Routledge.
Malaysian Qualification Agency. Retrieved from />Marshall, S., Orrell, J., Cameron, A., Bosanquet, A., & Thomas, S. (2011). Leading and managing learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 87–103. doi
:10.1080/07294360.2010.512631
McDonald, J., Nagy, J., Star, C., Burch, T., Cox, M. D., & Margetts, F. (2012). Identifying and building
the leadership capacity of community of practice facilitators. Learning Communities Journal, 4, 63–84.
McInnes, C., Ramsden, P., & Maconachie, D. (2012). A handbook for executive leadership of learning
and teaching in higher education. Retrieved from />
399


Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

McKenzie, J., Pelliccione, L., Cottman, C., Quinn, D., Allan, G., & Parker, N. (2011). Peer review in
online and blended learning environments. Retrieved from />final-report.pdf
McKinnon, K. R., Walker, S. J., & Davis, D. (2000). Benchmarking: A manual for Australian universities. Retrieved from />Menges, R. J. (1996). Awards to individuals: In honoring exemplary teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 65(Spring), 3–10. doi:10.1002/tl.37219966504
Nash, R., Bolt, S., Barnard, A., Rochester, S., Mcevoy, K., Shannon, S., & Philip, R. (2014). Developing a culture of peer review of teaching through a distributive leadership approach. Retrieved from
/>Northedge, A. (2005). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity: Supporting social participation
in a knowledge community. In G. Shaw (Ed.), Tertiary teaching and learning: Dealing with diversity.
Darwin: Charles Darwin University Press.
Office for Learning and Teaching. (n. d.). Awards. Retrieved from />Organisation for Economic Development. (OECD). Education at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.
oecd.org/education/eag.htm
Partridge, L., Hunt, L., & Goody. A. (2013). Future-proofing university teaching: An Australian case
study of postgraduate teacher preparation. Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 8(2), 112-131.
Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (2006). Exploring the dimensions of the scholarship of teaching and
learning: Analytics for an emerging literature. New Directions for Institutional Research, 129(Spring),
21–36. doi:10.1002/ir.169
Postereff, L., Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 557–571. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.013
Probert, B. (2013). Teaching-focused academic appointments in Australian universities: Recognition,
specialisation, or stratification. Retrieved from />Probert, B. (2014). Why scholarship matters in higher education? Retrieved from .
au/resource-why-scholarship-matters-higher-education-2014
Probert, B. (2015). The quality of Australia’s higher education system: How might it be defined, improved and assured. Retrieved from />QAA Subject benchmark statements. (n. d.). Retrieved from />QS World University Rankings. (n. d.). Retrieved from />
400



Change Leadership, Management and Strategies to Promote Quality University Teaching and Learning

Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the effective university. Higher Education Research & Development,

17(3), 347–370. doi:10.1080/0729436980170307
Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2012). Designing online and blended learning. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers
(Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 112–127). Melbourne, Australia:
ACER Press.
Sachs, J., & Parcell, M. (2014). Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education: International
perspectives. London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7639-5
Sachs, J., Parsell, M., Ambler, T., Cassidy, S., Homewood, J., Solomonides, I., . . . du Toit, P. (2013).
Social, communicative and interpersonal leadership in the context of peer review. Retrieved from http://
www.olt.gov.au/project-social-communicative-interpersonal-leadership-macquarie-2009
Sankey, M., & Hunt, L. (2014). Flipped university classrooms: Using technology to enable sound pedagogy. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 16(2), 26–38. doi:10.4018/jcit.2014040103
Scott, G. (2005). Accessing the student voice: Using CEQuery to identify what retains students and promotes engagement in productive learning in Australian higher education. Retrieved from http://www.
uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/63955/HEIPCEQueryFinal_v2_1st_Feb_06.pdf
Scott, G. (2008). University student engagement and satisfaction with learning and teaching. Retrieved
from />Scott, G., Coates, H., & Anderson, M. (2008). Learning leaders in times of change: Academic leadership
capabilities for Australian higher education. Retrieved.
Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. New York:
Doubleday.
Skelton, A. (2004). Understanding ‘teaching excellence’ in higher education: A critical evaluation of the National Teaching Fellowships Scheme. Studies in Higher Education, 29(4), 451–468.
doi:10.1080/0307507042000236362
Smigiel, H., Pannan, L., Szorenyi-Reischi, N., & Donnan. P. (2011). Sustaining distributive leadership
in learning and teaching: Cascade and perpetual effectiveness of the faculty scholar model.
Stewart, M. (2012). Understanding learning: Theories and critique. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.),
University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 3–20). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Bolton: Anker.
The Department of Education and Training. (2015). Retrieved from />pyne/education-exports-hit-record-176-billion
The Indian National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). (n. d.). Retrieved from http://
www.naac.gov.in/
The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). (n. d.).
Retrieved from />
401