Other papers and publications by the writer are available
from his personal website
Reference:
Uys, P.M. & Tulloch, M (2007). Appropriate Change Leadership for the Introduction
of Flexible Learning within University Governance and Strategic Leadership
Frameworks: A Comparative Analysis of Case Studies in Developed and Developing
Countries. Paper presented at the Integrating for Excellence Conference 2007.
or
http://www.globe-online.com/philip.uys/200706sheffielduystulloch.htm
Appropriate
Change Leadership for the Introduction of Flexible Learning
within University Governance and Strategic Leadership Frameworks:
A
Comparative Analysis of Case Studies in Developed and Developing Countries
Dr Philip
Uys
Manager,
Educational Design and Educational Technology,
Centre
for Enhancing Learning and Teaching
Tel: +64 2 63384538 Fax: +64 63384342 E-mail:
puys@csu.edu.au
http://www.globe-online.com/philip.uys
Associate
Professor Marian Tulloch
Director,
Centre for Enhancing Learning and Teaching
Tel: +64 2 63384658 Fax: +64 63384342 E-mail:
mtulloch@csu.edu.au
Abstract
The
central question guiding this research is the determination of appropriate
change leadership approaches for the introduction of flexible learning
within university governance and strategic leadership frameworks. Case
studies over the last twelve years in two developed countries, that is
Introduction
It
has been widely acknowledged that universities operate in an increasingly
dynamic and volatile global environment which calls for high levels of change
leadership. Stace and Dunphy (2001, pp. 262-263) argue that "... as we
move into the twenty-first century, we face more change rather than less, and
the pace of change will quicken for both governments and enterprises alike. In
particular, we face the challenge of transforming organizations, traditional
production and consumption patterns and our personal lifestyles to reflect the
fact that we are an integral part of a global community and an ecology vital to
our welfare and survival. We must all become change agents now." Kotter
(1996) identifies three drivers of an increase in the rate of change in the
business world, that are also impacting on higher education namely “…the
globalisation of the economy along with related technological and social
trends.”
In view of growing
globalisation and transnational exchanges in many fields (Marquardt, 1996:3),
scholars like Evans and Nation (1993:7) indicate that in "… these
circumstances politicians, policy-makers and citizens are making demands upon
education systems to reform. Flexible learning and distance education are at the
forefront of educational responses to the changes that are taking place
locally, regionally, nationally and internationally". The
term “flexible learning and teaching” is used to describe the provision
of an array of learning and teaching experiences and opportunities using a wide
range of media, environments and technologies to offer a variety of ways of
learning and types of study. Flexible learning is often operationalised through
the use of a blend of educational technologies in which elearning features
strongly. The paper considers approaches
to change leadership in the area of flexible learning through a series of case
studies drawing on a range of approaches to effecting change in higher
education (Bromage, 2006; Buchan & Buchan, 2003; Fullan, 1991; Gunn, 1998;
McNaught, 2003; Nixon, 1996; Ramsden, 1998; Szabo et al, 1997; Uys, 2000; Uys,
2007) as well as more generic change management models (Bolman & Deal,
2003; ChangingMinds.org, 2007; Hitt, W. D.,
1995; Kotter, 1990; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Rogers, 1995; Stace &
Dunphy, 2001).
University
Culture and Organisational Change in Higher Education
Universities are frequently
conservative and over the centuries have been highly resistant to change and
reform (Evans and Franz, 1998 April; Richardson, 1979). Yet the last fifty
years have seen huge changes in the higher education sector driven by mass
education, globalisation and increased external accountability mechanisms which
have impacted on organisational structure. Garrison (1989:38) contends that as
“…formal education grew in size and complexity, bureaucracies became the
controlling mechanism”. In the British
universities during the 1990s “… there has been a steady increase in bureaucracy
and a steady decrease in the amount of time available for core academic
activities particularly at senior levels” (Middlehurst, 1993:189). This is
problematic for internal change as “…bureaucracies by definition resist
change…” (Tapscott, 1996:36). Moreover, Paul (1990:32) identified a disjuncture
between the largely bureaucratic model of conventional institutional
educational management and the “collegial model” under which academic staff
operate. Ramsden (1998) has identified characteristics of academics that make
leadership for change difficult; they tend to be suspicious of formal planning,
distrustful of management, have low commitment to corporate goals and are
trained to question and criticise joint agendas. It is therefore necessary, as
Fullan (1991:350) suggests, "… that we explicitly think and worry about
the change process" in educational reform.
In a rapidly transforming
environment the balance in types of model of university organisation is
shifting, offering alternatives to the collegial and the bureaucratic approach.
McNay (1995 in Ramsden, 1998) provides a typology to describe the changing
operation of university organisations in terms of two dimensions: ‘tightness’
or ‘looseness’ of (a) policy definition and of (b) control over implementation;
the focus of the former is on ends, of the latter on the means by which they
are achieved. Four types of university
culture are identified: collegiate (loose policy definition and implementation
control), bureaucratic (loose policy definition but high implementation control
through rule-based processes), corporate (tight control of both policy and
implementation) and enterprise (tight control of institutional objectives but
devolved strategies for achieving them).
Ramsden (1998) suggests that the enterprise culture, by retaining a
significant role for decision making at the level of the academic
organisational unit, can be both responsive to the changing educational
environment while retaining enduring academic values. In changes related to learning
technologies, however, the balance of tight and loose control over
implementation is a particularly challenging one because the institutional
imperatives around a centralised approach to IT infrastructure provision can
militate against the engagement of academics in changing their teaching upon
which any effective implementation of learning technologies ultimately
depends.
Innovation,
transformation and change
The strategic rationale for technology-enhanced education and
flexible learning should be geared at achieving institutional transformation
not merely efficiencies. Fullan (1991) distinguishes first order changes aimed
at improving efficiency and effectiveness of current practices from second
order changes that aim at fundamentally changing the ways that institutions
operate arguing that that most changes in education in the twentieth century
have been first order changes, and that “second order reforms largely failed” It
is therefore critical to ask about the appropriateness of change management
strategies for moving flexible delivery of learning and teaching forward in
higher education especially as it pertains to relevant governance and strategic
leadership frameworks. One of the key debates around change management is
around the relative effectiveness of top-down and bottom-up change strategies.
Organic systems approaches have been used to justify both bottom-up and top-
down strategies.
According to Daft
(1989:274) "... organic organizations encourage a bottom-up innovation
process" which is seen as typical for technological innovation. This
position aligns itself with Roger's diffusion theory that also proposes a
bottom-up change approach when the innovation starts outside management. He
argues that conventional management of higher education does not provide the
required organic structures that foster innovation for enterprise-wide benefit.
Daft (1989:570) observes that "… the trend over the last thirty years has
been toward more organic structures" which he partly attributes to "…
greater environmental uncertainty and nonroutine technologies". Yet too
often, bottom-up technological innovation that supports flexible learning has
been implemented as an isolated initiative of academic staff for efficiency
purposes. Even when innovation is undertaken by individuals or small groups of
staff who have interest, enthusiasm and expertise in a particular learning and
teaching domain, the spread of excellent practice can be very slow and
fragmented, failing to flow on to systemic organisational change that is
aligned across layers of the institution. In this scenario the wider systems
within higher education are often not considered nor affected by the
innovation. Enterprise-wide transformation is highly unlikely in this scenario
and very fragile. The management of institutions may thus feel justified in
disregarding the innovation.
Systems
theory has also been used to support top-down change with calls for an
integrated approach to institutional innovation: "a system is a whole that
cannot be taken apart without loss of its essential characteristics, and hence
must be studied as a whole" (Ackhoff, 1972:40). An enterprise and all its
subsystems need to be considered when considering true transformation. Drucker (1985) points to the importance of a
top-down change process given that successful innovation aims at leadership. He
believes that if it does not aim at leadership right from the outset, it is
unlikely to be innovative enough, and therefore unlikely to be capable of
establishing itself on an enterprise-wide basis. This statement is made within
the context of the private sector, but with the increasing competitive nature
in the higher educational milieu this assertion is becoming increasingly
relevant to higher education.
Yet typically governance is
top-down and change management instruments lack an educational base and do not
reward collaboration. Strategic plans and alignment are necessary but may lack
empowerment and motivational drivers that can only be provided by leadership.
Change management approaches often focus on a rational approach only in which
plans play a central role. Governance has more to do with management than
leadership and focus on planning, organizing and control, which are typical
process of management (Boone & Kurtz, 1984; Kotter, 1990). Fullan (1991:349) refers to this dilemma as
the tension of "… combining individual and institutional
development..." and the necessity of having both in tandem for successful
educational change. Trust, which is foundational to change, cannot be build and
senior management and coal face issues are removed from each other. Tillema
(1995) points out that historical studies, based largely on experience in
schools, show that 'top down' attempts to achieve educational reform have
failed, and suggests that they will be doomed to failure until they 'confront
the cultural and pedagogical traditions and beliefs that underlie current
practices and organizational arrangements' (Goodman 1995:2).
The importance of using top
down and bottom-up change approaches in tandem, is emphasised by Gunn
(1998:142):
An
effective technology strategy works in both directions. From the top down, it
is articulated through institutional objectives, sensitive to existing culture,
constraints, strengths and weaknesses, and presented as a coherent, achievable
set of goals with appropriate incentives and rewards. It must also move from
the bottom-up where knowledge of teaching strategies, learning contexts and
disciplinary expertise can be translated into action plans geared to
achievement of institutional strategic objectives and so creating a sense of
ownership at all levels of the institution.
The importance of bottom-up
strategies to create a sense of ownership of university strategies by academics
and professional staff requires alignment with individuals personal and career
goals. Strategies for communication, training and reward structures are
commonly deployed as part of change management along with a recognition that
institutional change must move beyond individual innovation by emphasising the
role of teams in the leadership for change process. For instance, a report on
technological transformation at the
There are two major intended goals of TIES
[Training, Infrastructure and Empowerment System]. The first is that the chief
academic officers identify a vision for alternative delivery systems of
instruction for the university, publish that vision widely, and demonstrate
their commitment to it in a clear and convincing fashion. Secondly, departments
within the university create leadership task forces to interpret the vision for
their unit and prepare colleagues to implement the shared vision. (Szabo,
Anderson and Fuchs (1997)
Figure 1 brings together
the top-down and bottom-up processes in the LASO model for technological
transformation in higher education (Uys, 2001). The LASO Model (Uys, 2007)
acknowledges that to ensure ownership by academic staff as well as sound
educational quality in eLearning, it is important that educators and
educational principles drive the technological transformation of higher
education, as proposed by researchers like Willmot and McLean (1994) and Caladine (1993). The
structures supporting technology-based education have to ensure an educational
focus and pre-eminence of educational principles rather than administrative
desires or technical possibilities. Caladine (1993:7), who reviewed the
literature on non-traditional modes of delivery in higher education using
state-of-the-art technologies, indicates that the extensive use of ICT in
education "...poses previously unencountered problems in pedagogy and
andragogy". Bates (1992:265) contends that "… technological decisions
need to be preceded by policy and educational decisions...".
The LASO Model draws on the
work of Tillema (1995) who considered engaging academics in the reform process
as a significant management issue in educational reform and in education in
general. He asserts that reform has to be based on the development of 'learning
communities' and the need to 'confront the cultural and pedagogical traditions
and beliefs that underlie current practices and organizational arrangements'
(Goodman 1995:2). The focus on organisational learning shifts attention from
the adoption of ideas by individual academics, (e.g.
One of the challenges of the dual top-down and bottom-up
approach is to ensure that the creation
of local workgroups and teams is not just a device for disseminating top-down
strategies. For instance Drucker (1998,
p.157) describes the fundamental task of
management as one of empowerment “… to make people capable of joint performance
by giving them common goals, common values, the right structure, and the
ongoing training and development they need to perform and to respond to
change”. By contrast Berge and Schrum
(1998) contend that:
The
most important function of institutional leadership may be to create a shared
vision that includes widespread input and support from the faculty and
administration, articulates a clear educational purpose, has validity for
stakeholders, and reflects the broader mission of the institution” (p. 35).
Despite the concept of “empowerment”
Drucker talks of “giving” goals and values while Berge and Schrum see members
of the organisation contributing to the creation of a shared vision.
Figure 1: The LASO model
Gibson and Manuel, (2003) argue that effective communication and
continued interaction allows those involved to develop common values and a
shared understanding based on mutual
trust which is fundamental to building of communities, allowing them to
grow, change and achieve objectives. The development of 'learning communities'
that engage academics in local communities of discourse about their educational
practices provides a sound basis for reform (Tillema, 1995). If ‘learning communities’ are to create
change, however, they must involve learning at all levels of the organisation.
Building trust requires that local ‘learning communities’ engage in discourse that
challenges those responsible for strategic planning and institutional support
structures to expand their understanding of the ‘messy’ (McNaught, 2003)
realities of learning and teaching in specific environments and adjust goals
and strategies accordingly. Senge (1990) used the term ‘learning organisation’
to describe organisations with shared values and vision that display a capacity
for sensemaking and critical self
improvement at individual, team and systems level. These are challenging ideals
for large organisations.
Action
research and cycles of change
Because of the dual
teaching and research focus of universities they are ideally placed to engage
in research around organisation change. Action research provides a cyclical
learning framework in which planning and action are linked to the gathering
evidence on the impact of change and reflection to inform further
planning. Using action research as an
evaluative framework for major change poses both intellectual and practical
challenges. The language of planning, action, observation and reflection is
based in a participatory process in which the researchers are actors who
systematically observe and document the effects of their actions and the way
circumstances enhance or constrain outcomes. Reflection, in this context, is a
social sensemaking process which is forward looking in setting new or modified
directions for future planning and action.
The collective rather than imposed nature of action research implies that
the participants are not objects of research but active autonomous agents. In strategically aligning action research in
learning and teaching is the risk of being perceived as using an action
research approach that is co-opting rather than participatory (Kemmis &
Taggart, 1988). The critical feedback of
participants may not sit well with centralised change leadership.
CASE
STUDIES
The process of relating
top-down and bottom-up change management in the implementation of flexible
learning in higher education is examined through three case studies involving
the first author over a period of 12 years. These case studies are the
implementation of networked education on the Wellington campus of Massey
University (formerly Wellington Polytechnic), New Zealand from September 1995
to December 2000, a five-month consultancy in 2000 at the Cape Technikon, South
Africa to lead the enterprise-wide wide implementation of open and flexible
learning, and four years of implementing eLearning at the University of
Botswana to January 2005. Findings in these cases are considered for the
enhancement of flexible learning at
Networked Education
Implementation at
The governance of the
University through the Council’s delegated powers to the Principal was instrumental
in the provision of resources to kick off the hypermedia in distance education
(HYDI) project. The Principal funded the HYDI project from an innovation budget
which provided the necessary computer infrastructure for the project. The
president was the sponsor of the project also in terms of general support and
inviting the first author, who was the project manager to make presentations to
the Management Board. The project was, however, not related to a specific
strategic goal and this contributed to limited diffusion and buy-in in flexible
learning. Top-down change efforts thus need to occur within a strategic
framework for diffusion to be effective toward bringing organisational change.
The level of resources made available would not have been possible without
senior management and middle management support.
Bottom-up change strategies
at Massey, however, lead to interest among pockets of academics most notably
the adult education group, who also operated as the learning and teaching
group, who was central to the pilot
conducted in 1997 to develop a free online subject. The central Bottom-up change influence during
this implementation of flexible learning, referred to as networked education at
this time, was the result of an action research project that the first author,
as doctoral student (Uys, 2000), conducted from 1995 to 1998. In line with the
observation by Cunningham (1993) that there are difficulties with the
application of the positivistic research paradigm to carry out research and change
in real-life settings, a qualitative methodology like action research was
deemed more appropriate to address the research problem which was to
investigate what the key management issues were when implementing networked
education in tertiary education.
The action research process
typically occurs as a spiral of sequential research cycles. This process was
initially defined by Lewin (1946) and further developed by others including
Carr and Kemmis (1986) and Zuber- Skerrit (1992). There are typically four interrelated steps
or elements within each cycle that do not necessarily occur sequentially, but
can be a continuous process as the four elements (plan, observe, act and
reflect) may occur in parallel. Action research therefore acknowledges the
complexity of reality by allowing the research to progress within a series of cycles. This allows the
research to mature while it is possible that the problem, variables,
hypotheses, and methods may undergo modification as interim results are validated
or invalidated (
The leadership provided by
the first author in introducing this change within Massey University,
Wellington have also aligned this study more with “diagnostic action research”
(Chein, Cook and Jarding, 1948) than with “participant action research” – the
latter being strongly advocated for use in the educational sphere (Kemmis and
McTaggart, 1988; Zuber- Skerrit, 1992; Elliot, 1991). This was a major flaw in
unlocking the potential of action research to bring about wide institutional
change. This does not imply that this research was done in isolation. Members
of the HYDI team that worked with the author to develop networked education at
Open and Flexible Learning
Implementation at
The first author was the
project manager during a five-month consultancy in 2000 at the
The level of resources made
available would not have been possible without senior management and middle
management support. The Rector and Vice-Chancellor and the Vice
Rector strongly supported
this work. Furthermore when typical political problems like natural resistance
to change were encountered, senior management was able to step in and direct
matters. Middle management, that is heads of academic and administrative
departments, played an important role in controlling resources; in some cases
in a positive way and in other cases in restricting support.
At
This created a strong
top-down impetus and the creation of a reward structure by means of a central
fund that encouraged participation, which confirmed the view of Berge and
Schrum (1998:35) that the key to success of campus initiatives in
technology-enhanced learning and distance education is the support of campus
leaders. This further correlates with Drucker's (1985) assertion that a
successful innovation should aim at leadership from the beginning in order to
be innovative enough and capable of establishing itself.
Bottom-up and top-down
strategies converged at faculty level in the workgroups that were established
under the leadership of the deans in each faculty and chaired by an
enthusiastic and capable academic. Each faculty workgroup consisted of keen
academic staff members and further had wide representation including
administration, the information technology group and the Centre for eLearning.
A development team for
eLearning were effective in operationalising the strategic directives which
included the development of materials. The following roles were used: that of a
sponsor, project manager, content provider, graphic designer, computer
specialist, instructional designer, editor, media developer, business manager,
project secretary, IT representative, library representative and representative
from administration and the six chairpersons of the Faculty eLearning
Workgroups. The community of practice concept was extended to include a group
of approximately 50 staff members who were a blend of academic staff and
support staff.
In this case study
innovation occurred within a strategic framework which provided momentum for
success. The strong central support enabled a consultant from outside to play a
crucial role in establishing an innovation that was sustained by buy-in from
all divisions and faculties and alignment of top-down and bottom-up
strategies. Inside-out strategies can
help compensate for some lack of understanding of the culture of an
organisation by the consultant and ensure that change is embedding outlasting
any individual change agent. eLearning at
eLearning Implementation at
the
The first author lead the Educational Technology Unit (EduTech)
in the Centre for Academic Development (CAD) as Deputy Director: Centre for
Academic Development (Educational Technology) from 2000 to 2004 and the
The mission and vision of the University of
Botswana (UB) to transform its academic processes
towards an increasingly technological base has strongly influenced the move
towards eLearning at the University. The vision of the
University is to strive for excellence in the provision of education to the nation that
includes the use of ICTs in the teaching-learning process. This vision lead
directly to the launch of the eLearning Initiative at the
eLearning
at UB has been defined in line with the University’s vision as the appropriate
organisation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for advancing
student-oriented, active, open, collaborative and life-long teaching-learning
processes.
UB aligned itself with the stated objectives of
The rationale formulated for
using advanced learning
technologies at the University of Botswana therefore included increasing the quality of learning and the success rate of students; creating and supporting new research opportunities; alleviating increasing
administrative and teaching pressures on academic staff; supporting academic
freedom and freedom of speech through free information flows and making
teaching more rewarding and exciting for academics.
At the
At UB the emphasis of the LASO Model (Uys, 2007) on inside-out change strategies (Earl,
1989), which acknowledges the central importance of people in the
transformation process, was considered and attempts were made to address
perceptions, attitudes and behaviours of students, academic staff and project
teams.
The inside-out change focus
of the LASO model underscores Kotter and Cohen’s emphasis (2002) that change
management approaches should focuses on both rational approaches as well as on
the affective domain through see-feel-change strategies. UBeL, however,
focussed most of its efforts on the traditional read-think-change strategies
such as the circulation of documents, email discussion lists (such as the
university-wide UBeL list) and meetings that did not lead to wide-spread sense
of urgency for change. The
An exception in which a
see-feel-change strategy was used was the monthly UBeL Club meetings where
academics and students were the presenters and told their own stories of the
benefits and issues of using eLearning. These “brown bag” meetings were
successful in its intention to present real life stories but seemed to attract
mostly the same audience. eLearning was thus not a widespread interest among
academic staff.
Ownership by academic staff
was strived for to ensure the diffusion of eLearning at UB. Strategies such as
one-to-one and small group discussions, demonstrations, academic involvement in
decision-making wherever possible and explanation of the benefits of eLearning
were used to ensure a reasonable level of academic ownership. Other strategies
included involving academics in the UBel Committee and the eTeams that have been established in
each Faculty. Two academic staff members on the UBel Committee represent each
faculty and these staff members lead the eLearning programme within their
faculty through an eTeam; this initiative has had varying degrees of success.
Academic staff members, through the UBel Committee, were central to the
selection of the online Learning Management System.
Running regular workshops on relevant aspects for academic staff
members was an effective bottom up strategy to broaded the based of eLearning
users. The
UBeL training programme for instance ran more than 60 educational technology
workshops from 2002 to 2004 as part of the UBeL Certificate and these were
attended by more than 30% of all academic staff at the University.
Academic staff members were also central to conducting a
University-wide needs analysis and in the design of the 2003 eLearning pilot
programme. A team approach in which academic staff played a key role as
content experts helped to support ownership by academic staff of the
transformation. This dominant team-approach for the development of distance and
eLearning materials (Bates, 1993:232; DEC
working party, 1989; Garrison,
1989:98&117; Holmberg, 1995) provide to be a key bottom-up change
approach. A year-long university-wide pilot study was used, in which the first
author was the overall project manager, to identify a relevant and effective
approach for developing eLearning materials at the University. The pilot study
consisted of eight university-wide projects that were conducted between
November 2002 and December 2003 and that were representative of all the
Faculties.
The first author further
brought together interested staff to form an informal eLearning research group
that worked together to publish a number of papers. All the bottom-up change
strategies did create a very loose sense of a community of practice that relied
strongly on the energy that came from EduTech.
The benefits and advantages
of technology based education for the institution, teachers and students were
consistently highlighted in order to gain the positive interest of
administrative managers and academic staff in the technological transformation
of higher education. At the same time specific issues relating to eLearning
were identified and strategies to address these were developed as part of the
strategic plan. The issues of intellectual property (Johnston and Challis,
1994) and copyright (Barnard, 1997; McCullagh, 1995 September) in particular
are amplified in eLearning where copying and replicating materials are
alarmingly easy. This issue is further complicated by the notion of
instructional design through teams.
This case study
demonstrated the important role played by central leadership from a learning
and teaching group as critical for the innovation with professional development
as a major change strategy. Again there was an alignment top-down and bottom-up
strategies with buy-in from all divisions and faculties and a network of
interested people, a primitive community of practice, being instrumental in
sustaining an innovation. In this developing country the University’s goal
aligned with broader national goals and the novelty value of new technologies
played a key role in uptake and participation in professional development
Conclusions
and recommendations
The results from the case
studies are being considered by an
Cognisance of the
organisation’s culture will have to be taken in the change strategies. The
inside-out change focus of the LASO model underscores Kotter and Cohen’s
emphasis (2002) that change management approaches should focuses on both
rational approaches as well as on the affective domain through see-feel-change
strategies. A video of students and staff expressing their need for more
flexibility and higher quality of learning and teaching will be produced to be
used to create a sense of urgency for change. A follow-up video is planned for
later in 2008 where students and staff express their views on what changes have
occurred. These videos would be used in presentations to schools and divisions
and also possibly in the introductory sessions for new academic staff. Posters
will be used widely on notice boards in the schools and supporting divisions.
Stories can paint vivid pictures and will be used by flexible learning
champions at ‘brown’ bag’ meetings and school based information and
professional development sessions.
The LASO Model for
Technological Transformation in Higher Education (Uys, 2007) emphasises that university
governance as a strong top-down impetus working through planning, organizing
and control, needs to operate in an interactive and mutually supportive
relationship with change leadership. Change leadership that provides motivation
and ownership can complement the reliance on plans and alignment of traditional
change management strategies.
Building of communities of
practice will be trialled as a key bottom-up change process that links to
action research practices in providing support and motivation during
institutional change. As one of its specific University level initiatives to
support flexible learning CSU is establishing an Institute for Innovation in Flexible Learning and Teaching.
Designed to be an interdisciplinary centre of excellence for applied,
educational research and the promotion of innovative and sustainable practice
in flexible learning and teaching, the Institute will be an ideal framework to
support Action Research initiatives within schools.
Change activities and
strategies will need to be aligned within the strategic framework of CSU to
ensure that there is widespread buy-in from all divisions and faculties. This
will ensure strong central support from the learning and teaching group, the IT
division and student support services. The novelty value of the new online
learning management system could act as a driver for change, while ongoing
professional development can provide a major vehicle for change.
At
Charles Sturt University these strategies and change dimensions will be studied
to see how effective these prove to be in the desired change to higher quality
and an increase in the flexibility of learning and teaching delivery.
References
Ackhoff, R. (1972), A note on systems science. Interfaces,
August 40. WP Press,
Barnard, J. (1997), The World Wide Web and higher education: the
promise of virtual universities and online libraries. Educational
Technology, May-June, pp.30-35.
Bates, A.W. (Ed.) (1984), The role of technology in distance
education. London: Croom Helm.
Bates, A.W. (1992). Technology for distance education,
pp.241-265. In Tait, A. (Ed.). Key issues in open learning. Harlow:
Longman.
Bates, A.W. (1993), Theory and practice in the use of technology
in distance education, pp.213-233. In Keegan, D. (Ed.), Theoretical
principles of distance education. London: Routledge.
Bates, A. W. (1999) Strategies
for the Future. [Online]. Available:
http://bates.cstudies.ubc.ca/strategies.html [2002, July 10]
Bates, A.W. (2000) Management
technology change. Strategies for college and university leaders.
Berge, Z. L. & Schrum, L. (1998) Strategic planning linked with program implementation for distance
education. CAUSE/EFFECT, 21(3),
pp.31-38.
Bolman, L & Deal, T (2003). Reframing Organizations. John Wiley
& Sons, New Jersey.
Boone, L.E. & Kurtz,
D.L. (1984). Principles of management.
2nd edition. New York: Random House.
Bromage, A. (2006). The Management of Planned Change: An
interdisciplinary perspective. In Hunt, L., Bromage, A. and Tomkinson, B.
(Eds.). (2006). The Realities of Change
in Higher Education: Interventions to Promote Learning and Teaching.
London: Routledge.
Buchan, J & Buchan, A 2003, Lessons from nature: Developing
an adaptive management model for sustaining quality learning environments, 16th ODLAA Biennial Forum
Conference Proceedings, ‘Sustaining quality learning environments’.
Caladine, R. (1993). Overseas Experience in Non-Traditional
Modes of Delivery in Higher Education Using State-of-the-Art Technologies: A
Literature Review.
Cannon, R.A. (1986). Theoretical perspectives in changing Higher
education. In Jones, J. & Horsburgh, M. (Eds.). Research and development
in higher education.
ChangingMinds.org. (2007). Changing
minds and persuasion. [Online]. Available: http://changingminds.org/ [2007, April 3]
Chein,
Daft, R.L. (1989). Organization theory and design. 3rd
edition.
Daniel, J. S. (1998). Mega-universities
and knowledge media. Technology strategies for higher education.
DEC Working Party (1991). Distance education discussion and direction
papers.
Drucker, P.F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship.
Drucker, P.F. (1998). Peter
Drucker on the profession of management.
Earl, M. (1989). Multiple
methodology. Management strategies for information technology.
Elliot, J. (1991). Action
research for educational change.
Evans, F.J. & Franz, J.B. (1998, April). Managing change
in the global university.
Proceedings of the Towards the Global University: Strategies for the
Third Millennium Conference.
Evans, T. & Nation, D. (1993). Reforming open and
distance education. Critical reflections.
Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change.
2nd edition.
Garrison, D. R. (1989). Understanding
distance education. A framework for the future.
Gibson, C. B. and Manuel, J. A. (2003). “Building trust: effective
multicultural communication processes in virtual teams”, in Gibson C.B. &
Cohen S.G. (Eds) Virtual Teams that Work,
Wiley and Sons, San Francisco, pp59 – 86
Goodman, J. (1995). Change
without difference: School restructuring in historical perspective. Harvard
Educational Review, 65(1), 1-29.
Goodman, P. S., and Kurke, L. B. (1982). Studies of change in organizations:
A status report. In P. S. Goodman (ed.). Change
in Organizations.
Gunn, C. (1998). Virtual technologies in higher education:
vision or reality? pp.134-145. In Peters, M. & Roberts, P. (Eds.), Virtual
technologies and Higher education.
Hill, CWL, Jones, G & Galvin,
P. (2004). Strategic management: An
integrated approach. John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd
Hitt, W. D. (1995). The learning
organisation: some reflections on organisational renewal. Leadership and organisation development journal. Volume 16, Issue 8
, pp. 17 – 26.
Holmberg, B. (1995). Theory and practice of distance
education. 2nd edition.
Johnston, R. & Challis, K. (1994). The learning
relationship: A study of staff development and satisfaction in relation to
distance learning teaching. International Journal of University Adult
Education 33(1): pp.62-76.
Kemmis, S. &
McTaggart, R. (Eds) (1988). The action research reader. 3rd edition.
Kotter,
J. P. (1990). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review. 68, 3, pp
103-111.
Kotter, JP (1996). Creating
the guiding coalition, Leading change, Harvard Business School Press,
Kotter,
J. P. & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The
heart of change.
Lueddeke , George. (May/June, 1999). Toward a Constructivist Framework for
Guiding Change and innovation in Higher Education Journal of higher
education, Vol 70 No 3 pp. 235-260. In Buezzo, F. (2006) MGT572. Assignment 2.
Unpublished assignment.
Mahony, M. J. & Wozniak, H. (2006). Diffusion of innovation
and professional development in eLearning: The CHS eLearning resource case
study. Breaking down boundaries.
International experience in open, distance and flexible learning. Selected
papers of the 2006 ODLAA conference.
Marquard, M. J. (1996). Building
the learning organization – a systems approach to quantum improvement and
global success.
Mason, R. (1998). Globalising
education. Trends and applications.
McCullagh, A. (1995, September). What are the risks? (1).
Paper presented at New Media and On-line Commerce conference,
McKay,
McNaught, C. (2003). Innovation and change in higher education:
Managing multiple polarities. Perspectives,
7 (3), p76-82.
Middlehurst, R. (1993). Leading
academics. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Munitz, B. (1997. The
New Educational Paradigm.
Keynote at the 18th World International Council for Distance Education
Conference.
Nixon, J. (1996). Professional identity and the restructuring of
higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 21: pp.5-16.
Pastore, R. (1995, October 1). Interview: Michael E. Porter. CIO
Magazine. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.cio.com/archive/100195_porter_print.html [2000, January 19].
Paul, R.H. (1990). Open learning and open management:
leadership and integrity in distance education.
Presidential Task Group. September (1997). Long Term Vision for
Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to Lead in Higher Education.
Robbins, S. P. and N. Barnwell (1998). Organisation Theory: Concepts and Cases.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. 4th
edition.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth
discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Stace, D &
Swanson, E. B. (1994). Information
Systems Innovation Among Organizations. Management Science 40(9): pp.1069-1092.
Szabo, M., Anderson, T., & Fuchs, A. (1997). A change
system: the training, infrastructure and empowerment system: (TIES).
[On-line]. Available:
http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/edmedia/TIES/TIES_Report.html
[1999, July 10].
Tapscott, D. (1996). The
digital economy: promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence.
Taylor, P., Lopez, L. & Quadrelli, C. (1996). Flexibility,
Technology and Academics' Practices: Tantalising Tales and Muddy Maps,
Evaluations and Investigations Programme, Department of Employment, Education,
Training and Youth Affairs,
Tillema, H.H. (1995). Changing the professional knowledge and beliefs
of teachers: A training study. Learning and Instruction. 5: pp.291-318.
Thomas, O., Carswell, L., Price, B., Petre, M. (1998). A holistic approach to supporting distance
learning using the Internet: transformation, not translation. British
Journal of Educational Technology, Vol 29, No 2, pp.149-161.
Uys, P.M (2000). Towards
the virtual class: key management issues in Higher education. Unpublished
PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Uys, P.M. (2001). The LASO
Model. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.globe-online.com/philip.uys/LASOmodel.htm [2007, April 3].
Uys, P.M. (2007). Enterprise-Wide
Technological Transformation in Higher Education: The LASO Model. International
Journal of Educational Management (ISSN: 0951-354X),
Willmot, M. & McLean,
M. (1994). Evaluating flexible learning: A case study. Journal for Higher
Education 18(3): pp.99-108.
Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1992). Action
research in higher education.