Developing the whole student - Oxford Learning Institute - University ...

Developing the 

whole student: 

leading higher 

education initiatives 

that integrate mind 

and heart 

December 2011 ISBN: 978-1-906627-28-7 

Stimulus paper 

Dr Kathleen M. Quinlan, Oxford Learning Institute, University of Oxford

Stimulus Paper Series 

The Leadership Foundation is pleased to launch its new series of 

‘Stimulus Papers’ which are intended to inform thinking, choices and 

decisions at institutional and system levels in UK higher education. 

The papers were selected from an open tender which sought to 

commission focused and thought-provoking papers that address 

the challenges facing leaders, managers and governors in the new 

economic environment facing the UK. 

The themes addressed fall into different clusters including higher 

education leadership, business models for higher education, leading 

the student experience and leadership and equality of opportunity 

in higher education. We hope these papers will stimulate discussion 

and debate, as well as giving an insight into some of the new and 

First Published in December 2011 

Leadership Foundation for Higher Education 

Published by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education 

Registered and operational address: 

Leadership Foundation for Higher Education 

First Floor, Holborn Gate 

330 High Holborn 

London, WC1V 7QT 

England 

Tel: +44 (0)20 7849 6900 

Fax: +44 (0)20 7849 6901 

E-mail: info@lfhe.ac.uk 

www.lfhe.ac.uk 

© Leadership Foundation for Higher Education 

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be 

reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, 

electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording 

or any information storage and retrieval system, without 

prior permission in writing from the copywrite owner. 

ISBN: 978-1-906627-28-7 

Designed & produced by The Print Connection 

Printed in the United Kingdom

Foreword Professor Craig Mahoney, 

Chief Executive, Higher Education Academy 

Higher education in the UK is one of the great success stories of the past 20 years. 

It has expanded in line with government policy and provided individuals, companies and 

UK governments’ access to knowledge for the creation of wealth in many forms, to change 

opinion and to enable economic growth. However during the early part of the 21st century 

we have also seen huge pressure on education, government funding and the personal 

circumstances of individuals, families, companies and the UK. 

“Higher education 

must also be 

clear about how 

it supports the 

relationship 

between students 

and society.” 

Professor Craig Mahoney 

Perhaps now, more than ever, this publication, Developing the Whole Student: 

Leading Higher Education Initiatives that Integrate Mind and Heart by Kathleen Quinlan 

provides us with an opportunity to reflect on what constitutes the development of a well 

rounded student learning experience. As leaders in institutions and as educators, we must 

ensure that knowledge acquisition, together with personal growth and development, 

remain a central part of students’ education - to create lifelong learners not only possessing 

higher level academic skills and discerning information literacy skills, but also excellent 

transferable skills and appropriate graduate attributes. Higher education must also be 

clear about how it supports the relationship between students and the wider society 

in which they live and this report provides useful insights into how a holistic student 

experience can be created and led, particularly drawing on research evidence in the US. 

There is a need to build such an evidence base in the UK. This is a timely and well written 

report that I strongly commend to those interested in higher education and in student 

learning and development.

01 Developing the whole student: leading higher education initiatives that integrate mind and heart 

Contents 

Executive summary 02 

Introduction 05 

I UK Context 

I Questions to be addressed 

Responses to key questions 07 

I What is meant by ‘developing the whole student’? 

I To what extent does a university experience influence students’ holistic development? 

I What educational activities support this type of development? 

I What leadership is required for such initiatives? 

I What are the likely leadership challenges, pitfalls and lessons? 

Conclusion 19 

Acknowledgments 19 

Bibliography 20 

Biography 25

Stimulus paper by Kathleen M. Quinlan 02 

Executive Summary 

1 

Palmer et al (2010) 

In addition to influencing students’ knowledge base, thinking abilities and skills, higher 

education offers the opportunity to promote other aspects of students’ growth as people. 

Higher education has an important role in shaping our future society because today’s 

university students will be tomorrow’s doctors, engineers, business managers, teachers, 

faith leaders, politicians, citizens, activists, parents and neighbours. While they need to 

be able to demonstrate key skills and knowledge to enact those roles effectively, they 

must also demonstrate personal and social responsibility in carrying them out. A focus 

on holistic student development may be particularly timely in addressing the current 

challenges the sector, and society, faces. 

While much of the current political discourse about higher education is instrumental 

and economic, this paper aims to lay the foundation for a discourse focused on student 

development. It puts forward a conceptual framework for leadership of learning and 

teaching in higher education, assuming we need to contextualise leadership, by focusing 

specifically on leadership of something for something. In this case, the argument is for 

leadership of teaching and learning for the purpose of promoting students’ holistic 

development. To support leaders’ understanding of the key issues in holistic student 

development and the leadership implications of embracing such an educational purpose, 

the paper synthesises literature from a variety of spheres that answers five key questions. 

A brief summary of responses to each question is provided here. 

What is meant by ‘developing the whole student’ and how might this 

general aim fit within the current UK higher education context? 

The notion of holistic student development encompasses not only learning academic 

knowledge and skills, such as problem-solving and analysis, but also other aspects of 

students as people who are growing and maturing affectively (emotionally) and morally. 

Across a variety of related literature, a few common themes emerge: 

I Going beyond knowledge and skills to include other aspects of being a person in 

society (such as emotion, spirituality, moral judgement, embodiment). 

I An integrative view of learning and development that emphasises the connections 

and relationships between thinking, feeling and action, rather than separating cognitive 

dimensions of education from affective or moral dimensions. 

In advocating a broader view of the educational process, they also challenge – either 

explicitly or implicitly – the purposes of education. While several different studies 

are referenced that offer language around character, virtues and personal and social 

responsibility, a tight definition of holistic development might be counterproductive to 

opening a conversation about alternative ways of conceptualising higher education’s role 

in relation to its students 1 . Different aspects of development may be more important in 

different contexts. Opening a conversation enables a community to choose the concepts 

and associated language that best capture its values and priorities.


2 

Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) 

3 

Colby et al (2003) 

4 

Mezirow and Taylor (2009) 

5 

Robinson et al (2008) 

To what extent does a university experience influence students’ 

holistic development? 

There is a rich tradition of research in student development in higher education in the USA, 

although there is very little in the UK or other anglophone countries. In American higher 

education, students’ attitudes and values change in many ways, including greater cultural, 

aesthetic and intellectual sophistication; greater openness and ‘other-person’ orientation; 

greater humanitarian and altruistic values; greater likelihood of civic involvement and more 

positive attitudes toward racial equality and tolerance; greater understanding of other 

cultures and more egalitarian sex-roles. Students also make significant gains during the 

university years in their level of principled moral reasoning 2 . Additional research is needed 

in the UK to determine the extent to which the UK’s educational systems foster these kinds 

of effects on students. 

What educational activities support this type of development? 

The same kinds of educational activities that are known to support traditional dimensions 

of academic understanding are even more important in helping students to develop 

their values, sense of self, identity and purpose 3 . A key ingredient is the use of active 

pedagogies such as service learning, problem-based learning and discussion of moral 

dilemmas in the discipline. Interaction with diverse peers is also a vital aspect of the 

higher education experience. Exposing students to new experiences and perspectives – 

whether in the classroom, community, halls of residence, field trips, study abroad – and 

providing opportunities to reflect on those in dialogue with others offer powerful learning 

experiences that shape people’s development 4 . Specialised curricula such as women’s 

studies and ethnic studies courses also influence students’ attitudes and awareness of 

self-in-society. 

What leadership is required? 

This paper proposes that there are three main spheres of leadership that are needed to 

promote holistic student development, which are illustrated visually. First, leaders are in a 

position to create supportive environments for student development by helping to foster 

organisational conditions in which students can grow holistically. To do so, they need to 

attend to and align the culture of the institution, the curriculum, the co-curriculum and the 

sense of campus community. Second, leaders need to focus on their own inner lives – their 

senses of self – so that they are modelling lives of purpose, meaning and integrity. Third, 

returning to a key assumption underpinning this paper, knowledge of and involvement 

in the specific curricular and teaching strategies that can promote holistic student 

development (as discussed in the previous section) is an essential, although under-discussed, 

aspect of leadership in higher education. This paper follows Robinson et al’s 5 call for linking 

educational leadership to evidence of effective learning and teaching. The leadership 

model presented in this paper integrates the various aspects of leadership needed to create 

universities that intentionally promote holistic student development. The paper highlights 

the content and context of leadership, emphasising not leadership or even leadership in 

higher education generally, but leadership of learning and teaching (by explicitly including 

knowledge and evidence related to this core business) for holistic student development 

(a proposed purpose of higher education). These three components link organisational 

development with the development of leaders as people who are in relationship with other 

members of the community and educational development. These aspects of leadership 

interact and mutually reinforce each other; congruence among them is vital. The model also 

acknowledges the larger context within which universities are embedded.


What are the likely leadership challenges, pitfalls and lessons for those 

wishing to implement programmes with these goals in the UK higher 

education context? 

Each of the aspects of leadership highlighted in Section 3.4 throws up potential 

challenges. In addition, the wider socio-cultural and political contexts of higher education 

also present challenges. Higher education is currently a contested and conflicted sector; 

while these difficult times present us with an opportunity to re-examine our values, the 

values underlying this paper run counter to the current climate. In addition, making major 

changes in times of resource constraint is difficult. Leaders may encounter resistance 

couched in a variety of different critiques and must be prepared to bring conversations 

back to a learning and student development focus. This paper tries to introduce a different 

discourse, but if that new discourse is used in service of marketisation pressures to further 

commodify higher education, we risk corrupting the very heart of the idea. The best 

rationale for promoting holistic student development may be quite simply that it is a right 

and good thing to do – yet, such an argument is difficult to sustain on its own against a 

rising tide of external demands on the sector.


6 

Arthur (2005) 

7 

Dearing (1997) 

8 

Department for Business, 

Innovation and Skills (2009), 

Browne (2010) 

9 

Barnett and Coates (2005), 

Walker (2006) 

10 

Maxwell (1976), Maxwell (1984), 

Arthur (2005), Arthur and 

Bohlin (2005), Walker (2006), 

Barnett (2007), Maxwell (2007), 

Nixon (2009) 

11 


12 

Colby, Ehrlich et al (2003), 

Dey (2008) 

13 

Ehrlich (2000) 

14 

Braskamp, Trautvetter et al 

(2006), Braskamp, Trautvetter et 

al (2008) 

15 

Sullivan and Rosin (2008) 

16 

Sternberg, Reznitskaya et al 

(2008) 

17 

Beaty and Henry (2007) 

18 

Pascarella, Ethington and 

Smart (1988), Gaudiani (1997), 

Heffernan (2001), Hartley, 

Saltmarsh et al (2010) 

19 

Department for Business, 

Innovation and Skills (2011) 

20 

Bolden (2011) 

21 

Ertl and Wright (2008) 

22 

Pope (2006) 

Introduction 

Today’s university students will be tomorrow’s doctors, engineers, business managers teachers, 

faith leaders, politicians, citizens, activists, parents and neighbours. While they need to be 

able to demonstrate key skills and knowledge to enact those roles effectively, they must also 

demonstrate good character in carrying out their responsibilities. The role of higher education in 

developing character was affirmed in each of the University Grants Committee Reports in 1948, 

1952 and 1964 6 . The Dearing Report 7 emphasises the development of people and a ‘learning 

society’ as central to the aims of higher education, though the language was shifting. In recent 

history, the terminology of ‘character’ or ‘morals’ has rarely been invoked in higher education. 

While there tends to be greater commitment to these educational purposes in secondary and 

primary education, the acculturating role of higher education in ‘civilised society’ has been given 

only passing reference in the past decade 8 . Instead, as Barnett and Coats 9 have argued, moral 

and social aims of higher education have been overshadowed by emphases on instrumental and 

economic goals, including employability skills and preparation for the workplace. 

With a few notable exceptions in the academic literature 10 there is relatively little discourse in the 

UK about the ways that higher education can support not only intellectual development, but the 

development of the whole student. In contrast, there has been increased attention in the USA in 

the past 15 years to the effects of university education on such aspects of student development 

as students’ values and attitudes 11 , ‘personal and social responsibility’ 12 , ‘civic responsibility’ 13 , 

holistic student development 14 , ‘responsible judgement’ 15 , ‘wisdom’ 16 , ‘moral formation’ 17 and 

service learning 18 . 

UK context 

The current climate of higher education in the UK may offer opportunities for innovations 

in educating for whole student development. Universities are under increasing pressure 

to demonstrate their value 19 : to students and their families who are paying higher fees, to 

governments in an era of increasing accountability and to the public at large. In the current UK 

higher education landscape, value justifications are usually sought in economic terms. Yet a 

focus on ‘returns on investment’ and increasing employability (while undoubtedly important) 

do not adequately capture the broader and, arguably, more important social contributions 

higher education can make. The economic discourse is often disheartening for academics as 

many of them feel pulled away from their own personal value centres by the priorities that seem 

to dominate the current context 20 . Simultaneously, increased attention is paid to the ‘student 

experience’ 21 , although this notion is still underdeveloped, particularly in the UK. 

A focus on holistic student development may be particularly timely in addressing the current 

challenges the sector faces. Recent interest in university ‘branding’ can be redirected from a 

marketing exercise to an opportunity for a university genuinely to articulate core institutional 

values. Institutions can take this opportunity to clarify how they help students create meaningful 

lives that integrate interests of the head with passions of the heart. In the competitive 

American higher education market, small HEIs have created niches and pockets of excellence 

in unexpected places, gaining national attention through guidebooks such as those by Pope 22 , 

which extols the virtues of 40 colleges that ‘change lives’. Several small colleges are noted for 

their roles in instilling values. Most focus on the personal development of their students. All are 

highly student-centred. With over 100,000 copies of Pope’s book sold, it appears that initiatives


that focus on whole student development are attractive to students and their families. Indeed, 

research on school choice in both Europe and the USA also shows that parents choose faithbased 

schools because they provide a strong foundation for whole student development 

through clear, distinct commitments to a set of well-articulated guiding values, rather than 

for the religious content per se 23 . Thus both faith-based and secular universities could use this 

opportunity to articulate their commitments to students on their own terms. 

Using this historic moment in UK higher education to refocus attention on holistic student 

development may also boost academic morale. Creating an institutional environment aligned 

to students’ holistic development (however defined) would enable academics to reconnect 

with the core values and interests that brought them to teaching and reinvigorate commitment 

to a common cause. Palmer 24 has been a leader in calling for ‘renewal’ of the academy through 

attention to integrative education that helps students ‘become more fully developed human 

beings’ 25 . He focuses on changing the academy through collegial conversation; it is central to 

how the academy works and can be an essentially humanising process. In the UK, Maxwell has 

been a long-standing proponent of an orientation to academic work which ‘... puts the mind in 

touch with the heart, and the heart in touch with the mind, so that we may acquire heartfelt 

minds, and mindful hearts’ 26 . 

23 

Glenn (2005) 

24 

Palmer (2000), Palmer, 

Zajonc et al (2010) 

25 

Palmer (2010) p2 

26 

Maxwell (1976) 

27 

Robinson, Lloyd et al (2008) 

Questions to be addressed 

If universities take the lead in re-articulating their core commitments and their relationship with 

students and society, they can communicate their value in broader terms and, potentially, assert 

their moral authority as a sector. This paper lays the foundation for a new discourse of student 

development and offers a framework for understanding how to create rich student experiences 

by briefly addressing five key questions: 

1. What is meant by ‘developing the whole student’ and why would higher education 

embrace this educational purpose? 

2. To what extent does a university experience influence students’ holistic development? 

3. What educational activities support this type of development? 

4. What leadership is required? 

5. What are the likely leadership challenges, pitfalls and lessons for those wishing to 

implement programmes with these goals in the UK higher education context? 

This approach, and the substantial focus in Questions 1 to 3 on educational processes, is 

based on the assumption that we need to contextualise leadership, by focusing specifically on 

leadership of something for something. In this case, the argument is for leadership of teaching for 

the purpose of promoting students’ holistic development. Drawing on the notion of instructional 

leadership in school settings 27 , this paper assumes that leaders need an understanding of 

learning processes and must be involved actively in leading educational enhancement efforts. 

In the following sections, we consider each of these questions in turn to build a solid foundation 

upon which leaders can work alongside their colleagues in creating learning environments that 

take a broader view of the student learning experience. 

The paper synthesises and interprets existing, but often unconnected, literatures, including the 

large body of literature on student development in higher education in the USA (because there 

is very little research focused on student development in the UK and other English-speaking 

countries) and some research on leadership in primary and secondary schools (because research 

on schools leadership is much more extensive than on higher education leadership).


28 

Arthur, Wilson et al (2009) 

29 

Harland and Pickering (2011) 

30 

Beaty and Henry (2007) 

31 

Colby, Ehrlich et al (2003) 

32 

Grootenboer (2010) 

33 

Dey (2008), Dey, Antonaros 

et al (2009) 

34 


(2006), Braskamp, Trautvetter 

et al (2008) 

35 

For instance, moral formation 

is typically associated with faith 

formation and, as such, is more 

readily embraced in faith-based 

institutions. Values education is 

a term also closely associated 

with religious education in the 

nomenclature of UK secondary 

schools. Holistic development, 

as Braskamp et al (2006) use 

the term, also includes physical 

well-being and faith, spirituality 

and religious commitments. I 

present the variety of terms as 

a conversation starter, knowing 

that the terms are politicised and 

some will resonate in particular 

contexts, where others will not. 

36 

Jones and Abes (2004), Nash 

(2008), Temple and Ylitalo (2009) 

Responses to key 

questions 

What is meant by ‘developing the 

whole student’? 

The notion of holistic student development encompasses academic learning and 

the development of skills such as problem-solving and analysis while simultaneously 

recognising other aspects of students as people who are growing and maturing affectively 

(emotionally) and morally. There are a number of different terms associated with this 

educational philosophy, including character education 28 values education 29 , moral 

education/formation 30 , educating for citizenship 31 , affective education 32 and educating for 

social and personal responsibility 33 , as well as holistic education 34 . Thus relevant studies 

may focus on values, attitudes, beliefs, virtues, character, moral, spiritual or affective 

outcomes. Despite differences in terminology and nuances of meaning 35 , there is a set 

of common principles underlying these terms. All of them emphasise going beyond 

knowledge and skills to include other aspects of being a person in society. Most authors 

espouse an integrative view, emphasising the connections and relationships between 

thinking, feeling and action, rather than separating cognitive dimensions of education 

from affective or moral dimensions. They all emphasise moral dimensions of higher 

learning, arguing that the academy has an obligation to guide students in developing a 

sense of personal and social responsibility. In advocating a broader view of the educational 

process, they also challenge – either explicitly or implicitly – the purposes of education, 

typically protesting against economic and managerial discourses. Such discourses reduce 

students to consumers or to packaged products with a set of specifications (‘graduate 

attributes’). While promoting holistic student development is likely to help students gain 

‘transferable skills’ that will make them better employees, the discourse of employability 

alone is insufficient and threatens to undermine attention to students as people. Instead, 

a discourse that focuses on students’ development of personal and social responsibility – 

central to most of the various terms mentioned above – reminds us of the much broader 

responsibility of universities to society. 

Why holistic student development in higher education? 

There is wider interest in and support for this type of educational philosophy within 

primary and secondary schooling than within higher education, for a variety of reasons, 

including that it is generally easier to accept the socialising role of education when 

dealing with children than with adults. But there are good reasons to focus on it in higher 

education, too. 

Authors in this tradition appeal to a broader set of societal needs, pointing to the litany of 

social problems the world faces, ranging from poverty to war to climate change to social 

injustices 36 . Graduates of higher education are tomorrow’s leaders and the troubled world 

needs ‘leaders for good’. 

Higher education is a time of transition and change for all its students. Developmentally, 

young adulthood is a time of change, in which students are grappling with identity and


intimacy 37 and shifting from relying on others to self-authorship 38 . Students in higher 

education confront new ideas and ways of thinking as they interact with students from 

other backgrounds. Mature students may be at a different developmental stage, but 

they are still in a turbulent transition period in which existing views are challenged and 

identities are re-made. Indeed, it is plausible that higher education is even more disruptive 

because established adults have made bigger investments in their pre-university identities, 

life choices and beliefs. No matter their age, the focus on critical thinking in Western higher 

education prompts students to question received wisdom, including value positions 

taught by their families, and practised in their home communities or workplaces. So 

students are in a time of change, in which they must not only deconstruct old meanings 

and ways of making meaning, but reconstruct a sense of purpose in their own life that 

integrates expanded perspectives and worldviews 39 . In this sense, there is also a dimension 

of spirituality involved in holistic student development insofar as spirituality is defined 

broadly as connection with something larger than oneself. 

Finally, it is argued that higher education does pass on values, whether we acknowledge it 

explicitly or not. Each subject has its own set of operating assumptions and standards that 

define what is better or worse or valid or invalid from a disciplinary viewpoint. It is better 

to be explicit about the values we are seeking to instil, as these can then be subject to the 

kind of questioning that is the hallmark of higher education 40 . 

Building a vocabulary 

Attention to values in higher education often provokes dispute from academics because it 

seems to suggest teaching students a particular right way of doing things or thinking. Such 

an educational goal is objectionable because: 1) a respect for pluralism and cultural diversity 

makes it difficult to advocate one particular value over another; 2) it smacks of indoctrination, 

which seems to contradict the sine qua non of higher education, critical thinking 41 . 

37 

Erikson (1959) 

38 

Baxter Magolda (2009) 

39 

Parks (2000) 

40 

Grootenboer (2010) 

41 

Some educational philosophers 

argue cogently that moral 

instruction is not synonymous 

with indoctrination: Tan (2004), 

Merry (2005) 

42 

Macfarlane (2004), Nixon (2009) 

43 

Macfarlane (2004) 

44 


45 

Peterson and Seligman (2004) 

46 

Seligman (2003) 

Rather than teaching a set of rules, principles or standards of behaviour, virtue ethics might 

be a more fruitful way of thinking about moral development in higher education 42 . Virtues 

‘focus on the character of the individual (and) are the excellences of character that enable 

one to achieve the “good” life’ 43 . Thus the terms ‘virtues’ or ‘character strengths’ locate the 

qualities in the people, which is more consistent with the overarching theme of holistic 

student development. To UK students and employers, good character is about ‘good 

morals and right behaviour’ and includes the virtues of empathy, tolerance, care of others, 

capacity for friendship, honesty, reliability, sincerity, trustworthiness and integrity 44 . 

Peterson and Seligman 45 identified a common set of six ubiquitous virtues across the 

world’s major religions and philosophies: wisdom and knowledge; courage; love and 

humanity; justice; temperance; and spirituality and transcendence. Each of these six 

broad, abstract ideas has several routes to it (which they call character strengths) through 

which we achieve the virtues. Character strengths, as learnable (acquirable) moral traits 

(ie enduring over multiple situations) which are measurable and voluntary (ie we choose 

whether to practise them) 46 , have the potential to be influenced by higher education. 

The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) sees personal and social 

responsibility as one of the major groups of learning outcomes essential for twenty-first 

century university graduates. They define these outcomes as: 

1. Striving for excellence: developing a strong work ethic and consciously doing one’s 

very best in all aspects of college.


47 

Dey and Associates (2008) 

48 

Different aspects of 

development may be more 

important in different contexts. 

In the USA, for instance, the 

underlying rationale of preparing 

citizens for a democratic society 

(Colby et al (2003)) resonates 

well with campus leaders, thus 

an emphasis on the intertwining 

of moral and civic learning is 

received enthusiastically. In that 

context, the term holistic student 

development is often received as 

too soft and vague (Tom Ehrlich, 

personal communication 9 May 

2011, Palo Alto, CA). 

49 


have done an exhaustive review 

of the American literature on 

how university affects students 

and, specifically, how university 

contributes to changes. Most 

of the studies they review have 

the difficulty of confounding 

age, maturation and cohort 

effects, ie in establishing that 

student change over time can be 

attributed to the university itself 

rather than to other factors such 

as growing up. Nonetheless, 

there is evidence to suggest that 

in the realm of attitudes and 

values, students change during 

university in many ways. 

50 


51 

Pascarella and Terenzini (2005 

2. Cultivating personal and academic integrity: recognizing and acting on a sense of 

honor, ranging from honesty in relationships to principled engagement with a formal 

academic honor code. 

3. Contributing to a larger community: recognizing and acting on one’s responsibility to 

the educational community and the wider society, locally, nationally, and globally. 

4. Taking seriously the perspectives of others: recognizing and acting on the obligation 

to inform one’s own judgment; engaging diverse and competing perspectives as a 

resource for learning, citizenship, and work. 

5. Developing competence in ethical and moral reasoning and action: developing ethical 

and moral reasoning in ways that incorporate the other four responsibilities; using 

such reasoning in learning and in life 47 . 

In this section, I illustrated several meanings of holistic student development, largely 

by appealing to the language of virtues and ethics to define more concretely what a 

well-developed young person might look like. Holistic student development is a broad 

term encompassing many aspects of student growth as a person. Its core notions are 

contestable, though it is beyond the scope of this paper to explore this. Following Palmer 

et al’s (2010) lead, a tight definition might be counterproductive to opening a conversation 

about alternative ways of conceptualising higher education’s role in relation to its students. 

The intent is to invite a community – whether national or local – to choose the concepts 

and associated language that best capture their values and priorities 48 . 

The next section offers a brief introduction to the empirical evidence about the effects of 

university on particular dimensions of students’ holistic development. 

To what extent does ‘a university 

experience’ influence students’ 

holistic development? 

The experience of university affects students in many ways, including prompting changes 

in attitudes, values and beliefs associated with character or greater personal and social 

responsibility 49 , 50 . 

In US studies undertaken from 1970 to 1990, university students 

showed increases in: 

I Cultural, aesthetic, and intellectual sophistication; 

I Interest in the visual and performing arts; 

I Placing intrinsic value on a liberal education and exposure to new ideas, while attaching 

less value to the instrumental and extrinsic outcomes of education; 

I Importance of the intrinsic benefits of employment (eg creativity, job autonomy and 

intellectual challenge) and reductions in most extrinsic benefits (except money itself ); 

I Openness and ‘other-person’ orientation; 

I Humanitarian and altruistic values; 

I Political and religious tolerance; 

I Individualisation in religious beliefs (less doctrinaire views); 

I Support for egalitarian sex-roles 51 .


Studies in the 1990s focused more on civic engagement and racial/ethnic attitudes. 

University-educated citizens: 

I Vote more and are more knowledgeable about democratic processes and 

socio-political interests; 

I Engage in more political activities, social activism and support for civil liberties; 

I Are two to three times more likely to engage in community service than 

non-university-educated citizens 52 . 

There are also increases during the university years in: 

I Positive attitudes toward racial equality and tolerance; 

I Awareness and understanding of other cultures; 

I Interactions with people of different cultural or ethnic backgrounds; 

I Commitment to fostering racial understanding 53 . 

Based on longitudinal studies, students also make significant gains during the university 

years in their level of principled moral reasoning. In their first year, students are more 

likely to rely upon authorities in deciding what is right (ie conventional moral reasoning), 

whereas by graduation they are more likely to apply universal moral principles (ie 

principled moral reasoning) 54 . 

52 


53 


54 


55 


56 

Belfield, Bullock et al (1999) 

57 


58 

Such as Gamson (1991) and 

Ambrose et al (2010) 

59 


Two major studies we have located which address student development in the UK are 

both based on students’ or graduates’ perceptions of the contributions of their higher 

education to their character 55 or general development 56 . In Belfield et al’s (1999) survey 

of 12,000 UK graduates, graduates perceived that the strongest contributions of higher 

education were to getting an interesting job and securing a good income, as well as to 

increasing their self-confidence. Further analyses showed that arts and humanities degrees 

led to greater reported contributions to general personal skills (communication and selfconfidence) 

than job-related variables (income and interesting jobs). The opposite pattern 

was true of science graduates. Meanwhile Arthur’s interviews with higher education 

students in 2009 57 indicate that they do not see higher education as having a strong 

contribution to student character. Thus, while a reliance on graduates’ views suffers 

from some methodological difficulties with respect to establishing the impact of higher 

education, together these two studies imply that UK higher education does not currently 

have a strong impact on students’ holistic development. 

Yet it would appear that university education has the potential to impact on some 

key aspects of students’ holistic development; but, how and under what conditions? 

The answers to these questions are crucial for leaders who wish to create university 

environments that lead to holistic student development. I turn to these questions in the 

next section. 

What educational activities support 

this type of development? 

Active, engaged pedagogies, such as experiential education, service learning, problembased 

learning and collaborative learning are all effective not only in supporting academic 

learning, but also learning moral and civic engagement. All share a foundation in basic 

principles of learning 58 . Colby et al 59 argue that ‘the development of values and goals, 

moral and civic identity, and a sense of efficacy, hope and compassion is even more


60 

Smith (1994), Chi (2000), Jones 

and Abes (2004) 

61 

Jones and Abes (2004) 

62 

Dey (2008) 

63 

Larrey and Larry (1999), 


64 


65 


66 


67 

Kuh (1995) 

68 


69 


70 


(2006), Braskamp, Trautvetter et 

al (2008) 

71 

Larrey and Larrey (1999), 

Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), 

Braskamp, Trautvetter et al (2008) 

72 


dependent on active engagement, complex and authentic contexts, social exchange, 

regular practice, and informative feedback than in the development of more traditional 

dimensions of academic understanding.’ 

Service learning, a pedagogy that uses student community service as an instructional tool 

to achieve particular academic learning outcomes, has a significant influence on a number 

of aspects of student development 60 . These include: 

I Their commitment to social activism and to changing the political system; 

I Their commitment to community service, to helping others, to understanding 

community problems and to volunteer work in the future (Note: Voluntary community 

service is more effective than mandatory service. Voluntary community service increases 

‘other-oriented’ attitudes and values); 

I Their perceptions of social and economic inequities 61 ; 

I Their inclination to attribute those inequities to the system rather than to individuals 62 ; 

I Their sense of social responsibility 63 . 

Moral development interventions in which academics teach philosophical methods 

of ethical analysis and facilitate discussions of moral dilemmas have a positive effect 

on principled reasoning. Integrating moral and ethical decision-making into existing 

curricula seems more promising than stand-alone ethics courses 64 . But, in UK universities, 

few students reported explicit ethical dimensions to their coursework (outside theology, 

philosophy, psychology or the study of literature). They saw informal support structures 

and tutors who offered additional support as more influential than formal support 

structures 65 . 

Women’s studies and ethnic studies 

Participation in women’s studies and ethnic studies courses and in racial, ethnic and 

cultural awareness workshops appears to promote movement from the conservative 

to the liberal end of the socio-political spectrum, including increased gender-related 

egalitarianism and awareness of discrimination, knowledge of diversity issues, feminist 

consciousness and willingness to adopt new gender role attitudes. Courses focused on 

diversity-related issues also promote students’ development of principled reasoning 66 . 

Diverse peer interactions 

Peer interactions influence a number of socio-political variables 67 . Living in on-campus 

residences appears to promote more positive and inclusive racial-ethnic attitudes. 

Diverse intellectual and social networks foster moral development 68 . Similarly, simply 

moving away from home, with its attendant freedoms and responsibilities, was seen as 

character-building by the UK university students in Arthur’s 2009 study and led to moral 

gains 69 . Interestingly, after controlling for other variables, the structural features of a higher 

education institution (size, type of control, curricular mission) have little effect on student 

development 70 . Where it does have an effect it is indirect, via the interactions students 

have in more diverse campus settings 71 . 

Institutions with honour codes or honour systems that are enforced by students tend to 

have lower levels of student self-reported academic dishonesty. The direction of causality 

with honour codes is not clear, however 72 .


Study abroad 

Study abroad experiences seem to promote intercultural and international awareness, 

knowledge and understanding and a greater growth in principled reasoning 73 . In the UK 

students often take a gap year before entering university. Well-structured gap years that 

involve substantial periods of immersion in volunteer service in developing countries can 

also prompt significant personal growth 74 . 

An underlying pedagogical theory 

Holistic student development assumes there will be some personal growth or change. 

Thus a model of learning that focuses on personal transformation is particularly helpful. 

In addition to the principles of learning cited in the previous paragraph, transformative 

learning theory 75 offers a specific theoretical lens for explaining the educational conditions 

that foster student development. The model from these authors consists of three 

main ingredients: 

I Transformative learning starts with an experience (eg a project in the community; 

a conversation with someone from a different background in a hall of residence an 

encounter with a patient or a student or a client); 

I Students critically reflect on that experience; 

I Students engage in dialogue with others about it. 

Their model of learning is holistic in that it explicitly acknowledges the role of emotion 

in the experience and reflection on it. They characterise learning as a process of ‘seefeel-consider-change’ 

rather than ‘analyse-think-change’. Authenticity to self and in 

relationships is important in the reflection and dialogue steps and diverse peer interactions 

are most effective in the dialogue process. Transformative learning requires a supportive 

environment or context for student learning; time pressures or assessment pressures can 

militate against it. This model helps thread together the empirical findings described above 

and can be used to design other student learning experiences that are likely to lead to 

holistic student development. 

73 

Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), 


74 

O’Shea (in press) 

75 

Mezirow (2000), Mezirow and 

Taylor (2009) 

76 

This model was inspired by 

and adapted from Personal 

Investment Theory, the 

conceptual framework used in 

Braskamp et al (2006). Braskamp 

uses the theory at the level 

of the student, arguing that 

holistic student development 

depends upon students having 

a supportive socio-cultural 

environment, students’ sense 

of self and their patterns of 

behaviour. These components 

interact to support the process 

of student development and 

I have extended this idea to 

leadership. 

What leadership is required for such 

initiatives? 

The preceding sections have focused on understanding holistic student development 

and identifying specific curricular and teaching strategies aligned with that goal, which 

university leaders might choose to promote. In this section I propose that there are three 

main aspects of leadership that are needed to promote holistic student development, 

as illustrated in Figure 1 below 76 . First, leaders are in a position to create supportive 

environments for student development by helping to foster organisational conditions in 

which students can grow holistically. Second, leaders need to focus on their own inner 

lives – their sense of self – so that they are modelling lives of purpose, meaning and 

integrity. Finally, returning to the thesis put forward in the introduction and underpinning 

this paper, knowledge of and involvement in the specific curricular and teaching strategies 

that can promote holistic student development (as discussed in the previous section) is 

an essential, although under-discussed, aspect of leadership in higher education. Taken 

together, these three components address both the inner and outer lives of leaders and 

show how these aspects of leadership work interact and mutually reinforce each other.


Congruence among the elements is vital. The model also acknowledges the larger context 

within which universities are embedded. The broader environment will be discussed in the 

section below. 

Figure 1. Creating an 

environment for holistic 

learning 

Creating 

Organisational 

Conditions 

Culture, 

Curriculum, 

Co-curriculum, 

Community 

Leadership 

of Learning 

Knowledge of, 

and involvement 

with, teaching 

and learning 

Holistic 

Learning 

Environment 

Modelling a 

Meaningful Life 

Sense of purpose, 

Intentionality, 

Authenticity, 

Identity, 

Reflection 

77 


(2006), Colby and Sullivan (2009). 

Blackmore and Kandiko (2010) 

78 


79 


The first leadership dimension I examine is that of creating organisational conditions 

for successful educational change in higher education. This dimension focuses more on 

organisational characteristics than individual leaders’ characteristics. 

Creating organisational conditions: The socio-cultural environment 

This section draws primarily on three major studies 77 , each based on case studies of 

universities with programmes in place relevant to holistic student development. Braskamp, 

Trautvetter and Ward 78 studied 10 faith-based higher education institutions in the USA 

with a stated commitment to holistic student development. Their conceptual framework 

is the strongest of the three studies and I use it to summarise this organisational sphere of 

leadership work which encompasses culture, curriculum, co-curriculum and community. 

Culture indicates the general ethos of the institution, reflected in a clear mission and vision 

articulated both by leaders and all other members of the institution, and includes the 

physical environment of the campus which can be used to foster interactions that bring 

students and academics together. All the campuses had programmes for induction and 

ongoing development of their faculty to support them in being role models and using the 

kinds of educational processes described in the preceding section. 

They argue that the curriculum is the most significant aspect of the socio-cultural 

environment 79 . They found curricula that challenged and supported students in 

questioning their own worldviews. Typically this was done through liberal arts education, 

developmentally tailored experiences such as first-year seminars or final-year projects and 

seminars and the kinds of engaged pedagogies described in the previous section.


The co-curriculum is concerned with creating intersections between living and learning, for 

example by encouraging students to engage in extra-curricular activities that connect and 

extend their classroom learning 80 . Other authors 81 have also found out-of-class experiences 

(such as interactions with peers and leadership opportunities) to be important contributors 

to student growth. 

Finally, Braskamp’s 82 campuses emphasised creating communities among various 

constituents of the university and between the university and its larger contexts. Such 

campuses had considered what it means to be a community and participants spoke about 

it as an ‘embodiment’ of the campus. Student breakfasts with the president, involving 

students in campus governance 83 and involving staff in the educational experience 84 are all 

examples of promoting a sense of community. 

Colby et al 85 also emphasise the importance of intentionality in creating a culture, 

curriculum, co-curriculum and community, although they do not explicitly use this ‘4C’s’ 

conceptual framework. They studied 12 diverse American universities with successful 

programmes of moral and civic responsibility. While Braskamp’s campuses were all faithbased, 

only four out of Colby’s 12 campuses were. Furthermore, while all of Braskamp’s 

campuses were liberal arts colleges (1,800 to 6,500 students), Colby’s sample includes a 

range of institutional types and sizes from 650 to more than 20,000 students. Colby et al 

found that across the institutions studied, leaders at the highest level made ‘intentional 

efforts’ including serving as champions for, dedicating resources to and enacting a variety 

of strategies to create and support a university-wide culture around a particular set of 

shared values 86 . Thus their efforts went not simply on promoting particular curricula, but on 

emphasising the values that underlie certain teaching approaches. Learning outcomes and 

curricular and co-curricular reform were then based upon these shared values. While there 

were common themes across the 12 universities in the values they embraced, institutions 

expressed their missions in unique terms, reflecting their own particular context. Other 

studies also support the importance of reviewing and making explicit the university’s core 

values 87 and creating a distinctive mission and character 88 . In the third key study, the King’s 

Warwick Project 89 reports on a large project analysing the curricular innovation process 

at more than 20 research universities in five countries, through which they highlight a 

number of points related to leadership. First, it is important that leaders articulate a clear 

agenda with consistent messaging. Leaders must be strong champions for a chosen 

strategic direction 90 . The agenda and messaging also need to be backed up with rewards, 

such as teaching relief, small implementation grants or alignment in promotion and tenure 

decisions. Rewards are not enough, however: leaders must find reasons why departments 

would want to engage with the initiative. There were a number of drivers of change 

identified across their study, including financial pressures, student learning, government 

mandates or a focus on graduate attributes 91 . Leaders need to be able to communicate 

how their agendas support departmental concerns and address larger drivers of change. 

Relatedly, leaders in central administration must respect departmental autonomy, allowing 

and encouraging departments to determine what the initiative might look like in their own 

discipline 92 . In most cases, the innovations were part of the vice-chancellor’s mission and 

vision, while a pro-vice-Chancellor actually led the initiative 93 . Typically, the major players 

had experience with curricular change at a lower level, such as a department, faculty or 

school. Building a consensus and a vision was important across the university, including 

collaboration with student unions. Although all of the universities met a set of predetermined 

inclusion criteria, each had a unique institutional context that was important to 

the process; appreciating that context was vital to success 94 . 

80 

Ashlock (1996) 

81 

Kuh (1995) 

82 

Braskamp et al (2006) 

83 

Boland (2005) 

84 

Eubanks and Lynch (2005) 

85 


86 


87 

Arthur (2005) 

88 

Glenn (2005), Shipley (1996) 

89 

Blackmore and Kandiko (2010) 

90 

Fujita (1994) 

91 

Brandes and Stuber (2004) 

92 

Larrey and Larry (1999) 

93 

Gamsky and Oleshansky (1980) 

94 

Newsome (1997), Braskamp, 

Trautvetter et al (2008)


95 

Spillane, Halverson et al (2001), 

Bolden, Petrov et al (2008) 

96 

Kouzes and Posner (1993) 

97 

Badaracco and Ellsworth (1989), 

Kouzes and Posner (1993), 

Badaracco (1997), Kouzes and 

Posner (1999), Badaracco (2002) 

98 

Bhindi and Duignan (1997) 

99 

Palmer (2000); Wepner et al 

(2008) 

100 

Bolden (2011) 

101 

Bhindi and Duigan (1997) p 120 

102 


103 

Cunliffe (2009) 

104 

Maxwell (2007) 

105 

Palmer (2000), Palmer (2007) 

106 

Parks (2000) 

107 

Parks (2000) 

Modelling a Meaningful Life: Leadership and Self-reflexivity 

In this section, the focus moves away from organisations and towards the characteristics 

and behaviours of the leader as a person and the processes they use to integrate head and 

heart in their own lives. Leaders may be people in positions of formal authority or informal 

influence distributed across the organisation 95 . To be successful in bringing others along 

with them no matter where they are situated in the organisation, leaders must be credible, 

demonstrating clarity of values, building unity of vision among the community and 

holding these values intensely themselves 96 . These ideas are represented in literature on 

values-based leadership 97 , authentic leadership 98 and higher education leadership 99 . 

While leadership characteristics such as personal integrity and trustworthiness 100 are 

important to leading any initiative, they are particularly important to holistic student 

development insofar as such an educational approach is highly personal and peopleoriented. 

Just as this paper argues for a more human, people-centric learning experience, 

it also argues for a more human, people-centric approach to leadership. 

Authentic leadership is focused on creating processes that value people and ethics and 

are based on principles of stewardship and service. ‘The four qualities of authenticity, 

intentionality, spirituality and sensibility are the threads which can be woven together 

into the fabric of leadership in organisational settings to make it more authentic’ 101 . 

Intentionality was also highlighted in the three studies described in Section 3.4.1 above. 

Spirituality, generally refers to a ‘sense of deep and enduring meaning and significance’ 

that is rooted in interdependency and connectedness and ‘being connected to something 

greater than the self’ 102 . Sensibility entails respecting cultural differences. 

Self-reflexivity also appears to be the key to authentic leadership. It involves ‘questioning 

our ways of being and acting in the world; questioning our ways of making sense of our 

lived experience and examining the issues involved in acting responsibly and ethically’ 103 . 

To encourage university staff, academics and students to challenge previously held 

beliefs and to explore connections between their values and actions and find meaning 

and purpose in their lives, leaders must, themselves, be authentic and model associated 

behaviours. Thus, leaders must nurture their own inner lives, being reflective and hopeful 

and enabling others around them to do the same. 

Promoting holistic student development requires that teachers help students form their 

own value commitments in a pluralistic world. In part, this means academics must be 

willing to critically examine their own and their discipline’s assumptions, inherent values 

and worldviews. Insofar as this goes against the prevailing academic ethos 104 , it requires 

courage 105 on the part of academics and academic leaders; they need explicit support 

from the institution for this difficult and risky endeavour. Leaders must be willing to model 

this and encourage it. 

Leaders can do so, in part, by creating and participating in spaces that practise particular 

forms of dialogue and thought to create a supportive mentoring community for 

students 106 and other members of the university community. Such spaces enable people 

to reflect, imagine and envision possibilities for meaningful lives. In addition, leaders can 

help create and sustain ‘commons’ where people experience a sense of belonging and 

‘shared participation in creating the common good’ 107 .


To the extent that holistic student development focuses on students’ becoming authentic, 

creating intention in their own lives, developing a sense of deeper meaning and respecting 

cultural differences, higher education can be seen as developing authentic leaders for the 

future. To create the conditions that support such student development, leaders must, 

themselves, strive to model a meaningful, authentic life. 

Leadership of learning for holistic student development 

There is very little systematic research on leadership effectiveness in higher education 108 . 

In the preceding sections I have drawn primarily on broader studies of campuses that are 

focusing on holistic student development or on more general leadership studies. In this 

section I draw on some of the much more substantial body of literature on primary and 

secondary school leadership and then link it to recent arguments about leadership in 

higher education. 

108 

Bryman (2007) 

109 


110 

Leithwood (2006) 

111 

Robinson et al (2008) 

112 


113 

Goodall (2009), MacFarlane 

(2011) 

In the schools sector, where there are considerable policy pressures to enhance student 

learning, there is both more attention paid to the role of the leader in turning around 

school performance and more research linking leadership with student outcomes. The key 

debate seems to be whether leaders (principals) primarily have a direct effect on students 

through instructional leadership 109 or whether their influence is primarily indirect, by using 

transformative leadership to create positive relationships and environments in which 

teachers can positively affect students 110 . The transformative theory of leadership is more 

closely aligned with the notion of authentic leadership, while the instructional leadership 

model is more focused on tasks and technical involvement in teaching. 

To resolve conflicting evidence in the empirical literature on the effects of leadership 

on student outcomes, Robinson et al 111 re-analysed 27 studies of leadership in schools, 

breaking down leadership into types and specific leadership dimensions. They found the 

instructional leadership type has three to four times more effect on student outcomes 

than a model of transformative leadership. Of specific leadership dimensions associated 

with enhanced student outcomes, the strongest effect was found for leaders promoting 

and directly participating in formal and informal teacher learning and development 

alongside teachers (mean effect size .84). Two other key dimensions (each with mean 

effect sizes of .42) were a) establishing goals and expectations and b) direct involvement in 

planning, coordinating and evaluating teaching and the curriculum through such actions 

as coordinating across classes and years, regular classroom visits and giving feedback to 

teachers. They conclude that ‘the more leaders focus their relationships, their work and 

their learning on the core business of teaching and learning, the greater their influence 

on student outcomes’ and further argue for ‘leadership research and practice to be more 

closely linked to the evidence on effective teaching’ 112 . 

Nonetheless, although the model and results are drawn from schools, recent writing on 

leadership in higher education arguing for the importance of intellectual leadership 113 

in higher education suggests support for this theory. Each explores how scholars are 

positioned as leaders, rather than as professional managers, arguing for their leadership 

authority because of their strong knowledge of the content of what is being led and their 

context knowledge. 

My model proposes that leaders need to pay attention both to modelling meaningful lives 

through a focus on people and relationships and creating an intentional culture rooted in 

self-reflection and ethical action (ie transformative leadership), which has an indirect effect


114 


115 

NCSL (2007) 

116 

Colby, Ehrlich et al (2003), 


(2006), Blackmore and Kandiko 

(2010) 

117 

Bolden, Petrov et al (2008) 

118 

Nixon (2009), Bolden (2011) 

119 

Badaracco (1997) 

120 

Easterby (1987) 

on students through teachers. However, Robinson et al 114 rightly argue that attending only 

to relationships is not enough. Leaders, especially those who are closest to teaching, such 

as department heads, also need to focus on what they are leading, including curriculum 

and teaching 115 . They need to be learning about models of engaged pedagogies alongside 

those who are doing the teaching and setting goals and expectations that are consistent 

with supporting holistic student development. Finally, they need to be involved in aligning 

feedback and evaluation and reward systems with those goals. Ultimately, based on the 

studies of universities with successful programmes 116 , leaders have a key role to play 

in creating the other organisational conditions for success of such initiatives, including 

attention to the culture, co-curriculum and community. 

In sum, in this section, I have constructed a model integrating the various aspects of 

leadership needed to create universities that intentionally promote holistic student 

development. From this analysis, I conclude that leadership in higher education needs to 

be contextualised, with consideration of leadership of what for what. Recent shifts toward 

distributed leadership and hybrid models of leadership 117 suggest that these leadership 

processes may occur at a variety of levels and locations in the university. This emphasis on 

the socio-cultural conditions and, in particular, a sense of shared campus ethos implies 

commitment and congruent action across the university. 

What are the likely leadership 

challenges, pitfalls and lessons? 

The previous sections have called for higher education as a place that nurtures students’ 

growth as people and has analysed the organisational and relational elements that need to 

be in place to make that a reality. However, there are many challenges leaders are likely to 

face in implementing such an agenda. 

First, higher education is currently a contested and conflicted sector. Pressures to 

demonstrate economic value in the current climate run counter to the values underlying 

this paper and to the values most academics hold dear 118 . While I have argued earlier 

that the current challenges in the higher education setting could provide an impetus for 

a re-examination of core missions, it is no small task to generate optimism and tap into 

academics’ authentic selves in the current context. Meeting government mandates and 

responding to increasingly demanding accountability and cost pressures create value 

conflict as people experience tension between internal and external motivations. While 

these value conflicts include the frequently discussed tensions between managerialism 

and collegiality and between accountability and autonomy, many of these tensions are 

more subtle. Many of the pressures academics and academic leaders feel may be between 

two good values 119 – such as privileging past achievements versus providing opportunities 

for developing future potential in admissions decisions or balancing compassion for 

an individual’s unique circumstances versus equal treatment of all students in deciding 

assessment-related matters. In such trying decisions, there are laudable goals with strong 

feelings attached on both sides of the issue. 

As resources constrict, people are called upon to do more with less. Workload accounting 

is heightened and time pressures are felt more keenly 120 . Such demands seem, on 

the surface, to be the antithesis of creating the spaces for dialogue, self-reflection and 

the identity work that is needed to foster growth and change as individuals and as a


community. Nurturing a growth culture requires that leaders and participants commit 

to being changed by the process. Growth and change are difficult under the best of 

conditions, but can be particularly difficult when stressed, as people tend to ‘hunker 

down’ and withdraw. Ironically, it is such stress – when people are feeling values conflicts 

that challenge what brought them to the field in the first place – that they most need 

a supportive community 121 . These competing value pressures, together with workload 

pressure, can conspire against authenticity 122 . 

Underlying resistance to change may be voiced in a variety of ways, including resistance 

to the idea of teaching students values (as discussed in relation to Question 1 above) 123 

and concern that ‘content’ coverage will be sacrificed by introducing engaged pedagogies. 

Leaders need to be prepared to bring conversations back to a learning and development 

focus and to be aware that these voiced concerns may be masking a deeper discomfort 

with challenging assumptions about university purposes, the relationship between 

personal and professional lives and the way academic work has traditionally been 

conceived 124 . The campuses in the studies highlighted in Section 3.4.1 all provided for 

academic development, sometimes focusing directly on the intersection of personal and 

professional values and how that is expressed in the classroom with students. 

As the policy discourse in higher education has shifted to one of economics and 

consumerism, we risk losing a language for conversation about holistic student 

development. One of the first challenges is to reintroduce a discourse that includes 

character, ethics, values, virtues, meaning-making, feeling and spirituality, as well as 

problem-solving and critical thinking 125 . Sometimes the language is enticing – ‘graduate 

attributes’, for instance, is appealing in its focus on students and a broader range of 

what is learned. However, it lulls us into thinking of graduates as products, with certain 

specifications. It also lulls us into thinking that graduates are ‘completed’, when in fact, they 

leave us as more mature people than when they arrived, but still facing huge questions 

about how they will craft a meaningful life in a complex world 126 . As we adopt the 

language of bureaucracy, we need to be wary of its de-personalisation. The danger in the 

argument I put forth in the Context section of this paper is that we will ‘sell’ the language 

of holistic student development in service of marketisation agendas and corrupt the 

very heart of the idea in the process 127 . The best rationale for promoting holistic student 

development is a moral high ground – that it is a good and right thing to do – yet such an 

argument is difficult to sustain on its own. 

121 

Parks (2000) 

122 


123 

Wepner et al (2008) 

124 

Wyatt (2011) 

125 

Colby and Sullivan (2009) 

126 

Parks (2000) 

127 

Chun (2010)


128 

Timperley (2006) 

129 

Timperley (2006) 

Conclusion 

In short, each of the three main aspects of leadership highlighted in Section 3.4 present 

possible barriers to the success of leadership of learning for holistic development. 

First, leaders need to influence the organisational processes, shaping the socio-cultural 

environment of the campus 128 . Secondly, they need to be willing to examine their own 

inner lives and put themselves as people (not just a role) into the process 129 . Thirdly, 

even as they are promoting communities and dialogue, they must focus not just on the 

process, but on the content of that dialogue (learning) and its purpose (holistic student 

development). Finally, as emphasised in this section, they need to do so with consideration 

for the broader socio-cultural, political environments within which their universities 

operate. Our students, as people in transition making their way in the world, deserve to 

be treated as whole people. The world that they will make needs us to do so. 

Acknowledgements 

I would like to thank the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education for funding this 

paper; Robbie Coleman for extensive literature searching on these issues, careful editing 

and proofreading and challenging conversations about its contents; Helen Goreham and 

Jonathan Wyatt for helpful feedback on successive drafts; Richard Bolden, Anne O’Brien, 

Tom Ehrlich, Anne Colby, Camille Kandiko and participants in the University of Western 

Australia Faculty Academy for Scholarship in Education seminar I gave on 30 March 2011 

for helpful conversations during the development of this work. 

Kathleen M. Quinlan


Bibliography 

Ambrose, S., Bridges, M.W., Di Pietro, M., Lovett, M.C. and Norman, M.K. (2010) How learning works: 7 research-based principles for 

smart teaching, San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Arthur, J. (2005) ‘Student character in the British University’, in Arthur, J. and Bohlin, K.E. (eds.) Citizenship and higher education: 

The role of universities in community and society, London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer, pp. 6-24. 

Arthur, J. and Bohlin, K.E. (2005) Citizenship and higher education: the role of universities in communities and society, London and 

New York: RoutledgeFalmer. 

Arthur, J., Wilson, K., Godrey, R., Gray, B. and Newton, N. (2009) Values and character: higher education and graduate employment 

graduate character, Birmingham: Learning for Life. 

Ashlock, D., Jr. (1996) ‘Using the Student Learning Imperative in Campus Activities’, Campus Activities Programming, 

29(5), pp. 48-53. 

Badaracco, J.L. (1997) Defining moments: when managers must choose between right and right, Boston MA: Harvard Business 

School Press. 

Badaracco, J.L. (2002) Leading quietly: an unorthodox guide to doing the right thing, Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press. 

Badaracco, J.L. and Ellsworth, R.R. (1989) Leadership and the quest for integrity, Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press. 

Barnett, R. (2007) A will to learn: being a student in an age of uncertainty, Maidenhead: Society for Reseach into Higher Education 

(SRHE) and Open University Press. 

Barnett, R. and Coates, K. (2005) Engaging the curriculum in higher education, Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher 

Education (SRHE) and Open University Press. 

Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2009) ‘The Activity of Meaning Making: A Holistic Perspective on College Student Development’, 

Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), pp. 621-639. 

Beaty, M.D. and Henry, D.V. (2007) The schooled heart: moral formation in American higher education, Waco TX: Baylor 

University Press. 

Belfield, C.R., Bullock, A.D. and Fielding, A. (1999) ‘Graduates’ Views on the Contribution of Their Higher Education to Their 

General Development: A Retrospective Evaluation for the United Kingdom’, Research in Higher Education, 40(4), pp. 409-438. 

Bhindi, N. and Duignan, P. (1997) ‘Leadership for a New Century: Authenticity, Intentionality, Spirituality and Sensibility’, 

Educational Management and Administration, 25(2), pp. 117-132. 

Blackmore, P. and Kandiko, C. (2010) The King’s-Warwick Project: Creating a 21st Century Curriculum, London: King’s 

Learning Institute. 

Boland, J. (2005) ‘Student participation in shared governance: A means of advancing democratic values?’ Tertiary Education 

and Management, 11(3), pp. 199-217.


Bolden, R. (2011) ‘Changing conceptions of leadership: Identity and influence processes in leader-follower relations’, Emerging 

thinking on leadership: values, identity and the organisational unconscious: A regional conference of the Leadership Foundation for 

Higher Education. 

Bolden, R., Petrov, G. and Gosling, J. (2008) ‘Tensions in Higher Education Leadership: Towards a Multi-Level Model of Leadership 

Practice’, Higher Education Quarterly 62(4), pp. 358-376. 

Brandes, P.J. and Stuber, L. (2004) ‘Towards Becoming a Values-Based Organization’, College Quarterly, 7(2). 

Braskamp, L., Trautvetter, L.C. and Ward, K. (2008) ‘Putting Students First: Promoting Lives of Purpose and Meaning’, About 

Campus, 13(1), pp. 26-32. 

Braskamp, L.A., Trautvetter, L.C. and Ward, K. (2006) Putting Students First: How Colleges Develop Students Purposefully, San 

Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass/Anker Publishing. 

Browne, L.J. (2010) Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education: An Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and 

Student Finance, London: Independent Review of Higher Education and Student Finance in England http://www.independent. 

gov.uk/browne-report 

Bryman, A. (2007) ‘Effective Leadership in Higher Education: A Literature Review’, Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), pp. 693-710. 

Chi, B.S. (2000) Service-learning as ‘Citizenship’ Education: The Promise and Puzzles, Washington DC: Corporation for National 

Service http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/files/legacy/filemanager/download/NatlServFellows/chi.pdf 

Chun, M.B.J. (2010) ‘Pitfalls to Avoid when Introducing a Cultural Competency Training Initiative’, Medical Education, 

44(6), pp. 613-620. 

Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E. and Stephens, J. (2003) Educating citizens: preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral 

and civic responsibility, San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Colby, A. and Sullivan, W.M. (2009) ‘Strengthening the Foundations of Students’ Excellence, Integrity, and Social Contribution’, 

Liberal Education, 95(1), Association of American Colleges and Universities. 

Cunliffe, A.L. (2009) ‘The Philosopher Leader: On Relationalism, Ethics and Reflexivity-A Critical Perspective to Teaching 

Leadership’, Management Learning, 40(1), pp. 87-101. 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) (2011) Students at the Heart of the System, London: Department for Business, 

Innovation and Skills (June) http://c561635.r35.cf2.rackcdn.com/11-944-WP-students-at-heart.pdf 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) (2009) Higher Ambitions: The Future of Universities in a Knowledge Economy, 

London, Department for Business and Innovation Skills http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/h/09-1452- 

higher-ambitions-summary.pdf 

Dearing, R. (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society: Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education 

https://bei.leeds.ac.uk/Partners/NCIHE/ 

Dey, E.L., Antonaros, M., Ott, M.C., Barnhardt, C.L. and Holsapple, M.A. (2009) Developing a Moral Compass: What Is the Campus 

Climate for Ethics and Academic Integrity? Core Commitments: Educating Personal and Social Responsibility. Association of 

American Colleges and Universities http://www.aacu.org/core_commitments/documents/MoralCompassReport.pdf


Dey, E.L. and Associates (2008) Should Colleges Focus More on Personal and Social Responsibility? Association of American Colleges 

and Universities http://www.aacu.org/core_commitments/documents/PSRII_Findings_April2008.pdf 

Easterby, S.M. (1987) ‘Change and Innovation in Higher Education: A Role for Corporate Strategy?’ Higher Education, 16(1), pp. 37-52. 

Ehrlich, T.E. (ed.) (2000) Civic responsibility and higher education, Phoenix AZ: Oryx Press. 

Erikson, E.H. (1959) Identity and the life cycle, New York: International Universities Press. 

Ertl, H. and Wright, S. (2008) ‘Reviewing the Literature on the Student Learning Experience in Higher Education’, London Review 

of Education, 6(3), pp. 195-210. 

Eubanks, P.W. and Lynch, R.A. (2005) ‘Widening the Academic Conversation to Include Support Staff: Wabash College Extends a 

Common Classroom Experience to Its Entire Campus Community’, About Campus, 10(3), pp. 25-27. 

Fujita, E. (1994) ‘A Good College President: The Constituent View’, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(1), pp. 75-91. 

Gamsky, N.R. and Oleshansky, M. (1980) ‘Do We Really Have a Commitment to Student Development Programs?’ Journal of 

College Student Personnel, 21(4), 328-333. 

Gamson, Z.F. (1991) ‘A Brief History of the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education’, New Directions for 

Teaching and Learning, 47, pp. 5-12. 

Gaudiani, C.L. (1997) ‘Catalyzing Community: The College as a Model of Civil Society’, Educational Record, 78(3-4), pp. 80-86. 

Glenn, C. (2005) ‘Universities of Character’, in Arthur, J. and Bohlin, K.E. (eds.) Citizenship and higher education: The role of 

universities in communities and societies, London: Routledge. 

Goodall, A. (2009) Socrates in the boardroom: why research Universities should be led by top scholars, Princeton, NJ and Oxford: 

Princeton University Press. 

Grootenboer, P. (2010) ‘Affective development in university education’, Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6), pp. 723-737. 

Harland, T. and Pickering, N. (2011) Values in higher education teaching, London: Routledge. 

Hartley, M., Saltmarsh, J. and Clayton, P. (2010) ‘Is The Civic Engagement Movement Changing Higher Education?’ British Journal 

of Educational Studies, 58(4), pp. 391-406. 

Heffernan, K. (2001) Fundamentals of Service-Learning Course Construction, Boston MA: Providence Campus Compact. 

Jones, S.R. and Abes, E.S. (2004) ‘Enduring Influences of Service-Learning on College Students’ Identity Development’, Journal of 

College Student Development, 45(2), pp. 149-166. 

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1993) Credibility: how leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it, San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1999) Encouraging the heart: a leader’s guide to rewarding and recognizing others, San Francisco CA: 

Jossey-Bass. 

Kuh, G.D. (1995) ‘The Other Curriculum: Out-of-Class Experiences Associated with Student Learning and Personal Development’, 

Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), pp. 123-155.


Larrey, M.F. and Estanek, S.M. (1999) ‘The Ursuline Studies Program: A Collaborative Core Curriculum’, New Directions for Student 

Services, 87, pp. 63-73. 

Leithwood, K. (2006) Seven strong claims about school leadership, National College for School Leadership, London: Department for 

Education and Skills. 

Macfarlane, B. (2004). Teaching with integrity: the ethics of higher education practice, London: RoutledgeFalmer. 

Macfarlane, B. (2011) ‘Professors as intellectual leaders: formation, identity and role’, Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 57-73. 

Maxwell, N. (1976) What’s wrong with science?: towards a people’s rational science of delight and compassion, UK: Bran’s Head Books 

Ltd (91 Wimborne Ave., Hayes, Middx). 

Maxwell, N. (1984) From knowledge to wisdom: a revolution in the aims and methods of science, Oxford: Blackwell. 

Maxwell, N. (2007) From knowledge to wisdom: a revolution for science and the humanities, London: Pentire Press. 

Merry, M.C. (2005) ‘Indoctrination, Moral Instruction, and Nonrational Belief: a Place for Autonomy’, Educational Theory, 

55(4), pp. 399-420. 

Mezirow, J. (2000) ‘Learning to Think Like an Adult: Core Concepts of Transformation Theory’ in Mezirow, J. (ed.) Learning as 

transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in progress, San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 3-33. 

Mezirow, J. and Taylor, E.W. (2009) Transformative learning in practice: insights from community, workplace, and higher education, 

San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass; Chichester: John Wiley (distributor). 

Nash, R.J. (2008) ‘A personal reflection on educating for meaning’, About Campus, 13(2), pp. 17-24. 

National College for School Leadership (NCSL) (2007) What we know about school leadership, Nottingham, UK: National College 

for School Leadership. 

Newsome, C.G. (1997) ‘What Does a Dean Do?’ New Directions for Higher Education, 25(2), pp. 101-107. 

Nixon, J. (2009) Towards the virtuous university: the moral bases of academic practice, London: Routledge. 

O’Shea, J. (in press) ‘Delaying the academy: a gap year education’, Teaching in Higher Education. 

Palmer, P.J. (2000) ‘Leading from Within’ in Palmer, P.J. (ed.) Let Your Life Speak: Listening for the Voice of Vocation, San Francisco CA, 

Jossey-Bass; Chichester: John Wiley (distributor). 

Palmer, P.J. (2007) The courage to teach: exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life, San Francisco CA, Jossey-Bass; Chichester: 

John Wiley (distributor). 

Palmer, P.J., Zajonc, A. (2010) The heart of higher education: a call to renewal, San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass; Chichester: John Wiley 

(distributor). 

Parks, S.D. (2000) Big questions, worthy dreams: mentoring young adults in their search for meaning, purpose, and faith, San Francisco 

CA: Jossey-Bass.


Pascarella, E.T., Ethington, C.A. and Smart, J. (1988) ‘The Influence of College on Humanitarian/Civic Involvement Values’, Journal 

of Higher Education, 59(4), pp. 412-437. 

Pascarella, E.T. and Terenzini, P.T. (2005) How college affects students, Volume 2: a third decade of research, San Francisco CA: 

Jossey-Bass. 

Peterson, C.F. and Seligman, M.E.P. (2004) Character strengths and virtues: a handbook and classification, Washington DC: American 

Psychological Association; Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Pope, L. (2006) Colleges that change lives: 40 schools that will change the way you think about colleges, New York: Penguin Books. 

Robinson, V.M.J., Lloyd, C.A. and Rowe, K.J. (2008) ‘The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: An Analysis of the Differential 

Effects of Leadership Types’, Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), pp. 635-674. 

Seligman, M.E.P. (2003) Authentic happiness: using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for deep fulfillment, London: 

Nicholas Brealey. 

Shipley, S.M. (1996) ‘Applying the Student Learning Imperative: One School’s Continuing Experience’, Campus Activities 

Programming, 29(5), pp. 54-57. 

Smith, M.W. (1994) ‘Community Service Learning: Striking the Chord of Citizenship’, Michigan Journal of Community Service 

Learning, 1(1), pp. 37-43. 

Spillane, J., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J.B. (2001) ‘Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective’, Journal of 

Curriculum Studies, 36(1), pp. 3-34. 

Sternberg, R.J., Reznitskaya, A. and Jarvin, L. (2008) ‘Teaching for wisdom: what matters is not just what students know, but how 

they use it’, in Barnett, R. and Maxwell, N. (eds.) Wisdom in the University, London: Routledge, pp. 47-62. 

Sullivan, W.M. and Rosin, M.S. (2008) A new agenda for higher education: shaping a life of the mind for practice, San Francisco CA: 

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Jossey-Bass. 

Tan, C. (2004) ‘Michael Hand, Indoctrination and the Inculcation of Belief’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38(2), pp. 257-267. 

Temple, J. and Ylitalo, J. (2009) ‘Promoting Inclusive (and Dialogic) Leadership in Higher Education Institutions’, Tertiary Education 

and Management, 15(3), pp. 277-289. 

Timperley, H.S. (2006) ‘Learning Challenges Involved in Developing Leading for Learning’, Educational Management Administration 

and Leadership, 34(4), pp. 546-563. 

Walker, M. (2006) Higher education pedagogies: A capabilities approach, Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education 

(SRHE)/Open University Press. 

Wepner, S.B., D’Onofrio, A. and Wilhite, S.C. (2008) ‘The Leadership Dimensions of Education Deans’, Journal of Teacher Education, 

59(2), pp. 153-169. 

Wyatt, J. (2011) ‘Leadership, systems concepts and the unconscious dynamics of organisations’, Emerging thinking on 

leadership: values, identity and the organisational unconscious: A regional conference of the Leadership Foundation for Higher 

Education. 30 June 2011. Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/membership/regionalcoordinators/ 

regionalevents.html/


Biography Dr Kathleen M. Quinlan 

Kathleen M. Quinlan is Head of Educational Development in the Oxford Learning Institute, University of Oxford and a Research 

Fellow with the Department of Education, University of Oxford. She was recently appointed as a Supernumerary Fellow at St. 

Anne’s College. She oversees the University’s suite of educational development offerings and directs the Postgraduate Diploma 

in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. She provides policy and practical advice on educational development matters to 

relevant committees, divisions, departments and colleges across the collegiate university and supervises postgraduate students 

of higher education in the Department of Education. 

Prior to her appointment at Oxford in 2009, Dr. Quinlan held academic and leadership positions in educational development at 

The Australian National University and Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine. She also has five years of government 

consulting experience in the United States, contributing to curriculum development, action planning for national and state 

projects, and planning and evaluation of large-scale biomedical research. She holds a Ph.D. in education from Stanford 

University and a B.A. in psychology from the University of Maine. 

Learning – and collaborative processes for supporting learning – have been enduring themes in her research publications 

and presentations. Her current research interests are in learning and teaching in higher education, with a particular focus 

on integrating students’ intellectual and personal development. She seeks to understand how higher education can best 

support the development of students’ sense of personal and social responsibility. Past research has included projects on 

educational development in higher education, the use of teaching portfolios and peer review of teaching, problem based 

learning in medical/veterinary education, and consultancy projects related to various aspects of public health and large scale 

biomedical research.

Stimulus paper by Kathleen M. Quinlan 26

27 Developing the whole student: leading higher education initiatives that integrate mind and heart

Stimulus paper by Kathleen Quinlan 28

Stimulus paper 

Connect with us: 

f 

Follow us on Twitter 

www.twitter.com/LFHEMarketing 

Join us on Facebook 

http://on.fb.me/LFFacebook 

i 

w 

Join us on LinkedIn 

http://linked.in/LFHELinkedIn 

Visit our website 


First Floor, Holborn Gate 

330 High Holborn 

London 

WC1V 7QT 

T 020 7849 6900 

F 020 7849 6901 

E info@lfhe.ac.uk 


Printed on environmentally friendly ECF 

paper. Please remember to recycle this 

report when you no longer need it.

Developing the whole student - Oxford Learning Institute - University ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?