student feedback and leadership - Office for Learning and Teaching

Part A: Developing a Distributed Leadership Model - Secton 3: Building Leadership Capacity
3.2.3 Act
This cycle saw an increase in the level of activity by all parties involved
in the project.
ART Leaders took on a more proactive role in identifying issues outside
the control and responsibility of individual teachers and discussing these
in Project Team meetings.
ARTs were assisted by external Facilitators with expertise in pedagogy.
The leadership contribution made by Facilitators varied depending on
the ART. One of the Facilitators provided external examples of successful
student support, another provided knowledge of issues of pedagogy that
complemented the discipline-based expertise, and the third assisted with the
development of an ethics application that would help ART members engage
in scholarship into their teaching practice. An Appreciative Inquiry approach
to identification of issues was adopted by one ART.
ART Facilitators met regularly to share experiences from the different
disciplinary perspectives. Given the value of these meetings as forums for
linking action being taken by ART members to reflection upon leadership
issues, it was decided that ART Leaders would be invited to attend the
Facilitator meetings. While this placed further time constraints on ART
Leaders, it did serve to assist to develop their understanding of the dual
role of academics in improving student learning: as teachers designing
and delivering the learning experience for students and as leaders
of teaching practice in positively responding to student feedback
and making improvements.
With the addition of leaders from the systems and infrastucture providers,
the Project Team expanded its focus to explore the leadership contribution
of Service providers in the improvement of the student learning experience.
Discussion in the Project Team concerning issues raised by the ARTs and
timely action taken by representatives of these service providers to the
issues identified by the ARTs, led to the Project Team adopting a more
central role in this project.
The second Plenary was held on August 7th. The main focus of the plenary
was to facilitate the broader sharing of ART progress and experience to date
and to provide the opportunity for ART members to reflect upon the
of question of leadership capacity building that was occurring.
Presentations identified the ongoing focus of each of the ARTs on the analysis
of student feedback data. This confirmed the importance of the need for
a more multi-functional leadership approach to student feedback.
The School of Mathematical and Geospatial Science ART analysis of CES
feedback had revealed issues of learning environment (room allocation,
noise level, computer availability) as a problem.
ART members had begun to share learning and teaching techniques and
this had led to positive teaching strategies that had encouraged staff to trial
changes in their own classes. For example the ART Leader reported an across
Page 45