The Sphere of Influence of Learning Development During Organisational Change

Author Details: Roisin Donnelly, College of Business, Technological University Dublin; Patrick Flynn, College of Engineering and Built Environment, Technological University Dublin

Corresponding Author: Roisin Donnelly

Abstract

This chapter explores a shared approach to leading on learning development and educational change in two existing colleges in a new technological university (TU) in Ireland. Considering how organisational change influences teaching and learning is vital but, equally, taking into account how teaching and learning responds and reacts to this change is a key outcome of the chapter. Through an exploration of the role of Head of Learning Development across disciplinary and college structure contexts, we want to convey a shared narrative of leadership in learning development in a changing environment and build on our emerging synergies to do so. Knowing change and innovation are necessary for organisational growth, we reflected on best practices for leading teaching and learning change within the new TU space in Ireland’s higher education sector and present a model capturing the sphere of influence of this leadership role. The approach taken, which embraces change as a result of sectoral change, including the new technological universities, considers how organisational change that influences teaching and learning has implications for innovation in learning development, both within Irish higher education and internationally. The chapter concludes with consideration of broader implications of this change and response to change in the higher education (HE) national and global context.

Keywords

Disciplines, Innovation, Learning Development, Organisational Change, Quality Enhancement, Teaching And Learning

Introduction

On 1st January 2019, Ireland’s first Technological University (TU Dublin) was formed from the merger of three existing higher education institutions – the Dublin Institute of Technology, Institute of Technology Blanchardstown, and Institute of Technology Tallaght (O’Brien, 2019). The drive for the creation of technological universities came from Ireland’s National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030, and the vision set out for this new entity distinguishes them from traditional universities in that teaching is focused on career relevant courses. Technological universities offer programmes that are vocationally and professionally oriented, and the introduction of a new technological university has reshaped higher education in Ireland. In terms of current structure, there are four Colleges in TU Dublin, two of which form the context of this study – the College of Business and the College of Engineering & Built Environment. Each college has its own appointed Head of Learning Development (HoLD). However, the TU is undergoing a process of reorganisation and restructuring, and the positioning of teaching and learning in the new structure is paramount for what the DES report (2019, p. 33) identifies as the distinctive quality of a learner-centred and inclusive TU – that it “provides a regional lifelong learning anchor where people can learn at their own pace, anywhere, anytime without barriers ensuring that all learners are supported and developed to their fullest potential”. The chapter focuses on changes to the HoLD role and, consequently, the following areas for exploration were identified:

• What are the HoLD spheres of influence in a new technological university undergoing organisational change? The HoLDs have long held a neutral, safe space – positioned outside the subject discipline, away from teaching and assessing work or drawing judgements. This space involves consideration of the HoLD outcomes and outputs, including greater links to Schools as well as clarifying the role of learning development as part of the new organisational structure. When we also consider the sphere of influence, we explore what is the most appropriate unit of analysis for this and if there is a negative as well as a positive influence. The bigger question of how we positively influence a continued focus on teaching and learning (T&L) forms part of this consideration, particularly in the context of a change in roles – as is common to all who work in third level.
• How can the HoLD role mainstream good practice in T&L across disciplines in the Colleges? What can be the transformative influence on academics (exploring the added value of teaching/activating and nurturing academics’ passion for T&L).

From the exploration of these two areas, the chapter proposes a model to encourage the sphere of influence of the HoLD role in a new organisational structure. The chapter concludes with a set of practical recommendations on communication and partnership for the HoLD role (and its equivalent) of the future for colleagues across the sector and internationally and considers how to influence T&L policy for a connected campus in the technological university space. We share important implications for leadership in learning development in a time of organisational change that is applicable to both the broader Irish higher education context and to colleagues working internationally in similar roles in HE. A future aspect for exploration from this study is how best to share ideas of what constitutes impact in T&L in a new technological university and its application to all higher education institutions. In our continued dissemination, we need to be more outward-facing as advocated by King (2003, p. 99): For awareness; For understanding; For action.

Context and Rationale

A process of organisational change is proceeding in Ireland’s first technological university. Specifically, over the past two years, TU Dublin has been undergoing a strategic planning process to support the new infrastructure and significant move to a new campus. An inclusive consultative process forms the basis for this and for shaping the TU Dublin vision for 2030. Through the process it is intended to create a framework that sets out the University’s aspirations and objectives for our journey over the next 10 years. As a new University, visibility and awareness internationally is vital. To that end, TU Dublin has recently become a member of both the European Universities Association, linking with over 800 European institutions, and Universities Ireland, the all-island body that enables engagement between the ten universities across Ireland. We believe this chapter is timely for informing this work as a number of shifts in concepts and practice currently underway will in turn exert an influence on learning development in the TU, which is discussed in the chapter.

As can be imagined, for the existing Colleges with their own history, moving into a new Technological University context has meant that there is significant change happening to the existing institutional structure and fabric, and such system-wide restructuring can have profound impact for students and staff. Against this backdrop of institutional change, the Colleges are continuing to hone professionally oriented programme provision for students. The degrees typically encompass a wide group of programmes, some highly specialised and others more interdisciplinary. The combination of academic challenge and practical focus makes studying for these degrees highly appealing for those attracted to the collaborative learning environment offered by the Colleges.

For over a decade, the education model in use to support T&L has been a central education development centre liaising with Heads of Learning Development (HoLDs) across the Colleges. Until now, the role of Head of Learning Development has been charged with ensuring that Quality Assurance compliance is achieved throughout the academic year and that teaching and learning initiatives that the College has prioritised are undertaken. Going forward, there is a new institutional Quality Enhancement Framework being designed that will support the HoLD role in this key dimension of its remit. Currently the central educational development centre that has itself been in place for two decades is under review in the organisational design structure and it will be important to maintain links with the HoLD role in its new remit. The current HoLD role also involves working with professional support services on a regular basis including staff across the university involved in supporting teaching and learning e.g. library staff, student services, exams offices, and in particular, educational developers and learning technologists; how the new organisational structure continues these collaborations will be vital. Also integral to the HoLD role is how it is informed by our professional values (influenced by EDIN, the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning, and SEDA, as well as disciplinary bodies).

In recent years, common teaching and learning priorities for the Colleges of Business and Engineering and the Built Environment have been student progression rates, assessment and feedback (rubrics), and technology-enhanced learning including the Brightspace virtual learning environment, and these are discussed below.

HoLD role in the College of Business

The College of Business is one of Ireland’s largest Business schools in terms of full- and part-time student enrolment and has been in existence for over thirty years. There are five Schools in the College – Marketing, Accounting and Finance, Management, Retail and Services Management and the Graduate Business School. The College offers both undergraduate degree and postgraduate programmes to approximately 5,000 students across a range of Business disciplines. Programmes at certificate, diploma, graduate, and post-experience levels seek both to pursue academic excellence and to nurture applied expertise. These programmes provide industry in Ireland with a valuable resource, which is responsive to the needs of both individual firms and broad sectors from disparate companies and industries. There is a dual aim of delivering flexible, authentic and impactful executive education to busy employees and of making a positive impact on the local community.

The College delivers programmes in association with a range of leading Irish and International organisations – in both the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors. These programmes vary from short CPD programmes to NQAI (Note 1) level 9 Master’s Degree awards and supporting PhD students. The commitment to lifelong learning in Ireland has developed and nurtured effective and lasting working relationships with major professional bodies in HRM, Management, Sales, Marketing, Accountancy, Retailing, Transport and Logistics, Direct Marketing and Purchasing. It has developed policies, structures and student support systems appropriate to its role as a leader in the field and has built a reputation for responding through partnership initiatives to emerging business and management skills needs. New developments in the provision of professional education by the College reflect recent changes in the workplace and involve working with emerging needs in the economy. The College has over 170 full-time academic staff, many with extensive business experience.

As can be imagined for this Business College with such a history, moving into a new Technological University context has meant that there is significant change happening to the existing institutional structure and fabric, and such system-wide restructuring can have profound impact for students and faculty. Against this backdrop of institutional change, the College of Business is continuing to hone its professionally oriented programme provision for students. In a competitive business education marketplace in Ireland, with a number of institutions offering similar programmes, one of the aspects that help the College of Business stand out is the excellent quality of its teaching and learning environment. Moving forward into the realm of online provision, it is important to remain cognisant of what works in this context internationally. Andrade et al. (2020) have discussed the majority of business schools represented in their study on online provision having quality assurance measures, and while they reported not impacting faculty confidence, they do predict student enrolments.

Note 1: NQAI: National Qualifications Authority of Ireland have a National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) which describe the qualifications of the Irish education and training system and how they interlink.

HoLD role in the College of Engineering and Built Environment

The College of Engineering and Built Environment (CEBE) has over 4,500 students full and part-time, ranging from apprentice to PhD. There are seven schools in the College: Architecture, Multidisciplinary Technologies, Mechanical and Design Engineering, Surveying and Construction Management, Civil and Structural Engineering, Electrical and Electronic Engineering & Transport Engineering, Environment and Planning.

The students include apprenticeships, undergraduates, masters and PhD. The CEBE has strong links to industry and a commitment to a practice-based learning environment informed by the latest research and enabled by technological advances. The teaching staff has the industry experience to deliver insight into each discipline and the expertise to support each student’s programme of study. On offer is an inclusive and open learning experience with pathways to graduation from Apprenticeship to PhD.

The College is engaged in community-based research to apply innovation and technology in tackling societal challenges. Collaborating with national and international academic partners and networks in industry and civic society helps create new learning experiences and develop impactful research. To date, the CEBE has collaborated in research projects in over 80 countries. This international dimension is further enhanced by Erasmus programmes that occur at undergraduate and to a lesser extent at postgraduate level. In the context of the move to being a Technological University, the need to develop both a College-wide and University-wide strategic collaborative research approach has come to the fore.

In both College contexts, the HoLD role moves towards being a supportive and encouraging voice for collaborative learning – both in identifying opportunities for Schools to exchange students, teachers and knowledge to working to establish double masters and other such joint learning and teaching initiatives. Both Colleges’ links to industry and professions are maintained through a sharing of CPD programmes which are established and monitored through the HoLD working with the Schools. In addition, the accreditation process which involves the input of professional bodies into the composition and monitoring of the programmes works alongside the HoLD’s role of quality assurance.

Literature Review

There is a range of organisational, educational leadership and T&L agility literature consulted in the chapter, applicable to the Head of Learning Development role.

Kotter’s (2014) work on leading educational change is an interesting approach to investigate how the creation of informal networks can act as change agents working with the traditional senior management hierarchy. Most large organisations evolve hierarchical management structures because they are a necessity to make an organisation work. Kotter argues that to get to the best performance and harness innovation, large organisations need to accelerate their processes. It is important to consider how to work with students and policy-makers in the new technological university, across all its campuses. Therefore, in the HoLD role for the future, we are looking for an agile, energetic, creative way to respond to College T&L needs. Van den Huevel (2010) describes how this agility is even more important when you consider that change has many facets from societal, to organisational to the individual. As we share an increased focus on teaching quality and enhancement activity, we look to gauge influence on the institution, academic practice and ultimately, student learning. The work of Chen (2020) has been useful to explore for various initiatives to develop SoTL culture, which can be inspired by the eight steps of Kotter’s model of organisational change. The purpose of each step is to provide a set of probing questions for institutional leaders, like the HoLD role, academic developers, and faculty leaders on their roles to support this enculturation. Mapping Kotter’s steps with this list of questions and potential initiatives may guide the process of weaving SoTL into a university’s teaching and learning culture.

In this context the role of the HoLD is to utilise ‘soft power’ as a means of instigating and supporting change. The sphere of influence within the college manifests itself through highlighting best practice, monitoring progression and student success rates, encouraging and facilitating innovation in teaching and learning and then monitoring the effect of these new initiatives. This requires an agility in dealing with the often competing demands of change from external bodies be they accreditation requirements, practice-based changes or internal modifications. An embedded knowledge of each discipline is necessary to have an understanding of how change is best interpreted at the programmatic and school level.

At the heart of the HoLD role is the support and leadership of teaching and learning in each College. In meeting the needs of today’s learners, academic institutions are raising the bar on instructional practices and teaching staff’s engagement expectations. The HoLD fosters a culture of innovation that prompts teaching staff to reimagine the possibilities of their classroom, and since March 2020, their online T&L space. Black (2014) argues that a majority of organisational change initiatives end before they start, and leaders underestimate the difficulty of change, the time it takes to manifest change, and exactly how comprehensive change can be.

Of relevance for the present reflective study is Shulman’s (1987) concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which represents the unique nature of teachers’ knowledge of content. It refers to the overlap of information about subject and pedagogic knowledge. While teachers possess expert content knowledge of the major facts, theories, and methods of a particular academic field, much as non-teaching content experts would, they additionally possess the knowledge of how to represent particular content in pedagogically appropriate ways to particular students in particular educational contexts. This dynamic integration of knowledge of content, students, pedagogy, and educational contexts is PCK, which constitutes the unique professional knowledge of teachers. A recent study (Morgan and Milton, 2020) explored principles that support student learning that transcend disciplinary knowledge. Shulman’s (1987. p. 15) types of knowledge can inform the HoLD work, where expert educators “transform the content knowledge … into forms that are pedagogically powerful.”

This is a key facet of the unique nature of the Head of Learning Development (or equivalent) role – how it is fully embedded in the College. The role lends itself to having a broad overview of the T&L practices in the College, yet also having a specific knowledge of the disciplines. We would argue that supporting and leading on the development of expertise in teaching requires knowledge of the content, pedagogy and students. Often academics can be more oriented to focusing on the content knowledge of their discipline, especially those early in their teaching career. If we can identify the ways of thinking and practising and characteristics of expertise in the teachers in our disciplines, this may then help inform the enhancement of learning, teaching and educational development (Kreber et al., 2005; Saroyan and Trigwell, 2015). In exploring the various dimensions of teacher expertise in higher education, awareness of the following is relevant for the HoLD discussions with academic staff: Pedagogic Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1987); The Reflective Practitioner (Schön, 1983); Self-determined learning and development (King, 2019). Taken further, within these scholarship areas, specific sub-themes that support the HoLD role include: developing disciplinary ways of thinking and practising, development of expertise in teaching, and the professional learning of expert teachers.

When considering the sphere of influence of the HoLD role in the new organisation, core work can be categorised into two vital areas:

• Having responsibility for the implementation of Quality Assurance and Enhancement procedures by taking a lead role in the development, agreement, implementation and management of QA policy at School, College as well as Institute level.
• Continuing development and implementation of strategies, policies and procedures for growing learning and development across the College and between other Colleges of the Institute.

These commonalities of functions of both HoLD roles is now considered.

The HoLD role and Quality Enhancement

The Programme team/committee have been a central focus of the HoLD experience across the College structures and together we have a joint responsibility in the design of the student learning experience. The programme team is the major, or main, activity centre for most academic staff. Drew and Vaughan (2001) have previously argued that there is growing evidence to suggest that the course focus is crucial to maintaining the impact of change in line with the department level culture or with perspective change through action learning.

Historically the structures in place around the programme team are an annual monitoring sub-group of the College Board. It has proved timely that recent collaboration between the Heads of Learning Development and the Chair of the Quality Assurance Committee in the College of Business has resulted in a supportive approach emerging for driving innovation and quality in programme provision. It is our belief that gaining real improvements in teaching quality can be achieved if approached as a collective effort that is underpinned by well-aligned institutional policies.

Until now, the role of Head of Learning Development has been charged with ensuring that quality assurance compliance is achieved throughout the academic year and that teaching and learning initiatives that the College has prioritised are undertaken. As one of the agents of change, there is a new institutional Quality Enhancement Framework being designed that will support the HoLD role in this key dimension of its remit. Student centric QE is vital, but our thoughts also lie with the staff element of this process and how we can support it in driving teaching and learning innovations in programme provision at a new Technological University, and how QE can support transformation. Any process of transformation requires buy in from the staff and an acknowledgement that change can be painful. This is evident in Kubler Ross’ Change Curve (1969) where in the process of change and ensuring staff buy-in, the acknowledgement of the stages that the staff need to process should be built into the process. Hodgkinson and Kelly (2007) have argued that without an awareness of the existing organisational culture the introduction of any model, process or approach will not in itself create or sustain a quality enhancement culture.

So rather than seeing quality assurance and quality enhancement as contested territories it perhaps is more helpful to understand their relationship as exploring and devising best practice and then measuring the effectiveness of this practice (Tapper and Filippakou, 2008). The aim is to see how a more positive symbiotic relationship can develop between quality assurance and enhancement. The role of the HoLD is devised to be someone who identifies areas of potential improvement within programmes working in consultation with the schools (QE Handbook); how this will unfold into the future as part of the new university organisational structure is yet to be ascertained. However, we argue that the HoLD can continue to assist in achieving programme enhancement by:

• Supporting programme committtees to develop better methods of feedback from staff and students.
• Bringing students into the QE process.
• Gathering the annual Programme Information across the College through the annual monitoring forms.

Williams (2016) states that quality assurance and quality enhancement are defined as distinct activities. We argue that this is an important distinction worth elaborating on and contextualising to our institutional historicity. The question of how the two concepts are related has important implications for how staff are treated, respect and trust, how institutional data can be used to improve what the institutions and ultimately, what universities are actually for.

Perceptions of academic staff, such as explored in Newton’s seminal articles (2000; 2002) and in Cheng’s (2011) study of stakeholder perceptions of quality highlighted that staff tend to view the proper role of quality processes to be about transformative learning. For many of the academic staff interviewed in such studies, quality assurance processes continue to be seen as a burdensome extra and one that is responded to through ritualised compliance (Harvey and Williams, 2010; Anderson, 2006). In this view, quality assurance fails to be a part of the everyday activity of academics because they perceive no real link between the quality of their academic work (teaching and research) and the performance embodied in quality assurance processes (Harvey and Williams, 2010). The annual monitoring process in the College of Business and College of Engineering and Built Environment identified that this was missed in the staff component of feedback/forward. This aligns with the purpose of the upcoming CINNTE Review. The CINNTE review is set up as part of Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI)’s first review cycle for all third level institutions in Ireland. The review panel will be made up of independent international experts which will carry out an external reviews on a cyclical basis. The CINNTE review identifies four key objectives to the review process:

1. To encourage a QA culture and the enhancement of the student learning environment and experience within institutions.
2. To provide feedback to institutions about institution-wide quality and the impact of mission, strategy, governance and management on quality and the overall effectiveness of their quality assurance.
3. To contribute to public confidence in the quality of institutions by promoting transparency and public awareness.
4. To encourage quality by using evidence-based, objective methods and advice.

The HoLD role will inform this review through its regular engagement with QA in the university.

The HoLD role and College priorities in Learning Development

In recent years, common priorities for these two colleges have been student progression rates, assessment and feedback (rubrics), and technology-enhanced learning including the Brightspace VLE. And since March 2020, supporting academic colleagues being creative in thinking of ways in which they can assess their learning outcomes authentically but also in a way that guarantees academic integrity has risen to the top of the priorities list.

From our perspective, part of the new organisational strategy could involve a distributed approach for innovation and change in learning development. This could be an energetic and agile way to respond to demands to teaching quality and enhancement activity and can be achieved by embracing innovation, working with strategic change and nurturing cultural change. One example of this are the Teaching Champions who are working creatively across discipline and curriculum boundaries, which results in a mix of ideas and staff working outside traditional siloes. Teaching Champions have been implemented in two of the existing four Colleges, and once evaluated will be considered pan-university. The Teaching Champions is complimented by creating a culture where the best ideas in teaching and learning are showcased through workshops and forums. This has worked best at programme level as ideas can be shared by lecturers. Subsequent best practice can be reinforced through the QE and QA process. Hughes (2011) explores how role model behaviour ensures that changes is lasting and has greater buy in from the staff as opposed to a top down imposed approach to managing change.

Mainstreaming Innovation in Teaching and Learning

Innovation can be one of the main drivers of quality teaching improvement when supported at institutional level. Innovations in teaching and learning can be spurred by a number of factors. Research and development stimulate the search for creative solutions for problems and challenges at various levels and promotes new forms of student learning by problem-solving. This is important to counter pressure from employers and students (including an increasing proportion of lifelong learners) to deliver learning outcomes more relevant to corporate and societal demands, including skills such as critical thinking, self-management, teamwork and communications, as well as technical or discipline-specific skills.

Innovation typically requires experimentation with alternative pedagogical approaches and alternative teaching practices that mostly occur at the programme or class level. Scaling up successful innovations and ensuring they become common practice requires appropriate provisions and managerial capacities. Other innovations may, by their nature, require concerted action on a larger scale from the outset. Our previous collective experience as HoLDs places us in a unique position to lead positive and innovative change in T&L (with the facets of the HoLD role shown in Figure 1) and place the following approach at the fore of this work:

Figure 1: Collaborating synergies supporting T&L innovation

The connection between the proposed collaborating synergies supporting T&L innovation in Figure 1 show how we have ascertained where we are now in the HoLD role, and where we aspire to be, what we are considering in terms of adaption and how we will achieve this.

Translate insider knowledge of the T&L culture. Decoding organisational culture in an evolving work environment is challenging and can involve a number of factors: uncovering the hidden belief systems, values, and stories of our Colleges and how these can be sustained going forward, cognisance of the generational cohorts that work within the Colleges, and exploring how different worldviews and perspectives be honoured in the new organisation. Groysberg et al. (2018) suggest that academic leaders must know how to shift the culture to maintain an organisation’s competitive edge.

Work with any resistance. For many staff, organisational restructuring can prompt a level of unease. Providing a safe space for individuals to voice their concerns and make sense of the change process in relation to T&L can be helpful. Kotter (2014) recommends using coaching strategies to facilitate constructive communication and active listening in times of contention. Explaining why change is necessary and effectively communicating the College and TU vision for change is important, as well as helping colleagues see the benefits of meeting the change goal with regards to T&L and reflecting on the corollaries if the change does not occur.

Create collective learning opportunities. de Caluwe and Vermaak (2004) have argued that changing and learning are connected. Managing change involves learning new behaviours and creating new ways of thinking and building T&L teams that foster collaboration and knowledge sharing. Communities of practice work well for this process but knowing what leadership behaviours motivate staff to learn and how best to continue the learning processes throughout the change endeavour is vital. The principles of professional development activity can mirror Wengers’ (1998) indicators of a community of practice: collective reflection on practice (sustained mutual relationships leading to awareness); talking about practice (shared ways of engaging in doing things together); sharing problems and issues relating to practice (knowing what others know, and how they can contribute to the T&L work); context of practice (interactions are the continuation of ongoing discussions); and cultural aspects of practice (a shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective on the world). Boyer (1990) argues that academics do not work effectively in isolation and that there is a need to bring them together to enable sharing and development of a community of scholars. We would add a community of T&L practitioners to this and are on hand to help advise, but we need to be proactive in keeping up-to-date with the advice given and how lecturers will be changing their teaching, learning and assessment practices. We can also help lecturers think through the impact of new assessment formats on students, and what they might be taking into account so students of all backgrounds and preferences can do their best.

Share T&L leadership practices. It has long been argued in the literature that shared leadership is the hallmark of effective leadership. Identifying innovators and change-makers within the Schools and reminding staff that change provides opportunities to develop new skills, positively impacts work performance, and builds self-esteem are all important. Aligned with this, Kouzes and Posner (2014) suggest exploring how best to nurture leadership in others.

Continue to facilitate change. In acknowledging that change remains necessary for continued growth, it is key to help staff see the value of change throughout their career. As HoLDs, we have experienced a number of approaches to seed change: Hosting professional development workshops that openly discuss change and change management; supporting conferencing and publication opportunities so staff can advance the scholarship in their field; organising staff lunch and learn type events to foster a sense of belonging; advising on staff input at the strategic leadership level; contributing to academic leadership programmes for senior managers and leaders; and making communities of practice a part of the School’s organisational structure. All these strategies work collectively to mitigate the many challenges to change. However, we suggest that they are only the tip of the iceberg – academic leaders must invest in human potential to nurture leadership and create agents of change. This leads to evolving a model for how this influence could work.

Evolving a model for developing HoLD sphere of influence

As the culmination of the chapter, we propose a model of HoLD (or equivalent) influence which explores:

• Our ever-increasing circles: the sphere of HoLD influence/personal networks.
• Commonalities in our local contexts.
• The context when working with staff [one example is developing common presentations for senior management, professional services, academics] to communicate what we do.
• How our local T&L priorities are defined – considering how these align with institutional strategic aims and objectives.

Figure 2 shows the HoLD spheres of influence evolving in a new technological university undergoing organisational change: Teaching, Learning, Assessment; QA to QE; institutional priorities; and national T&L priorities. In combination, this work involves consideration of HoLD outcomes and outputs, with greater links to Schools, clarifying the role of learning development as part of the new organisational structure, and when considering the sphere of influence, exploring what is the most appropriate unit of analysis for this, and if there is a negative as well as a positive influence.

It also requires consideration of how the HoLD role can mainstream good practice in T&L across disciplines in the Colleges; what can be the transformative influence on academics (added value of teaching/activating and nurturing academics’ passion for T&L). Part of the new organisational strategy could involve a distributed approach for innovation and change in learning development. This could be an energetic and agile way to respond to demands to teaching quality and enhancement activity and can be achieved by embracing innovation, working with strategic change and nurturing cultural change.

Figure 2: Overlapping layers of influence of the Head of Learning Development role

Conclusion

Future Transformation of T&L in the new Organisation

A range of organisational, educational leadership and T&L agility literature has been explored in the chapter. We have presented a model to encourage the sphere of influence of the HoLD leadership role in a new organisational structure. Through the model, a set of practical recommendations on communication and partnership for the HoLD role (and its equivalent) of the future for colleagues across the sector and internationally have been included. We have considered how to influence T&L policy for a connected campus in the technological university space of the future.

Thinking to the future, the Colleges are currently engaging in new programme development under the Human Capital Initiative (HCI) which will deliver an investment targeted towards increasing capacity in higher education in skills-focused programmes designed to meet priority skills needs. From the College perspective, it is seeking to promote innovative and responsive models of programme delivery, and to enable the higher education system to respond rapidly to changes in both skills requirements and technology

Since March 2020, like all HEIs globally, the Colleges were required to quickly look at how provision was delivered and introduce an expanded staff and student training programme. Collective important lessons were learnt which informed the training from the dual lecturer-student perspective which included communication channels, devices, learning space, interaction, learning and study structure, mindfulness, motivation and resource access.

Through our reflections in this chapter, we have been rethinking our priorities and are being proactive and reactive, guided by the advice offered by our HoLD colleagues and ensuring that it is translated into support for our academic staff. We need to find creative ways of opening up channels to our colleagues – how are they experiencing the organisational change in relation to their T&L practice, what are they finding, what do they need from us? Going forward, the HoLDs, or its equivalent new title, could be one of the catalysts which helps the organisational change to work. To do that, we argue that we need to give ourselves some breathing space, time to listen to staff, continue to research, and think creatively in these unprecedented times in which we all find ourselves.

References

Anderson, C. (2006) ‘Power, Optimism and Risk Taking’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 511-536.

Andrade, M. S. Miller, R. M. Kunz, M. B. & Ratliff, J. M. (2020) ‘Online learning in schools of business: The impact of quality assurance measures’, Journal of Education for Business, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 37-44.

Chan, C. J. (2020) ‘SoTL enculturation guided by Kotter’s model of change’, International Journal for Academic Development, 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1890605.

Cheng, M. (2011) ‘Transforming the Learner versus Passing the Exam: Understanding the gap between academic and student definitions of quality’, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 3-17.

Black, J. S. (2014) It starts with one: Changing individuals changes organizations, 3rd edn, Pearson, London.

Boyer, E. L. (1990) Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton.

DES (2019) ‘Report of the Technological Universities Research Network to the Department of Education and Skills’, [online] Available at: https://www.mtu.ie/contentfiles/publications/connectedness-collaboration-through-connectivity.pdf.

de Caluwé, L., & Vermaak, H. (2004) ‘Change paradigms: An overview’, Organization Development Journal,
vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 9-18.

Drew, L. & Vaughan, S. (2001) ‘The Course Team as the Focus for Contextualized Professional Learning’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 183-195.

Groysberg, B. Lee, J. Price, J. & Cheng, J.Y.J. (2018) ‘The Leader’s Guide to Corporate Culture’, Harvard Business Review.

Harvey, L. & Williams, J. (2010) ‘Fifteen Years of Quality in Higher Education’, Quality in Higher Education,
vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3-36.

Hughes, M. (2011) Do 70 percent of all organizational change initiatives really fail? Journal of Change Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 451-464.

Hodgkinson, M. & Kelly, M. (2007) ‘Quality management and enhancement processes in UK business schools: a review’, Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 77-91.

King, H. (2003) ‘Disseminating educational developments’, in A Guide to Staff & Educational Development,
eds P. Kahn, & D. Baume, London, pp. 96-115. vol. 20, no. 2 – King, H. (2019) Continuing Professional Development: what do award-winning academics do? Educational Developments, 20(2), pp. 1-5.

Kotter, J. P. (2014) Accelerate: Building a strategic agility for a faster-moving world, Harvard Business Review Press, Cambridge.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2014) The five practices of exemplary leadership, The Leadership Challenge, UK.

Kreber, C. (2005) ‘The Transformative Potential of the Scholarship of Teaching’, The ISSOTL Journal, vol. 1,
no. 1, pp. 5-18.

Kubler-Ross, E. (1969) Ed On Grief and Grieving, Scribner, New York.

Morgan, A. & Milton, E. (2020) ‘Educative case-making: a learner-centred approach to supporting the development of pedagogical expertise’, Expertise in teaching in higher education Symposium [Online] 16-23 October.

Newton, J. (2000) ‘Feeding the Beast or Improving Quality? Academics Perception of Quality Assurance and Quality Monitoring’, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 153-162.

Newton, J (2002) ‘Views from Below: Academics Coping With Quality’, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 8,
no. 1, pp. 39-61.

O’Brien, C. (2019) ‘New technological university Ireland’s largest third-level body’, The Irish Times, 1 January.

Saroyan, A. & Trigwell, K. (2015) ‘Higher Education teachers’ professional learning: Process and outcome’, Studies in Educational Evaluation, vol. 46, pp. 92-101.

Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, Routledge, New York.

Shulman, L. S. (1987) ‘Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform’ Harvard Educational Review, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 1-22.

Tapper, T. & Filippakou, O. (2008) ‘Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education: Contested Territories?’ Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 1-2, pp. 84-100.

Van den Huevel, M., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010) Adapting to Change: The value of change information and meaning-making’, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 11-21.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Williams, J. (2016) ‘Quality assurance and quality enhancement: is there a relationship?’ Quality in Higher Education, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 97-102.