Refocusing on Teaching and Learning: Lifting our Game

Leadership Team Strategy Discussion Paper:

Refocusing on Teaching and Learning: Lifting our Game

Introduction

It was signalled at our staff meeting on February 8th that one of the priorities for 2008 was to refocus our energies on teaching and learning. Of course, this does not mean that resource management will not remain a very high priority – it will. But over the last three years we have made significant improvements to our resource management processes, so that much good practice is now embedded in our “business as usual”.

So, what does a refocus on teaching and learning actually mean?

We will all have different perspectives on this, but from our point of view it is about ensuring that we have the best possible programmes of learning, engage in the best possible teaching, and are getting the best possible outcomes for our learners. In short, that we deliver consistently to our stated brand values, in pursuit of our strategic objective to be the top performing ITP in terms of educational quality.

It is in pursuit of this strategic objective that this strategy paper has been prepared. To be the best in terms of educational quality means lifting our game in all programme areas. Those programmes that are exceeding our targets can be helped to do better; and those that are falling short must be supported to improve. This is what the strategy is all about.

This strategy is also about preparing and positioning ourselves for a significantly new quality regime – one which has signalled a future in which the quality of teaching and student support will be carefully monitored, and in which achieving good outcomes for learners is more important than complying with quality procedures. The dramatic shift is towards an evaluative model of quality, i.e. understanding what is happening and why, rather than merely reporting on results.

Thirdly, this strategy is a partial response to some concerns we have with our success rates. So, how are we performing at the moment?
Approximately 70% of our programmes meet or exceed our target of an 85% success rate. However, on average we are well below this target, and results overall have slipped by 2% this year. On the positive side, our student retention rates are very high – perhaps reflecting the energy we have put into this area over the last couple of years.

Although average success rates are not as we would want, it is important to affirm that we have programme areas that are performing exceptionally well – we have exemplars of both good practice and excellent outcomes in our own organisation. So, we will not have to go elsewhere for case studies and resources on how to lift our game.

It is also important to affirm that we have implemented many initiatives to improve teaching and learning, even though we have had significant resource issues to manage. Much has been done Polytechnic-wide: greater clarity around roles and expectations of lecturers, more effective performance reviews, better reward (salary review, promotion) and recognition (excellence awards) processes, more generous, yet better focused, staff development funding, an expanded EDC, requirements for academic staff to have teaching qualifications, new feedback processes (student and peer feedback on teaching), improved student surveys, a new student induction and orientation programme (still developing), and the recently announced, just implemented teaching innovation fund. And there are some excellent complementary initiatives at School level, including robust processes to monitor and respond to student progress.This is an impressive list of initiatives, so why has our average success rate dropped? Perhaps our targets are too optimistic? Our students less capable? Perhaps we have taken our eye off the ball? Have spread ourselves too thinly – asking everyone to do too many things so that nothing is getting done as well as it could/should be? “Any or all of the above” could be a partial explanation. However, it is also possible that we have not consistently applied our initiatives in all areas, all of the time. Two hypotheses underpin this strategy, and have passed the high level test of being seen as plausible by our Heads of School/Programme.

• We have not maintained a consistent and appropriate leadership focus, at all levels, on teaching and learning; and especially on ensuring best possible outcomes for learners. Instead, we have focused our managers on educational efficiency. Of course, all have remained concerned about and have done their best to maintain quality – the leadership issue is an organisational one, not an individual manager one.
  
• We have not managed quality as resolutely as we could have – we have not always, nor consistently, taken advantage of data which is available to us, nor always followed through on the evidence we do generate from our systems. Nor have we always ensured consequences for performance that is not up to scratch.
  

So, what is proposed is not a radical rethinking of what we have been doing, but a genuine refocus, one intended to help us to build capability and to develop a very strong quality culture which is centred on excellence in teaching and learning. A range of possible initiatives follows. These have been endorsed in principle by HOS/HOPs, but need to be discussed, accepted as appropriate, or not, then prioritised for implementation. Not all will be affordable right now, even if we agree they are appropriate. And to build a strong quality culture will take at least two or three years of consistent focus.

Also, what is proposed may not change what many schools/programme areas are currently doing – but the strategies may add significant support.

1. Enhance leadership of teaching and learning:

• Assign a specific responsibility to a Leadership Team member to support and improve teaching and learning across the whole Polytechnic – a champion for best practice. This will help us to keep our eye firmly on the teaching and learning ball when we are making our decisions.
  
• Form a quality improvement team to support the Leadership Team role, one which includes the Institutional Research Officer, Internal Academic Auditor, an AQU member, an EDC member, one of our professorial staff, and a member from each Academic Group. This team will be the eyes and ears for good teaching and learning and would be charged with identifying and promulgating best practice in teaching and learning around the Polytechnic.
  
• Appoint a team of Principal Lecturers or other advanced teaching practitioners, reduce their teaching load and direct that time to supporting other teachers across the Polytechnic.This team would augment EDC (as adjunct EDC staff) and would have a responsibility to work with staff to bring about improvements which evidence tells us needs to be made. We do already have some Principal Lecturers carrying out this role in their Schools, but actual practice is variable, and time has not been provided to allow for effective leadership at this level. We could look at 6 to 10 of these staff to work across the Polytechnic.
  
• Shift our management focus so that our HOS/HOPs and our Programme Managers have a responsibility to engage directly with improving teaching and learning in their programme areas. This will mean, amongst other things:
  
  o HOS/HOPs would actively lead curriculum improvement in their area and would observe their staff teach. The former is the norm, the latter seldom occurs.
  
  o Programme Managers would also observe staff teach, providing some degree of triangulation with HOS/HOP observations of teaching capability.
  
  o Having our HOS/HOPs and Programme Managers engaged in the observation of teaching practice, would be an essential ingredient in the development of a quality culture that embraced openness in our teaching practice, and which would include staff observing their colleagues. Of course, staff development initiatives will be needed to support this role.
  
  Each HOS/HOP would have a responsibility to maintain a record of, and report on, the teaching capability of their staff, highlighting strengths and gaps/areas for improvement, both for individual teachers and collectively for the School/Programme area. Such reports could/should be informed by student evaluation of staff teaching and should be key inputs into individual development planning.
  Note: There is a persuasive body of literature that leadership which is focused on teaching and learning is central to raising the quality of teaching and learning.
  
  

2. Improve the measurement of our academic performance and act promptly and decisively on the evidence before us.

What we don’t measure we will be unlikely to manage, and certainly won’t manage well. We could collect relevant data on appropriate KPIs quickly and accurately and present it to the relevant staff in a highly visible form. Where under-performance is revealed managers have the responsibility to act promptly to ensure underperformance is addressed. In our organisational objectives for 2008-10 we have chosen the following KPIs as measures of teaching quality:
- Student retention rates
- Student completion rates
- Student success rates
- Student satisfaction rates

Are these right? Best? Sufficient? No, but they are necessary, and are being monitored externally. Success and quality are complex concepts and we will need to develop more sophisticated metrics. These measures are currently all extracted after the fact, often called “lag” indicators. Our challenge is to produce data whenever we can in a timeframe that enables action to be taken in the current teaching cycle. Therefore, we could, and it is proposed that we do, report monthly on:

- Student withdrawals
- Student progress towards success


We could also report on other indicators such as the number of staff who have teaching qualifications, who access professional development around teaching and learning, and who receive student feedback on their teaching.

Each of these are “lead” indicators that alert us to how well we are currently doing, giving us the option to take action to change the final outcome of our lag indicators. For example, if we detect significant early withdrawals in a programme we can enquire as to the reasons, and if the responsibility rests with us we can put in place strategies to encourage other students not to withdraw. Similarly, if we know which students are struggling with assessments, we can provide additional support.

We could also listen to students more frequently – not through more surveys but through facilitated, including independently facilitated, and well focused student feedback sessions in which we engage students by programme area.

Currently under preparation are comprehensive summary reports by programme on all academic indicators from 2007, compared to 2006 where data is available. These reports will be available soon, and a session to discuss the data for every programme will be set up. This discussion process will bring together School/Programme management and Leadership Team members, as follows:

- The HOS/HOP and Programme Managers, and any staff who are able to attend.
- From Leadership Team: Phil Ker or Robin Day, Sue Thompson and the relevant Group Manager. Other LT members may join the discussion depending on the value they feel they could add – based on their reading of the reports. The discussion will consider in detail all of the available data about teaching and learning, will agree on good practice areas for wider dissemination, and will result in an agreed action plan for addressing any areas which need improvement.Ideally, each School/Programme area will discuss the reports in preparation for the meeting with Leadership Team. It is proposed that such discussions become a regular element of our quality process – possibly twice a year, and the first one of the year would replace the current programme review process. NB: Again, there is persuasive literature about the value of well focused dialogue as a means to build organisational culture. Some Schools already practice this on a whole of staff basis.

3. Further lift the capability of teachers

We have made significant provisions for assisting staff to develop their teaching capacity, but too often these are not taken up, or not followed through – with workload frequently offered as the reason. So, we have an issue of the priority we attach individually and as an organisation to quality. We can signal that quality is critical in a number of ways:

• Dedicate time for our teachers to work on improving their teaching and learning: one teaching and learning development day per quarter. We could either:
  - Forego one teaching day per quarter (with teachers providing other structured learning activities for students on that day), or
  - Nominate one day in each semester break which is not available for annual or discretionary leave, or
  - A combination of the above.
  These sessions would focus on enhancing learning, providing staff with opportunities to engage with known good practice - from within Otago Polytechnic, from other institutions and from the literature. The sessions could also address specific teaching and learning issues we are grappling with e.g. implementing core skills, reducing over-assessing of student performance.
  
• Ensure compliance by teachers with our requirements for student and peer feedback, and ensure that this feedback is acted on. This issue is not without its complexity. Our current processes have a strong development focus, and are protective of staff in that they are deemed to be the “owners” of the feedback they receive – being entrusted to follow through with actions to improve where feedback suggests there is a need. Our managers are only privy to the feedback if staff choose to share it, or wish to be considered for salary review. The literature in this area is persuasive of us retaining the essence of the system we have in place. On the other hand, a number of staff appear to be letting the side down – by not getting feedback, and/or by not demonstrably responding to that which they do get. We have solid evidence on the former, anecdotal on the latter.
  
• The current situation can be balanced by changing our policy to mandate for managers to initiate feedback processes, and to receive the reports under the following circumstances:
  o The staff member has refused to initiate the feedback;
  o The staff member has failed to demonstrate that feedback received has been acted on.
  
• Provide teaching staff with accurate and timely data about student progress and achievement (see 2 above). Teaching staff can benefit from knowledge about the whole student, not just the course they are responsible for. Some schools already have excellent processes for holistic monitoring of student progress – processes which could well be replicated elsewhere.As well, managers must have access to the same data so that they are able to ask the right questions of their staff. This is the intent behind our decision to require assessment results to be entered progressively into Jasper.It is intended that exception reports on student progress will be extracted monthly – showing which students in which courses are not presenting assessments on time, or are failing. Such “at risk” students must be followed up, preferably by the staff in the teaching team, who can be supported by Student Services personnel.
  
• Introduce the expectation that all teaching staff will be observed in their teaching each year by their HOS/HOP and/or their Programme Manager, with the frequency being dependent on the validated capabilities of the teacher. Those whose student feedback and observations were very good might be observed only every 3/4 semesters and might even undertake observations themselves – to help spread this load. For each School and Programme area it would be helpful to have an annual programme of:
  o Teaching observations – by whom, when
  o Student feedback
  o Colleague feedback
  o Performance discussion
  There may be merit in having structured face to face student feedback undertaken at the same session as the observation, “administered” by the HOS/HOP or Programme Manager. We could also consider using our Principal Lecturers/”advanced practitioners” for developmental observations.

4. Require higher levels of accountability

• This has been mentioned already, but needs to be focused on in its own right. Over the last 2 – 3 years we have set quite rigorous expectations of staff around aspects of performance which will undoubtedly improve quality, and have allowed for a settling in period for staff to adjust to a new accountability regime. This regime includes:
  o Performance reviews
  o Development planning
  o Teaching qualifications
  o Student and peer feedback
  o Course feedback
  In some programme areas uptake of these quality processes has been impressive. In others, uptake is patchy at best.
  
  It is now time to insist on compliance, to monitor progress regularly and to ensure consequences for non-compliance.
  
• However, the issue is not about mere compliance with quality processes. Rather, it is about our staff performing to the highest possible standard. Whilst by far and away most staff do a great job, some let the team down.At the end of the day, there are two key tests for us to apply: is teaching practice good enough for our students? Will this practice enhance or diminish our reputation? By “teaching practice” is meant our programmes (how they are structured, what’s in them and how they are taught and assessed), our treatment of students, the quality of teaching, the quality of academic administration.If the answers to either of the questions above is “No”, then the practice must change, and must do so in an agreed timeframe, or the staff member must seek employment elsewhere. What we do want is to retain our strong development orientation, but not to tolerate those who will not or cannot improve following identification that their practice is unacceptable.
  
• Follow through on our accountability requirements with regular monitoring and review of progress. This means putting in place measurement processes so that HOS/HOPs have timely access to the full picture of how their staff and programmes are performing.And it means that we place a high priority on monitoring progress – not just through written reports but through engagement with our evidence base and well focused dialogue. Hence – the twice a year discussion session with each HOS/HOP as suggested earlier in this paper.These discussion meetings would focus primarily on the quality of our teaching and learning practices as follows:
  o Are our quality requirements being implemented? (see above re performance reviews, development planning, student feedback etc.)
  o Is satisfactory progress being made towards our organisational objectives around teaching and learning?
  o Is satisfactory progress being made towards School/Programme area objectives around teaching and learning?
  o What are the emerging issues for the School/Programme area concerning teaching and learning; and what support does the School need to address these?
  Such meetings would be well supported by management information which would increasingly be supplied centrally. They should also be supported by School/Programme area information which provides the necessary context for the data we have available centrally. And, ideally, full discussion of the outcomes being achieved for students will have occurred before the meeting with the Leadership Team.
  
  In summary, it is proposed that our refocus has the following elements:
  
• Our management and leadership more explicitly concentrates on the quality of teaching and learning.
  
• Management information better supports both our understanding of our performance on quality matters, and our decision making.
  
• More support for teachers to teach more effectively.
  
• Accountability is more focused, with an emphasis on developing excellent teaching and active addressing of performance which is below par.
  
  At this point readers could be forgiven for lamenting: more work, where will we get the time, where will we get the resources!!!! And these are all valid concerns/ questions. However:
  
  - First and foremost we need some attitudes to shift, and ultimately the emergence of a more teaching and learning focused culture, and a stronger quality improvement culture.So, our first gains will not require more resources, merely focus and willpower implementing fully what we already have in place. For many staff, nothing will change – already good practice will simply continue. The improvements, and therefore the effort, will be at the margins.
  
  - Second, resources need to be prioritised. This is especially so with the changes proposed centrally.
  
  - Third, some resources need to shift. In school and programme areas this will be about, in part, substituting the current quantity of teaching and assessment work with a better quality of teaching and assessment work. In the longer term we will benefit from more time in the short term spent on improving our practices.
  
  It is no coincidence that the changes signalled in this paper come at the same time as we have signaled an intent to “tame the workload tiger”. If we are relentless in reviewing our priorities, removing unnecessary work and lifting the personal and professional effectiveness of all of our staff, then we will be able to achieve not only a quantum leap in quality, but also the diversification of revenue which is our other key priority for 2008. And with diversified revenue comes more resources. With higher quality comes a higher reputation, a more secure enrolment base, and more credibility within our community and nationally. Success often begets more success!
  
  What we do have to do, though, is to set realistic timeframes to achieve what has been suggested. Resources don’t shift overnight, but they will shift if we plan to do so and that will be the next step!
  
  
  NOTE:
  
  This paper was not intended to capture everything we might do to improve the quality of teaching and learning, rather, to focus on changes to process, attitudes and organisational culture. There is much we can do in terms of enhancing student support and learning environments, both of which can positively impact on teaching and learning. Those issues are for another day.