Leading beside: The gentle art of academic development

Authors: Claire Aitchison, Corinne A. Green

Importance

Academic development in higher education is increasingly common, occurring in 38 countries in 2016 (Mårtensson & Roxå, 2021). This multifaceted profession aims to build capacity for teaching and research academics, as well as for their institutions. In some cases, we are directed to work with academics, for example, to help deliver institutional priorities; at other times staff approach us for assistance with building skills and knowledge. As informed educator practitioners, we support the work of all levels of student-facing teachers from new casual tutors to mid and late career educators. The work of academic development is rich, varied and highly contextual, including, for example, delivering short-courses, single-focus workshops, or individual one-on-one support. Academic development requires us to work ‘at elbow’ with colleagues across all discipline areas in the university in a myriad of ways resulting in changed practices and SoTL outputs including publishing with colleagues about practice innovations.

With such a broad scope it is imperative that we approach all our work with academics from a position of respect – acknowledging we cannot ever know as much about the contexts in which teachers work, the unique demands and requirements of their curricula, approaches, and disciplinary signature pedagogies. Thus, we must bring a balance of humility and expertise as we value others’ knowledge bases and endeavour to form productive and purposeful relationships for meaningful impact.

Scenario

This scenario occurs in a section of our institution (referred to here as the College) that provides students an alternate pathway to university through enabling programs designed to build academic skills and prerequisite knowledge to prepare students for success at university. In 2022, the College leadership initiated a significant reorganisation of their offerings including new degree pathways (Foundation Studies, Undergraduate Certificate, and Diploma), involving course renewal and redevelopment, and delivery changes including a reduction in semester length from 13 to 10 weeks. It is not uncommon for academic developers to be invited to facilitate these kinds of institutional changes – however we were mindful from the outset to ensure we weren’t seen as enforcers, but rather as critical friends prepared to walk alongside our peers supporting and leading where possible and appropriate (Swaffield, 2008). There was a degree of anxiety as staff were concerned about their capacity to undertake course development alongside normal teaching loads, they were initially unclear about what was required and why change was necessary, as well as the potential impacts on students. Our intention was to empower the teaching academics who would need to expand their skills in curriculum writing and course design (as well as delivery) by building on their existing individual strengths and by working productively together as a team of professional educators.

In order to plan our approach, we first met with leadership to understand their needs and accessed staff feedback to design a year-long program of support that included workshops, individual consultations, and resource development.

We tried to establish our workshops as collegial spaces where participants (the College teaching staff) could safely ask questions and express frustrations – even when we felt uncomfortable about not always being able to provide answers. Academic development work sometimes places us at the intersection between institutional imperatives and our peers (Sugrue et al., 2017). While we were regarded as having expertise in teaching and learning in a broad sense, early on we highlighted the teachers’ expertise by clustering them into discipline groups (Academic Literacy and Skill Development; Belonging, Society, and Professional Skills; Health and STEM) so that they could inform each other (and us!) about their subjects, curriculum, and approaches.

Initial workshops were intended to help the teaching academics scope out where their courses fitted across the new programs, identify where redevelopment and new course development would be required, and explore connections between these courses through the various pathway programs. We shared information about course design with a programmatic lens and incorporated activities that had subject matter experts (individually and in small groups) explore the program learning objectives and course details (including course learning objectives, assessments, and weekly content). In order to address workload concerns, we made workshops as functional as possible and we sought and actioned participant feedback in a timely manner. Across the year, we also offered individual consultations so that people could access the kind of help they needed (e.g., with learning designers, or for assistance with online multimedia) when they needed it. Additional monthly professional development workshops were offered on topics identified by the staff themselves (e.g., multimedia for teaching and learning; creating engaging environments and classroom activities; GenAI; Learning Management System familiarisation).

In this redevelopment process, we positioned ourselves as colleagues and critical friends seeking to empower colleagues and build on their knowledge. For example, these experts were critical for mapping interconnections between courses across programs, and for aligning and scaffolding formative and summative assessments against individual course and relevant program objectives.

The complexity of this challenge was evident from the outset, and we freely admitted that we were struggling to appreciate the programmatic and course level interface. Corinne took information provided by the College team and made several visual representations. Figure 1 highlighted the messy complexities of multiple overlapping links between programs and courses. Figure 2 and Figure 3 focused attention on a particular program and course (respectively) and were used to support development. These visualisations enabled us to acknowledge what we did not know, share appreciation for the complexity of the work, and support the College team to work collegially and programmatically.

Working alongside and building strong relationships with the College staff over months meant we knew and could draw on their expertise. For example, we arranged for a workshop on GenAI to be run by two of the College team who had been experimenting with GenAI outputs in their courses. This kind of collaboration and inclusivity gave kudos where it was deserved, and dispersed leadership opportunities, further building respect amongst the group. In addition, there were times when we were frank about not having answers, as was the case when workshop participants queried the reasoning for shortened teaching periods and the potential impacts for curriculum design and timetabling. In such circumstances, we acted as sounding boards in the conversation and encouraged taking concerns to leadership. As one of the College leaders commented “Thank you so much for your time and contribution yesterday! As always, yourself [Claire] and Corinne bring a tempered and expert lens to things that we are sometimes too invested to see clearly.” Later, it became evident that impacts also included improved courses and learning experiences – for students, our peers and ourselves!

Reflection

As we reflect on our involvement in this major program and course redevelopment, we are humbled by what was achieved. We were privileged to work with these teaching peers who brought their passion and expertise for enabling programs, and their knowledge of their students and discipline to the challenge. Participants indicated they valued the collegiality: “Getting to meet and have time to discuss the purpose of the course with others, bouncing ideas off each other and fleshing ideas out”. We were inspired by their willingness to share and discover together – it isn’t always easy to let others see what you’ve been doing as a teacher, to seek feedback from colleagues about the strengths and weaknesses of your courses. In future we’d find ways to build trust and identify peer expertise more quickly so that we could more purposefully organise working groups that maximise peer learning.

We thought too about our role as both insiders and outsiders; fellow teaching academics and yet not true peers, in some ways aligned to leadership, in other ways not. We recognised how academic development work involves listening, asking questions, and adapting quickly to changing circumstances and giving people opportunities to share their views and experiences while learning new ones that meet their needs. None of our colleagues have time to waste – they need to be heard, and for us to find out and deliver what they require, when it is required. Anonymous feedback indicated that our approach “fostered collaboration as well as independent thinking”.

Advice

Our advice involves aiming for a practice that identifies and rewards the expertise of others so that colleagues are strengthened and empowered together through a common purpose.

It became obvious to us that gentle leadership is relational work. As one College colleague said: “the place I see the most value from you [both] is in facilitating group formation and the appropriate cross-course discussions.” Therefore, we argue that a top priority must be to build authentic, trusting relationships between ourselves as academic developers, as experts who have been invited in to facilitate change, and the disciplinary experts with whom we are working. When significant change is thrust upon us in the university sector, suspicion is understandable, and this must be acknowledged so that individuals are given a space to express fears and concerns, but also feel confident that they will be empowered to find positive responses and ultimately satisfying solutions. When expertise is distributed and everyone feels heard, people are more likely to take ownership and engage in bringing about effective change.

We also recommend early scoping of needs and a responsive plan of action that is informed continuously by feedback. Understanding the concerns and the circumstances of the people with whom one is working is central to building productive relationships that can endure beyond the specific circumstances which gave rise to the collaboration. A gentle approach pays rewards long term.

References

Mårtensson, K., & Roxå, T. (2021). Academic developers developing: Aspects of an expanding lifeworld. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(4), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1950725

Sugrue, C., Englund, T., Solbrekke, T. D., & Fossland, T. (2018). Trends in the practices of academic developers: Trajectories of higher education? Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2336-2353. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1326026

Swaffield, S. (2008). Critical friendship, dialogue and learning, in the context of Leadership for Learning. School Leadership & Management, 28(4), 323-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430802292191