Faculty and Administrative Practices That
Advance Learning
Pete Turner, PhD
Residential Educational Faculty
Estrella Mountain Community College
How Many of You are 
 Faculty?
 Senior Administrators (Presidents or VicePresidents)?
 Deans or middle-level administrators?
 Support Staff?
In the name of learning, what are the
leadership characteristics and practices . .
.

 Of effective faculty?
 Of effective administrators?
Faculty Leadership

Not
 Appointed
 Elected
But
 Informal
 “Grassroots” (Burke, 2010; Kezar & Lester, 2009)
 Faculty members influencing their peers
 Amend and improve practices
 Name of student learning
So What’s This About?

Background
Recommend
Purpose
Learning
Leadership
Lit Review
Implications
Findings
Background

Starts with Teacher Leadership
• Most significant in reforming K-12 education
(Danielson,
2006; Donaldson, 2006)
• More responsible for bringing about change than any
other force (Reeves, 2008)
And what about informal (grassroots) faculty
leadership (IFL)?
• Essentially undefined, little documentation (Shugart, 2010;
Turner, 2013; Wilson, 2010)
• Calls for more research (Burke, Kezar & Lester)
So . . .

 Led to research project
 Literature review
 Case Study involving
 Three of original Vanguard Colleges
 Documents examination
 Senior administrator (10+ yrs. at that college)
interviews
 Faculty Surveys
Purpose

 Determine current IFL practices, examples
 Explore future areas for IF leaders
 Identifying administrative practices advancing IFL
 Delineate administrative practices impeding IFL
Literature Review

Informal Faculty Leadership
 Formal vs. Informal (Burke, 2008; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Mayrowetz, 2008)
 IFL in the Learning College and Post-Secondary Education
 Collaborative teams (O’Banion, 2007; Shugart, 2010; Wilson, 2010)
 Faculty Inquiry Groups (Faculty, 2008; Huber, 2008)
 Grassroots leadership (Burke, 2010) – new technologies, new
pedagogies
 Focus on teaching and learning (Shugart, 2010)
Literature Review

Administrative actions advancing IFL
 Supporting actions (Wechsler, 2007)
 Collaborative
 Narrow focus on teaching and learning, broad
perspective of college
 High value for role of faculty in change
 All levels involved in innovation
 Servant leaders (Grosso, 2008)
Literature Review

Administrative actions impeding IFL
 Impeding actions (Kezar, 2009)
 Initiative overload
 “Institutional isomorphism”
 “Bureaucratic Baloney” (Reeves, 2008)




Leaders don’t model behavior they preach
“Polar opposite of culture of evidence”
Traditions rule over data-driven decisions
Reliance on purpose (as opposed to results)
Findings
Examination of Documents

 High level of consistency
 Common themes:




Learning
Collaboration
Innovation
Diversity
Findings
Faculty Member Surveys

Current/future examples:
 Collaboration
 Mentoring (faculty-faculty, faculty-student)
 Center for Teaching and Learning
 Innovative ideas with sharing
Findings
Faculty Member Surveys

Current/future examples:
 Action research
 Service learning
 Technology
 Faculty-driven professional development
Findings
Faculty Member Surveys

Administrative Practices Advancing:
 Characteristics of administrators
 Facilitative, encouraging, communication, trust,
transparency
 Collaborative: horizontal and vertical
 Allocation of resources (CTL, technology, etc.)
 High value for faculty innovators
 Provide needs and then freedom
 “Get me what I need then get out of the way!”
Findings
Faculty Member Surveys

Administrative Practices Hindering:
 Character deficits





Micromanaging
Secretive, lack of transparency
Poor communication skills
Collaboration deficit, especially horizontal
Failure to show appreciation/recognition
 Organizational design issues
 Structural designs, campus layout
 Not supporting innovation
 Not allocating resources
Findings
Faculty Member Surveys

Administrative Practices Hindering:
 Requirements not related to teaching/learning
 Paperwork
 Out-of-class assignments, tasks
 Committee assignments not related to learning
 Impediments to collaboration
 Not modelling
 Not walking talk
 Not removing structural roadblock
 Role of deans, other middle-level managers
Findings
Administrator Interviews

Current/future examples
 Characteristics of IF Leaders




Focused on learning
Energetic, enthusiastic: “passionate innovators”
Never satisfied, always looking for better way
Influential: always sharing and contributing
 Purveyors of innovative practices





Service learning
Experiential learning
Authentic assessment
High engagement pedagogies
Use of cutting edge technology
 High value for informal faculty leaders – aura of mutual
admiration
Findings
Administrator Interviews

Administrative practices advancing
 Characteristics of administrators
 Self-critical, open to change
 Focus on learning
 Culture of collaboration
 Inclusive of faculty in discussions, decisions
 Deep conversations
 Open to suggestions
 Continual, rigorous, transparent system to evaluate current
systems/practices
 High value for informal faculty leaders
Findings
Administrator Interviews

Administrative practices advancing
 Facilitative
 Dedication of budget, resources
 Ongoing faculty development, faculty involvement
 Moving innovation to institutionalization
 Hiring consistent with learning
 Peer-to-peer training
 Induction/mentoring program
 Celebration of IFL
Findings
Administrator Interviews

Administrative practices/structures hindering
 Financial stressors
 Governance systems, political agendas
 Middle level managers (deans, etc.)
 Enrollment first
 Budget second
 Learning third
 Environmental obstructs
Speaking of enrollment . . .

Implications Derived
from Convergence

 High value held for IFL and leaders:
significant/necessary vehicles for change
 Continual focus on learning, collaboration,
innovation
 Programs:




Service Learning
Mentoring
CTL/faculty-driven professional development
Emerging technologies
 Deans/middle level managers focused on learning
Recommendations

Regarding Professional Development
 Administrators
 Provide resources
 Let faculty drive it
 Faculty members
 Understand importance of PD
 Share best practices
 Strive for continual growth
Recommendations

Regarding Programs (Service Learning, Mentoring,
Emerging Technologies)
 Administrators
 Well-resourced and supported?
 Move to more integrated and essential part?
 Faculty have critical role in driving/implementing?
 Faculty members
 Be open to change
 Understand connection of change to learning
Recommendations

Regarding Administrative Practices
 Challenges in moving innovation to institutionalization
 Faculty used as “champion innovators”?
 If perceived as top-down
 Dedicate the resources
 Faculty members
 Understand processes, protocols to be followed
 Understand challenges admin faces
So What’s This About?

Background
Recommend
Purpose
Learning
Leadership
Lit Review
Implications
Findings
So now, in the name of learning, what are
the leadership characteristics and
practices . . .

 Of effective faculty?
 Of effective administrators?
References

Burke, K. (2010). Distributed leadership and shared governance in post secondary education. Management
in Education 24(2), 51-54. Retrieved from:
http://mie.sagepub.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/content/24/2/51.abstract
Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Donaldson, G.A. Jr. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people,
purpose, and practice. New York: Teachers College.
Faculty inquiry in action: Guidelines for working together to improve student learning (2008). The
Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching. Retrieved from:
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/faculty-inquiry-action-guidelines-workingtogether-improve-student-learning.
Grosso, F.A. (2008). Motivating faculty through transformational leadership: A study of the Relationship between
presidential leadership behaviors and faculty behaviors. Dissertation, The Catholic University of America,
# 3310021.
References

Huber, M.T. (2008). The promise of faculty inquiry for teaching and learning basic skills.
A Report from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching:
Strengthening Pre-Collegiate Education in Community Colleges. Retrieved from:
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503130.pdf.
Kezar, A. (2009). Change in higher education: Not enough or too much? Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning 32(6), 18-23.
Kezar, A., Lester, J. (2009). Supporting faculty grassroots leadership. Research in Higher Education 50, 715740. DOI 10.1007/s11162-009-9139-6.
Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the
concept in the field. Educational and Administration Quarterly 44(3), 424-435.
O'Banion, T. (2007). Leadership for learning. Community College Journal, 78(2), 45-47. Retrieved from
Research Library. (Document ID: 1383351301).
References

Reeves, D. B. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Shugart, S. (January 8, 2010). From an interview with the president of Valencia College (a
Vanguard College) conducted by Peter Turner, Doctoral candidate, Northcentral
University; at Estrella Mountain Community College, Avondale, Arizona.
Turner, P. (2013). Informal faculty leadership that transforms: Evidences and practices for the
Learning College. Dissertation, Northcentral University. UMI # 3571494
Wechsler, J.K. (2007). The presidents’ role in the learning college project: A multiple case study.
Abstract of Dissertation, Argosy University.
Wilson, C. (August 23, 2010). From a telephone interview conducted by Peter Turner, Doctoral
candidate, Northcentral University; and Learning College Project Director at the League for
Innovation in the Community College.