Building Leadership Capacity for Work Integrated Learning:
Developing Fieldwork Coordinators as Academic Leaders
Evaluation Report
Prof Rick Cummings
Christina Ballantyne
Educational Development Unit
Murdoch University
Project Summary
Building Leadership Capacity for Work Integrated Learning: Developing Fieldwork
Coordinators as Academic Leaders is an ALTC funded research and development
project conducted over two years jointly by Curtin University and Charles Sturt
University, with Curtin as the lead institution. The aim of this project was to design
and implement an academic leadership development program for Fieldwork
Coordinators (FCs) from a variety of disciplines across the partner universities. The
purpose of the project was to enhance FCs leadership capabilities, enabling them to
provide high quality student fieldwork learning experiences through appropriate
pedagogy and management.
The project used a distributed leadership model in which FCs are the focus of
academic leadership development. Some of the unique features of the program are:





the clarification of the concept, roles and responsibilities of the FC by linking and
applying them to the conceptual framework developed by Scott et al (2008);
use of 360 degree feedback modeling using the Integrated Competing Values
Framework (ICVF) developed by Vilkinas & Cartan (2001, 2006) to inform FCs
about their leadership strengths and gaps;
the incorporation of peer coaching to support individual implementation
initiatives;
a focus on experiential learning through action learning projects; use of a blended
learning model (incorporating e-learning with face-to face sessions) to enhance
FC knowledge and skills; and
goal setting and reflective journaling to extend learning and increase transference
into the academic setting (Ladyshewsky 2005).
The developmental needs of fieldwork leaders were targeted at five levels using the
ICVF as a vehicle to assist FCs to recognise their important leadership role including:
personal, interpersonal and cognitive capabilities, and generic and role-specific
competencies.
The anticipated project outcomes were:
1.
application of national and international academic leadership research in the
context of fieldwork education and current best practice;
2.
linkages with other ALTC projects which have an impact on fieldwork education
(eg Creedy and Henderson 2008, Nash 2008);
3.
clearly defined roles and responsibilities for FCs recognising their critical role in
achieving high quality work-integrated learning in the workplace setting;
4.
a “Fieldwork Coordinator Leadership Development Program” which utilises
some modules of the Academic Leadership Program for Course Coordinators
(Jones et al 2009), the ICVF and a package of flexible learning resources, adapted
for implementation in wide ranging university contexts for current and
prospective FCs;
5.
identification of systems level issues which have implications for FC academic
career pathway, promotion processes and ongoing organisational development for
current and prospective FCs;
6.
upscaling of the project through a national network of users involved in the
development of the program through the Project Reference Group, and more
broadly across the Australian University sector as a whole through the ALTC
network to achieve cross-sectoral impact;
7.
dissemination of project findings through conference presentations, publications
and a website;
8.
valuing and recognition of the FC role in partner institutions and more broadly
across the higher education sector.
It is a requirement for all ALTC projects granted more then $150,000 to have an
independent evaluation conducted of the project. This document is the final report of
the evaluation of the project in accordance with the ALTC Grants Scheme –
Evaluating Projects ALTC resource developed by Chesterton and Cummings (2010).
Purposes of the evaluation
The purposes of the evaluation are to comment on the process of developing the FC
Leadership Development Program and the operation of the first intake against what
was originally planned, to identify the participants’ level of satisfaction with this, to
assess the extent to which the project outcomes have been achieved, and to make
recommendations for improving subsequent offerings of the program.
Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders for the project are the internal and external reference
groups, the staff involved as program participants and presenters, and the Office of
Learning and Teaching(OLT), previously the ALTC. Secondary stakeholders are
interested staff in other universities in Australia and overseas.
Evaluation Key Questions and Methods
The Project Team built a number of data collection activities into the project.
Therefore, they asked the evaluation consultants to provide oversight and advice on
2
these activities and to limit the external activities to a summative analysis of the
project. As a result, the evaluation study was designed to address the following five
summative key questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To what degree was the program implemented as planned and funded?
To what extent are participants satisfied with the design and delivery of the
program?
To what extent have the program stated outcomes been achieved?
What, if any, unintended outcomes have been identified?
How might future programs be improved?
These questions are addressed in turn below.
To what degree was the project implemented as planned and funded?
The program is described in detail in the project final report, and therefore not
duplicated here. The comments from the evaluators relate to the extent to which the
project proceeded as planned. Much to the credit of the project team, this project was
very well designed, having benefitted from several of the team members being
experienced researchers in collaborative learning and teaching projects. The
establishment of three reference groups, an internal one at each of the two institutions,
and an overarching external group, may have been ambitious, but it did recognize the
need for the institutions to operate independently within a collaborative project. As a
result of this careful planning and well structured communication processes between
the two institutions, the project progressed much as was planned in the project
proposal.
To what extent are participants satisfied with the design and delivery of the
program?
The Academic Leadership for Fieldwork Coordinators Program, which is offered
intensively over 2 days plus a follow-up 4 hour workshop, was comprehensively
designed and well implemented. The program is comprehensively documented, so
presenting it again at Curtin or CSU would be relatively easy. Additionally, given the
quality of the documentation, it would be fairly straightforward for an academic
development unit at any Australian university to offer this program, given some initial
discussion with the project team and possibly the involvement of project team
members as guest presenters.
A full description of the program is provided in the project reports, so this section will
concentrate on the feedback from the participants. In the feedback collected by the
project team immediately after each day of the program and the follow-up workshop,
the participants were universally positive in their rating of the sessions and their
comments. The most common suggestions for improvement were more time and
more discussion. It is clear that participants valued the time spent in the program as it
gave them opportunities to learn about the leadership aspects of their roles, to share
experiences with colleagues involved in similar roles and to reflect on their roles and
experiences on the job. It is a common finding in ALTC projects that staff are very
positive about having structured time set aside for tailored professional development
which is directly relevant to their role.
3
The program also required the participants to undertake over a 6 month period an
action-learning project related directly to their role, and participants presented on their
projects at separate gatherings at Curtin and Charles Sturt near the end of 2011. The
high level of enthusiasm demonstrated at the Curtin event showed how valuable the
Fieldwork Coordinators found their involvement in the program. At these events,
participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on the perceptions of the project.
The keys results of this survey are summarized below.
Participants were asked their views on the impact of the program on their
development as a Fieldwork Coordinator. Overwhelmingly the participants indicated
that they had developed in each of the seven areas summarized in Figure 1.
Many of the participants also indicated that they had gained an increasing awareness
of the varied roles and leadership skills required in the Fieldwork Coordinator
position. In particular, they were now able to analyse their past and current roles in
the context of the Integrated Competing Values Framework, which gave them a useful
framework for change. Specifically, participants recognised the need to ‘manage up’,
and think and act more strategically.
Participants also reported that through participation in the program they had been able
to make changes in the fieldwork program for which they are responsible, including
the development of information and resources for fieldwork coordinators, changes to
work placement in specific units of study and conducting a forum with industry
partners to strengthen understanding and collaboration.
All participants who responded to the questionnaire were either satisfied or very
satisfied with the program and stated that the relevant PVC should support this
program at their university. They had a range of positive comments including:

A wonderful program that mentors and builds confidence in people doing
leadership business on a daily basis;

Very supportive, invigorating, affirming and collegial; and

Increased level of confidence in the role
They commented that although some received little support from their line manager,
they all felt part of the community of practice which had been created in the project,
and they drew considerable support from their colleagues.
A major undertaking for the participants in the program was an action-learning
project. The projects covered a range of topics and issues and participants made
varying degrees of progress with their project during the six months. Reasons for not
completing the action learning projects included lack of time and high workload as
the key inhibitors but also lack of experience and personal confidence. However,
many of the participants found the action learning project to be a worthwhile
experience and as a result made improvements in either their fieldwork unit/course or
in their management of the role.
The key ways in which the fieldwork leadership program assisted participants with
their action learning project where in building a community of practice, providing
strategies and/or procedures, providing an awareness of leadership in the role,
development of self confidence and providing an awareness of personal leadership
development needs.
4
Figure 1 Participant’s Perceptions of Fieldwork Coordinators’ Program Impact
Percentages (Curtin N=9, CSU N=7)
The place of the action learning project in the overall program probably needs some
reconsideration. If a number of participants are not able to complete a formal project,
this may place unwelcome pressure on them and a sense of failing to complete. It will
also undermine the likelihood of the program being recognised for credit into an
accredited course. It would seem that the action learning project should be made
more a central part of the program and possibly assessed, or it should be scaled down
to either an optional component or an activity which is more manageable.
To what extent have the project’s stated outcomes been achieved?
The project identified an ambitious list of 8 outcomes in the proposal. Technically,
some of these would be better seen as outputs or deliverables (e.g., Outcome 2,
linkages with other similar projects, and Outcome 4, the development of the program)
but the extent to which was achieved is addressed below:
1. Application of national and international academic leadership research in the
context of fieldwork education and current best practice;
2.
linkages with other ALTC projects which have an impact on fieldwork education
(eg Creedy and Henderson 2008, Nash 2008);
This project, in particular the development program, was soundly based on
previous research, much of it funded under the ALTC grants program. In
particular, the research and development on the ICVF and its previous application
in the development of Course Coordinators at Curtin (Jones, et al, 2009) was used
as a basis for the Fieldwork Coordinators’ program. The reference groups were
used to encourage the involvement of researchers in the area and linkages have
been created between members of the project team and newly-funded OLT
projects (e.g., the Leading WIL project targeting the enhancement of leadership
among a wide of university and industry staff involved in WIL).
3.
clearly defined roles and responsibilities for FCs recognising their critical role in
achieving high quality work-integrated learning in the workplace setting;
The project conducted a survey of Fieldwork Coordinators at both Curtin and
CSU, in spite of considerable difficulty in identifying an appropriate population
of staff due to lack of clarify about the role. The results of the survey, modified
from the survey form used in the ALTC funded Learning Leaders project (Scott
et al, 2008), were mapped against the ICVF roles and then used to develop the
structure for the Academic Leadership Program for Fieldwork Coordinators.
This approach enabled material from the Course Coordinators program (Jones et
al, 2009) to be adapted to the FCs program.
Role statements for Fieldwork Coordinators were developed at each of the
partner universities, and these may be very useful to other universities as they
formalize their support roles for the enhancement of WIL in non-traditional
disciplines.
4.
a “Fieldwork Coordinator Leadership Development Program” which utilises
some modules of the Academic Leadership Program for Course Coordinators
(Jones et al 2009), the ICVF and a package of flexible learning resources,
adapted for implementation in wide ranging university contexts for current and
prospective FCs;
This program was developed and successfully conducted in 2011 at both
universities. Details about this program are provided in the project reports and
participant feedback is presented above.
5.
identification of systems level issues which have implications for FC academic
career pathway, promotion processes and ongoing organizational development
for current and prospective FCs;
This is an important finding for the sector but it may be the most difficult to
generalize from a sample of only two universities. It would be useful for the
Project Team to analyse this area and disseminate it through further development
of the issues with a broader range of institutions perhaps at the upcoming ACEN
Research Symposium and Conference and then, as planned, in journal articles.
6.
upscaling of the project through a national network of users involved in the
development of the program through the Project Reference Group, and more
broadly across the Australian University sector as a whole through the ALTC
network to achieve cross-sectoral impact;
This is perhaps the most ambitious of the project outcomes. Given the focus on
getting the program piloted at Curtin and CSU, a national network of potential
users has not progressed substantially. Likewise, an institution interested in
adapting the program to its circumstances, would probably be cautious about
proceeding until it has strong evidence of its success at Curtin and CSU. Given
the success of the program in the pilot stage, it is timely to promote the program
to one or more of the networks that operate under the auspices of the OLT. It is
very positive that the Project Team has negotiated an arrangement with ACEN, as
the national association for work integrated learning, to develop web links
between the program website and the ACEN website. This will greatly enhance
the dissemination and sustainability of the program.
7.
dissemination of project findings through conference presentations, publications
and a website;
The Project Team has been enthusiastic about disseminating the project in the
sector including at national HERDSA, ALTC and ACEN events. There are also
plans to present on the project in an additional seven events in 2012. The
potential for publications from both the project team and the program participants
is strong and should be supported.
Finally, there is a website on the Curtin University site that gives brief a outline
of the project and CSU makes reference to the project as one of several on which
it is currently collaborating. The Project Team is about to launch a dedicated site
at Curtin and both ACEN and the Education for Practice Institute at CSU have
agreed to promote the resources/package with a link to the Curtin site. It is very
admirable that Curtin has agreed to maintain this website past the end of the
project, as this is a consistent problem in many past ALTC projects.
7
8.
valuing and recognition of the FC role in partner institutions and more broadly
across the higher education sector.
The project has certainly raised the profile and added useful information about
this role in higher education, and developed and tested a program to develop the
leadership capacity of staff undertaking the role. The extent to which this has led
to the FC role being more highly valued and recognized either inside or outside
Curtin and CSU is not clear. The basis is now there, however, for further
development of this role and thus for enhancing it recognition and value.
What, if any, unintended outcomes have been identified?
One of the potential unintended outcomes is the interest that was developed among
participants to disseminate and possibly publish the results of their action learning
projects. This interest appears to have come from an increased level of confidence
and sense of the value of their work among most if not all participants. The extent to
which this outcome is realized will depend on whether the FCs’ community of
practice continues and they feel supported in their plans to publish.
Although it was a design feature in the program for participants to have opportunities
to gain credit for completing the program, it is unclear if any of them have attempted
to obtain credit in an accredited course (eg GCTE) for successfully completing this
program.
How might future programs be improved?
There are several possible improvements for this generally successful program. One
is to try to conduct it at additional universities and explore what is necessary to make
it independent of the two home institutions. This would be an excellent topic for an
OLT extension grant.
A clearer articulation to an accredited learning and teaching or leadership course
would be a benefit for participants and also a draw card for future participants.
Clearer institutional support for an ongoing community of practice for Fieldwork
Coordinators would be an additional potential improvement, to enable participants to
embed their learning in their role, to continue to develop their skills, and to develop
into role models for future fieldwork coordinators.
Conclusion
A clear lesson from this project is the achievable scope which the project set for itself.
Although the project proposal contained an ambitious list of eight intended outcomes,
the core outcomes of gaining a better understanding of the role of fieldwork
coordinators and piloting a leadership development program at two universities were
relatively straightforward and manageable over the two year project. They provide
two very useful additional pieces to the jigsaw which is the growing understanding
and professionalism of work integrated learning practice at Australian universities.
8
References
ALTC Grants Scheme – Evaluating Projects. Accessed on 23 March 2010 at
http://www.altc.edu.au/extras/altc-gsep/index.html
Creedy D and Henderson A (2008): Leading engagement of academic and clinical
communities for learning. Final Report of ALTC Project. Available at:
http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/go/home/grants/pid/668
Jones S, Oliver B, Ladyshewsky R and Flavell H (2009): Leading courses: Academic
leadership for course coordinators. Available at
http://academicleadership.curtin.edu..au/course_coordinator/index.cfm
Ladyshewsky R (2005): Increasing transfer of training with peer coaching: From
theory to practice. Proceedings of the 2nd Biannual Evidence Based Coaching
Conference, Sydney, October.
Nash R (2008): Enhancing student learning in the workplace through developing the
leadership capabilities of clinical supervisors in the nursing discipline. ALTC
Project Summary. Available at:
http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/go/home/grants/pid/668.
Scott G, Hamish C, and Anderson M (2008): Learning leaders in times of change:
Academic capabilities in Australian higher education. Strawberry Hills, NSW:
Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Vilkinas T and Cartan G (2001): The behavioural control room for managers. The
integrator role. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 22: 175185.
Vilkinas T and Cartan G (2006): The integrated competing values framework: Its
spatial configuration. Journal of Management Development 25: 505-521.
9