teaching and learning reinvigorated: a case study

RUTH DUNKIN

TEACHING AND LEARNING REINVIGORATED: A CASE STUDY

ABSTRACT. Within the context of demands of value for money and a renewed focus onthe relationship between education and employment, there has been a reinvigorated interestin teaching and learning within universities. Set within the organisational change literatureand the learning organisation approach in particular, this paper presents a case study in howone institution – the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, RMIT – responded to thesecalls. The case study outlines both the strategies pursued, together with the results both forstudents and the organisation’s staff of the renewed focus on teaching and learning.

INTRODUCTION

Teaching and learning has often been neglected within universities. Des-pite its importance in revenue-earning for most institutions, universities’teaching activities have been overshadowed by the more glamorousresearch function upon which personal and institutional reputations arebuilt. But driven by demands of value for money from students, gov-ernments and employers alike, universities have renewed their interestin teaching and learning (Coaldrake & Stedman 1998). Students arerequired to bear an increasing proportion of the costs of their education.Governments seek greater returns for their educational expenditures inemployment outcomes and employers continue to indicate that the skillsand competencies of university graduates fall short of what they need.

The calls for improved quality of teaching are loud. They come ata time, however, when most institutions are faced with significant costpressures, reductions in traditional sources of revenue, growth in studentnumbers and, for newer institutions, a need to build research performance.The answer to these apparently contradictory pressures is often seen tolie in adopting new interactive communication and multi-media techno-logies. Many funding bodies and industry associations expect these newtechnologies to lead to cost reductions and to improved standardisation ofteaching. Underlying these expectations and demands is a conception ofteaching that is basically one of knowledge transmission. The nuances ofadult learning theory are perhaps overlooked.

Tertiary Education and Management5: 355–368, 1999.© 2000Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

356 RUTH DUNKIN

Equally strident are demands from student bodies that such technologysubstitution be resisted. They fear the increased costs that such technologyoften implies, loss of personal contact with academic staff and any reduc-tion in on-campus interactions seen to be an integral part of the universityexperience. These demands are all the more forceful because of students’new-found consumer status, a status which itself engenders ambivalence.On the one hand students embrace the power and authority it brings; onthe other, they resist the attempt to reduce the educational experience to aproduction process or set of market transactions. To the extent that theadoption of new teaching processes and technologies is seen as stand-ardising and making more efficient the educational ‘production’ process,it is resisted. To the extent that it improves the quality of the learningexperiences, it is enthusiastically embraced.

Academic staff, too, are torn by the new technologies. Many welcomethe renewed interest in teaching which has accompanied them, believingthat the rush to establish research reputations has left institutions poorerand traditional teaching functions under-valued. Some academics delightin experimenting with new technologies as a means of improving the edu-cational experiences of their students. However, many resist the talk ofnew technology fearing, as the students do, that it is the basis of substitu-tion. Some are driven by fears that such substitution will worsen furtherthe quality of education provided. Others see it as a threat to their futurelivelihood.

Yet, the current situation is unsustainable. Revenue reductions andgreater student numbers have led to a steady deterioration of the qualityof education provided in most institutions. Large classes, casual staffing,inadequate resources (particularly in practical classes) have led to poorerquality education, demoralised and over-worked staff and disgruntledstudents.

RMIT along with many institutions decided to tackle this complex setof problems through the establishment of a teaching and learning strategy.Such a strategy, however, represents both astatement of intentaroundthe particular response that RMIT will make to the pressures facing itsteaching activity and aprocessby which the people of the institutionbecome involved in the consequent changes. Thus this case study outlinesthe nature of that response and comments on the progress made over thepast four years. But the study also sets the change process within theorganisational change literature and identifies that nature of the processthat has been followed as a means of seeking acceptance and adoption ofthe tactical response. Finally, I suggest that the way in which the institu-tion has approached this change is influenced strongly by the history and

TEACHING AND LEARNING REINVIGORATED: A CASE STUDY 357

culture of the institution and the styles of the key players within the changeprocess. Although the challenges that RMIT is addressing are common tomost universities, the particular outcomes at RMIT, as at every university,are unique.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ASTRATEGY

The first stage

The first stage of the process was initiated by the Vice-Chancellor in late1994 in the form of a challenge to the 70 senior academic and adminis-trative managers of the institution about the nature of RMIT’s responseto the new technologies. A document was produced. Shaped by an alli-ance of strong-minded educationalists and staff determined to resist whatthey perceived as the crude technological impulses of their engineer Vice-Chancellor, they produced a document which set the use of the newtechnologies clearly within an educational philosophy. Resourcing impli-cations were granted only cursory treatment. Despite every effort to drawthese from the administrative managers who stood alongside their aca-demic counterparts, the language and concepts were too dense for readyimplications to be drawn. The first draft of the document was released forconsultation.

The response

A long process of consultation and discussion ensued. Faculty-based dis-cussions and amendments to the document occurred in parallel to broadlybased meetings of academic staff. Reactions varied. Many welcomed therenewed focus on teaching, believing it to have been under-valued in theprevious five years. Others were angry at what they saw as diversion fromthe drive to build a credible research function for a new university. Manywelcomed the educational philosophy contained within the document, butmost were suspicious about the intent that lay behind it.

However, through the process of debate a consensus emerged. Theacademic union played a strong role in this debate, along with groups ofinterested teaching staff from across the university and faculty and depart-mental units more formally. The document was rewritten and subsequentlyendorsed by both Academic Boards of this dual sector institution. Froma document of 20 pages, it became a one-page statement of principlesand philosophy, with detailed operationalisation, to be obtained throughFaculty-based plans. Although the Academic Boards committed to review

358 RUTH DUNKIN

progress of each Faculty annually, control of the strategy lay with thediscipline-based Faculties.

Some might cynically view the document as one of political com-promise, replete with fine-sounding principles but with little commitmentto action. However, through this process agreement was established withinthe university, across its two sectors of Higher Education and Technicaland Further Education (TAFE), about the nature of education RMIT wouldprovide. This commitment was important in the years that followed as res-istance to implementation was confronted. It became hard for opponentsto argue against the principles, nor that it was not an agreed document.

The Statement of Principles and Philosophy firmly located use of thenew technologies within a student-centred educational philosophy (Laur-illard 1994; Bowden & Marton 1998). To this extent the technologiesbecame one of a number of means by which educational outcomes couldbe achieved. Those educational ideals important to academic staff had beenpreserved. The debate had moved from one of substitution of one processwith another to one in which academic staff and course teams were chal-lenged to justify how merely continuing existing practices met the idealscaptured in the Statement. This challenge was underpinned by the adoptionduring the previous year to a continuous quality improvement system.

The adoption, too, during 1996 of the Boyer scholarship model (Boyer1993) further strengthened the commitment to improvement in educa-tional practice. The four scholarships of teaching, application, integrationand discovery replace the traditional bi-polarity of teaching and researchthat has characterised most universities, stressing in more sophisticatedand practical ways the links that exist between these activities. While thestudent-centred approach in the initial RMIT document provided a basefor sound educational practice, Boyer’s model recognises the practical andapplied nature of the educational experiences that are the hallmark of anRMIT education and many feared would be lost as new teaching processeswere introduced. Thus by combining the student-centred philosophy tothe use of technology with the Boyer model, a theoretical approach toRMIT’s education and training emerged that resonated strongly with thoseelements of its history and culture that staff felt strongly about.

At the same time, by proposing four scholarships – teaching, applica-tion, integration and discovery – Boyer reminds academic staff of the needto be scholarly in their teaching practice. Not only does this serve to under-score the ideal of continuous improvement in professional practice, but italso permits staff, at a time of heavy workloads and multiple pressures,to produce scholarly outputs in an area wider than their discipline spe-cialisation. For many seeking to transform themselves from teaching-only


staff this represents a less intimidating transition than one that involvesbecoming professional researcher.

The hard grind

That first year after endorsement of the Statement of Principles and Philo-sophy was one in which the university re-engaged with conversations aboutteaching and learning. Informal groups emerged to discuss their perspec-tives, their innovations. Some hoped and believed the focus on teachingand learning would pass, just as other management ‘fads’ had passed (Bodiet al. 1997). They would be left to continue as before, whether that was intheir traditional teaching or in research. However, the conversations havecontinued. The work has become more focused. The resource implicationshave become clearer. Those who have been going through the motions arebecoming increasingly exposed.

The appointment of Directors of Teaching Quality in each Faculty in1995 was a critical step. Charged with guiding the staff of their Faculty intothe new student-centred learning philosophy they worked at two levels.They represented a critical resource to the Dean and to the staff of theFaculty. But they also guided, as a group linked to Academic Board, thefuture iterations of the teaching and learning strategy and provided feed-back on where the points of resistance were and the pace of change thatcould be expected. Chosen for their commitment to teaching, these peoplewere both advocates of the change and blockers of the change. While theysupported strongly the reengagement of the institution with teaching andlearning and rejoiced in the return to focus on students, they were alsopeople who had strong views about how teaching and learning should beconducted. In some cases their understanding of ‘student-centred’ was notthat incorporated in the Statement of Philosophy. However, on balance itis these people who have driven the change forward; our role as managershas been to continually stretch them.

The Directors of Teaching Quality are joined in 1998 by Directors ofInformation Technology. These are academics who understand both thelearning philosophy and the new technologies. Their role, working withthe Directors of Teaching Quality, is to advise on the optimum technologywithin the learning processes and to develop a plan of investment in infra-structure, hardware, products and staff development that will complementthe major educational thrusts of the Faculty. Learning technology mentorssupplement these resources at the departmental level.

Resources have also been provided at the University level. The formeracademic development group has been re-oriented to be more directlysupportive of the teaching and learning strategy. Where once its work

360 RUTH DUNKIN

programme comprised individually-driven research and staff developmentactivities for individual academics seeking help, their work programme isnow driven by the institutional research needs of the strategy and the devel-opment needs for groups of staff, as defined by the Directors of TeachingQuality. Their advice is sought on the changes in practice required to moveto student-centred ‘teaching’ and how to integrate many different types oflearning experiences into programmes for students. Initially each Facultywas assigned staff members from within this central group to assist, butin 1999 these staff members have been permanently relocated into thefaculty-based educational resource groups that have evolved as interest inteaching and learning grows.

Of particular importance has been the need for advice on how to struc-ture assessment. As early as 1985, RMIT’s educational philosophy hadincorporated a commitment to developing graduate attributes, such as thecapacity for critical thought, leadership and teamwork. But these have notbeen embedded within practice because of the lack of advice about howsuch attributes might be measured and taught. Assessment practices needurgent review. Using traditional assessment practices academics struggleto keep pace with the impact of increased student numbers and havelittle capacity to implement the new student-centred and attribute-basedparadigm.

Annual iterations and reviews

Two important means have been used to institutionalise the focus onteaching and learning. First is a series of reviews overseen jointly by theAcademic Boards and management. Each review has a slightly differentfocus and purpose, but all share common elements. The first lies in theeducational quality system, itself a core element of the teaching and learn-ing strategy. This system, based on principles of continuous improvementand formative feedback, includes a rolling audit programme of all coursesevery three years. Course audits review evidence compiled in a ‘qualitylog’ of actions taken by the course team to improve the course outcomescontinuously, as well as interviewing staff, students and employers aboutperceptions of the quality of the course and the adequacy of resources. Par-ticular attention is paid to the means by which the team seeks systematicfeedback on the course from all stakeholders, together with actions takento improve areas of identified weakness.

The institution has established a core of seven demand and perform-ance indicators that must be addressed by each course. These include thenumber of applications per course place available, retention, graduationand student satisfaction rates. A particular focus is given to the ratings on


teaching quality, as measured through a national survey on course experi-ence. The course quality log is expected to incorporate evidence of theactions taken to improve the ratings of these indicators. Course teams areencouraged by academic policy to supplement these with course-specificindicators they find useful in monitoring course quality.

The second review process also focuses on these indicators. As theinstitution’s profile of courses is reviewed annually by both managementand the Academic Boards, these seven indicators are used as the basis ofdecisions about which courses will be grown and which will be phased out.Any course that has shown three years of poor performance and does nothave a viable improvement plan in place will be phased down or closed.

The third review process involves an annual review of each Faculty’steaching and learning strategy, both in terms of progress against themilestones nominated previously by the Faculty and against the generalprogress of other faculties. External reviewers have joined internal staffto undertake these reviews and comments about the University’s over-all approach have sat alongside recommendations for each Faculty. As aresult of these comments the overall strategy has been strengthened andthe tendency to allow Faculties full discretion in interpretation has beenreduced, with the concurrence of the Academic Board and the Faculties.The Statement of Principles and Philosophy has been translated into athree-year university teaching and learning strategy. This strategy incor-porates more prescriptive strategies and targets to which all faculties areexpected to respond. The desire to maximise autonomy at the Facultylevel has been overtaken in Faculties by desires for greater simplicity andincreased capacity to share lessons learned across Faculties.

The other major way in which the teaching and learning strategy hasbeen institutionalised is through the academic staff promotion scheme.Re-written to reflect the four scholarships of Boyer (Boyer 1993), thedetermination to ensure that teaching is not awarded only lip service, teach-ing portfolios with evidence of improvements are an essential componentof the scheme. In a review of the outcomes of the scheme in 1997, themajority of staff were found to have been promoted on the basis of per-formance against a majority of the criteria, two were found to have beenpromoted primarily on the basis of their research performance and twoon the basis of their teaching performance. Sixty-five staff were promotedoverall.

Establishment of university-wide content

As the work with the teaching and learning strategy has evolved, the eco-nomic circumstances have hardened. Thus, while the early work on the

362 RUTH DUNKIN

strategy was undertaken within a regime of cost neutrality, the desire toachieve significant cost reductions now sits alongside an institutional com-mitment to educational quality. This is leading to the development of anumber of university-wide initiatives for shared content and the develop-ment of modules of flexible learning materials. There is also a growingacceptance of the need for new programmes and components within themto be developed in quite different ways from previously, recognising theprofessional talents of a range of staff across the university not traditionallycontemplated as part of the educational development process. The conceptof ‘product development’ as something which needs to be part of the main-stream of the institution’s business is taking hold; no longer can this reston the goodwill and after hours activities of solo academics. The up-frontdevelopment costs, in terms of those visible to academic staff and fun-ded from ‘their’ operating budget are too high to allow this. Similarly thelaissez faireattitude to intellectual property issues has had to be addressed.

These changes have also required significant changes in how infra-structure is considered and resources allocated. In 1998 the major thrustwas on developing a systems infrastructure to support the new learningfocus. Adopting a philosophy of a distributed learning system, the IT andcommunications infrastructure to support this system has been identified.The costs of infrastructure alone amount to some $A50 million. Newacademic and learning management systems are being developed and aca-demic policies are being systematically reviewed. The commitment of theUniversity to adopting quality management practices throughout its opera-tions has facilitated these policy and procedure developments, providing asystematic mapping of processes and standardised presentation.

The financial management framework of the organisation is also chan-ging, with a greater awareness at Faculty level of the need for continuinginvestments in equipment, IT, product development and staff develop-ment. Activity-based costing will underpin our understanding of thechanging nature of cost structures as teaching processes change. Increas-ingly Faculty management teams recognise the need for their operatingbudgets, as well as those at the University level, to incorporate allowancesfor investments in future organisational capacity (be it staff skills, newproducts or new equipment). Similarly, the configuration of physical facil-ities is changing dramatically, as the need for simultaneous large spaces,flexible project spaces and wired informal interaction spaces replace themore formal structured classrooms. The Library’s role is changing fromkeeper of information to finder and manager of information. Student ser-vices are also needing to re-consider how they provide students who will be


studying on and offcampus, within and outside ‘standard’ working hours,within and outside Australia.

The effects

What have been the effects of all this activity? Certainly visitors remarkon the pervasiveness of the staff’s focus on teaching and learning and theway in which it pervades the conversations of the institution. The impactbeyond this is more difficult to assess. One of the ways in which we areseeking to measure the effectiveness of the strategy is though the nationalsurvey on teaching quality. After two years, there is evidence of someimprovement although it has been insufficient to advance the institutionas a whole to the next grading. Within the university some areas havepursued the strategy with greater enthusiasm than others. These do attractimproved scores within the national survey. For example, the Faculty ofEngineering, in which there has been persistent and enthusiastic supportfrom within the Dean’s Office, has improved its ratings by 14 points andperforms well against other engineering providers. These scores showthat RMIT’s Faculty is improving at a faster rate than other engineeringschools. Faculties which have been slower in embracing changes showlittle improvement.

Similarly, the economic effects of the change are not yet readily appar-ent on a whole-of-institution basis. Indeed, the early comparative datashow that the traditional face-to-face teaching in large classes using ses-sional staff proves difficult to better in a cost sense. But these data are basedon existing student enrolments rather than the greater volume that is madepossible by the adoption of new processes and student satisfaction andlearning outcomes derived from these means continue to decline. Wherenew practices have been introduced, including the incorporation of flexiblelearning components, student satisfaction and outcomes have been higher.Pilot projects using off-campus delivery through neighborhood centres andworkplaces have led to new student groups accessing tertiary education.The challenge is to discover the most cost-effective means of achievingthese results. What is already clear is that a mix of learning experiencesand locations will be required to do this.

SOME CONTINUING ISSUES

This process of change is long and one involving systemic change. Itinvolves redefining the nature of the educational process and the roles ofacademics, support staff and students played in it. As we started the process

364 RUTH DUNKIN

we did not understand fully what some of the new roles would look like.New patterns of relating are required, with people needing to work withothers in ways not previously envisaged; the change from individual aca-demic to teaching team was just the beginning. New relationships betweenacademic and support staff are also needed, despite the historic antagonismbetween them.

One of the conclusions to emerge from this process and one whichmust be addressed before progress is substantial, is that academic staff’sunderstanding of learning theory is not high. Their academic training isdiscipline-specific. For many educational practice has been learned on-the-job and may include only a rudimentary understanding of educationaltheoretical principles. As staff become familiar with the theoretical founda-tions of their profession, they slowly become what the principles of thestrategy imply – they become learners themselves.

However, for people to engage with the cycle of self-renewal, orlearning, requires motivation, an interest in self-development, certain self-knowledge, and the courage to fail (Gardiner 1981). This daunting listof personal attributes requires a level of self-esteem and self-confidenceunlikely to be prevalent among members of an organisation undergoingsubstantial change. To even suggest that people are not professionallycompetent is to threaten them and their images of themselves. The changesaround teaching and learning, therefore excite some ambivalence in aca-demic staff. On the one hand, many are pleased that teaching is regainingvalue as an activity; on the other hand, their conception of teaching is notnecessarily what is encompassed in the renewed focus on teaching (Martin1999).

But just as the academic staff become more adept with the conceptsand practice of their profession, so too do the administrative staff becomemore familiar with the processes which have seemed so mysterious, butwhich are the main revenue-earning activity of the institution. When theyunderstand these processes, they will be able to supply the necessary sup-port processes – administrative and student management – essential forexcellence.

The lack of time to adapt and learn new ways of doing things is citedas a key source of stress and inability to move forward as quickly aspeople would like. This is a critical issue when there are also issues ofresearch development and staff development needing attention. Adoptingthe Boyer four scholarship model does not in itself create more time, butits clearer linkages between traditional academic activities allow staff toaddress change and development within a more integrated framework.Rather than facing a choice between research or consultancy or teaching or


staff development, underpinning the university’s change programme by thefour scholarship facilitates achievement of multiple goals. It also remindsstaff that student learning occurs in more than one way.

THE APPROACH TO CHANGE

The organisational change literature is characterised by two conceptionsof organisational change and multiple approaches to change management.The first conception focuses on organisational change as a manageriallydetermined process of moving an organisation from one state to anothermore desired state (for example, Lewin 1947). Characterised by linearity,predictability and an unshakable belief that people can control their envir-onment, the models within this tradition are prescriptive and based on abelief in technique. The second conception of change portrays organisa-tional change as multi-directional and continuous, a perpetual motion thatis provoked by a complex interplay of forces from within and outside theorganisation (for example, Brunsson & Olsen 1993). Such authors believethat, at best, managers can attempt to ‘influence the odds’ (Van de Ven1995) or ‘hitch their agenda’ to the forces in play (Kanter et al. 1992).

While the first conception overestimates the level of management con-trol possible and underestimates the amount of conflict and resistance tochange, the second confronts change agents with an overwhelming arrayof information and suggests that their change-making efforts are likely tobe futile, despite the demands for such change from governing bodies andexternal authorities. I have argued elsewhere (Dunkin 1999) that in theface of the need to act and the lack of unified theory of change, changeagents construct their own models of change, drawing from the array thatis available, adapted and synthesised in the light of their own preferredchange style and experience.

Presented in this paper is a case study of planned organisationalchange. The strategies adopted have employed elements from each of themajor change management approaches (strategic management, organisa-tion development and political management) and have acknowledged thelimits that can be achieved by management-directed change. In combiningthe elements of various approaches we have engaged simultaneously inpursuing a ‘formal agenda of change’ and ‘backstage activity’ (Buchanan& Boddy 1992). The formal processes of documentation and approval ofthe teaching and learning strategy present an image of rationally arguedand presented strategy. However, without engaging in the ‘backstageactivity’ of cajoling, lobbying, reassuring and supporting the change pro-

366 RUTH DUNKIN

cess, formal approval would have been more difficult and implementationalmost non-existent.

Consistent with the strategic management approach, initiation of theteaching and learning strategy has been a deliberate exercise in organ-isational business planning and positioning. As some of the precedingdiscussion suggests, it is based on a clear perception of the critical successfactors in the education and training business of the future. To sustain theinstitution’s reputation and future revenue flows, adoption of the strategywas critical. However, at the same time we recognised that for strategicdirections to be adopted those affected by them need to influence theway in which implementation occurs, to develop a sense of ownershipabout the nature of changes and to translate them into changes whichthey could adopt over time. In recognising this we have drawn upon theorganisation development approach. It has also meant that it was importantthat senior management let go of the detailed specification of the changeand accommodate the time period that the OD approach implies. For thisreason, although the initial document came from management, subsequentiterations were developed without our direct involvement.

At that point the ‘backstage activity’ referred to above became import-ant. Without such activity, there was potential for the change process tobe re-oriented so that the broad strategic goals were jeopardised or thepace of change become too slow. The activity involves considerable talk atevery level within the organisation. The rationale for the changes must beperpetually explained and the implications for each work group translated.The involvement of senior staff has been crucial both in terms of provid-ing the elaboration of the words on the paper – what do they mean forme? – and providing forums in which the underlying assumptions aboutthe future sustainability of the University can be challenged and debated.There are still some who believe that with more effective lobbying offunding bodies, the trends to greater student choice, deregulation of theprovider market and increased taxes/funding can be reversed.

Deciding the appropriate pace of change is probably the most difficultjudgment that must be made in any change process. For those whose focusis external to the University, watching the speed with which new playersenter traditional markets or the apparent progress made by more traditionalcompetitors, a sense of urgency prevails. Yet for those whose focus is moreinternal and who are engaged in the daily challenge of juggling exist-ing workloads, declining resources and new activities resulting from thechange process, the plea is for slower change. These conflicting pressuresare ‘brokered’ through the annual cycle of reviews with targets set by a


broad group of people, including the Directors of Teaching Quality whoare well aware of staff’s capacity and preparedness to move forward.

The other part of the ‘backstage activity’ is the informal process ofcajoling, influencing and lobbying and supporting that is necessary. Draw-ing on the political management models, we built a political alliancewith the key influence leaders on campus, an alliance that ensured thatalthough Academic Board debate might be vigorous, sufficient supportfor the changes could be guaranteed. A strong relationship has developedover the past three years between management and the union, based on aconvergence of interest about the future of the organisation. This has beenparticularly important in providing an alternative source of communicationto staff on the change agendas and their implications.

Developing alliances, however, is insufficient on its own. As suggestedabove, the kind of change we are pursuing involves difficult and individualchange. It has been important therefore to reassure staff of the accept-ability, even desirability of experimentation and mistakes, even fear andanger. Providing a translation service which continuously reiterates whatthe changes mean for people on a day-to-day basis sits alongside the needto keep talking about the big picture – people have needed to know howthe pieces fit and to be reminded about what the goals are. They seekreassurance that the change is feasible and achievable – expressions ofwinning and optimism are essential. The celebration of wins along the way,as suggested by authors such as Kotter (1995), is one way of expressingthis optimism. A system of showcases and annual quality awards havesupplemented the changes to the academic promotion scheme, outlinedabove.

At the same time, the establishment of a learning environment for staffhas also meant being prepared to acknowledge the need for change inoperating procedures, to support lateral communication processes so thatthe lessons of one group can be shared with others and to reorient resourceallocations to develop appropriate infrastructure support. It is perhaps inthis latter area that there has been most difficulty. In providing space forthe academics to explore the meanings of the new learning paradigm,their administrative counterparts have felt excluded. As a result one of ourgreatest challenges currently is translating what the changes mean for thework of administrative and support staff and to do it in such a way thatthey do not experience this as ‘imposed change’.

The enormity of the organisational and individual change process thatwe have adopted cannot be overemphasised. This is a programme ofchange that will continue to evolve and take years to embed. It is a pro-cess that bears all the hallmarks of the chaos described by the second

368 RUTH DUNKIN

tradition in the organisational change literature; many staff continue tocriticise or be cynical about the agenda and the process. Nonetheless thegoals are moving inexorably closer and the critical mass of people whoare involved as advocates for the change are now such that regression isunlikely. The configuration of change strategies that have emerged at ourinstitution resulted from the interaction of the preferences and styles of thekey players and the culture of the organisation. Some were deliberatelychosen and implemented; others evolved as different players determinedthe role that they wanted to play within the process. This has not been atidy process and it is not yet one from which clear results have emerged,despite early indications of success. It is a process that requires persistenceand stamina; a capacity to live with uncertainty and minimal structure, anda considerable amount of optimism both about the people and the change.

REFERENCES

Bodi, A. Maggs, G. & Edgar, D. (1997).When Too Much Change is Never Enough.Warriewood, NSW, Australia: Business & Professional Publishing.

Bowden, J. & Marton, F. (1998).The University of Learning. London: Kogan Page.Boyer, E. (1993).Scholarship Reconsidered, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-

ment of Teaching. New Jersey: Princeton.Brunsson, N. & Olsen, J. (1993).The Reforming Organisation. London: Routledge.Buchanan, D. & Boddy, D. (1992).The Expertise of the Change Agent: Public Performance

and Backstage Activity. UK: Prentice Hall International Hertfordshire.Coaldrake, P. & Stedman, L. (1998).On the Brink: Australia’s Universities confronting

their Future. Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press.Dunkin, R. (1999).Making Sense of Change – The Change Agents Perspective. Unpub-

lished PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne.Kanter, R., Stein, B. & Jick, T. (1992).The Challenge of Organisational Change. New

York: The Free Press.Kotter, J. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformations Efforts Fail,Harvard Business

Review73(2), 59–67.Laurillard, D. (1993).Rethinking University Teaching. London: Routledge.Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Human Dynamics,Human Relations1, 5–41.Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997).Learning and Awareness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Martin, E. (1999).Changing Academic Work. London: Open University Press.Van de Ven, A. (1995). Managing the Process of Organisational Innovation. In G. Huber

& W. Glick (eds.),Organisational Change and Redesign(Reprint). New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 269–294.

Royal Melbourne Institute of TechnologyGPO Box 2476VMelbourne 3000AustraliaE-mail: [email protected]

teaching and learning reinvigorated: a case study

Documents