Authors: Colin Latchem and Lesley Parker

Teaching Learning Group, Curtin University of Technology

Keywords: teaching and learning, strategic planning, structure, mission statement, benchmarking, quality, management, planning process, goals and objectives

Article style and source: Paper delivered at the HERDSA '95 annual conference, UCQ, Rockampton1995. Published with the kind permission of the authors and HERDSA.

Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction and background
• Developing the Structure of the Plan
•  Phase One
•  Phase Two
•  Phase Three
• Summary of outcomes
• References

Abstract

In this paper, we describe and analyse the process of developing the Teaching and Learning Strategic Plan for Curtin University of Technology, a large multi-campus institution with a highly devolved structure. At the request of senior management, we played a central role in drafting, negotiating and 'selling' the Plan. We describe here the theoretical and managerial considerations which underpinned the developmental process, the factors which shaped the teaching and learning objectives, the template used to develop the Plan and the consultative processes employed in bringing the Plan to completion. We conclude with a summary of critical issues which emerged from the development of the Plan and the major tasks which lie ahead in strategic planning for teaching and learning excellence.

Introduction and background

In the late 1970s, strategic planning was identified as a management approach of critical importance to the survival of American universities (Keller 1983; Mayhew 1979). As pointed out by Steeples (1988), the attraction of strategic planning was its action-oriented and goal-oriented approach. Although not regarded as a panacea, it was seen to have a number of features which made it an appropriate basis for managing universities in a profoundly changing environment. For example, in an ideal sense, strategic planning is systematic, it promises adaptive management, and it facilitates on-going institutional decision-making in relation to mission, goals, markets, priorities and programs. In recent years, and for similar reasons (associated with change, accountability and quality control) strategic planning has increased in importance in the British and Australian university systems. Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Western Australia, is no exception in this regard.

Curtin was established as a university in 1987, 20 years after its founding as the Western Australian Institute of Technology. Currently, Curtin has approximately 21,000 students and 3000 staff. Curtin staff are responsible for over 200 courses at multiple locations in Western Australia and overseas. Structurally, the institution has four teaching Divisions in the metropolitan area, two Branches (country campuses concerned with agriculture and mining) and three support Divisions (Academic Affairs; Finance and Property; Research and Development). Each of the Divisions and Branches is further sub-divided into Schools and Areas, which are regarded as the basic organisational units of the University. The institutional administrative structure is relatively flat, with considerable responsibility and authority devolved to Divisions/Branches and Schools/Areas.

In 1991, the University's Academic Board (UAB) established a Teaching and Learning Advisory Committee (TLAC) and requested this committee to formulate a Teaching and Learning Development Strategy for 1993Ð1995. As a first step, TLAC undertook a University-wide study into staff views and experiences of teaching and learning and the value assigned to teaching by the University. The resultant report (Baker 1994) coincided with the announcement of the forthcoming Quality Audit focusing on teaching and learning. These two events led UAB to resolve that TLAC should develop a University Teaching and Learning Strategic Plan within the context of overall planning for quality assurance. Senior management requested us to undertake this task and thus, within a tightly-defined six-month period in 1994, we became engaged in the intensive development of Curtin University's first Teaching and Learning Strategic Plan.

Developing the Structure of the Plan

The first phase: As the starting point for the Plan we took Curtin's Mission statement ('To nurture scholarship, pursue knowledge and apply skills through broadly based programs in teaching and learning, research and development and community service') and the associated Goal for Teaching and Learning ('To achieve excellence in teaching and learning and produce graduates of practical value to the community by encouraging and supporting the full and continuing scholarly, professional and personal development of staff and students').

Our first step was to translate the Mission and Goal into a small number of objectives, against which teaching and learning planning, processes and outcomes could be evaluated. Following considerable consultation with a range of staff and students in the University community, we arrived at five objectives, which we aimed to state clearly and simply, in order to increase the likelihood that they would be remembered and understood by all of the University's stakeholders.

The first objective ('To produce graduates who value and practise the pursuit and application of knowledge and who are equipped for careers and employment in their chosen field') had its origins in Curtin's long-standing philosophical commitment to techne, the application of knowledge, a concept stemming from the days when the institution was the Western Australian Institute of Technology.

The second objective ('To foster self-directed learning') focused deliberately on learning rather than teaching. It reflected the need to prepare students for lifelong learning (Candy, Crebert & O'Leary 1994), and to ensure a strong foundation for progression to postgraduate study, research and scholarship. It recognised also the potential of new information technology to support learner-centred rather than the traditional teacher-controlled programs.

The third objective ('To encourage academic staff to become reflective practitioners in their undergraduate and postgraduate teaching') recognised a number of important issues in relation to University teaching and learning. Anchored essentially in Schon's (1987) concept of 'reflective practice', it took account of the experience of North American and Western European universities that quality assurance is dependent largely upon self-evaluation or self-study (Van Vught & Westerheijden 1994). It recognised also that increasing numbers of Curtin staff were using student appraisals of teaching and engaging in, and reporting on, classroom-based research and development (see, for example, Herrmann & Latchem 1993; Summers 1994). Thus, this third objective reflected the critically important role of the staff in quality improvement cycles and the need for teaching to be regarded and treated as a scholarly activity in its own right.

The fourth objective ('To provide teaching and learning programs that meet diverse student needs') reflected Curtin's strong commitment to access and equity issues (as encapsulated in the institution's Goal for Ethics and Social Justice). In this regard, this objective addressed the needs of the increasingly diverse student population at Curtin and, in addition, anticipated moves towards more open and flexible delivery of courses.

The fifth objective ('To promote, recognise and reward quality teaching and learning') had its origins in staff perceptions, expressed through the report of Baker (1994), that the values, norms and reward structures within Curtin were increasingly focusing upon research and that teaching and learning required greater symbolic and concrete recognition and reward.

In our interim report on the strategic planning process, we submitted these objectives to UAB for endorsement. Following this endorsement, we ensured that they were circulated and advertised widely within the University community, in association with requests for comment and reactions. We received few reactions and, at this stage, it appeared to us that most members of the University community were adopting a 'wait and see' approach.

Phase Two

The second phase: Our next step in developing the Plan involved the elaboration of each objective in terms of the ways it would be achieved (ie. the strategies and enablers required) and the criteria which would be used to judge the extent to which it had been achieved (ie. the performance indicators). As a starting point, we developed a list of 'stakeholders' for each objective, defining stakeholders, in terms similar to Westerheijden (1991), as individuals and organisations who have concomitant rights and obligations in regard to the University's performance in teaching and learning. We also established benchmarks for quality in the achievement of each of the five objectives. For example, in relation to benchmarks for objective one, we derived a list of generic graduate attributes from the many surveys of employer satisfaction with graduates and courses (eg. Australia. Higher Education Council 1992; Meade & Andrews 1995). Objective one thus has benchmarks relating to measures of graduates' mastery and practical application of knowledge; communication skills; critical evaluation; creativity; teamwork; problem-solving and decision-making; and responsiveness to the Australian and international communities.

This phase of the development was linked into a half-day workshop for senior staff and key members of the student body, organised by the University's Quality Office and facilitated by experienced external consultants. At this workshop, a template was developed, which set a pattern for elaboration of the objectives in terms of policy, structural, resource, managerial, staff and student 'enablers', and in terms of the quality assurance processes associated with the planning, implementation and evaluation all associated activities. The advantage of the template was that it provided an inbuilt structure for ongoing review and evaluation of action taken and, overall, a dynamic approach to the setting and revision of targets.

A small group, representative of a range of staff and students, agreed to act as a regular sounding board for us over the next few weeks, as we completed the task of elaborating the objectives. In a period of intense activity and consultation, we took each objective, documenting current policies, procedures and quality assurance measures, identifying gaps in provision and areas for improvement, and developing summaries of actions required by various individuals or groups within the University. Twenty required actions seen to be critical or pivotal to the implementation of the Plan were designated as top priority, in what was now a document of some thirty-eight pages.

In developing the Plan, we also ensured, through regular consultation and meetings, articulation with the strategic plans then in the early stages of preparation for Curtin's other six goals (Research and Development, Community Service, Ethics and Social Justice, Internationalisation, Technology, and Quality and Leadership).

Phase Three

The third phase: At this stage, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor initiated a series of three workshops at which we presented the Plan to all senior staff. These workshops provided invaluable feedback on the acceptability of the document's format and wording. More significantly, the draft Plan stimulated valuable discussion about such issues as the diversity, needs and capabilities of Curtin's students and highlighted differences in philosophy between Schools, for example in relation to whether the University should be aiming to educate students in the expectation of predictable career paths or should be doing more to prepare students for career flexibility and self-employment.

We also sought feedback from the Divisional Boards and the members of TLAC. We made changes to Plan as a consequence of this feedback, but the time constraints and intense and concentrated effort needed to work to the template were such that there was a tension between the need for broader consultation and the need to develop the very complex set of information and recommendations for UAB within the required six-month time frame.

In August (on schedule), we submitted the Plan to TLAC for forwarding to UAB for 'in principle' approval. At this point, TLAC was concerned that there should be a further cycle of consultation and that the Plan should be presented in a more 'user friendly' style to help Divisions, Branch campuses and Schools to accept it as a guide for planning and action and as an expression of the University's aspirations for teaching and learning. TLAC therefore forwarded the Plan to UAB with the recommendation that an academic with a theoretical and practical background in strategic planning be seconded for three months from the Curtin Business School to act as internal consultant to the project. The consultant was charged with checking the Plan for accuracy, disseminating and discussing the Plan across Divisions, Branch campuses and Schools, monitoring its acceptability and feasibility, and condensing and re-formatting the document for University-wide dissemination.

Three major issues emerged from the consultant's work (Swain 1994). The first was the need to engender a greater sense of ownership of the Plan at the School level. Few Heads of Schools, and even fewer staff, had studied the Plan in detail, and of those that had, a number had ideological or practical concerns which needed to be addressed. The second issue was confirmation of the need to simplify the Plan, make it more accessible and capable of being used by Heads and staff. The third issue was the clear need to achieve greater understanding of, and commitment to, the University's strategic direction.

In regard to the second issue, a simpler, eight-page 'Summary Plan' was developed, which maintained the original objectives, benchmarks and stakeholder statements, but included only the top priority required actions, responsible agents and timelines.

The first and third issues were more problematic. Discussions with Schools revealed that their concerns were more about University's structures and processes than the Plan itself. Strategic policy-making was regarded widely as being in the hands of managers and advisory committees who had no responsibility for implementation and were lacking in accountability. Concern was expressed that the University was generating multiple strategic plans with little input from the Schools which perceived themselves as being accountable for implementing these plans. There was also concern that strategic planning should be linked with budget and resource allocation procedures. Allied to these points of view was an attitude akin to that in UK universities after the introduction of quality agendas and audits, namely, cynicism concerning the motives underpinning the exercise and the perceived conflict between the outcomes of the strategic planning and the long-cherished ways of academia (Fry 1995).

The internal consultant concluded that this third consultative stage of the Plan's development had been essential and productive. It had given rise to improved understanding of important quality issues, and it appeared to have engendered a greater sense of ownership. The Summary Plan and the original thirty-eight page Plan were adopted by UAB and by Council and made available University-wide, both in hard copy and on the 'docunet' electronic communications system.

Summary of outcomes

From our point of view, the development of the Teaching and Learning Strategic Plan at Curtin University highlighted the following critically important issues:

1. A Strategic Plan, in terms of both the developmental process and the final product, must be 'owned' and supported publicly by the senior management group. In this sense, the University-wide seminars initiated by senior management were critical to the success of Curtin's undertaking.

2. In developing and disseminating the Plan, the amount of consultation with various constituent groups and stakeholders can never be too much. In our case, although we were careful to involve all key groups at all stages, there were nevertheless some who, in the concluding stages of the undertaking, claimed to be uninformed or to have had their perspectives ignored.

3. The implementation of the Plan requires systemic development and maintenance of policies, structures, budgeting systems, management and administrative procedures, physical environments and facilities, technology and information systems commensurate with the objectives. It also needs systemic development and maintenance of systems and processes for ongoing monitoring and improving processes and outcomes associated with these objectives and, in addition, consistency and coherence (but not mere conformity) in operational units' own strategic planning.

4. Curtin's system of devolution, which had given rise to some vocal and multiple hegemonies, made such systemic and parameter-setting development and maintenance difficult and in some cases, contentious. Working through the Strategic Plan's template, it was difficult at times to define clearly the inter-relationships, responsibilities and accountabilities of the various operational units, support units and advisory bodies. There was a lack of congruence between School and University objectives and a lack of clarity about some performance targets.

5. There was no single nominated person within the University's executive arm whose job in regard to teaching and learning was to provide what Fry (1995, p. 76) describes as the 'methodologies, rhetoric, organisation and reward which reflect and facilitate an emphasis on a culture of improvement'. By contrast, there was a Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Development) who had this role in regard to research and scholarship. There were a number of advisory bodies and committees which could be regarded as 'responsible agents' in regard to curriculum, teaching and learning, but these lacked continuous presence, resources, and an executive position within the University's authority structure.

The debate which ensued as a result of the strategic planning and quality assurance processes contributed to organisational change. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor's role has been redefined to focus primarily on policy, planning and quality assurance. Newly constituted Policy and Planning and Quality Committees have been established and Schools and staff have begun to come to terms with the idea of balancing devolution and accountability.

Some major tasks lie ahead. There is a need to ensure articulation between the various strategic plans, combine these into an overall plan and develop a more dynamic and innovative sense of strategic direction for teaching and learning.

Shirley (1988) suggests that strategic plans must do more than project existing activities into the future in linear fashion. They must search for the new, the innovative and the creative, as well as preserve and improve the core obligations. There is a need to improve management information systems to help Schools monitor and improve processes and outcomes. There is a need for congruence between the Teaching and Learning Strategic Plan, School/Area Annual Reports and the five-yearly School Program Review. Perhaps the greatest challenge is to balance centrifugal academic freedom and centripetal accountability and help managers, operational units and individuals, at all levels, to internalise the concepts and practices of strategic planning for teaching and learning excellence.

References

Australia. Higher Education Council 1992, Higher Education: Achieving Quality. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Baker, R. 1994, Valuing University Teaching and Learning: Academic Staff Perceptions., Teaching Learning Group, Curtin University of Technology, Perth.

Candy, P. C., Crebert, G. & O'Leary, J. 1994, Developing Lifelong Learners through Undergraduate Education, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Fry, H. 1995, 'Quality judgements and quality improvement', Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 49, no.1, January, pp. 59-77.

Herrmann, A. & Latchem, C. (eds.) 1993, Higher Education Teaching and Learning: The Challenge, Curtin University of Technology, Perth:

Keller, G. 1983, Academic Strategy: The Management Revolution in Higher Education, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Mayhew, L. B. 1979, Surviving the Eighties: Strategies and Procedures for Solving Fiscal and Enrollment Problems, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

Meade, P. & Andrews, R. J. 1995, 'Measuring employer satisfaction in higher education', The Quality Magazine, vol. 4, no. 2, April, pp. 52-53.

Schon, D. A. 1987, Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Shirley, R. C. 1988, 'Strategic planning: An overview, in Successful Strategic Planning: Case Studies, New Directions for Higher Education, no. 64, Winter, ed. D. W. Steeples, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Steeples, D. W. (ed.) 1988, Successful Strategic Planning: Case Studies, New Directions for Higher Education, no. 64, Winter, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Summers, L. (ed.) 1994, Quality in Teaching and Learning: Making it Happen, Edith Cowan University, Perth.

Swain, P. 1994, Strategic Plan for Teaching and Learning: Summary of Consultation. Curtin University of Technology, Perth.

Van Vught, F. A. & Westerheijden, D. F. 1994, 'Towards a general model of quality assessment in higher education', Higher Education, vol. 28, pp. 355-371.

Weisterheijden, D. F. 1991, 'Promises, problems and pitfalls of peer review: The use of peer review in external quality assessment in higher education', Paper presented at The Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation International Conference, July.

About the authors

Colin Latchem
Teaching Learning Group
Curtin University of Technology
GPO Box U1987
Perth
Western Australia
Australia
Email: C.Latchem@info.curtin.edu.au

Lesley Parker
Teaching Learning Group
Curtin University of Technology
GPO Box U1987
Perth
Western Australia
Australia

At Uniserve, we encourage you to share your views on clearing house publications.
If you wish to comment on this article, feel free to submit it for moderation. E-mail to director.humanities@uniserve.edu.au