Improving teaching quality and the learning organisation

This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]On: 19 December 2014, At: 13:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Tertiary Education and ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtem20

Improving teaching quality and the learningorganisationSarah L. Collie a & Alton L. Taylor ba Duke University, Continuing Studies , Box 90702, 203 Bishop's House, Durham, NC, 27708,USA E-mail:b University of Virginia, Center for the Study of Higher Education , P.O. Box 400161,Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA E-mail:Published online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Sarah L. Collie & Alton L. Taylor (2004) Improving teaching quality and the learning organisation, TertiaryEducation and Management, 10:2, 139-155

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2004.9967123

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtem20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2004.9967123

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

SARAH L. COLLIE AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

IMPROVING TEACHING QUALITY AND THE LEARNINGORGANISATION

ABSTRACT. This study applied a learning organisation framework to understandacademic departments' efforts to improve teaching quality. The theoretical framework wasgenerated from literature on learning organisations, organisations devoted to continuousimprovement through continuous learning. Research questions addressed relationshipsamong departments' vision, leadership, knowledge management, communication, learningculture, and teaching improvement. Using survey data collected from department chairs,this study found a positive association between learning organisation behaviours and theimprovement of teaching.

INTRODUCTION

Colleges and universities are sites for the production and transmission ofknowledge; yet, until recently, higher education institutions have not beenregarded as learning organisations, organisations that engage in system-atic processes for quality improvement of core functions (Dill 1999). Dill(1999), Senge (2000), and O'Banion (1997) have provided theoretical,anecdotal, and empirical support for the conceptualisation of the universityas a learning organisation. Simply put, a learning organisation promoteslearning through the creation, collection, and translation of knowledgefor improved performance. A learning organisation learns intentionallyand strategically through individuals in the organisation as part of itsdevelopment (Marsick & Watkins 1999; Nevis et al. 1995).

The purpose of this study was to apply a learning organisation frame-work to improve understanding of university departmental efforts toimprove the quality of teaching, a central task of the department. This studydescribed: (1) the relationship among departments' vision, leadership,knowledge management, communication, learning culture and teachingimprovement, and (2) the relationship between departments' vision,leadership, knowledge management, communication, learning culture anddepartmental characteristics.

This research approach provides academic leaders an alternative organ-isational 'department' response to persistent concerns about teachingquality. The learning organisation framework promotes a systematic

Tertiary Education and Management 10: 139-155,2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

140 SARAH L. COLLIE AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

management of departmental processes for the purpose of improvingdepartmental productivity, in this case teaching improvement. Further-more, this approach can be readily linked to existing accountability andimprovement initiatives, such as programme review, programme evalu-ation and accreditation, and therefore, complement and reinforce qualityassurance efforts for the improvement of teaching.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This research focused on examining constructs of the learning organisationand how they relate to teaching improvement. The learning organisa-tion constructs examined include: Vision and Leadership, Knowledge andCommunication Management, and Learning Culture. The following fivequestions guided the research:

(1) What is the relationship between measures of the constructs Vision andLeadership and Teaching Improvement?

(2) What is the relationship between measures of the constructs Knowl-edge and Communication Management and Teaching Improvement!

(3) What is the relationship between measures of the constructs LearningCulture and Teaching Improvement!

(4) What is the relationship among measures of the constructs Vision andLeadership, Knowledge and Communication Management, LearningCulture, and Teaching Improvement1}

(5) What is the relationship between measures of the constructs Vision andLeadership, Knowledge and Communication Management, LearningCulture and departmental characteristics?

IMPROVING TEACHING QUALITY

Quality concerns in colleges and universities have led to the applicationand adoption of various quality improvement initiatives. However, popularquality efforts, such as Total Quality Management (TQM) and ContinuousQuality Improvement (CQI) have resided primarily in administrative activ-ities not academic ones (Birnbaum 2000; Márchese 1997; Peterson & Dill1997). Programme review and accreditation are common, formal mech-anisms of assessment and evaluation utilised by colleges and universitiesto gauge teaching quality and assist in planning for improvement (Barak& Breier 1990). In spite of many formal and informal processes andinitiatives for organisational learning in the university, including strategic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

IMPROVING TEACHING QUALITY AND THE LEARNING ORGANISATION 1 4 1

planning, faculty evaluation, promotion and tenure review and studentlearning outcomes assessment, there is controversy over whether or notthey actually result in improved performance. Particularly controversial isthe quality of the teaching and learning process, with research universitiesreceiving intense criticism amid perceptions of ineffective teaching (Bok1994; Cole 1994).

Concerns about educational effectiveness from internal and externalconstituents are not new, but concerns are being reshaped as institutionsencounter a more complex and competitive environment (Dill 1999). Inthe 1980s a focus on academic quality led to an assessment movement,and since the mid 1990s academic quality has become a measure of publicaccountability, student learning, faculty productivity, programme effect-iveness and institutional evaluation. Measures of educational effectivenesshave evolved from a resource model of inputs - the number of library hold-ings, the size of the endowment and the percentage of faculty with terminaldegrees - to a performance model of outputs and outcomes (Freed &Klugman 1997; Seymour 1992). Today, there are unprecedented demandsto ground educational effectiveness in assessment and student learning(Peterson & Dill 1997; Freed & Klugman 1997; Gardiner 2000).

An effective university learning organisation should facilitate indi-vidual and collective learning to achieve its desired goals in teaching andother functions. Since the activity of teaching is coordinated by academicdepartments, departments are central to a university learning organisa-tion (Murray 1997; Senge 2000). The department is in a prime positionto promote change and improvement in teaching through organisationallearning (Alfred & Roseaver 2000; Gardiner 2000). Further, the depart-ment chair is a key actor in the pursuit of effective teaching, learning andimprovement, and assumes responsibility for overall departmental perfor-mance. Cyert (1991) alleged ". . . the department heads are on the front linein the fight for quality in an academic organization" (p. 67). Research byWright and O'Neil (1994) offers additional support for this position. Theirsurvey of instructional developers concluded that the most effective factorin improving teaching is the leadership of deans and department heads(Wright & O'Neil 1994).

Information on teaching and learning

In a department, there are several available sources of information aboutthe effectiveness of teaching: peer reviews, teaching portfolios and studentevaluations of teaching. Typically, these sources are used for formativeand/or summative purposes. In addition to this information about teaching,specific initiatives are implemented with the goal of improving teaching,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

142 SARAH L.COLLIE AND ALTON L.TAYLOR

the establishment of teaching resource centres, the reconceptualisation ofteaching as the scholarship of teaching and the creation of teaching awards.

Student evaluations of teaching are considered the primary measure ofthe effectiveness of teaching (Cashin 1995; Marsh & Dunkin 1997; Trow1998). At the end of each academic term and often at midterm, hundredsof thousands of student evaluations are completed in college and univer-sity courses. The practice, although controversial, is virtually universal.While student evaluations have several purposes, it is widely agreed thatone defensible purpose of student evaluations should be formative andfoster the improvement of teaching (Marincovich 1998; Marsh & Dunkin1997).

Departments with a commitment to effective teaching purposefullycollect student evaluations, disseminate the results, and interpret and applythe results for teaching improvement and other desired purposes. Thesedepartmental processes exemplify the core concepts of a learning organ-isation: (1) developing a vision for the future; (2) enacting participatoryleadership; (3) creating effective knowledge collection and communica-tion structures; and (4) cultivating a learning culture of individual andorganisational learning.

LEARNING ORGANISATION FRAMEWORK

The learning organisation is a type of organisation that institutionalisesstructures and processes to promote continuous learning and improve-ment. A learning organisation is grounded in basic principles of learning:perceiving and gathering information, interpreting, and acting based onthe interpretation of information (Garvín 2000). The learning organisationprovides principles and practices that enable organisational learning (Clev-eland & Plastrik 1995; Senge 1994). It is not a stringent prescribed modelbut instead a set of organisational behaviours that exemplify a commitmentto learning and improvement. Remarkably, there is no universal defini-tion of a learning organisation, but similarities are evident across differentinterpretations and most definitions describe a learning organisation asan organisation in which knowledge is acquired and utilised to improveperformance (Garvin 2000).

This research relied on a learning organisation conceptual frameworkbased in a review and analysis of the literature on learning organisationsand the work of academic departments. The conceptual framework used inthis study incorporates many theoretical concepts of learning organisationsas depicted by Senge (1994, 2000), Garvin (2000), Bennett and O'Brien

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


(1994), Goh (1998), and others. The senior author of this research, Collie,derived the following learning organisation concepts: vision, leadership,knowledge management, communication, and the presence of a learningculture. Three constructs were established to represent the manifesta-tion of the learning organisation concepts at the department level withrespect to the faculty work of teaching and learning and enable analyses ofdepartments' behaviour within this learning organisation framework.

Constructs

The construct Vision and Leadership represented the shared responsibilityamong faculty for the leadership of the department and the achievement ofdepartmental goals. This construct was measured through chairs' percep-tions of the extent of faculty consensus on departmental goals, facultyparticipation in the formulation of departmental goals, faculty involve-ment in designing strategies and actions to achieve departmental goals,and encouragement from the chair for faculty to participate in developingdepartmental goals.

The construct Knowledge and Communication Management repre-sented departmental processes to collect, interpret, and disseminate infor-mation about the effectiveness of teaching. This construct was measuredthrough chairs' perceptions of departmental efforts to collect student eval-uations, interpret the results of student evaluations, and communicate theresults of student evaluations to faculty.

The construct Learning Culture represented departmental commitmentto individual and collective learning for the improvement of teaching.This construct was measured through departmental practices for rewardingor recognising faculty for excellent student evaluation results, providingprofessional-development opportunities for the improvement of teaching,monitoring student evaluation results, and aligning rewards for facultyperformance with departmental goals. The extent to which faculty engagein discussions about teaching and the level of faculty interaction was alsomeasured.

The construct Teaching Improvement represented the change over timein the quality of teaching in the department. The construct was measuredby chairs' perceptions of the collective change in student evaluations insix common areas, reported by Cashin (1995): (1) course organisationand planning; (2) clarity and communication skills; (3) teacher-studentinteraction, rapport; (4) course difficulty, workload; (5) grading and exam-inations; (6) student self-rated learning and chairs' perceptions about thelevel of improvement of teaching.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


METHODS, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES

The research design for this study was a single-paradigm quantitativedesign. A cross-sectional, researcher-designed 51-item survey was used tocollect data about departmental processes for the improvement of teaching,with a focus on the use of student evaluations for teaching improve-ment. Chronbach's alphas reliability coefficients for each measure of thelearning organisation constructs Vision and Leadership, Knowledge andCommunication Management, Learning Culture and Teaching Improve-ment ranged from 0.54 to 0.89. The survey also recorded informationabout 15 departmental characteristics. The population of interest wasacademic departments in 151 Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensiveas grouped by the 2000 Carnegie Classification. This type of institu-tion is characterised by diverse degree offerings, usually spanning some15 disciplines, and a commitment to graduate education. The surveywas administered to a purposive sample of department chairs in 24Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive. The public-private composi-tion of the selected 24 institutions reflected the public-private distribu-tion in the Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive population: approxi-mately two-thirds public (16 institutions) and one-third private (8 privateinstitutions).

Within the 24 institutions, the same 18 departments were selectedin each institution. Given the variation between academic disciplines, aframework that describes disciplines in terms of the level of disciplinaryconsensus among scholars on a continuum of high to low was used toclassify the departments (Braxton & Hargens 1995). According to thisframework, the physical sciences are classified as high-consensus and thesocial sciences and humanities are low-consensus. This body of researchfocuses on the correlation of consensus and other attributes. The followingstatements summarise the research on consensus and its relationship toteaching: (1) faculty in low-consensus fields are more teaching-orientedthan their high-consensus faculty counterparts; (2) low-consensus facultytend to be more interested in teaching, devote more time to teaching,and receive higher student evaluations; (3) department chairs in low-consensus disciplines give more emphasis to teaching; (4) low-consensusdisciplines have greater complementarity between research and teachingroles (Braxton & Hargens 1995). In the few cases where a sampled insti-tution did not have all of the pre-selected departments, a department ofsimilar consensus was substituted.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

IMPROVING TEACHING QUALITY AND THE LEARNING ORGANISATION 145

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Responses

The overall response rate was 196/402 or 49%. While the response ratewas lower than the researcher desired, Rea and Parker (1997) note thata response rate of 50-60% is considered to be satisfactory for analysis.Furthermore, the completed sample was representative in terms of discip-line consensus to the overall sample as responses were almost evenlydistributed between low and high discipline consensus. The sample of196 respondents contained 102 (52%) low-consensus departments and 94(48%) high-consensus departments.

Since the Survey of Departmental Processes and Characteristicscanvassed department chairs' perceptions, objectivity and generalisabilityare limitations of the study. The responses represented only the chair'sperception of faculty and departmental processes and may have been lessthan fully objective. Chairs may or may not have a different perspectivefrom other members in the organisation, including faculty, staff and otheradministrators. Chairs were also asked to self-report the change in studentevaluation results during their tenure as chair. While these responsesshould be data-based, chairs may not have replied based on actual dataand may have instead relied on perception alone.

Relationships of variables

The results of the bivariate relationship between measures of the learningorganisation constructs and Teaching Improvement and among measures ofthe learning organisation constructs are summarised in Table I. In Table II,the results of the stepwise simple regression are presented. The results arediscussed below.

Correlation of learning organisation constructs (vision and leader-ship, knowledge and communication management, learning culture) andteaching improvement. Research question one asked about the relationshipbetween Vision and Leadership and Teaching Improvement.

The relationship was statistically significant at 0.13 at the 0.05 level(2 tailed). The mean scores suggested that departments in the completedsample engaged in behaviours indicative of a high degree of Vision andLeadership. Because of the absence of variation among departments'Vision and Leadership, this measure was not a strong distinguishing factoramong the completed sample of departments. These data support that themajority of departments endorse a collective focus that is translated into

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


action through collégial leadership as described in the literature (Angelo2000; Creswell et al. 1990; Gardiner 2000; Hatfield 1999; Lucas 1994;Tucker 1992). Despite the lack of variation in the measure, the resultsindicated that those departments with the highest Vision and Leadershipalso had the highest Teaching Improvement. The implication is that greatergains in teaching improvement are associated with higher levels of sharedvision, shared leadership, and shared responsibility for departmentalgoals.

Research question two asked about the relationship between Knowl-edge and Communication Management and Teaching Improvement. Therelationship was statistically significant at 0.21 at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).Survey questions pertaining to this measure primarily focused on thedepartmental processes for the collection of student evaluations, inter-pretation of student evaluation results, and the dissemination of studentevaluation results and analyses. The findings are consistent with the liter-ature about student evaluations that they are, in fact, the most commonsource of information regularly collected about teaching (Bensimon et al.2000; Cashin 1990; Tucker 1992). 99% of respondents indicated that thecollection of student evaluations occurs on an annual or every-semesterbasis. These data also showed that more than 81% of respondents selectedthe improvement of teaching as one of the purposes for student evaluations.

Unfortunately, the mere collection of student evaluations does notassure they will be used in a meaningful way. Franklin (2001) identi-fied three general mistakes concerning the use of student evaluation data:misuse of data, bad data, and misinterpretation of data. Based on thisstudy's findings another error becomes conspicuous - failure to engagewith data. When department chairs were asked about changes in theirdepartment's student evaluation results over time in six broad areas, manydepartment chairs, ranging from 48% to 73%, did not know how or ifstudent evaluation results had changed in each area. Unused data about theeffectiveness of teaching are equivalent to no data. These findings highlighta deficiency in departments' ability to utilise productively information.

Research question three addressed the relationship between LearningCulture and Teaching Improvement. Learning Culture is a broad, multidi-mensional construct, and the measure is designed to assess departmentalefforts for the promotion of organisational learning for improvement.Conceptually, Learning Culture can be conceived as (1) processes topromote learning and (2) a climate of openness, trust, and collaborationto support learning. Therefore, Learning Culture was analysed in two sub-construct measures: Learning Culture-Processes and Learning Culture-Climate. The relationships of each measure with Teaching Improvement

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


were similar in magnitude: Learning Culture-Processes and TeachingImprovement was statistically significant at 0.21 at the 0.01 level (2 tailed),and Learning Culture-Climate and Teaching Improvement was statisticallysignificant at 0.19 at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

Learning organisations are characterised by their efforts to leverageboth individual and group learning (Barker & Camarata 1998; Bennett& O'Brien 1994; Senge 1994). While individual learning is valued in alearning organisation, it is not sufficient for organizational learning. Thesedata support that departments' learning opportunities attend to individualfaculty members rather than groups of faculty. For example, departmentalpractices to recognise or reward faculty for excellent student evaluationslargely target individual faculty (86%). While the results indicated theavailability of several professional development resources to assist facultywith their teaching, these opportunities exist primarily for individualfaculty. In learning organisations, rewards reflect unit and company perfor-mance and employees work collectively in teams (Bennett & O' Brien1994; Goh 1998; Lei et al. 1999). Few departments reported practices thatreflect a departmental unit approach. The results also revealed that learningopportunities for faculty to improve their teaching are more prevalent at theinstitutional level rather than the department level. This tendency to rely oncentralised, outside of the department learning opportunities does not echothe commitment of a learning organisation to foster learning across bound-aries of the organisation. Tucker (1992) advanced that faculty developmentshould be viewed as having two purposes: (1) individual development and(2) department development.

The climate of a learning organisation is open, trusting, and encouragesexperimentation (Gephart et al. 1996). Survey respondents reported either"some" or "frequent" interaction in the department (99%) and "some" or"frequent" interaction outside of the department (88%). This level of inter-action embodies the importance of sharing and interacting in a learningorganisation. This finding is aligned with those in a study by Massy et al.(1994), which concluded: frequent interaction among faculty is identifiedas an element of departments that support effective teaching.

A learning organisation has a culture that promotes group and indi-vidual development in an open, honest and risk-tolerant environment. Assuggested by this study's findings, departments' cultures reflect a strongerindividual rather than group orientation. Additionally, the practice of cent-ralised teaching improvement efforts runs counter to the findings aboutfaculty interaction and engagement. Since faculty are most likely to discussstudent evaluation results and teaching with departmental colleagues,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


TABLEI

Correlation of the measures of learning organisation constructs and teaching improve-ment construct

Teaching improvement

Vision and leadership

Knowledge andcommunication management

Learning culture-processes

Vision andleadership

0.13*

Knowledge andcommunicationmanagement

0.21**

0.11

Learningculture-processes

0.21**

0.21**

0.35**

Learningculture-climate

0.19**

0.45**

0.20**

0.43**

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

efforts for the improvement of teaching should be concentrated at thedepartment level.

Relationships among learning organisation constructs (vision and leader-ship, knowledge and communication management, learning culture) andteaching improvement. Research question four asked about the rela-tionship among Vision and Leadership, Knowledge and CommunicationManagement, Learning Culture, and Teaching Improvement. As previouslydiscussed, the results of the correlation analyses indicated statisticallysignificant relationships between each measure of the learning organisationconstructs and Teaching Improvement. Among the relationships of learningorganisation measures (Table I), the strongest relationship at the 0.01 level(2 tailed) was found between Vision and Leadership and Learning Culture-Climate (r = 0.45) followed by Learning Culture-Processes and LearningCulture-Climate (r = 0.43). The relationship between Knowledge andCommunication Management and Learning Culture-Processes was 0.35at the 0.01 level (2 tailed). The correlation between Vision and Leader-ship and Learning Culture-Processes was 0.21 at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).The correlation between Knowledge and Communication Management andLearning Culture-Climate was 0.20 at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

Data presented in Table II also show the results of the regressionanalysis. When regressed on Teaching Improvement, Knowledge andCommunication Management and Learning Culture-Climate were themost predictive. Together these measures explained 7% of the vari-ance in Teaching Improvement. The results of the regression analysisimmediately draw attention to departmental behaviours consistent with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


TABLE II

Regression model summary

Model

Knowledge and communicationmanagement

Knowledge and communicationmanagement and learningculture-climate

R

0.21

0.26

R squarechange

0.04

0.02

R square

0.04

0.07

AdjustedR square

0.04

0.06

Std errorof theestimate

4.06

4.02

positive measures of Knowledge and Communication Management andLearning Culture-Climate. Departments should give increased attention toprocesses for interpreting and applying information about teaching andbuilding a supporting climate for effective teaching. Yet, the interrela-tionships of the measures of learning organisation constructs also haveimplications for departmental efforts to improve teaching. Based on thefindings of the regression analysis, the measures Vision and Leadershipand Learning Culture-Processes appear less important to the improve-ment of teaching. On closer examination, however, Vision and Leadershipand Learning Culture-Processes are more central to departmental effortsthan one may initially perceive because they were not found to be stat-istically significant predictors of Teaching Improvement. Their importancebecomes evident through their relationship to the best predictors, Knowl-edge and Communication Management and Learning Culture-Climate.Knowledge and Communication Management was significantly corre-lated with Learning Culture-Processes, and Learning Culture-Climatewas significantly correlated with the Vision and Leadership and LearningCulture-Processes. Given this interrelatedness, departmental efforts thatfocus on the best predictors would also be positively associated with theother statistically non-significant predictors, Vision and Leadership andLearning Culture Processes. This finding clarifies the multidimensionalnature of the learning organisation and the mutually supportive relationshipof the concepts (Senge 1994).

Correlation of learning organisation constructs and departmental char-acteristics. Research question five addressed the relationship betweenVision and Leadership, Knowledge and Communication Management,Learning Culture and Departmental Characteristics. Many departmental

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

1 5 0 SARAH L. COLLIE AND ALTON L. TAYLOR

characteristics, such as the number of full-time or part-time faculty ordepartment size or discipline consensus, showed no significant relation-ship to the measures of learning organisation constructs. Based on theseresults, the measures of the learning organisation constructs appear to beneither dictated nor constrained by departmental characteristics. Depart-mental efforts and processes shape the realisation of a department as alearning organisation, not simply departmental characteristics. This findingis consistent with an earlier study by Massy et al. (1994). They foundthat exemplary departments supportive of undergraduate education andteaching possess no distinct departmental profile. In their study, institu-tional type, discipline or size did not predict whether the departmentalculture supported or inhibited teaching.

Nine characteristics were significantly correlated with one or more ofthe learning organisation measures, although the magnitude of their rela-tionship was relatively low. Several are particularly interesting becausethey concur with literature on the topic: the chair's influence in the depart-ment and the perceived conflict of research and teaching. The number ofyears that the chair has served as chair was significantly related Visionand Leadership (r = 0.21) and Learning Culture- Climate (r = 0.17). Thenumber of years that the chair had been a member of the department wasalso significantly related to Vision and Leadership (r = 0.16). Becominga learning organisation is an ongoing journey that requires a long-termcommitment and dedication to continually strive for improvement (Goh1998). A change in department chair leadership may also result in a changein commitment to learning organisation principles. The department chair isconsidered to have an important role in the development of vision (Lucas1994; Wergin 1994; Wright & O'Neil 1994). The department chair mustlegitimise the importance of effective teaching (Lucas 1994). Similarly,research by Massy et al. (1994) concluded, "The chair may well representthe single most important factor in determining whether or not a depart-ment actively supports teaching" (p. 17). The implication for institutions isto find ways to retain chairs and reduce turnover so that chairs can nurturepositive behaviors.

Some aspects of faculty time and department goals were negativelycorrelated to measures of learning organisation constructs. Faculty timefor research productivity was negatively correlated to Knowledge andCommunication Management, and research productivity department goalswere negatively related to Learning Culture-Processes and LearningCulture-Climate. The relationship of research and teaching has long beendebated in the literature (Boyer Commission 1998; Cole 1994; Rhodes1994). These findings contribute to this controversial topic and suggest

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


some level of incompatibility between research productivity and learningorganisation behaviour associated with the improvement of teaching. Inter-estingly though, effective teaching and learning, either as faculty time ordepartment goal, were not significantly related to any of the measures ofthe learning organisation constructs.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide empirical support for the conceptu-alisation of departments as learning organisations, albeit some depart-ments are more effective learning organisations than others. The find-ings provide confirmation that departments possess attributes associatedwith the learning organisation constructs Vision and Leadership, Knowl-edge and Communication Management, and Learning Culture and apositive relationship between these learning organisation attributes and theimprovement of teaching. On the basis of the study's findings, departmentscan benefit most from concentrating on the effective use of informationabout teaching and defining a departmental environment supportive ofteaching. Departments should be especially attentive to the collection,interpretation, and communication of student evaluation results, and thelevel of faculty discussion and interaction around teaching.

In this age of accountability, the learning organisation approach can beseen as an appropriate response to calls for improved teaching. Learningorganisational behaviours could be adopted as a departmental manage-ment strategy to improve teaching. The existing measures of quality, suchas programme review and accreditation, could be used to help depart-ments monitor their progress. In return, the continuous assessment inherentto a learning organisation would serve to facilitate perceived discrete,compulsory quality initiatives.

This research serves as an initial effort to improve understanding ofdepartmental activity through a learning organisation framework. Despitethe affirmation of the presence of learning organisation concepts, the rela-tionships between learning organisation measures and teaching improve-ment are relatively weak. One possible explanation may be the complexand abstract concept of a learning organisation. The framework utilizedin this study sought to demystify the learning organisation and devise atechnique for practical application. The researcher-developed frameworksimplified the learning organisation into three broad constructs, Vision andLeadership, Knowledge and Communication Management, and LearningCulture and relied upon a universal proxy measure, student evaluationresults as reported by chairs, as a measure of Teaching Improvement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


Obviously, this framework was only one of many possible frameworks.The conceptualisation of the learning organisation and the improvement ofteaching in a different manner may lead to different findings. Additionally,this study unbundled department work, focusing on teaching, and did notaddress the multifarious nature of departmental work. Findings may alsodiffer if other dimensions of departmental work are examined or if depart-mental work is examined in the aggregate (research, teaching, service,etc.). Therefore, the conclusions of this study are most generaliseable todepartmental efforts toward the improvement of teaching.

Furthermore, the weak relationships between learning organisationmeasures and teaching improvement measures may also be influencedby colleges' and universities' traditional academic culture and differen-tiated, loosely integrated structures. Traditional academic culture placesa high value on scholarship, autonomy and academic freedom (Angelo2000; Márchese 1997). An academic learning organisation must not onlyembrace a new culture of learning, but simultaneously de-emphasiselongstanding rituals and traditions. In many ways, the emphasis oncollective responsibility in an academic learning organisation deviatesfrom prevailing institutional culture. The practice of teaching and the eval-uation of teaching have been addressed historically as individual activities;yet, the undergraduate educational experience is the compilation of contri-butions from many faculty (Cannon 2001). Specific efforts to improveteaching and learning are often perceived by faculty as threats to traditionalacademic values (Angelo 2000).

There are several important directions for future research in this area.Further research can be designed to investigate departmental conditionsthat are associated or not associated with learning organisation behaviours.Another crucial extension of this study is to examine the relationshipbetween the learning organisation concepts and student learning. Studentlearning is a primary goal of an academic learning organisation, and itcannot be assumed that implementation of learning organisation beha-viours guarantees student learning. The definitive goal of an effectivelearning organisation is improved performance.

REFERENCES

Alfred, R. & Roseaver, S. (2000). Organizational Structure, Management, and Leader-ship for the Future. In A.M. Hoffman & R.W. Summers (eds), Managing Colleges andUniversities: Issues for Leadership. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1-28.

Angelo, T.A. (2000). Transforming Departments into Productive Learning Communities.In A.F. Lucas & Associates (eds), Leading Academic Change: Essential Roles forDepartment Chairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 74-89.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


Barak, R.J. & Breier, B.E. (1990). Successful Program Review: A Practical Guide toEvaluating Program Sin Academic Settings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Barker, R.T. & Camarata, M.R. (1998, October). The Role of Communication in Creatingand Maintaining a Learning Organization: Preconditions, Indicators, and Disciplines,The Journal of Business Communication 35, 1-14.

Bennett, J.K. & O'Brien, M.J. (1994, June). The Building Blocks of the LearningOrganization, Training, 41-49.

Bensimon, E.M., Ward, K. & Sanders, K. (2000). The Department Chair's Role inDeveloping New Faculty and Scholars. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management Fads in Higher Education: Where They Come from,What They Do, Why They Fail. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, Inc.

Bok, D. (1994, April). Reclaiming the Public Trust, Case Currents 22, 25-28.Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (1998). Rein-

venting Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities.Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York.

Braxton, J.M. & Hargens, L.L. (1995). Variation among Academic Disciplines: AnalyticalFrameworks and Research. In J.C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theoryand Research, vol. 11. New York: Agathon Press, 1-46.

Cannon, R. (2001, Winter). Broadening the Context for Teacher Evaluation. In C. Knapper& P. Cranton (eds), Fresh Approaches to the Evaluation of Teaching. New Directions forTeaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 87-97.

Cashin, W.E. (1995). Student Ratings of Teaching: The Research Revisited. (Idea Paper#32). Manhatten, KS: Kansas State University, IDEA Center.

Cleveland, J. & Plastrik, P. (1995). Learning, Learning Organizations, and TQM. InA.M. Hoffman & D.J. Julius (eds), Total Quality Management: Implications for HigherEducation. Maryville, MO: Prescott, pp. 233-243.

Cole, J.R. (1994). Balancing Acts: Dilemmas of Choice Facing Research Universities. InJ.R. Cole, E.G. Barber & S.R. Gruabard (eds), The Research University in a Time ofDiscontent. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1-36.

Creswell, J.W., Wheeler, D.W., Seagren, A.T., Egly, N.J. & Beyer, K.D. (1990). TheAcademic Chairperson's Handbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Cyert, R. (1991, Spring). Quality Through Department Heads, Planning for HigherEducation, 67-69.

Dill, D.D. (1999). Academic Accountability and University Adaptation: The Architectureof an Academic Learning Organization, Higher Education 38,127-154.

Franklin, J. (2001, Fall). Interpreting the Numbers: Using a Narrative to Help OthersRead Student Evaluations of Your Teaching Accurately. In K.G. Lewis (ed.), Techniquesand Strategies for Interpreting Student Evaluations. New Directions for Teaching andLearning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 85-100.

Freed, J.E. & Klugman, M.R. (1997). Quality Principles and Practices in HigherEducation. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.

Gardiner, L.F. (2000). Monitoring and Improving Educational Quality in the AcademicDepartment. In A.F. Lucas & Associates (eds), Leading Academic Change: EssentialRoles for Department Chairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 165-194.

Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization toWork. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gephart, M.A., Marsick, V.J., Van Buren, M.E. & Spiro, M.S. (1996, December). LearningOrganizations Come Alive, Training and Development, 35-45.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


Goh, S.C. (1998, Autumn) Toward a Learning Organization: The Strategic BuildingBlocks, SAM Advanced Management Journal 63(2), 15-21.

Hatfield, S.R. (1999). Department Level Assessment: Promoting Continuous Improvement(Idea Paper #35). Manhatten, KS: Kansas State University, IDEA Center.

Lei, D., Slocum, J. & Pitts, R.A. (1999, Winter). Designing Organizations for CompetitiveAdvantage: The Power of Unlearning and Learning, Organizational Dynamics, 1-24.

Lucas, A.F. (1994). Strengthening Departmental Leadership: A Team Building Guide forChairs in Colleges and Universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Marchese, T.J. (1997). Sustaining Quality Enhancement in Academic and Managerial Life.In M.W. Peterson, D.D. Dill, L.A. Mets & Associates (eds), Planning and Managementfor a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 502-520.

Marincovich, M. (1998). Ending the Disconnect between the Student Evaluation ofTeaching and the Improvement of Teaching: A Faculty Developer's Plea (Report No.NCPI-4-02). Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. HE 031 907).

Marsh, H.W. & Dunkin, M.J. (1997). Students' Evaluations of University Teaching: AMultidimensional Perspective. In R.P. Perry & J.C. Smart (eds), Effective Teaching inHigher Education: Research and Practice. New York: Agathon Press, 241-320.

Marsick, V.J. & Watkins, K.E. (1999). Facilitating Learning Organizations: MakingLearning Count. Brookfield, VI: Gower.

Massy, W., Wilger, A. & Colbeck, C. (1994, July/August). Department Cultures andTeaching Quality: Overcoming "Hollowed" Collegiality, Change 26,11-20.

Murray, J. (1997). Successful Development and Evaluation: The Complete Teaching Port-folio (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8). Washington, DC: The GeorgeWashington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J. & Gould, J.M. (1995, Winter). Understanding Organizations asLearning Systems, Sloan Management Review, 73-85.

O'Banion, T. (1997). Learning College for the 21st Century. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.Peterson, M.W. & Dill, D.D. (1997). Understanding the Competitive Environment of the

Postsecondary Knowledge Industry. In M.W. Peterson, D.D. Dill & L.A. Mets (eds),Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on RedesigningPostsecondary Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 3-29.

Rea, L.M. & Parker, R.A. (1997). Designing and Conducting Survey Research: AComprehensive Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Rhodes, F.H.T. (1994). The Place of Teaching in the Research University. In J.R. Cole,E.G. Barber & S.R. Gruabard (eds), The Research University in a Time of Discontent.Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 179-189.

Senge, P.M. (2000). The Academy as a Learning Community: Contradiction in Termsor Realizable Future? In A.F. Lucas & Associates (eds), Leading Academic Change:Essential Roles for Department Chairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 275-300.

Senge, P.M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organiza-tion. New York: Doubleday.

Tucker, A. (1992). Chairing the Academic Department: Leadership among Peers. NewYork: Macmillan.

Trow, M. (1998). On the Accountability of Higher Education in the United States. In W.G.Bowen & H.T. Shapiro (eds), Universities and Their Leadership. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 15-61.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014


Wergin, J.F. (1994). The Collaborative Department: How Five Campuses are Inchingtoward Cultures of Collective Responsibility. Washington, DC: American Associationfor Higher Education.

Wright, W.A. & O'Neil, M.C. (1994). Teaching Improvement Practices: New Perspectives.In E.C. Wadsworth (ed.), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional,and Organizational Development. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, 5-37.

Sarah L. CollieDuke UniversityContinuing StudiesBox 90702203 Bishop's HouseDurham, NC 27708USAE-mail: [email protected]

Alton L. TaylorUniversity of VirginiaCenter for the Study of Higher EducationP.O. Box 400161Charlottesville, VA 22904USAE-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

06 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Documents

Improving teaching quality and the learning organisation