Answer & Explanation:Assignment: For this assignment, use the guidelines and resources you have reviewed and create an annotated bibliography using the one of the following sources:Holt, D., Palmer, S., Gosper, M., Sankey, M., & Allan, G. (2014). Framing and enhancing distributed leadership in the quality management of online learning environments in higher education. Distance Education, 35(3), 382-399. doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.955261. http://www.tandfonline.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/doi/full/10.1080/01587919.2015.955261 (see attachment below)orManinger, R. (2006). Student test scores improved in an English literature course through the use of supportive devices. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning. 50(5), 37-45. http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ774636&site=eds-live (see attachment below)You have these two articles to choose from (see attachments below); however, you will submit one detailed and developed annotation for this assignment. Your instructor will have an opportunity to provide feedback focused on your written communication skills, how well you convey your thoughts about the article, and the format (included research components) of your annotation. For the article you choose above, your instructor will also assess how well the content of your annotation reflects the content of the chosen article. (Note: I have attached a sample annotated bibliography below for your reference)Length: 1.5- 2 pages, not including the title page and reference pageReferences: One scholarly resource selected from list Your paper should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Be sure to include citations for quotations and paraphrases with references in APA format and style where appropriate. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy. View the Northcentral Academic Integrity Tutorialto refresh your knowledge of how to achieve academic integrity. (see attachment below)
framing_and_enhancing_distributed_leadership.pdf
student_test_scores_improved.pdf
sample_annotated_bibliography.doc
preparing_annotated_bibliographies_apa_6th_edition_style_guide.pdf
northcentral_university_s_academic_integrity_policy.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Distance Education
ISSN: 0158-7919 (Print) 1475-0198 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20
Framing and enhancing distributed leadership
in the quality management of online learning
environments in higher education
Dale Holt, Stuart Palmer, Maree Gosper, Michael Sankey & Garry Allan
To cite this article: Dale Holt, Stuart Palmer, Maree Gosper, Michael Sankey & Garry
Allan (2014) Framing and enhancing distributed leadership in the quality management of
online learning environments in higher education, Distance Education, 35:3, 382-399, DOI:
10.1080/01587919.2015.955261
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.955261
Published online: 21 Oct 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1922
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdie20
Download by: [Northcentral University]
Date: 26 September 2016, At: 17:03
Distance Education, 2014
Vol. 35, No. 3, 382–399, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.955261
Framing and enhancing distributed leadership in the quality
management of online learning environments in higher education
Dale Holta*, Stuart Palmerb, Maree Gosperc, Michael Sankeyd, and Garry Allane
a
Faculty of Business and Law, Learning Innovations Group, Deakin University, Geelong,
Australia; bFaculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University,
Geelong, Australia; cThe Learning and Teaching Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia; dLearning Environments and Media, University of Southern Queensland,
Toowoomba, Australia; eEducational Technology Advancement Group, RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia
(Received 24 January 2014; final version received 9 July 2014)
This article reports on the findings of senior leadership interviews in a nationally
funded project on distributed leadership in the quality management of online
learning environments (OLEs) in higher education. Questions were framed
around the development of an OLE quality management framework and the situation of the characteristics of distributed leadership at the core of the framework.
The project’s premise is that distributed leadership is a descriptive reality of
managing OLEs given the various leadership parties involved and the complexities of the contemporary technological landscape. Leaders’ understandings of
distributed leadership were examined—its nature, value and potential for advancing the quality management of OLEs. There was confirmatory evidence of its
reality, but its meaning and value were not uncritically accepted. It can be concluded that building distributed leadership must start through deliberative formal
leadership commitment and action starting at the highest levels of the institution.
Keywords: online learning environments; quality management, distributed
leadership; semi-structured interviews
Introduction
This article is based on an Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC)
nationally funded project titled “Building distributed leadership in designing and
implementing a quality management framework for Online Learning Environments.”
The ALTC is now the Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT). The project involved
five partner universities representing the diversity of developments in the Australian
higher education sector. The project’s rationale was that distributed leadership (DL)
seemed centrally important to this sphere of higher education activity given the complexities of the challenge. The article focuses on the final phase of data collection
involving one-on-one interviews with senior leadership from the project partners.
These interviews represented the culmination of the project’s efforts to develop
insights into the nature, value and, indeed, limits of DL in the online learning environment (OLE) domain. The interviews also illuminated the ways in which DL
might be developed to enhance the quality management of OLEs. The relevance and
*Corresponding author. Email: dale.holt@deakin.edu.au
© 2014 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.
Distance Education
383
usefulness of DL to the quality management agenda is not straightforward. DL may
be seen as capturing something of the reality of the way leadership works, but it
does not go unchallenged as the most desirable way of leading key institutional
developments. Having said this, valuable insights have been gained in cultivating
DL, with the greater active involvement of those in the organisation with leadership
capacities and contributions to be made. This expansive view of leadership can benefit the quality management of OLEs in open, distance and flexible education. It is
of prime relevance and importance to those in such organisations who occupy various formal senior- and functional-level leadership roles.
Nature and relevance of DL to the quality management of OLEs
Northouse (2013) summarised a broad range of theoretical perspectives on the
nature of leadership and distilled its essence from this theorising as follows:
“Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal” (p. 5). It can be concluded, however, that no grand synthesis has emerged in formulating an overarching view of what leadership is or should
be; how it should be researched and how it should be practised effectively. One
emerging line of theorising and practice sees leadership as potentially being more
shared and dispersed through an organisation. This acknowledges that more parties
may have more shared influence on their colleagues, above and beyond traditional
formally and vertically designated leader–follower influence relationships. As
expounded by milestone educational collections and perspectives on DL, the focus
shifts from leader and leader development, assuming subordinate–follower behaviour, to shared or DL practices, as at least a descriptive reality of how leadership
emerges in practice (Harris, 2009; Leithwood, Mascall, & Strauss, 2009; Spillane,
2006; Spillane & Diamond, 2007).
Distributed leadership refers to situations when leadership is said to be distributed
among multiple actors who support others in achieving organisational goals. It has
emerged as a significant field of leadership conceptualisation, theorising and practice
improvement in the last decade or more (Bolden, 2011). In some ways similar to
shared or dispersed leadership, DL exists in relationships, and it recognises informal,
emergent and collective acts of influence as well as those instigated by people in formal positions of authority (Harris, 2009). Based on the scope of DL identified by
Harris (p. 5), a number of key alignments become prominent in higher education
institutions, namely vertically among faculty formal leaders in hierarchy, and among
senior executive leaders and faculty formal leaders; horizontally among senior executive leaders, faculty formal leaders across hierarchies, and senior executive leaders
and across faculty leadership; informal academic and professional support leadership
horizontally among staff at discipline, school, faculty and interfaculty levels/domains;
and informal leadership at particular locations in multi-campus environments.
DL approaches seem highly relevant to the quality management of OLEs in
higher education. The leadership of quality OLEs is becoming more complex and
demanding as seen through the following:
growing size and reach of universities (some with offshore campus operations,
and others now involved in national and international strategic partnerships);
growing number of information and communications technologies which constitute such environments;
384
D. Holt et al.
loosening of institutional control over certain technologies which can be used
for effective learning and teaching;
greater size and more diverse composition of universities’ workforces and student populations;
ever-present multiplicity of curricular and pedagogical models which underlie
an ever-expanding range of occupations and professions requiring higher level
education; and
intensifying of national and global competition in the e-learning marketplace.
No one formal leader at the top, no matter how ambitious and knowledgeable,
could possibly contend with the complexity of issues related to the quality management of OLEs. Leaders must be mobilised down, across and throughout the organisation to realise the full benefits of massive institutional investments in online
learning systems. This is well expressed by O’Toole, Galbraith, and Lawler (2003):
“The lesson is this: The more interdependent the work of co-leaders, the more input
they should solicit from affected others and the more they need to coordinate
between themselves” (p. 260), and reinforced by Conger and Pearce (2003): “Shared
leadership is therefore an effective solution to a fundamental dilemma: No single
individual possesses the capacity to effectively play all possible leadership roles
within a group or organizational setting” (p. 285). The potential value of DL has
been highlighted more generally in higher education by van Ameijde, Nelson,
Billsberry, and van Meurs (2009), Bolden, Petrov, and Gosling (2009), and Keppell,
O`Dwyer, Lyon, and Childs (2010) specifically in distance education. These studies,
however, do not focus on the demonstration of DL around institutional OLE spaces.
Any purported value should not be accepted uncritically, and empirical investigations are required to test value propositions.
Investigating DL in the quality management of OLEs
The nature and relevance of DL to the leadership of OLEs in Australian higher education was investigated through a national ALTC grant conducted over 2011–2012
involving five Australian universities. The aim of the project was to develop and disseminate through a DL approach an overall framework for the quality management
of OLEs. The purpose of the framework was to help guide, but not prescribe, specific leadership actions in various organisational settings relating to new investments
in OLEs, and the ongoing maintenance and enhancement of such environments for
the benefit of student learning. The framework was intended as a transparent and
adaptable set of guidelines, which could also aid internal and external benchmarking
of OLEs in the sector. The framework was not intended to compete with the many
existing governance and quality management models in e-learning (Australasian
Council on Open Distance and E-learning, 2010; Charles Sturt University, 2010; IT
Governance Institute, 2012; Marshall, 2004, 2007; Oliver, 2003; Scott, 2008; The
State of Queensland (Department of Public Works), 2011; White & Larusson, 2010).
It was designed to assist endeavours in these areas. The five university project partners encompassed a diversity of OLE systems (including proprietary and open
source learning management systems). Moreover, the partners, at the beginning of
the project, were at different stages of deploying their next generation OLEs and
represented the institutional diversity of the Australian university sector.
The project methodology used the following data collection methods:
Distance Education
385
(1) three rounds of focus groups at the five partner institutions, where different
groups of representatives of the institutional DL involved in OLEs interactively explored emerging themes from project research;
(2) a survey of institutional representatives from Australasian (Australian and
New Zealand) universities with OLE leadership responsibility (reported in
Palmer, Holt, Gosper, Sankey, & Allan, 2013);
(3) a final round of one-on-one interviews with senior leaders at each partner
institution to elicit strategies for the development of DL for the enhancement
of OLEs.
This article focuses on the findings of the final phase of data collection around
senior leader interviews, that is, the fourth round of qualitative data collection postcompletion of the three rounds of focus groups. Drawing on the literature investigations, the initial project partner workshop and the first round of institutional focus
groups, and with input from the project reference group, an OLE quality management framework (hereafter referred as the framework) was developed. The initial
iteration of the framework was then refined (see Figure 1). The core of the framework is the building of DL capacity with the aim of enhancing the quality of learning and teaching outcomes and experiences through the alignment of the six
identified and interrelated elements. A set of desired characteristics of DL to support
the quality management of OLEs was also developed, and definitions refined over
time. These characteristics are summarised in Table 1.
Quality experiences &
outcomes:
Aligning elements
Interacting formally &
informally
Through & across
hierarchies
Figure 1. Framework for the quality management of OLEs.
386
D. Holt et al.
Table 1. Desired characteristics of distributed learning.
Enabled individual and collective agency
Inclusive of all those who lead
Communicative and engaging
Meaningful rewards
Nurturing of valued professional expertise
Valuing professional forums and communities
Co-created and shared vision
Broadest recognition of leadership
Appropriate responsibilities
Trusting and respectful
Collaborative in development
Continuity and sustainability
Element descriptors
Planning: external environmental analysis and trend spotting, strategic intelligence gathering, external benchmarking, organisational capacity analysis, institutional
purpose, reputation, vision, principles, objectives and strategies, accountabilities,
timelines and resource implications.
Technologies: type, range, integration, promotion, and innovation and mainstreaming of emerging technologies.
Organisational structure: nature, range, coordination and delivery of valued services (underpinned by clarity of understanding of needed expertise/staffing capabilities) for staff and students.
Evaluation: stakeholder needs, methods, reporting, decision-making through governance structures, evaluation relating to the initial selection of new technology, and
evidence gathering relating to the ongoing assessment of its performance, value and
impact.
Governance: institutional, faculty and school/department committees and forums
(and associated responsibilities and accountabilities), policies and standards.
Resourcing: maintenance and enhancement of technologies, skills recognition
and staff development, media production, evaluation activities, governance mechanisms, (i.e., all other elements).
The framework elements and their relationships are examined in depth in Holt
et al. (2013).
Methodology
The phase four data collection involved a round of interviews that sought perceptions of nominated leaders of the five partner universities in two areas:
developing DL within the OLE space;
using this (and other strategies) to manage change within the OLE space.
Twelve interviews of 30–45 min duration were undertaken with leaders nominated by representatives of each of the partner institutions between September and
October, 2012. These occurred in the final quarter of the project, and were undertaken by an independent consultant, who also analysed them and wrote up a final
report. Half of these were face-to-face and half by telephone. Seven participants
were male, and five were female. The group included three deputy vice-chancellors/
pro vice-chancellors, three teaching/learning directors plus one assistant director, a
principal advisor, two managers and two deans/associate-deans teaching and learning. Ten interviewees came from central groups and the inclusion of two faculty
Distance Education
387
staff provided valuable insights of how this matter was perceived by those directly
involved in teaching online for two of the five institutions. A briefing document was
provided prior to the interview (see Appendix 1) and the interviews, while following
the direction taken by those interviewed, covered a series of questions that resulted
from a list of issues provided by the project team (see Appendix 2 for list of
questions).
The interviews were recorded, and pertinent material was provided in written format to the project leaders and manager. Over 36,000 words of text were generated
(including input from the consultant), endorsing the impression that participants
were engaged with the issues and often gave expansive comments. While the analysis is a summation of the views expressed on the canvassed issues, it draws heavily
on what was said by those interviewed as the way they chose to express their views,
as well as the views, themselves, is often compelling. The quoted comments below,
while an accurate portrayal of what was said in terms of the ideas expressed and the
language used, are not necessarily verbatim as non-fluencies have been removed. As
the cohort was quite small (12), for ethical reasons comments are not attributed.
Occasionally, where it is deemed particularly instructive, reference has been made to
whether the person concerned is in a senior leadership role and/or affiliated with a
central or faculty area.
Findings and discussion
Findings are presented and discussed under key perspectives: defining DL; level of
support for the concept of DL; perceived limitations of DL; the future of DL in the
OLE space; personal characterisations of leadership within the OLE space; handling
different views; initiatives carried out in the last three years; contemplated initiatives; and building leadership capacity within the OLE space.
Defining DL
All those interviewed accepted the definition of DL provided (see Appendix 1). In
the two cases where there were reservations, collaborative and devolving were preferred terms, but all those interviewed were comfortable with the sentiments
expressed. It is noteworthy that, while accepting the definition, several expressed a
lack of conviction about the value of the term, with it being labelled—albeit by a
minority—as “contrived”, “irritating” and “a nonsense”, creating artificial boundaries
with the issue being leadership. A few indicated the term was new to them, and a
strong impression was gained that many chose to go along with the term as the basis
for the interview, being convinced more by their understanding of what a DL model
entailed, rather than the word itself as illustrated by comments such as “I feel I
understand it but I feel it’s more about devolving leadership and ‘distributed’ is
more about putting leadership into roles which are closer to the coalface for
teaching.”
Level of support for the concept of DL
All those interviewed supported the concept of DL. Of the 12 interviewees, 5 rated
their level of support at 5, so to a very good extent, and the same number gave a 4
(good) rating with the remaining 2 respondents rating it at 3, so to a reasonable
388
D. Holt et al.
extent. Those who indicated strong support often did on the basis that, with
something as complex and multifaceted as an OLE within a university context,
leadership is required at many levels:
Around simple issues, requiring domain expertise, I think you want strong – almost
individual – leadership. … But around complex issues where no one individual is controlling all the resources required to make that initiative happen, I can’t think of an
alternative.
Further, with the reality for all institutions of frequent leadership changes:
Distributed leadership may actually be a buffer against that because it’s spread across
many people and so the knowledge and sense of where you’re going is spread across a
range of leaders and levels and so is not as exposed as having it in only 2 or 3.
It is telling that some senior leaders recognised …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Order a plagiarism free paper now. We do not use AI. Use the code SAVE15 to get a 15% Discount
Looking for help with your ASSIGNMENT? Our paper writing service can help you achieve higher grades and meet your deadlines.
Why order from us
We offer plagiarism-free content
We don’t use AI
Confidentiality is guaranteed
We guarantee A+ quality
We offer unlimited revisions