E I P

5. Utilising the Nursing Pipeline Experience to Develop Learning Environments [Next Chapter] [Previous Chapter] [Contents]

• 5.1 Introduction
• 5.2 Learning Development and Staff Development
• 5.3 Influence of Collegiate Groups in Determining Orientation of Quality of Learning Environments: A Sketch
• 5.4 Research as a Catalyst for Change
• 5.5 Acceptance of Change Process Through Leverage
• 5.6 Conclusion

5.1 Introduction

This chapter moves beyond the focus of pipelines and discusses processes that were employed to extend the educational initiatives developed in the Nursing pipeline to other areas of the University. The intention was to contribute to quality learning environments and focus on the central role of collegiate groups in determining the orientation and quality of those learning environments.

The chapter also provides details of processes that were employed to utilise research as a catalyst for initiating change in learning environments. It highlights the potential of research to bring teacher, student and research roles into relationship and discusses the importance of developing cooperative, collaborative, structural and organisational spaces.

Research is used as a catalyst for change to facilitate quality learning environments and the concept of leverage is discussed in the context of a community development framework.

5.2 Learning Development and Staff Development

The successful work jointly undertaken by the Department of Nursing and the AEC highlighted the importance of the learning environment in the development and conduct of pipelines.

Interaction between the EIP Project Director and teaching staff in a range of faculties that could contribute to pipelines left the Project Director with a clear impression of the unease some lecturers felt when considering a shift from standard lecture or teaching format. Refuge from innovation was frequently expressed in ‘the need for resources to develop teaching materials’. The possibility for a major emphasis on the processes of experiential learning was generally not seen as worthwhile or viable.

There was a general belief among many people teaching in the University that access to quality teaching material resources would provide necessary conditions for quality learning environments. This belief shifted the focus from the need for acquisition of pedagogical knowledge and skills to support the development of a more successful learning environment. Since funds are not generally available for materials development and since lecturing staff are often unwilling to shift to experiential learning strategies without material resources, the status quo in teaching is reinforced.

The educational innovations involved in establishing the Nursing pipeline highlighted the power of teachers, support staff and students to reorient the learning environment when they act for mutual benefit. The innovation process raises the challenge to forgo expert and learner status, a challenge that is threatening to both the learner and the teacher because it requires each to reflect on and relinquish the status of learner or teacher with attendant values, beliefs behaviours, costs and rewards. It requires people to individually and jointly reflect on mutual gain that may be achieved when roles of teacher and student are focused on learning and all parties are learners and co-researchers.

5.2.1 Willingness to Cultivate Quality Learning Environments

Willingness to cultivate environments that meet the learning needs of students and teachers can be facilitated by respect for and understanding of the difficult positions teachers, students and administrators face when they are confronted by a misalignment of student learning need and teaching practice. For example, teachers who have worked together to plan, develop or deliver courses may find themselves pursuing different teaching directions when they begin to change the orientation of learning.

The desire to change direction will reflect differences in beliefs and values about teaching and learning and what it means to each individual, collegiate group and the organisation. Many values and beliefs that underlie existing environments may not be openly discussed or reflected upon. The desire for change will affect relationships within and between memberships of collegial networks. Differing values and beliefs about teaching and learning underlie the shifts and fuel conflict. Similarly, conflicts can be anticipated as students’ roles and relationships with each other and the teaching staff are reoriented.

Establishment and conduct of learning environments that facilitate development and operation of pipelines requires willingness in action because people involved need to address their positions or mental models. Senge (1992, p. 8) states that we all hold, ‘deeply ingrained assumptions, generalisations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action’. The addressing of mental models can facilitate:

... institutional learning, the process whereby management teams change their shared mental models of the company [university], their markets [students/employers/government] and their competitors [other universities, nationally and internationally] (Senge 1992, p. 8).

The processes of developing the community of enquiry into a community of teaching and learning practice (essential to the establishment of pipelines) involved people exposing their own thinking about learning and making that thinking open to the influence of others in the network.

Senge captures the feeling of underlying tensions behind resistance to changing formats of teaching and learning when he notes:

Whenever there is ‘resistance to change’, you can count on there being one or more ‘hidden’ balancing process. Resistance to change is neither capricious nor mysterious. It almost always arises from threats to traditional norms and ways of doing things. Often these norms are woven into the fabric of established power relationship. The norm is entrenched because the distribution of authority and control is entrenched (Senge 1992, p. 88).

The resistance Senge identifies is to changing the entrenched patterns and distribution of authority and control that circumscribe and determine the character of the learning environment and set the culture. Identification of balancing activity highlighted the central importance of collegiate groups and their relationship to the wider learning environment. It also provided a window on the importance of personal development to change processes.

5.2.2 Collegiate Groups, Quality Teaching Environments and Personal Development

Collegiate groups have a large degree of control in the way in which learning environments are created, maintained, developed and resourced. Reorientation of learning environments require the support and resourcefulness of collegiate groups. Change requires a shift in the balance and direction of groups, their recognition and use of learning resources. This can only occur by open examination of the mental models that underlay collegiate members’ teaching, identity, roles and relationships. Change asks the collegiate members to redefine and reorient themselves. It is little wonder that successful change processes need to include personal development.

Personal development also provides a means of connecting the collegiate group to the wider university system through the desire to institutionalise a culture that is directed toward the evolution of quality learning environments. Changing the organisational structure of learning will not lead to a qualitative improvement of the learning environment unless the teachers and learners are able to examine and change their theories-in-use related to learning and teaching. Note that Senge’s mental models and Argyris’ theories-in-use, which are ‘those that can be inferred from action’ (Argyris et al. 1985, p. 82), are identical in that both describe values and attitudes that underpin behaviour. Restructuring without reorientation is equivalent to shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic and expecting that the ship will still not be headed for disaster.

The significance of the political power of collegiate groups in influencing change processes and the evolution of learning relationships that lead to the establishment and conduct of pipelines must not be disregarded. The politics of collegiate groups was a major factor in the success of attempts to establish pipelines. Collegiate groups also provide or inhibit relationship networks that form the fabric of social capital necessary for learning environments that lead to the establishment and conduct of pipelines.

5.3 Influence of Collegiate Groups in Determining Orientation of Quality of Learning Environments: A Sketch

The Project Director’s attention to the importance of the collegial group and power relationships in groups resulted from an encounter with teaching staff who collectively taught in a way that restricted Aboriginal students’ access and equity in a field of study and employment. For the purposes of this report, the subject will be referred to as the ‘problem subject’¹. The following sketch of the process highlights the importance of collegial groups, personal development and the relationship of the collegial group to University aspirations for quality learning environments.

The Project Director was sitting in a student lounge listening to students who were highly critical and concerned about their teaching and learning environment. After hearing the same conversation for some days he asked the students what they would like to do about their learning. The students were aware of the work being done with Nursing and decided to provide comment on the learning environment if the Project Director would find a way of presenting the material to the faculty concerned. Students were well aware of the power relationship that existed in the environment and were prepared to provide their comment in the understanding that the material would be used to start a process of change.

One of the students was undertaking the subject for a second time and considered he would fail again unless there was a major change in the learning environment. He was also concerned if he had to undertake the compulsory subject a third time, with no change occurring, he would continue to fail and this would lead to exclusion from the course of study.

The students met with the Project Director and provided detailed comment on their perceptions of the learning environment. These comments were recorded, collated, categorised and checked by the students. The categories utilised emerged from the statements the students had provided² Discussion with a range of people who had involvement with the subject either as students from past years or staff, also confirmed the validity of students’ concerns.

The Project Director met with the Dean of the faculty and a meeting was arranged to discuss concerns and future directions. The faculty selected a member of staff to chair the meeting and the Project Director was invited to prepare material to provide a focus for discussion and possible directions based on work undertaken with Nursing. An extract from a letter to the Dean, to which the students’ comments were attached, follows.

Thank you for the opportunity to address some teaching and learning issues in subject xxxx.

I agreed with [the chairperson] to prepare material for the meeting on Monday which provides a focus for discussion and possible directions based on work we have undertaken with other teaching areas. The following material has been prepared and is presented to facilitate collaborative focus and direction:

• collection and classification of students’ comments on the teaching and learning [of the subject];
• themes drawn from students’ comments that could provide a basis for addressing their learning and teaching needs;
• possible direction for change; and
• implications of collaboration for quality teaching and benefits for teaching and learning.

A detailed presentation and analysis of students’ comments which were presented to the meeting are included in Appendix Two.

5.3.1 Meeting Dynamics

The meeting and events that immediately followed could be said to have followed the script of the celebrated BBC television series, Yes Prime Minister. The meeting was a lively affair which saw the Coordinator of the subject and the Mentor clash. The coordinator forcefully and volubly stated:

We have done everything we can.
We can’t do more!
This is not TAFE.
Look at out teaching evaluations.
It’s those students not us [who have problems].
Well, we’re not going to drop academic standards (Gluck & Spence 1994, p. 20).

Members of the collegiate group who also taught in the subject largely remained silent, other than to state that they offered help if students approached them. Before the meeting was adjourned the Chairperson undertook to review the model of teaching and the teaching practice currently employed in the subject.

Following the meeting the Mentor was approached individually by most members of the collegiate group. They expressed their concerns with the subject and offered their time and energy to resource Aboriginal students’ learning. Consequently, learning needs were linked to human resources and the majority of students passed the subject. The following example drawn from the Mentor’s diary depicts one of the ways human resources were linked to student needs and highlights the applicability of the nursing model to other areas of education.

On return to the AEC the Mentor debriefed with a member of staff and related the offers of help if students approached collegiate members. The Mentor’s attention was drawn to the situation a student and the member of staff were grappling with. The student had put a good deal of effort into the development of an essay for the subject. The essay was overdue and the student considered the work was not up to scratch and that they may as well quit university. The staff member assisting the student considered the material prepared was of good quality and with a little extra work would meet the standard required.

Discussion with the student and the staff member revealed the student did not feel able to ask the coordinator of the subject for an extension or to discuss the work already undertaken toward completion of the essay because the lecturer talked in jargon and it was very difficult to understand what was being said. An extension would just prolong the inevitability of failure and departure from the University. Further discussion between the student, Mentor and staff member provided a window to the student’s learning theory-in-use and revealed a means of connecting with a lecturer identified as approachable by the student. A strategy was then developed by the student and the staff member which successfully engaged the student in the ‘search for assistance’.

The student was operating from experience of ‘when stuck in a learning situation’, absent and protect yourself. The Mentor’s experience with Nursing students and the offer of help during the meeting with the collegiate group enabled a strategy to be developed which successfully engaged the:

• student in the ‘search for assistance’; and
• collegiate member in joining with the student and providing assistance.

Ongoing trust relationships between the AEC and faculty can provide social capital that Aboriginal students can utilise to enhance academic success. A key factor in pursuing the development of trust relationships is willingness to examine processes of offering and providing help to students. The following statement represents the direction of many conversations that the Mentor had with teaching staff about the provision of help:

Lecturer: I tell them in the first lecture my door is open. If they want help, all they have to do is come and knock on my door. They don’t come. So they obviously don’t want help.

This offer of help, whilst genuine, fails to acknowledge the full social and emotional dynamic involved in a student seeking help from a lecturer. It is not interpreted by students as a genuine offer of help because it lacks a process of joining with the students to begin a communicative relationship. It also is replete with traditional power relationships and difficulties of access when teaching staff are only required to set aside a limited time (2–4 hours per week) in which they see students.

The Nursing experience provides an example of a process in which real help was offered, received and utilised³.

A short time after the meeting, the Mentor received an EMail from the Chairperson which stated the model of teaching and teaching practice employed in the subject had been investigated and was sound.

Issues related to the learning environment (pedagogical processes, learner needs, collaboration and future directions) entered a balancing situation. Senge describes this as ‘balancing loop [activity]’ and is equivalent to Mindell’s expression of slipping off the ‘edge’ which occurs when issues are presented and people decide not to deal with them.

There are many ways for processes to unfold, but perhaps the most essential way is to stay with the edge, with awareness of the group’s forbidden communication, its tendency to avoid emotional issues, personal feelings, idealistic visions and relationship conflicts.

The issues against which a group has an edge will return if they are not dealt with thoroughly ... If the group does not stay with the issue ... it will return until the issue is fully processed (Mindell 1992, p. 39).

It was clear from the Chairperson’s message to the Mentor (Project Director) that Argyris and Schön’s (1974) Model I was in use (see Section 5.3.2 below).

5.3.2 An Analysis of Dynamics within the Faculty/AEC Meeting

When the Faculty and the AEC met, the meeting dynamics heavily coincided with Argyris and Schön’s (1974) Model I: Theory-in-Use:

The four governing variables of Model I are:

1. achieve the purpose as the actor defines it;
2. win, do not lose;
3. suppress negative feelings; and
4. emphasise rationality.

The primary behavioural strategies of Model I are to control the relevant environment and tasks unilaterally and to protect oneself and others unilaterally. Thus, the underlying behavioural strategy is unilateral control over others. Characteristic ways of implementing this strategy include making unillustrated attributions and evaluations, advocating courses of action in ways that discourage inquiry, treating one’s own views as obviously correct, making covert attributions, evaluations, and face-saving moves such as leaving potentially embarrassing facts unstated.

The consequences of Model I strategies include defensive interpersonal and group relationships, low freedom of choice, and reduced production of valid information. There are negative consequences for learning, because there is little public testing of ideas. The hypotheses people generate tend to become self sealing. What learning does occur remains within the bounds of what is acceptable...As a result, error escalates and effectiveness in problem solving and in execution of action tends to decrease (Argyris et al. 1985, p. 89).

The coordinator’s behaviour coincided directly with Argyris et al’s example of behaviour that frequently occurs when people operating within Model I are confronted with an unintended outcome from an action strategy, that is, poor performance by Aboriginal students and an approach by the Mentor to the Faculty to reflect on the teaching practice.

If the agent wants to suppress conflict... and to this end avoids saying anything that might be controversial ... but others raise threatening issues anyway..., the agent may try the strategy of talking volubly about issues on which everyone is likely to agree [standards, teaching evaluations, university is not TAFE, cast doubt on the suitability of students] (Argyris et al. 1985, p. 86).

As can be seen from the long example of meeting dynamics presented in Section 5.3.1, the primary issue is what to do when an action is blocked through a ‘balancing loop’ so that people are re-engaged with the issue at hand. Section 5.3.3 introduces the concept of ‘edge’ in the re-engagement process.

5.3.3 Re-engaging the Faculty with the ‘Edge’

The Mentor undertook a number of activities which enabled the faculty with what Mindell (1992) describes as ‘having the edge’ to be re-engaged in discussion of the learning environment. These included:

• meeting with a member of the collegiate group who taught in the problem subject to explore processes that would enable the learning environment to align teaching with students’ learning needs;

• conduct of a workshop with all faculties in the University to disseminate information on the learning innovations that had been developed within Nursing. The workshop also aimed to foster relationships that could underpin collaborative processes for future enhancement of learning environments necessary for the establishment of future pipelines; and

• development of joint action research proposals that directly focused on the learning needs of Aboriginal students and the applicability of the findings for the management and enhancement of the mainstream learning environment.

The workshop resulted in:

• engagement of all faculties at the University in processes which enabled Aboriginal students in Nursing, the Coordinator of 100 level Nursing Studies, lecturers in Chemistry, Physics and specialist tutors to share their experiences and the benefits they gained from participating in collaborative action research;

• the Specialist Tutor in Nursing being engaged by the Faculty with the problem subject to conduct subject specific literacy tutorials with Aboriginal students. This led to a student learning development focus similar to the process used in Nursing. All students who utilised the tutorial process passed the subject;

• the Faculty not making the tutorials a condition of student entry or change the learning environment for all students; and

• development of joint action research proposals that directly focused on learning needs of Aboriginal students and the applicability of the findings for the management and enhancement of the mainstream learning environment.

The meeting with the collegiate member who wished to explore pedagogical processes that would enable reorientation of the learning environment in the problem subject resulted in the identification of that person as an internal catalyst. At the end of 1996, this internal catalyst has brought about long term change in the subject and in the pedagogical strategies of the collegiate group.

The combination of the initial intervention meeting, the workshop and the joint research process directly contributed to an environment in which the catalyst could pursue change. The combination of activities is similar to the method of introducing a camel into the sheik’s tent.

If you want to introduce a camel into the tent, first parade it around the outside of the tent so that people inside can see its shape and get used to it. Then stand the camel outside the tent entrance. Later put the camel’s head in the tent. Then introduce the camel into the tent as part of the tent dwellers’ community.

Some days after the meeting the Project Director, staff member of the AEC, a lecturer in the problem subject (and member of the collegiate group) met and discussed future directions that could be explored to facilitate a learning environment to enable students to succeed. A clear indication was given by the catalyst that Aboriginal students’ learning needs were an accurate reflection of all students’ needs in the course.

Alternative presentation formats for the subject, which would meet the needs of Aboriginal students and mainstream students, were framed to overcome the distinct misalignment of teaching practice and student learning. A course structure and process was determined that would lead to greater possibilities for effective learning. An assessment of current resources was made and compared with requirements to run the course if the new direction were to be adopted. It was determined that the resource requirements would be able to be reduced if the new mode of teaching went ahead because the student centred direction, which required attention to assisted, independent and collaborative learning opportunities, was not resource intensive. This learning environment was consistent with the direction of the Nursing model.

The long-term outcome of the meeting is that the problem subject has been refocussed through revised teaching processes. Specific changes have been brought about by addressing the delivery process and contribution of tutorials and lectures to learning and assessment. The relative importance of the final examination to total assessment has also been reduced. The lecturer (catalyst) considers that this is having a significant effect on the reorientation of the whole subject. Recognition that Aboriginal student needs and concerns were a direct reflection of mainstream student learning issues has contributed to the reorientation process.

Lecturers devised a series of focus questions that are given to students a week in advance of lecture and tutorial sessions which act as ‘organisers’ to lectures, tutorials and readings, providing students with a frame of reference for learning activities. Students are also provided with a clear indication of the purpose of reading and its relationship with lectures and tutorials a week in advance. These initiatives provide a means of positioning each week’s learning directions within the total context of the course.

Tutorials have been reconstituted so that they consist of small learning groups or clusters of four or five students working on problem solving tasks. Each group passes the information they develop to other groups to make up a jigsaw of the subject material. This process provides a means of engaging students with a total context of theory and practice in the field of study.

Tutorials are now led by tutors instead of student presenting seminar papers. Consequently, all students and lecturers are able to align their efforts with a common focus. Previously tutorials were organised in a manner which required students new to this field of study to prepare seminar papers and present them to other students who were also new to the field of study. The role of the tutor in this situation was that of either critical commentator on novice attempts or passive observer. This situation resulted in novices in the field presenting information to other novices, with the consequence of little in-depth or directed learning taking place. These observations were made by the AEC staff member while auditing the subject in question in order to verify students’ comments (see Appendix 2).

The emphasis is now on learning rather than standards measured by testing which focussed on essay writing ability in the limited time frames of formal exams. This is providing the basis for instituting changes that are leading to the alignment of practice with needs.

The two years that elapsed between the meeting and the action taken is significant. It indicates that the brokerage process needs time to mature and cannot be hurried through. Changes were made possible because the external catalyst’s interactions with the collegiate group provided a basis for intervention which enabled the social relationships that formed the power base of the problem subject to be reflected upon and reformed. The external catalyst’s role enabled the collegiate group to address its relationships, which in turn provided a positive culture for the subject to change. This work provides a useful model for valuing and utilising the contribution of equity groups to the evolution of social arrangements that drive structural and systems change.

Confronting the issue of the problem subject established the basis for ongoing dialogue in areas outside the focus of the initial collegiate group. Significantly, the initial confrontation between the Mentor and the faculty shifted to a state where the AEC was able to propose a learning direction that would incorporate a new partnership with learners, teachers and management. The Mentor’s relationship to the faculty shifted from attempting to convince a collegiate group of a misalignment of teaching models and practice with learners’ needs, to a state in which a collaborative action research proposal was designed and submitted to address learning. The project was nominated by the University for priority funding by the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching (CAUT).

A summary of this CAUT action research proposal is provided in Appendix Three. It demonstrates the ability of research to engage learners, teachers and researchers in reflection and action for enhancement of their learning environment. It was a clear departure from the strategy of utilising the specialist tutor in Nursing to meet students’ learning needs. The research aimed to cooperatively address underlying causes that bring about misalignment of teaching and learning. It also provided a basis for casting all participants as learners and co-researchers.

This change in relationships between the faculty and the historical perception of the AEC as only having a student support function, draws attention to the potential interconnectedness of collegiate groups that make up the total environment within a university and provides an interesting view of networking in action. The direction and sequence of the Mentor’s activity with the Faculty collegiate groups took the form of staged processes or interactions. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 describes the sequence of interactions between the Mentor and two collegiate groups.

Table 5.1: Sequence of Interactions with Collegiate Group 1

The first sequence commenced with the Project Director advancing a perception of teaching while the second sought an opportunity to join for mutual benefit. However, at all times, the Project Director’s interactions were focused on a vision of facilitating learning environments that would underpin pipelines. The focus was not event oriented but was consistent with the community development focus on networking and process. Consequently, interactions with Collegiate Group 1 were able to open relationships for future activity. Simple event orientation would have resulted in not seeking an opportunity for relationships with collegiate and Faculty members beyond the initial sequence.

A meeting with a second collegiate group was organised by the Project Director in consultation with the Dean of the faculty. This second collegiate group consisted of none of the people from Collegiate Group 1; however, the Dean acted as a conduit for the meeting to occur and selected the participants. The Dean also acted as a conduit for Collegiate Group 1 but did not participate in any meetings of either group.

Table 5.2: Sequence of Interactions with Collegiate Group 2

In the sequence of interactions with Collegiate Group 2, opportunities for joint action research were opened up within the faculty. These opportunities occurred as a result of relationships that flowed from the sequence of interactions with Collegiate Group 1 and because of the time taken for maturation of reflections on the meeting and on the issue at hand. More importantly, however, the Mentor was able to reframe his approach to the faculty from ‘advanc[ing] perception of [the learning environment’ to ‘highlight[ing] the opportunity for jointly enhancing the learning environment [through mutually beneficial action research]’ (see Tables 5.1 and 5.2 above).

Table 5.3: Purposes and Foci of Spaces in the Change Process

In the process of the interactions with Collegiate Groups 1 and 2, four spaces that characterise the nature of relationships in the evolution of the change process were identified: Cooperative, Collaborative, Structural and Organisational Spaces. Table 5.3 above summarises the purposes and foci of these spaces.

Figure 5.1 depicts the spaces summarised in Table 5.3 as a continuum.

Figure 5.1: The Continuum of Cooperative, Collaborative, Structural and Organisational Spaces

5.4 Research as a Catalyst for Change

A formal research opportunity through CAUT provided a environment to engage the second collegiate group in a process focused on evolving learning environments that align organisation of learning with learners’ needs. The AEC utilised the development of a joint research proposal to focus AEC and Faculty attention on mutual benefits that could be obtained from cooperative research on learning issues. The research proposal provided a setting for heightening collegiate and faculty awareness of issues and established an auspice to address them.

The submission of the joint research proposal was initiated from a cooperative space and because it was project based, was transformed into a collaborative space in which both groups worked for mutual benefit. This collaborative space generated the time, energy and resources to focus on environments that promote learning. It also encouraged relationships that produce the social capital necessary for establishing and operating a pipeline component in the University.

Relationships developed in the collaborative space provided a basis for processes to pursue formal pipeline agreements with community and employer groups in the Faculty’s professional field. Learning environments necessary for the success of Aboriginal students are a central consideration of the pipeline development process. The collaborative space enables the development of a shared vision between the community, employers and educators for qualified and professionally employed Aborigines in the field.

This aligns with the Nursing experience where the foundation of the work was in a shared vision between the AEC Mentor, Department of Nursing’s Coordinator of 100 level Nursing studies and later, the Head of the LDC. The time, energy and resources for framing the research direction grew out of the collaborative space between Nursing and the AEC. The time energy and resources to actively pursue the direction came from networking the AEC, the Department of Nursing and the LDC.

The joint AEC and Nursing activity was successful in attracting funds from a variety of mainstream research and community sources. This resulted in the development of a structural space between the AEC and Nursing to address Nursing education for Aborigines and employment issues. People in the community became so aware of the project that it was referred to as: ‘Wollongong’s Aboriginal Nursing program’.

The conduct of the program was dependent upon educational processes that made up the organisational space. This organisational space differs from structural space (or administrative reference point) in that it is the operational level of the Nursing program. For example, the inter-weaving of specialist tutorials and discipline areas, and the alignment of teaching and learning strategies with students’ needs occur within the organisational space.

The community development processes used in the Nursing project led to a model for development of the social capital necessary for Aborigines to succeed in tertiary education. The work undertaken with the Nursing Department increased the stock of human capital that Aboriginal people held in Nursing because it produced qualified Registered Nurses. The process has continued to align teaching with the diverse needs of learners in a variety of tertiary nurse education contexts over a period of years. This is continuing to occur because the relationships that underlie the academic learning development network have been incorporated into Nurse education. Consequently, it is generating social capital which enables Nursing students beyond the time frame of the action research project to succeed in tertiary education.

5.5 Acceptance of Change Process Through Leverage

The processes and network analysis employed in the Nursing project and the interaction with other faculties are in accord with Senge’s principle of leverage:

... small, well focused actions [that] can produce significant, enduring improvements, if they’re in the right place. Systems thinkers refer to this principle as ‘leverage’.

Tackling a difficult problem is often a matter of seeing where the high leverage lies, a change which - with a minimum of effort - would lead to lasting, significant improvement...

There are no simple rules for finding high-leverage changes, but there are ways of thinking that make it more likely. Learning to see underlying ‘structures’ rather than ‘events’ is a starting point; ...Thinking in terms of processes rather than ‘snapshots’ is another (Senge 1992, p. 64–65).

The process of networking and the principle of anchorage enabled identification of the range of cultures that needed to be brought into relationship if a pipeline were to occur. This was also supported by the principle of systems boundary:

... interactions that must be examined are those most important to the issue at hand, regardless of parochial organisational boundaries (Senge 1992, p. 66).

Research enabled relationships between the structural roles (student, teacher and researcher) to be developed so that needs were able to be brought together and addressed for mutual benefit, which was the lever to initiate the change process.

These would contribute to the learning environment necessary for pipeline construction and operation.

Table 5.4 below illustrates the needs of particular groups as they relate to structural roles.

Table 5.4: Structural Roles and Needs of Students, Lecturers and Researchers

Research provided context for leverage by bringing all roles into reflective relationships for mutual benefit. Teachers, researchers and students engaged in processes that individually and jointly challenged their practice in the context of their espoused theories-in-use of quality learning environments. It enabled all parties to reassess their directions, to conceive strategies and take actions directed toward learning environments that better met collective needs.

Therefore research enabled reflection and action on learning environments to become public activity. The public dimension of research enabled participants to witness their learning theories-in-use and to begin processes of identifying and shifting from theories-in-use Model I where:

There are inconsistencies in organisational theory-in-use, which are perceived in win-lose terms. Groups learn to protect themselves, to form coalitions with other groups to enhance their positions, and to withhold or distort information that may increase their vulnerability (Argyris et al. 1985, pp. 97–98).

Participants shifted to theories-in-use Model II where:

The governing variables ... include (1) valid information, (2) free and informed choice, and (3) internal commitment. ... Creating conditions in which these values are realised is the primary task of the interventionist [external catalyst] (Argyris 1970 cited in Argyris et al. 1985, p. 98).

The behavioural strategies ... involve sharing control with those who have competence and who participate in designing or implementing the action. Rather than unilateral advocacy (Model I) or inquiry that conceals the agent’s own views (opposite Model), in Model II the agent combines advocacy and inquiry. Attributions and evaluations are illustrated with relatively directly observable data, and the surfacing of conflicting views is encouraged in order to facilitate public testing of them (Argyris et al. 1985, pp. 98; 102).

Research provided the context for people to engage in pursuing mutual benefits that allowed spaces to occur. Therefore, consideration of mutual benefits facilitated people’s movement from Model I to Model II.

5.5.1 Community Development, Learning and Research

Community development provided a context which enabled research to connect personal learning and organisational learning. It provided a long term process orientation in which personal development could be used to facilitate personal, collegiate and faculty visions of learning and equity as a resource. Most importantly the process orientation of community development fostered:

reciprocal commitments between individual and organisation essential to a spirit of enterprise made up of learners (Senge 1992, p. 9).

The major gains in Acute Care Nursing and Nursing Science subjects (Physics, Chemistry) were undertaken without major sources of funds. The key resided in accessing people who could facilitate learning networks. The development of relationships and use of the credibility base that had been developed from the total direction of work, previously undertaken with nursing, provided a key for changes in learning.

In all cases the development of relationships provided the basis for cooperative and collaborative space from which to align the organisation of learning and needs. The process and direction of relationships is also providing the social capital necessary for current and future students to succeed.

Processes for the development of relationship networks in which teachers, learners and researchers can evolve cooperative and collaborative spaces are keys to realise mutual benefit. Generation of safe environments for all parties to join, participate and experience research processes that provide mutual benefit to all parties is a primary consideration for future activity. The following issues need to be considered in order to assist people to engage in collaborative learning research in their discipline areas:

• Learning research—what is it?
• How is it conducted?
• Who can be involved?
• How can it be resourced?
• What are the benefits for participants?
• How it is to be valued by the University and what form of recognition will be given to publicly demonstrate that value?

The process of delivering the information and networking student, teacher and research roles will be critical for the reorientation of learning environments.

5.6 Conclusion

Chapter 5 addressed processes that were employed to extend the educational initiatives developed in the Nursing pipeline to other areas of the University. The central role of collegiate groups and the importance of developing cooperative, collaborative, structural and organisational spaces were discussed.

The potential intersection of learning development and staff development was identified as a key area of interest for the transformation of tertiary level pedagogy from teaching and instruction to the facilitation of learning environments so that learning takes place. It provided a means of challenging teachers’ beliefs that quality teaching materials provide necessary and sufficient conditions for quality learning environments and that pedagogical skills are a secondary consideration and poor relation.

The chapter also emphasised that development of learning environments and learning requires students, teachers and researchers to address their mental models or theories-in-use and practice of teaching and learning. It also recognised the need for people to address resistance to change in the context of entrenched patterns and distribution of authority and control that circumscribe and determine the character of the learning environment and culture. It pointed out that the collegiate groups that make up the teaching staff resources have a large degree of control in the way that learning environments are created, maintained, developed and resourced. The nexus of personal development and learning development provided a means of addressing the reorientation of teaching to learning. The chapter further identified and utilised research as a context for aligning the needs of teachers, students and researchers in a manner that enabled the parties to engage in action for mutual benefit.

The chapter provided an analysis of action taken by the Project Director to address students’ learning issues in a field dominated by the teaching paradigm and provided extended commentary on the interactions undertaken to bring about change. It reported on the primary intervention and on a range of subsequent interactions with staff in a ‘problem subject’, finishing with an observation of the state of the change process in the learning environment and the pecking order in the collegiate group two years after the initial intervention.

The chapter also recognised that the identified patient label applied to Aboriginal students, in Chapter 2, was synonymous with the labelling of the ‘problem subject’. The real issue was the politics of the collegiate group, which supported teaching as the dominant paradigm, at the expense of learning.

The chapter concluded by drawing on processes used in the Nursing pipeline and ‘problem subject’ to address the central role of collegiate groups in facilitating learning. This led to the identification of cooperative, collaborative, structural and organisational spaces that were formed in the process of reorienting teaching to a learning focus. It also provided a means of utilising research as a context to harness the power of collegiate groups so that student, teacher and researcher roles were brought into relationship to generate quality learning outcomes for the benefit of all parties.

Chapter 6 concludes this report.

Footnotes

¹ Whilst the term ‘problem subject’ would seem an inadequate label, particularly in the light of the adoption in this report of Mindell's (1992) criticism of the identified patient concept, it is nevertheless an apt shorthand description drawing attention to the social relationships and collegiate power issues that enabled it to exist in its problematic form. The real issue for change is the social relationships that prevented catalysts for change being able to operate. Many criticisms of content, teaching strategies, assessment and access to teaching staff have been documented, but without a change in the social relationships in operation, change in these elements could not be brought about.     [Return to text]

² see Lincoln & Guba 1990, pp. 347–351 for the methodology of categorisation.     [Return to text]

³ see Chapter 4 for the Nursing experience.     [Return to text]

[Return to Top]