Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

ISSN: 1360-080X (Print) 1469-9508 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhe20

Assessing distributed leadership for learning and

teaching quality: a multi-institutional study

Angela Carbone, Julia Evans, Bella Ross, Steve Drew, Liam Phelan, Katherine
Lindsay, Caroline Cottman, Susan Stoney & Jing Ye

To cite this article: Angela Carbone, Julia Evans, Bella Ross, Steve Drew, Liam Phelan, Katherine
Lindsay, Caroline Cottman, Susan Stoney & Jing Ye (2017) Assessing distributed leadership for
learning and teaching quality: a multi-institutional study, Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 39:2, 183-196, DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276629

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276629

Published online: 07 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 88

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjhe20

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 30 March 2017, At: 11:34
JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, 2017
VOL. 39, NO. 2, 183–196
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276629

Assessing distributed leadership for learning and teaching

quality: a multi-institutional study
Angela Carbonea, Julia Evansa, Bella Rossb, Steve Drewc, Liam Pheland,
Katherine Lindsaye, Caroline Cottmanf, Susan Stoneyg and Jing Yea
a
Monash University Office of Learning and Teaching, Monash University, Caulfield, Australia; bFaculty of
Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Student Academic Support Unit, Monash University, Caulfield,
Australia; cTasmanian Institute of Learning and Teaching, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia;
d
Graduate School, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; eNewcastle Law School, Faculty of
Business and Law, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; fCentre for Support and Advancement
for Learning and Teaching, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Australia; gCentre for Learning
and Development, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Distributed leadership has been explored internationally as a Collaborative professional
leadership model that will promote and advance excellence in development;
learning and teaching in higher education. This paper presents higher education; peer
assisted teaching scheme
an assessment of how effectively distributed leadership was
enabled at five Australian institutions implementing a collabora-
tive teaching quality development scheme called the Peer
Assisted Teaching Scheme. The Scheme brings together exper-
tise from teams of academics, coordinators, and institutional
learning and teaching portfolio holders to the shared goal of
enhancing learning and teaching quality. A distributed leader-
ship benchmarking tool was used to assess the Scheme’s effec-
tiveness, and we found that (i) the Scheme is highly consistent
with the distributed leadership benchmarks, and that (ii) the
benchmarking tool is easily used in assessing the alignment (or
otherwise) of teaching and learning quality initiatives with dis-
tributed leadership benchmarks. This paper will be of interest to
those seeking to assess implementations of distributed leader-
ship to improve teaching quality and leadership capacity.

Introduction
Distributed leadership has provided a lens for analysing routines, tools and norms of
leadership practice within organisations (Bolden, Petrov, & Gosling, 2009; Harris, 2004;
Spillane, 2006). The concept is best understood as the thinking and practice ‘that
emerges in the execution of leadership tasks in and through the interactivity of leaders,
followers and situation’ (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004, p. 27). Distributed
leadership does not dismiss hierarchical structures, nor does it exclude those in senior
leadership positions; it provokes a shift in their purpose and focus. Earlier studies

CONTACT Angela Carbone angela.carbone@monash.edu Monash University Office of Learning and Teaching,
Monash University, PO Box 197 Caulfield, VIC 3145, Australia
© 2017 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and Management
184 A. CARBONE ET AL.

(Bolden et al., 2009; Harris, 2005; Woods, Bennett, Harvey, & Wise, 2004) have shown
that distributed leadership consists of three distinctive elements:

● Concertive action (Gronn, 2002) where leadership emerges when people work
together in such a way that they pool their initiative and expertise. The outcome
is greater than the sum of their individual actions.
● An openness of boundaries, that widens the net of leaders, questioning which
individuals and groups are to be brought into leadership or seen as contributors
to it (Bennett, Wise, Woods, & Harvey, 2003).
● Breadth and depth of expertise is distributed across the many and not primarily
localised in formal hierarchal organisational structures or positions (Bennett et al.,
2003).

More recently in Australia, building leadership capacity in higher education has

attracted attention. One recent study created a common understanding of how
distributed leadership is conceptualised and practiced in higher education (Jones,
Harvey, Lefoe, & Ryland, 2012). The Jones et al.’s (2012) study, and subsequent
work on distributed leadership in higher education, has contributed to the broader,
international exploration of the nexus between leadership and learning and teaching
in higher education (Davis & Jones, 2014; Hempsall, 2014). Some leadership theories
from outside the higher education context that have been considered in regards to
their potential in understanding this nexus include: situational leadership (Graeff,
1997; Vroom & Yetton, 1973), charismatic leadership (Conger, 1989), transforma-
tional leadership (Bass, 1998; Burns, 1978) and leader-member exchange (Brass, 1984;
Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1998). These theories tend to favour formal structures, relation-
ships and characteristics of individual leaders that often prevail in private, corporate
and public sector management. Leadership informed by such theories has been
found to be not generally well suited to higher education because of the strong
desire in higher education for collegiality, consultation and academic freedom
(Bolden et al., 2009; Heinrich, 2013; Yielder & Codling, 2004). McMaster (2014)
provides a higher education practitioner’s perspective of leadership which empha-
sises an inclusive approach through bringing in appropriate people from different
parts of the organisation to reflect on their expertise, with the intent of improving
teaching and learning practices.
For this study, the Jones, Hadgraft, Harvey, Lefoe and Ryland (2014) distributed leader-
ship benchmarking tool is applied to assess the extent that the Peer Assisted Teaching
Scheme (Carbone, 2011, 2014) realises the elements and benefits of distributed leadership at
five institutions. The paper is structured as follows: section two explores the current
literature on distributed leadership in the context of higher education and introduces the
core features of Jones et al.’s (2014) distributed leadership evaluation framework. Section
three outlines the research methodology, and provides a brief outline of the Peer Assisted
Teaching Scheme as a professional development initiative designed to build leadership
capacity among faculty through mentorship and collaboration to improve the quality of
teaching and student satisfaction (Carbone, 2014). Section four presents the assessment of
the distributed leadership potential of the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme. In doing so, it
provides an exemplar application of the benchmarking tool to demonstrate its ease of use.
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 185

Distributed leadership
The case for distributed leadership in higher education
Internationally, there has been much interest in distributed leadership as a model for
leadership in higher education. Implementing distributed leadership can provide for
culture and structure that is likely to encourage individuals to be: accountable for
change and development; empowered and motivated to take responsibility for change;
and, engaged with others in the emotional work of building collaborative, trusting
relationships (Harris, 2005). As such, leadership is constructed through action and
interaction that is dispersed across the institution and evident within systems, activities,
practices and relationships (Bolden et al., 2009).
The Australian Federal Government has increased emphasis on excellence in learn-
ing and teaching in higher education to respond to significant changes in the Australian
higher education context. Changes include the growing and changing student profile,
rapid advances in learning technologies, internationalisation of education and commer-
cialisation of institutional operations (Cummings, Chalmers, Stoney, Herrington, &
Elliot, 2014; James et al., 2015). Simultaneously, building leadership capacity in higher
education is seen as ‘fundamental to the promotion and advancement of learning and
teaching’ (Leadership for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, 2013, p. 7).
Some studies identify barriers to successful implementation of distributed lea-
dership that are relevant to higher education. These include, but are not limited to
(i) institutional structures creating competitive silos, (ii) slow decision-making
processes, (iii) reduced clarity of roles, (iv) underestimations of individual ability
and (v) unrealistic expectations of performance – all of which significantly impact
on collegiality, collaboration and the distribution of leadership (Bolden et al.,
2009; Harris, 2005).

Benchmarking distributed leadership

The potential of distributed leadership in Australian higher education has been
explored through a series of projects (Barber, Jones, & Novak, 2009; Chesterton et al.,
2008; Harvey, 2008; Lefoe, Parrish, Hart, Smigiel, & Pannan, 2008). These projects have
primarily focused on improving leadership capacity through changes to institutional
structures and placing leaders in formal roles. However, little is known about how, and
in what form, distributed leadership contributes to increasing leadership capacity in
higher education. Compounding this are the numerous terms and definitions of
distributed leadership which makes distributed leadership easier to describe than define
(Harris & Spillane, 2008; Jones et al., 2012).
Jones et al. (2012) reviews a number of studies to determine areas of commonality
where distributed leadership in Australian higher education built leadership capacity for
quality learning and teaching outcomes. Four commonalities emerged, including (i)
recognising interdependence and relationships with others, (ii) adapting to new ideas,
ambiguity and change, (iii) leveraging excellence in others through mentoring and
collaboration, and (iv) engaging in reflective practice as an individual and within a
group in order to achieve shared goals (Jones et al., 2012, pp. 2–3).
186 A. CARBONE ET AL.

Adopting an inquiry-based action research methodology, Jones et al. (2012, 2014)

advanced these areas of commonality in regards to the concept and practice of
distributed leadership in higher education. Jones et al. (2012, p. 21) described distrib-
uted leadership for learning and teaching as:
. . . a leadership approach in which collaborative work is undertaken between individuals
who trust and respect each other’s contribution. It occurs as a result of an open culture
within and across an institution. It is an approach in which reflective practice is an integral
part enabling actions to be critiqued, challenged and developed through cycles of planning,
action, reflection and assessment and replanning. It happens most effectively when people
at all levels engage in action, accepting leadership in their particular areas of expertise. It
requires resources that support and enable collaborative environments together with a
flexible approach to space, time and finance which occur as a result of diverse contextual
settings in an institution. Through shared and active engagement, distributed leadership
can result in the development of leadership capacity to sustain improvements in teaching
and learning.

Jones et al. (2012) found four common features of effective support for distributed
leadership: involvement of people, evidence of supportive policies and processes,
provision of professional development, and resources being made available. These
were later articulated into five domains (engage, enable, enact, assess and emergent)
(Jones et al., 2014). One output of Jones et al.’s work was a benchmarking tool to guide
the evaluation of these domains in practice, discussed in section four below.

Research methodology
This study was initiated because it was apparent to the authors that the Peer Assisted
Teaching Scheme embodied a number of the qualities of distributed leadership articu-
lated in Jones et al.’s (2012, 2014) work. We used Jones et al. (2014) distributed
leadership benchmarking tool to assess the implementation of distributed leadership
in higher education for the purpose of improved learning and teaching. The analysis
and comparison of data across multiple diverse Australian institutions allowed this
study to explore how well distributed leadership was implemented using the Peer
Assisted Teaching Scheme as a vehicle.
The data reported here comprise benchmarking outcomes compiled from the qualitative
interviews with the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme coordinators that drew on their
application of the tool and their experiences during the initial trial and ongoing use of
the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme in their own institutions. The analysis of the data
collected from the two sources combined a case study methodology (Yin, 2014) with a
mixed-methods approach (Bazeley, 2012). Case study methodology was chosen as it
provided for in-depth and detailed insights into the experiences of the participants in
each of the institutions using both quantitative data (generated through use of the bench-
marking tool) and qualitative interview data. The mixed-methods approach facilitated the
triangulation of data to identify common themes and emerging concepts. The data were
analysed thematically by the lead researcher and subsequently systematically (co-)analysed
and (co)checked by each of the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme coordinators.
Each of the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme coordinators at the five Australian
universities completed the benchmarking tool – described below. The institutions
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 187

Table 1. Benchmarking results.

Distributed leadership benchmarking tool domains
Engage Enable Enact Assess Emergent Mean
Mean 3.7 4.0 3.8 3.2 3.7 3.7
Institution
A – Metropolitan Victoria (MV) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.7 4.6
B – Regional New South Wales 4.3 4.8 4.0 3.7 4.7 4.3
2.6 3.9 2.5 1.7 2.3 2.6
C – Metropolitan Queensland (MQ) 4.3 4.3 4.8 4.0 4.7 4.4
D – Regional Queensland (RQ) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.1
E – Metropolitan Western Australia (MWA) 3.3 3.8 3.5 2.3 2.3 3.0

were chosen for this paper based on the maturity of the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme
in practice and the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme coordinators implementation
experiences. Coordinators completed the benchmarking tool separately, but with gui-
dance from the lead researcher to ensure consistency in the way each domain was
interpreted. The benchmarking process took between 1–4 hours per institution depend-
ing on the extent of the implementation of the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme.
Individual ratings from each institution were collated, with a mean for each element
provided (refer to Table 1). Following completion of the benchmarking tool, the
coordinators were interviewed by the lead researcher.
The interviews focused on applying the benchmarking tool in relation to the Peer
Assisted Teaching Scheme as a distributed leadership model and took around 1 hour
per institution. During each interview, the researcher asked the coordinators to justify
their rating based on their own data, documented evidence and experience of Peer
Assisted Teaching Scheme during the trial. Coordinators were also asked to outline any
challenges they faced in applying the benchmarking tool. The interviews were recorded
by transcribing comments and clarified responses in a template benchmarking tool.
Once completed, all responses from the coordinators were consolidated into one master
benchmarking tool template for thematic analysis.

Outline of the distributed leadership benchmarking tool

The Jones et al. (2014) benchmarking tool guides users to evaluate the five distributed
leadership domains in practice, namely engage, enable, enact, assess and emergent.
Engage refers to ‘distributed leadership [that] engages a broad range of participants
from all relevant functions, disciplines, groups and levels’ (Jones et al., 2014, p. 26).
Enable refers to distributed leadership evident through a ‘context of trust and a culture
of respect coupled with effective change through collaborative relationships’ (Jones
et al., 2014, p. 26). The enact domain focuses on the involvement of people, the design
of processes, the provision of support and the implementation of systems in distributed
leadership (Jones et al., 2014). The assess domain relates the use of ‘multiple sources of
evidence to evaluate increased engagement, collaboration and growth in leadership
capacity’ (Jones et al., 2014, p. 27). The final domain, emergent, refers to distributed
leadership as nurtured and sustained through cycles of action research (Jones et al.,
2014). The benchmarking tool template provides some commentary on each domain
188 A. CARBONE ET AL.

and requires a rating against the following scale: 1–2 beginning/developing, 3–4 func-
tional/proficient and 5 accomplished/exemplary (Jones et al., 2014).

Peer assisted teaching scheme as a vehicle for distributed leadership

The trial of the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme was part of a National Senior Teaching
Fellowship sponsored by the Australian Government’s Office for Learning and
Teaching (Carbone, 2014). Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme was piloted in 2009 in one
faculty at one Australian university to address low student satisfaction with the quality
of courses and build leadership capacity in academics. Demonstrated improvements in
the level of student satisfaction with courses in the pilot (Carbone, Wong, & Ceddia,
2011) led to a trial of the Scheme in other disciplines at that same university. Peer
Assisted Teaching Scheme has subsequently been supported by national grants to
expand the trial and tailor the Scheme across several Australian universities. In practice,
the period in which the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme has been operating and the
extent to which the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme is supported and established varies
across universities.
Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme is a semester-long collegial mentoring partnership
scheme with a structured framework. Partners work with a peer or mentor (informal
leaders) to identify and prioritise aspects of learning and teaching requiring reinvigoration
(Carbone, 2011, 2014). Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme coordinators (programme leaders)
engage with participants and the institution’s central learning and teaching divisions and
facilitate participants’ engagement in the programme. Participants are asked to complete a
series of seven tasks throughout a semester that guide the identification of barriers to
quality teaching, establish goals and strategies, gather early semester student feedback, and
engage in a cycle of critical reflection and peer review (illustrated in Figure 1). For the final
Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme task, participants are required to capture both the qualita-
tive and quantitative changes in their performance as it relates to teaching improvement,
educational leadership and education standing.

Results and discussion

The Jones et al. (2014) benchmarking tool was designed to assist users to identify
actions that will enable distributed leadership in higher education. Engaging in this
activity, the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme was viewed through the lens of distributed

Figure 1. The Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme process (Carbone, 2011).

 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 189

leadership with the benchmarking tool providing a new model and vocabulary to
discuss the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme. While practices internal to the Peer
Assisted Teaching Scheme are common across institutions, the Scheme is implemented
and integrated differently across institutions.
Table 1 presents the individual benchmarking results for each domain and a mean
rating. Collectively, the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme experiences rate well against
all domains, with a total mean of 3.7 (out of 5). As determined by the application of
the benchmarking tool, the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme is ‘functional and profi-
cient’ in implementing distributed leadership. Ratings were higher in institutions
where Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme has been operating longer and is well sup-
ported (institutions A, B and C). Lower ratings in some of the institutions were found
to be attributed to the Scheme being isolated to one faculty and championed by only
one or two individuals.

Domain 1: Engage
Table 2 presents the combined appraisal for the engage domain (3.7 out of 5), showing
that the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme is ‘functional and proficient’ in realising
distributed leadership in terms of how it involves and leverages relationships within
and across the institution. Table 2 outlines the elements in greater detail and presents
the individual self-assessment ratings.
The findings reveal that the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme is effective in imple-
menting this domain of distributed leadership – the broad engagement of a range of
participants from relevant levels and functions. Evidence emerged of a range of
experiences of how formal leaders were engaged in supporting the Scheme, from the
highest level university Learning and Teaching Committee approving the Scheme as a
strategic unit enhancement programme through to more grassroots support from a
single faculty. Informal leaders involved were readily identified, such as the coordina-
tors and mentors who were selected based on their reputation and expertise by the Peer
Assisted Teaching Scheme participants. This is equally true for discipline and functional
experts, who were often involved due to the value they added to individual goals.
Examples of a broad range of participants were found to be curriculum advisors,

Table 2. Domain 1: Engage.

Formal leaders (academic
and professional) Informal leaders Discipline experts Functional experts
Formal leaders proactively Staff participate in learning Academics from relevant Professional staff
support initiatives and teaching disciplines contribute their contribute their relevant
through attendance at enhancement and are discipline expertise to functional expertise to
meetings, publication of recognised for their initiatives either through initiatives either through
activities and other expertise through good self-nomination or peer self-nomination or peer
sponsorship activities. practice. nomination. nomination.
A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E
5 3a 2b 5 3 3 5 5a 5b 4 3 4 5 4a 2.5b 4 3 4 3 5a 1b 4 3 2
3.5 4.3 3.8 3.0
Overall mean for the domain: 3.7 functional/proficient
a
School 1, University B.
b
School 2, University B.
190 A. CARBONE ET AL.

learning design consultants, workshop facilitators and administrators. An example from

a coordinator illustrates:
Professional staff attend meetings and create local protocols to embed Peer Assisted
Teaching Scheme as a process at the Faculty level [and the engagement] of curriculum
consultants and blended learning advisors add[s] particular expertise. (Institution C)

Two institutions provided examples of barriers to implementing this domain of dis-

tributed leadership, where broad engagement of others was limited to professional staff
only being involved in a support capacity – such as managing activities, administration,
data collection and reporting – rather than offering leadership drawing on their
professional expertise.

Domain 2: Enable
Table 3 presents the individual self-assessment ratings against the enable domain. The
extent to which the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme implements this domain was found
to be ‘functional and proficient’ (4.0 out of 5).
The participating institutions agreed that the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme process
facilitates – and indeed, relies on – a context of trust and a culture of respect. Peer
Assisted Teaching Scheme participants select mentors who they respect and trust and
the Scheme’s prescribed tasks foster rapport building, establishing goals, identifying
obstacles and developing forward plans. A Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme coordinator
said:
Structured opportunities through Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme tasks allow for mentor
and participant to share stories and determine a focus in a highly confidential arrangement
that build trust between each other and in the process. (Institution B)

The benchmarking process showed strong support for the Scheme’s ability to foster
collegial collaborative relationships for improving teaching quality. The Peer Assisted
Teaching Scheme requires a mentor and connections to be made with discipline and
teaching practice experts to help achieve the individual’s goals. Extending this, Peer

Table 3. Domain 2: Enable.

Acceptance of need for
Context of trust Culture of respect change Collaborative relationships
Decisions made in initiatives Decisions made in Initiatives combine formal Participants in initiatives
are based on respect for initiatives are shared leadership authority, are provided with
and confidence in the between all participants relevant rules and professional
knowledge, skills and based on their expertise regulations and the development
expertise of academics and strengths. expertise of staff in an opportunities as well as
and professional staff in integrated top-down, experienced facilitators
addition to the relevant bottom – and middle-up and mentors to
rules and regulations. approach. encourage collaborative
decision-making.
A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E
4 5a 4b 4 4 4 4 5a 4b 4 3 3 5 4a 3.5b 4 3 3 5 5a 4b 5 2 5
4.2 3.8 3.8 4.3
Overall mean for the domain: 4.0 functional/proficient
a
School 1, University B.
b
School 2, University B.
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 191

Assisted Teaching Scheme encourages participants to attend professional development

workshops or events providing greater opportunities to connect with peers with the
same developmental needs and form communities of practice. The Peer Assisted
Teaching Scheme coordinator from Institution F noted that ‘Professional
Development is scheduled frequently [for Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme participants
and through this] mentors and experts are identified and dyads and triads are formed to
share expertise and encouragement’.
The findings suggest that distributed leadership is successful when trust and respect
are in play in collaborative relationships. The Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme provided
many examples of this domain of distributed leadership in action by how it nurtures
relationships encouraged by the Scheme’s structure and through regular, informal
meetings supported by the institution.

Domain 3: Enact
Table 4 presents the individual self-assessment ratings against the enact domain. The
combined appraisal shows that the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme is ‘functional and
proficient’ (3.8 out of 5) for this domain.
In applying the benchmarking tool, multiple examples of how the Peer Assisted
Teaching Scheme supports distributed leadership in practice emerged. The Peer
Assisted Teaching Scheme activates the involvement of people including formal leaders,
coordinators, experts, mentors, students and the participants themselves (see Domain 1:
Engage, Table 1). Evidence of participative processes surfaced, specifically on how the
Scheme provides a scaffold for individuals to strengthen their participation in commu-
nities of practice. The provision of support was evident across all five universities.
Examples include faculties providing funding to both the Peer Assisted Teaching
Scheme participants and mentors, time relief, workload adjustments and free coffee
vouchers to encourage informal catch-ups. As the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme
coordinators reported:
We’re using Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme explicitly to foster collegiality amongst folks
teaching sessionally for the most part, and in some cases, who are remotely located,
(Institution B)

and,

Table 4. Domain 3: Enact.

Involvement of people
Initiatives identify and
encourage the participation
of experts from among all
relevant academic and
professional staff.
A B C D E A B
5 5a 3.5b 5 3 4 4 4a 3.5b 5 3 4
4.3
Overall mean for the domain: 3.8 functional/proficient
a
School 1, University B.
b
School 2, University B.
Design of participative Integration and alignment of
processes Provision of support systems
Communities of practice Space, time and finance Systems are aligned to
and other networking for collaborative ensure that decisions
opportunities are initiatives are arising from initiatives are
encouraged and provided. integrated into formal
supported. policy and processes.
C D E A B C D E A B C D E
5 5a 1.5b 4 4 4 4 2a 1.5b 5 2 2
4.0 4.0 2.8
192 A. CARBONE ET AL.

A Teaching & Learning Network has been established with regular contacts and events.
(Institution E)

Integrating and aligning the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme into existing systems was
strengthened at two institutions through top-down senior leader support and centra-
lised policies. At one institution, the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme is named as a
source of valid evidence to support promotion recommendations, grants and award
submissions. A challenge in implementing this domain of distributed leadership was
noted for Institution B and Institution D, where progress in integrating the Peer
Assisted Teaching Scheme occurred at different rates mainly due to competing organi-
sational priorities:
Time is the key difficulty for Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme. [The] university culture
prioritises research time over learning and teaching. Mentors are torn about how to spend
their time, (Institution B)

and,
[the] Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme process is developmental and cyclical – although
heavily dependent on the role of the central Coordinator to organise partnerships and
maintain/prompt ongoing participation. (Institution D)

The analysis shows that distributed leadership targeting improved learning and teaching
practices can be successfully implemented through a well-designed scheme that involves
the right people and suitable support mechanisms. This is reflected in the Peer Assisted
Teaching Scheme, with its well-structured process, support from senior and middle
management, and involvement by the right practitioners and the Scheme coordinators.

Domain 4: Assess
Table 5 presents the individual self-assessment ratings against the assess domain. The
combined appraisal shows that the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme is ‘functional and
proficient’ (3.2 out of 5) for this domain.
The results reflect the challenges the participating universities had in integrating and
aligning the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme to institutional systems. The two specific
challenges that were found to impact the implementation of this domain of distributed
leadership were the speed at which formal leaders came to support the Peer Assisted

Table 5. Domain 4: Assess.

Increased engagement Increased collaboration Growth in leadership capacity
Performance review processes Data (such as university cultural surveys; Participation in initiatives is
acknowledge individual collaborative grant applications related to recognised and rewarded.
engagement in initiatives. learning and teaching enhancement; and
collaborative publications) identify evidence
of increased collaborative activity between
staff.
A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E
4 4a 2b 4 3 2 5 4a 1.5b 4 3 3 5 3a 1.5b 4 3 2
3.2 3.4 3.1
Overall mean for the domain: 3.2 functional/proficient
a
School 1, University B.
b
School 2, University B.
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 193

Teaching Scheme and that [the] Scheme was yet to be adopted into the formal
performance review process:
Heads of Schools are slowly beginning to refer staff to [Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme]
once the student evaluations are released. They are building the Peer Assisted Teaching
Scheme into their performance review processes. (Institution E)

Evidence of increased collaboration in the form of mentors and Peer Assisted Teaching
Scheme participants jointly applying for learning and teaching grants and writing joint
publications was common across all five institutions. In turn, this had a positive
influence on growth in leadership capacity with evidence of Peer Assisted Teaching
Scheme participants becoming mentors, mentors being promoted to more senior
leadership roles and their achievement recognised through awards and certification:
Participants use Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme participation evidence in Awards, Grants,
Professional Portfolios, and Promotions applications, (Institution C)

and,
Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme mentors and mentees are drawn into community of
practice opportunities, and contribute meaningfully to faculty learning and teaching
days. (Institution B)

Using the benchmarking tool highlighted the multiple sources of quantitative and
qualitative evidence the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme generates to evaluate the
effectiveness of distributed leadership in practice. The tool highlights the strength of
the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme’s ability to positively influence growing leadership
capacity, which is further reinforced in evidence reported from Peer Assisted Teaching
Scheme participants (see multi-institutional evidence in Carbone (2014)).

Domain 5: Emergent
Table 6 presents the individual self-assessment ratings against the emergent domain.
The combined appraisal shows that the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme is ‘functional
and proficient’ (3.7 out of 5) in implementing this domain.
Reflective practice is built into several stages of the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme
process and draws on Brookfield’s (1995) four lenses of reflection that engage teachers
in critical reflection on their practice: (i) systematic self-reflection, (ii) reflecting on the
student voice (sourced for example through evaluation data and mid-semester focus
group feedback), (iii) drawing on peer observation and (iv) learning from scholarly

Table 6. Domain 5: Emergent.

Participative action research process Reflective practice Continuous improvement
An action research process that encourages Reflective practice is built into Output from each stage of the
participation through cycles of activity initiatives as a formal practice and initiative will be sustained.
underpins the initiative. stage of the initiative.
A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E
5 5a 3.5b 5 3.5 2 5 5a 3.5b 5 3.5 3 4 4a 0b 4 3.5 2
4.0 4.2 3.0
Overall mean for the domain: 3.7 functional/proficient
a
School 1, University B.
b
School 2, University B.
194 A. CARBONE ET AL.

literature. Reflection was incorporated into lecturers’ e-portfolios at two institutions.

The Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme has provided evidence of iterative improvement in
practice informed by embedded reflection:
Many participants have engaged in multiple Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme cycles for the
development of one or more units. With [an] effective participant mix there has been
evidence of movement towards quality goals that are set/reset in the Peer Assisted
Teaching Scheme process. (Institution C)

The Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme also provokes broader reflection on its ability to
more effectively implement distribution leadership in higher education. Ongoing institu-
tional cycles of review identify course units requiring improvement, future participants
and emerging disciplinary experts suitable for mentoring. More reflexively, strategies are
evaluated for further supporting, promoting and measuring the Peer Assisted Teaching
Scheme across the institution. These are examples of continuous improvements that
reinforce the success and sustainability of the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme, such as
course or unit improvements, increased student satisfaction, course and teaching quality,
and strengthened communities of practice and professional connections.

Conclusion
We used Jones et al.’s (2014) benchmarking tool to assess distributed leadership as
evidenced by the implementation of the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme in five diverse
Australian higher education institutions. The Scheme demonstrated a high level of
alignment in multiple institutional contexts, and was found to be strongly aligned
with distributed leadership benchmarks, based on its inherent focus on individuals’
expertise, and strong encouragement of collegiality. The results show evidence of the
collective strengths of Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme across the five domains of Jones
et al.’s (2014) distributed leadership evaluation model which encapsulate the core
elements of distributed leadership. In instances where the Peer Assisted Teaching
Scheme was well supported, the ratings across the five benchmarking domains were
higher than where the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme was less well supported.
At the time of this study, Jones et al.’s (2014) distributed leadership benchmarking
tool was novel and the work undertaken here is one of its first applications in the higher
education context. We demonstrate through this study that the benchmarking tool is
easy to use in practice. Further work in this area could centre on using the benchmark-
ing tool both to enable distributed leadership in existing learning and teaching initia-
tives in higher education, and to inform the design and development of new initiatives
that strongly align with the distributed leadership benchmarks. The findings of this
research will be used to enhance the distributed leadership potential of the Peer Assisted
Teaching Scheme in future iterations.

Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the support from the Australian Government’s OLT National Senior
Teaching Fellowship scheme and a small grant from the Council of Australian Directors of
Academic Development to develop and trial Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme nationally. The authors
 JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 195

also acknowledge the contributions of the Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme coordinators from the
Australian institutions who implemented Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme in their respective
institutions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The authors acknowledge the support from the Australian Government’s OLT National Senior
Teaching Fellowship scheme and a small grant from the Council of Australian Directors of
Academic Development to develop and trial Peer Assisted Teaching Scheme nationally. The
grant is directly awarded to individual academic, which is not part of grants under the Open
Funder Registry.

References
Leadership for excellence in learning and teaching. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.olt.gov.au/
grants-and-projects/leadership-excellence.
Barber, J., Jones, S., & Novak, B. (2009). Developing multi-level leadership in the use of student
feedback to enhance student learning and teaching practice. http://emedia.rmit.edu.au/edjour
nal/Developing+multi-level+leadership
Bass, B.M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Bazeley, P. (2012). Integrative analysis strategies for mixed data sources. American Behavioral
Scientist, 56(6), 814–828.
Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P.A., & Harvey, J.A. (2003). Distributed leadership: Full report.
Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.
Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric
and reality. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(2), 257–277.
doi:10.1177/1741143208100301
Brass, D.J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an
organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 518–539. doi:10.2307/2392937
Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Brookfield, becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. NY: Harper & Row.
Carbone, A. (2011). Peer assisted teaching scheme http://vera195.its.monash.edu.au/pluginfile.
php/79/mod_page/content/28/ALTC%20Final%20Report%202011.pdf
Carbone, A. (2014). Developing excellence in learning and teaching through a peer assisted
teaching scheme (Final report). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Government Office for
Learning and Teaching.
Carbone, A., Wong, J., & Ceddia, J. (2011). A scheme for improving ICT units with critically low
student satisfaction. In G. Rößling, T. L. Naps, & C. Spannagel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th
annual joint conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, pp. 253–
257. Darmstadt: ACM.
Chesterton, P., Duignan, P., Felton, E., Flowers, K., Gibbons, P., Horne, M., & Thomas, T.
(2008). Development of distributed institutional leadership capacity in online learning and
teaching project leadership for excellence in learning and teaching project. Sydney, Australia:
Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.
Conger, J. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
196 A. CARBONE ET AL.

Cummings, R., Chalmers, D., Stoney, S., Herrington, A., & Elliot, S. (2014). Professionalisation of
the academic workforce project (Final Report). Sydney, Australia: Australian Government,
Office for Learning and Teaching.
Davis, H., & Jones, S. (2014). The work of leadership in higher education management. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(4), 367–370. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2014.916463
Graeff, C.L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. The Leadership
Quarterly, 8(2), 153–170. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X
Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1998). Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of
leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective. In F. Dansereau & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-
level approaches: Contemporary and alternative Part B Vol. 24, pp.(103–155). USA: Elsevier
Science /JAI Press.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4),
423–451. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0
Harris, A. (2004). Teacher leadership and distributed leadership: An exploration of the literature.
Leading and Managing, 10(2), 1–9.
Harris, A. (2005). OP-ED. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(3), 255–265. doi:10.1080/
00220270500038602
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in
Education, 22(1), 31–34. doi:10.1177/0892020607085623
Harvey, M. (2008). Leadership and assessment: Strengthening the nexus. Final report. Strawberry
Hills: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Retrieved May, 3, 2009.
Heinrich, E. (2013). Recommendations to university managers for facilitating engagement of
academics with teaching. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(5), 458–470.
doi:10.1080/1360080X.2013.812180
Hempsall, K. (2014). Developing leadership in higher education: Perspectives from the USA, the
UK and Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(4), 383–394.
doi:10.1080/1360080X.2014.916468
James, R., Baik, C., Millar, V., Naylor, R., Bexley, E., Kennedy, G., . . . Booth, C. (2015). Academic
workforce 2020: Framing a national agenda for professionalising university teaching (Final
Report). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.
Jones, S., Hadgraft, R., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G., & Ryland, K. (2014). Evidence-based benchmarking
framework for a distributed leadership approach to capacity building in learning and teaching
(Final report). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.
Jones, S., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G., & Ryland, K. (2012). Lessons learnt: Identifying synergies in
distributed leadership projects (Final report). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Government
Office for Learning and Teaching.
Lefoe, G., Parrish, D., Hart, G., Smigiel, H., & Pannan, L. (2008). The GREEN (Growing, reflecting,
enabling, engaging, networking) report: The development of leadership capacity in higher educa-
tion (Final report). Wollongong, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
McMaster, M. (2014). Learning to lead: A practitioner perspective. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 36(4), 430–439. doi:10.1080/1360080X.2014.916470
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J.B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A
distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34. doi:10.1080/
0022027032000106726
Vroom, V.H., & Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making (Vol. 110). Pittsburgh,
USA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Woods, P.A., Bennett, N., Harvey, J.A., & Wise, C. (2004). Variabilities and dualities in
distributed leadership findings from a systematic literature review. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 32(4), 439–457. doi:10.1177/1741143204046497
Yielder, J., & Codling, A. (2004). Management and leadership in the contemporary university. Journal
of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(3), 315–328. doi:10.1080/1360080042000290177
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.