Foundations for Teaching Groups

In the previous sections, CoP, professional learning communities and faculty learning communities were reviewed. Section 2.3.3 presented studies based on CoP and faculty learning communities. This section draws on this material to

examine how the proposed concept of teaching groups relates to existing ap- proaches. This is done by looking at the criteria of purpose, formation, time frame, membership, relationship to an organisation, view on members, degree of engagement and source of knowledge. Table 2.2 summarises these considerations. The purpose of CoP lies in the acquisition and creation of knowledge (Wenger, 1998). Professional learning communities aim at improvements of student learning (Stoll & Seashore Louis, 2007; DuFour, 2004; Mullen, 2009). Faculty learning com- munities ultimately also want to assist student learning, but put improvements in teaching more in the foreground (M. Cox, 2004). The purpose of teaching groups, as proposed in this research, is compatible with all three approaches discussed. Improvements of student learning will be facilitated by improvements in teaching. In a higher education context, the acquisition and creation of knowledge can be applied to teaching and pedagogy, and as such, is fully compatible with the aims of teaching groups. A particular aim of this research is to achieve high levels of engagement with teaching by a majority of academics. This aim is close to what professional learning communities try to accomplish, but is different from CoP and faculty learning communities.

The aim of involving a majority of academics is a determining factor in the formation of teaching groups. The suggestion, to be tested in the course of this research, is that teaching groups already exist, based on organisational structures and teaching obligations. Should the existence of teaching groups be confirmed, the nature of interaction in these groups needs to be explored to establish if these groups can be called communities. This approach distinguishes the formation of teaching groups sharply from that of CoP and learning communities. Both CoP and professional learning communities evolve over time and cannot be created at will (Wenger, 1998; Kruse & Seashore, 2007; Mulford, 2007). Faculty learning communities are created in response to calls for participation, as the studies by Nugent et al. (2008) and Schlitz et al. (2009) show. Yet, there is fundamental difference between faculty learning communities and the approaches of profes- sional learning communities and CoP. Faculty learning communities only create fairly small communities that neither contain a whole institution nor a profession or entity of similar scope. The idea of teaching groups is to encompass a large majority of academics at an institution and as such have a much larger impact than faculty learning communities.

Table 2.2: Comparison between CoP, learning communities and teaching groups Criteria Communities of Practice Professional learning communities Faculty learning communities Teaching groups

Purpose Acquisition and creation of knowledge Improvement of student learning Improvements in teaching and learning High levels of engagement with teaching by majority of academics Formation Evolve over time Evolve over time Formed in

response to call for participation Teaching groups (not communities) exist already Time frame Long-term, many years Long-term, many years Typically for a year Groups exist over many years Membership Voluntary, linked to identity Aim to include the whole (school) community Voluntary, in response to calls for participation By default Relationship to organi- sation Independent of an organisation (but can be aligned) Closely linked to an organisation (school) Members are from across an organisation (university) Based on the structures implemented by an organisation (university) View on members Newcomers and experts

Equals Equals Equals

Degree of engage- ment

Any level from leadership to staying on periphery Strong collaboration of all members Similar level of engagement of all at level agreed on outset Significant engagement of all negotiated by group Source of knowledge Largely from members Largely from members From members with support of academic developer From members with outside help as desired

CoP and professional learning communities typically exist for many years (Wenger et al., 2002; Kruse & Seashore, 2007). Being based on organisational structures that, in general, will remain stable over several years, teaching groups will also exist over these longer timeframes. This contrasts with faculty learning communities, as these are usually project-based and limited to a year (see the studies by Nugent et al. (2008) and Schlitz et al. (2009)).

Following on from their formation, the membership in teaching groups is es- tablished by default. This research proposes that any academic with teaching obligation belongs to one or several teaching groups. This again is a strong de- parture from the other approaches. In CoP, membership is voluntary (Wenger et al., 2002) and related to identity building of the individual (Wenger, 1998). Professional learning communities aim to include the whole school community (Mullen, 2009). There is no reference in the literature to enforced membership or membership by default. Faculty learning communities have voluntary member- ship. They gain their members from responses to calls for participation. When talking about membership by default for teaching groups, it needs to be kept in mind that the teaching groups, as they are proposed, focus on belonging to a

group, not a community. The definition of teaching groups makes no assumption about the interactions or activities within these groups.

Teaching groups are, by definition, aligned to the structures implemented by an organisation. This also poses a difference to the other approaches discussed. A university will house many teaching groups. These groups are likely to have overlapping membership, and the assumption, to be tested, is that all academics with teaching responsibilities belong to one or several teaching groups. Faculty learning communities also have members from within one university and there are likely to be several such communities across a university. Yet, looking at the challenges for teaching in higher education discussed throughout this chapter and the voluntary participation, it is unlikely that all academics with teaching responsibilities will belong to faculty learning communities. Professional learning communities encompass whole school communities, and are therefore on a much larger scale than the teaching groups proposed, with, in many cases, one commu- nity instead of many teaching groups per institution. CoP are different again, as they can be related to an organisation but are clearly separate entities (Wenger et al., 2002). Figure 2.1 illustrates how professional learning communities, faculty learning communities and teaching groups relate to organisations.

The final three criteria to be discussed in this section, namely view on mem- bers, degree of engagement, and source of knowledge, extend beyond the defini- tion of teaching groups presented at the outset of this thesis. What is shown here are potential characteristics for teaching groups, and with that closeness to or distance from the other approaches. Wenger (1998) talks about newcomers and experts in CoP. In contrast, the literature on professional and faculty learning communities emphasises the collegial nature among equals (Hord & Sommers, 2008; M. Cox, 2004). It seems that it would be suitable for teaching groups to look for collegial interactions among equals, similar to what is happening in learn- ing communities. In terms of degree of engagement, teaching groups would also be similar to learning communities. The studies on faculty learning communities (see Nugent et al. (2008) and Schlitz et al. (2009)) indicate a similar level of en- gagement by all members at a level negotiated on outset, strongly influenced by the organisers of the call for participation that leads to community formation. For teaching groups, the level and type of engagement should be determined by the individual groups, taking specific group contexts and needs into consideration. Professional learning communities aim for a strong collaboration of all members, a goal that is compatible with what is aspired for teaching groups. In contrast, for CoP varying levels of involvement, from leadership to staying on the periphery, are emphasised (Wenger et al., 2002). With regard to sources of knowledge for

Figure 2.1: Relationships of professional learning communities, faculty learning communities and teaching groups to organisations

developments in teaching and learning, the idea for teaching groups is to accept input from academic developers, as this occurs in faculty learning communities, but also from other sources, such as formal or non-formal courses. This approach differs from the views taken in professional learning communities, which largely draw on the knowledge of their membership (Lieberman & Miller, 2008). CoP draw on a wide range of input, as the boundaries of the communities are not tightly defined (Wenger et al., 2002). Different from what is envisaged for teach- ing groups, the approach taken in CoPs is to largely draw on the knowledge of members. Membership in CoP might be fluctuating and might include individu- als with links into areas not core to the CoP, but CoP do not explicitly draw on experts, such as academic developers.

In summary, it can be said that teaching groups, as they are proposed, are closer to learning communities than to CoP. Commonalities between teaching groups and, especially, faculty learning communities are in the goals of improving teaching and teaching, in targeting collegial engagement of equals, or in inviting academic developers in supporting roles. A pronounced difference from teaching groups to all other approaches lies in the formation of teaching groups based around existing structures implemented by an organisation and related to this, membership by default.