Interactions in Teaching Groups

Interactions in teaching groups are based both on scheduling and chance. About half of the participants explicitly reported that their teaching groups have reg- ular, scheduled meetings. The frequency of these meetings ranges from weekly meetings during semester time, to monthly meetings or meetings that occur only a few times per year. About a third of participants described having unsched- uled, informal interactions with other members of their teaching groups relating to teaching. These interactions occur by chance, at lunchtime, over coffee, in corridors or in shared workspaces. One the other hand, two participants explic- itly stated that hardly any informal conversations about teaching take place in their teaching groups. The following quotes represent the opposite ends of the spectrum of statements on informal conversations.

P27: I think there is a lot of discussion in the corridors and the coffee room and so informal, there is a lot of informal discussion.

P6: I very rarely hear [colleagues] talk about teaching.

Some of the interaction in teaching groups occurs in face-to-face encounters. At other times, interaction is facilitated via electronic means of communication. Combinations of face-to-face and electronic communication are also common. This mixture of communication modes blurs the lines between formal and informal interactions and makes it more challenging to assess the level of interactions. For example, it is difficult to see how a face-to-face group meeting of a certain length might compare against an email exchange among group members.

The content of interactions about teaching seems to be dominated by three topics. Nearly half of the participants reported on discussing organisational issues around teaching, little over one-third of participants reported on talking about ways to improve teaching, and close to one-third mentioned that problems arising with teaching, for example related to feedback from students, are being discussed in their groups. Yet, there were also four participants who explicitly stated that there are only very limited discussions on the quality of teaching or on pathways to improvements in teaching in their groups.

There are teaching groups in which the focus of conversations is strongly on administrative matters. Participants mentioned that research issues are taking precedence over teaching matters in terms of professional development within

their groups. On the other hand, a number of teaching groups actively exchange ideas for teaching and seek input from each other. These groups address ques- tions on how to teach and review the outcomes of approaches. Members work closely together in these teaching groups. The following two quotes are, respec- tively, representative for teaching groups with strong and limited interactions on improvements around teaching.

P26: The group will get together and review their teaching and, you know, discuss how they would wish to change it.

P19: There has been no conversation that I can recall that focused on the quality of teaching practice.

Some examples came up in the course of the focus group discussions that il- lustrate the differences across the teaching groups. In some groups colleagues are explicitly invited to observe teaching and give feedback. Yet, in other groups, such practice is unheard of. Some participants expressed that they would wel- come interactions like peer observation, but emphasised that this had to occur in an atmosphere of positive and constructive interaction, something their cur- rent environments seem to be lacking. Some groups go as far as discussing the performance of teaching staff, for example, in response to student evaluations of teaching. Yet, in other groups, such conversations about evaluation results, which relate to individual academics, do not take place, as the following quote shows.

P5: As far as informally chatting with people about my [student evaluation of teaching] results or their’s – I don’t think [so].

Participants offered some insights into reasons for the levels and types of in- teractions in their teaching groups. Some participants described the history of their subject disciplines as one of working closely together. Team-teaching, with several academics presenting classes together or just being in the same classroom, for example in contact courses, were described as facilitating close co-operation of teaching group members. A few participants reported on having teaching award winners in their groups. The participants said that the specialist knowledge of these individuals helps to take their groups further. Interactions about teaching are often triggered by specific events or tasks. Examples are the development of new courses, success around gaining funding for research on learning and teach- ing, or staff development events that are based on demonstrating examples from

teaching or on reporting back from conferences. One frequently mentioned trigger for interaction was the introduction of the University’s new e-learning manage- ment system. The following quote is from a participant who described compulsory training sessions for their group. Working with the new system led to gaining access to the teaching materials of colleagues to a degree not previously seen and triggered a wealth of discussions on how to best prepare material and use the system to support teaching.

P27: We all had to go onto [the University’s main e-learning system], whether we wanted to or not, at the same time. So we were put in a room with screens and streams and we had to go for it.

One aim of the research was to find out if the majority of teaching group members are substantially involved in interactions about teaching. Just over one-third of participants made clear statements in this regard. Eight participants expressed that the majority of members of their teaching groups usually par- ticipates in group interactions, while four participants stated that only a small subset of their teaching group members shows interest in learning about teaching and sharing about teaching within the groups. The quote from participant P25 indicates why it is not possible to derive ‘yes’ or ‘no’ statements for many of the participants. Judgement is required on the level of interaction that is necessary to account for participation. The quote alerts to groups within groups and also to assigning different levels of importance to group members, which in turn might influence how their participation is seen.

P25: Well, I mean the ones that come all the time, there is a core group we happen to have our offices next to each other which makes it easy as you do and so we would participate pretty much, the other people less so. But they’re less integral too.