Developing Cross-Institutional Communities of Academic Practice - from Groundhog Day to the Wizard of Oz

Maureen Dawson, Rachel Forsyth and Robert Ready Manchester Metropolitan University

Theme: Innovation

Introduction

Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) is a large institution, with eight faculties on seven sites, two of which are more than 35 miles from the largest site, in Central Manchester. MMU has a highly devolved structure and cross-institutional research and sharing of good practice in learning and teaching developments has sometimes proved problematic. Individuals working on learning and teaching developments have been surprised to find that others were undertaking, or had completed, similar projects, sometimes even within the same or similar disciplines. Thus, those developing good practice in learning and teaching can seem to be trapped within their own version of Groundhog Day, constantly repeating work done previously and making mistakes already made by others. This is a problem which is not restricted to MMU: the same is often regrettably true inter-institutionally.

In 2004, to help alleviate this problem, the Centre for Learning and Teaching (CeLT) at MMU established special interest groups (SIGs) in the areas of e-learning/flexible learning, assessment, staff development, student support and retention, student feedback/experience. Each SIG was coordinated by a Senior Learning and Teaching Fellow (SLTF)1 and membership was restricted to the SLTF and CeLT communities and their nominees. The number of staff involved was 34. The success of the SIGs was variable and dissemination of activity on the SIG intranet was limited. In 2007 a strategic decision was made to bring together, from across MMU, people with common interests in aspects of learning and teaching and to facilitate their collaboration by reorganising the SIGs as Communities of Practice (CoPs).

Wenger (1998) describes Communities of Practice as ‘groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly……….. In pursuing their interest in their domain, members engage in joint activities and discussions, help each other, and share information. They build relationships that enable them to learn from each other.’

1 SLTFs are appointed at Principal Lecturer level to undertake strategic work within faculties in relation to learning and teaching. The process In June 2006 CeLT held a ‘Fellows’ Away Day, at which the SLTFs and Fellows in Academic Practice (FAPs)2 were consulted on a re-launch of the SIGs. A ‘speed-dating’ session allowed participants to align themselves to one or more of nine suggested interest groups: Assessment; Blended Learning; Pedagogy and Curriculum; Staff Development; Scholarship and Learning; Student Feedback and Experience; Student Support and Retention; Diversity and Inclusion; and PDP. This consultation revealed sufficient interest to launch all nine as CoPs. A tenth, a podcasting group, was requested by an SLTF and consultation with the SIG community revealed more than 20 potential participants.

Further discussions within CeLT resulted in an articulation of the aims of the CoPs as being to provide practitioners at MMU with opportunities for learning through networking, discussion, dissemination; advice and encouragement; opportunities for development and evaluation of Learning and Teaching activities across MMU. CeLT also undertook to support the initiative in ways indicated in Table 1.

In March 2007, an invitation to join one or more of the CoPs was sent to all staff. In May 2007, the process of moving the SIGs to CoPs became part of the HEA-funded MMU Pathfinder Project (2007-8) which focussed on intra-institutional cooperation and collaboration (Johnston, 2008). This provided funding to allow the process to become part of an Action Research cycle, using reflection, intervention and evaluation to steer developments. Convenors were sought for all the CoPs which were formally ‘launched’ at the second annual Fellows Away day: ‘SLTFs, FAPs, CoPs and CeLT: Working together to share good practice’ (Dawson, 2007).

2 A FAP is awarded by a competitive bidding process to undertake a project in learning and teaching for a period, usually of one year. Table 1 CeLT undertakings with respect to the Communities of Practice Undertaking To be achieved by: Facilitating communication between Setting up and maintaining email lists; CoP members Establishing space in the VLE for communications and resources; Organising an annual conference in Learning and Teaching Facilitating links between the CoPs Providing an active member for each CoP; and CeLT Ensuring that institutional information is circulated to the CoPs in a regular and timely way; Facilitating dissemination of CoP Maintaining pages on the CeLT website for each of activities the CoPs; Offering a route to dissemination via the CeLT website and Learning and Teaching in Action, an in-house publication; Commissioning seminars; Inviting contribution to Academic Practice Development (APD) programmes. Involving the CoPs in decision- Consulting with a CoP when there were decisions to making processes within the be made relating to the activity of the CoP institution Facilitating CoP-related research Working with CoPs to secure external funding

In September 2007 another email was sent to all staff, bringing in more participants.

Throughout the twelve months of the Pathfinder project, increased membership (see Table 2) was stimulated by several interventions, and this has continued post-Pathfinder. In January 2008, CeLT revised the scheme for the FAPs, making the CoPs the focus of the award. Thus, only CoP participants could apply, while the project had to reflect the CoP aims and be supported by the convenor. In April 2008 CeLT began a four-term ‘Challenging Assessment’ Initiative to encourage MMU staff to reflect on, and improve their assessment practices. The successful launch resulted in increased membership, notably of the Assessment CoP. CoP members have been offered a dedicated issue of Learning and Teaching in Action, resulting in editions devoted to podcasting (Spring 2008) and assessment (Autumn 2008).

Table 2 Membership of the CoPs September 2007-June 2008 Community of Practice Sep 07 Feb 08 May 08 June 08

Assessment 16 22 42 42 Blended Learning 44 46 52 53 Diversity and Inclusion 8 11 14 14

PDP and Employability 16 20 26 27

Staff Development 11 15 19 20 Student Support and Retention 16 17 18 18

Pedagogy and curriculum 15 17 21 21

Scholarship and Learning 13 14 26 27

Student Feedback and Experience 15 17 18 19

Podcasting 35 40 46 50 Total (individual memberships) 189 219 284 293

Actual Membership 102* 137* 140*

* An individual may be a member of several CoPs.

Communication

Communication between the CoPs was investigated by questionnaire and focus groups to establish both preferred mechanisms and reasons for posting (ascertained from >1100 email communications). Email was, and remains, the most common means of intra CoP communication. The majority of respondents (85%) read CoP emails regularly while 48% had posted to the list. Focus group discussions indicated that participants preferred the immediacy of emails.

An intranet area was developed early in the project, with each CoP having a resource area, chat room and discussion board. A ‘general’ chat room allowed inter CoP communication. Monitoring the area over the project period indicated little activity beyond a limited number of resources and links. Questionnaire, focus group interviews and discussion at the Away Day supported the view that this area was not needed.

Four of the CoPs set up Wikis (using PBWiki.com) and these proved successful in facilitating activities, as exemplified by the assessment CoP (see below). Free comments on questionnaires revealed much enthusiasm for Wikis, and most respondents from the relevant CoPs had visited the Wiki (93%) and posted to it (70%). Several respondents commented on the need for an institutional hosting facility and for staff training.

Seven of the CoPs met face to face at least once. Comment on questionnaires favoured ‘real’ meetings, though recognised difficulties around timetabling. Meeting people from other faculties was particularly valued. Meetings had been used for developing short and medium term objectives, assembling collaborative projects, preparing funding bids and for workshops/seminars.

Each CoP has its ‘own’ web-page within the CeLT website. These have been used to publicise the CoP; state aims and objectives; list membership, and provide links to resources. Following discussion at the Away Day, the CoPs will build on these ‘outward- facing’ resources to disseminate their work more widely.

An analysis of email communications over the Pathfinder period has shown that the CoPs have been used for a variety of reasons as shown in Table 3. 1. Table 3: Reasons for posting to CoP email lists; to: - discuss aspects of learning/teaching and assessment - arrange meetings - exchange information (about conferences, seminars, resources, funding opportunities) - seek help - offer advice - comment on and/or propose policy and framework documents - work on documents and presentations - send reports of meetings - arrange and publicise workshops - provide focus groups (for other projects) - draw up research proposals - offer to supervise research projects - request and/or provide speakers for internal and external events - invite expressions of interest (eg in external projects) - produce resources collaboratively - survey members’ opinions

Case Study: The Assessment CoP The Assessment CoP at MMU was established in 2007, when formal discussion about assessment was mostly restricted to regulatory and quality assurance matters and aimed at precise outcomes. It was difficult to find the right forum to discuss more fundamental development and enhancement issues and to link such discussions into reappraisal of formal structures and the regulatory framework, where this need arose. The CoP was set up as an action group to tackle such issues and to establish consistent positions on a range of assessment-related areas. The need to react quickly to questions and to involve colleagues from across the institution militated against a formal committee structure. It was therefore decided to work mainly online, with a mailing list coupled to a Wiki which could be edited by all members. The CoP has the following terms of reference:  To articulate shared beliefs about the principles which underpin assessment  To emphasise the importance of assessment in learning and teaching  To provide a framework for the good design and practice of assessment across MMU  To provide a basis for staff development in the area of assessment practice in HE The CoP began by drafting an assessment framework for the university, setting out the principles of assessment and intended to serve as a reference for staff designing assessment tasks and for making decisions on various assessment issues (Forsyth, 2009). From initial draft to approval by Academic Board, this process took about four months, using a combination of the Wiki and consultation with Faculty Academic Development Committees and other stakeholders. CeLT staff then linked the framework into the institution’s quality assurance handbook and processes. The CoP then turned its attention to two thorny issues frequently debated by programme teams, but on which there was no official regulation: penalties for excessive word length and guidance on student assessment workload. The discussion was initiated with a half day meeting to identify main issues and the Wiki was then used over several weeks to draft guidance for programme leaders. In both cases, it was decided that new regulation was inappropriate; contextual factors would affect decisions. Guidance was constructed to help tutors design assessment tasks and arrangements in accordance with the framework but without prescribing particular approaches. Guidance notes were circulated directly to programme leaders and linked to the institution’s quality assurance handbook and processes. During its first year, CoP discussions frequently turned to the lack of information about staff and student opinions of assessment, as well as barriers to reforming assessment practice. In response, the CoP submitted three FAP proposals, found volunteers from the CoP to undertake the projects and formed a steering group to support them. Progress reports are regularly published on the Wiki for all members to see. This coordination has enabled an effective overview of the relationships between different projects and to other work happening in the institution. The CoP has also attempted amateur dramatics. At the launch of the Challenging Assessment Initiative, the CoP decided to produce a short presentation which summarised the aspirations of the group in relation to the initiative. This might demonstrate the possible folly of group decision-making but the group also wanted to have some fun thinking about the ideas involved, rather than preparing a fairly dry presentation. With a fair amount of creative thinking, and two actual face to face meetings and a final run-through, a group of eight volunteers produced and presented a 20 minute interpretation of ‘The Wizard of Oz’ and how it was actually all about assessment. Ruby slippers, a wicked witch, an unseen wizard and lots of dreadful inside jokes all made an appearance, and certainly made an impact on the audience, although whether they were laughing at the CoP or with it was never established. However, feedback after the event suggested that the key message – that individuals could change assessment practices – did get across. What are the negative aspects? As the CoP has no formal meeting structure, it can sometimes take a while to get to the nub of the matter, and distractions can occur that do not arise in more controlled settings. Sometimes discussions can go round in circles, as opposing points of view are posted on the Wiki and members get the time to reflect that may be missing in a face to face situation. A recent discussion on ‘how many questions to mark when a student has answered too many in an exam’ led many CoP members to change their minds more than once. There is a need for active management of discussions – not moderating, but encouraging input, summarising and ‘translating’ into formal guidance or proposals for regulatory amendment, then managing the Wiki so that completed discussion is archived and new topics are prominent. There is a danger that it is always the same people who contribute and that this may drown out other voices – again, moderation can help here, but perhaps some people feel excluded by the sometimes boisterous nature of discussions.

Another of Wenger’s descriptions of the activities of a community of practice is a very good description of the Assessment CoP: “[our] practices are thus the property of a kind of community created over time by the sustained pursuit of a shared enterprise” (Wenger, 1998) p 45. Members learn from each other: one person has experienced a particular form of assessment, either as tutor or student, another has read several relevant articles; the design tutor has a different concept of a poster presentation from that of the science tutor; one person is vehemently against unseen exams whilst a colleague sees them as an essential way of assessing the ability to work under pressure. By discussing these issues explicitly, within the safe environment of the CoP, members are able to think through the advantages and disadvantages of the suggested approaches and provide useful guidance to the University. The CoP is also developing strong social and community bonds which are of great benefit in a large, dispersed and devolved institution. People can drop in and out of discussion, remaining a part of the community even if they have limited time to give to an issue. The particular combination of CeLT which is committed to change, and a CoP which is able to provide representation from a diverse range of institutional viewpoints, means that the CoP does have impact on institutional practice. This is a virtuous circle of development on which its members hope to build to make assessment at MMU truly fit for purpose.

Where we are now and lessons learned Evaluation of the CoPs has led to a number of changes. The Student Experience and Feedback and the Student Support and Retention CoPs have merged as have the Scholarship and Learning and Pedagogy and Curriculum CoP, acknowledging overlap in interests and membership. The Staff Development CoP has been disbanded, largely due to availability of other forums. The name of the PDP CoP was changed to PDP and Employability to reflect institutional priorities. Since completion of the project, CeLT has, on request, set up CoPs for Web 2.0 and Second Life, and is currently discussing two more. The project has shown that it is possible to develop cross-institutional activity through CoPs but that it is essential to consult the Learning and Teaching community to find out what communities are needed and to review these needs on a regular basis: CoPs need not be seen as long term, when requirements may be short-term only. A key factor determining the success of a CoP is to have an enthusiastic CoP convenor to stimulate and encourage CoP activity - from determining terms of reference to planning activities and disseminating outcomes. It is useful to have a good mix of ‘people who know’ and ‘people who want to know’ within the CoP and individual members should be empowered both to have their say and to seek advice. Having face-to-face meetings, particularly at the outset contributes to the success of the CoP: meetings should be well-structured and have outcomes (terms of reference; aims objectives; plans of action). Inevitably, meetings also have a social element, which should be encouraged. New members joining the CoP should be welcomed and encouraged to post a paragraph about themselves to the email list. Having ‘real’ issues to discuss and resulting outputs promotes enthusiasm and avoids the accusation (expressed by a single comment on questionnaire) that the CoPs are just ‘talking shops’. It is useful to have some central management of all CoPs, for example to coordinate activity between CoPs, SLTFs, FAPs and the Centre and to keep MMU staff informed about the CoPs. The annual Away Day, which includes all these groups, provides a focus for the CoPs allowing members to take stock and plan their activities and priorities for the coming academic year.

References Dawson, M.M. (2007) The 2nd Annual Fellows Away Day Learning and Teaching in Action 6(3) 52-55 (available online at http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/ltia/issue14/meetings.php ; accessed April 2009)

Dawson, M.M. (2008) Developing communities of academic practice http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/weblogs/pathfinder/?p=288. (accessed March 2009)

Forsyth, R. (2008) The University Assessment Framework Learning and Teaching in Action 7(3) 4-6

Johnston, W. (2008) Projects and Institutions: working together for a change http://elearning.heacademy.ac.uk/weblogs/pathfinder/?p=288 ; (accessed March 2009)

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. (see also http://www.ewenger.com/theory/ ; accessed March 2009