As I prepare for a pre-conference workshop and conference workshop at the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2016, I am reading about how university instructors learn about teaching through personal networks (sometimes referred to as “significant networks” or “social networks”). This work draws on Social Network Theory and is part of a research project I am collaborating on with Gary Poole and Roselynn Verwoord.

Today’s post is a summary of findings from the following paper:

Pataraia, N., Falconer, I., Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Fincher, S. (2014). ‘Who do you talk to about your teaching?’: Networking activities among university teachers. Frontline Learning Research, 2(2), 4-14.

Pataraia et al. (2014) conducted research into how academics learn about teaching and grow professionally as university instructors through their personal networks. They analysed written transcripts (14) and interviews (11) from academics in various disciplines. They had four main research questions:

1. Who do academics talk to about their teaching?
2. What are the main themes of academics’ conversations about teaching?
3. With what frequency and where do academics’ conversations take place?
4. What factors motivate academics to network and what value do they
5. perceive in their personal networks?

I have summarized their main findings below.

Q1: Who do academics talk to about their teaching?

For most participants in this study, the majority of significant ties were with others from the same discipline, both within the department or external to the institution.

Participants most often had informal conversations about teaching with colleagues in their respective departments. Common interests (e.g., joint projects/goals/problems and mutual commitments, such as being part of the same committee) encouraged conversations about teaching. Trust among individuals and good personal relations also played an important role in fostering the exchange of ideas about teaching.

Q2: What are the main themes of academics’ conversations about teaching?

(Since these results are not as directly relevant to our research project, I am not reporting on Pataraia et al.’s findings here).

Q3: With what frequency and where do academics’ conversations take place?

The frequency with which conversations took place varied between weekly to several times a term.  Conversations took place mostly on an ad-hoc basis and most frequently with colleagues with whom they shared a teaching responsibility (i.e., co-teaching the same course, teaching different offerings of the same course, or supervising someone’s teaching). These interactions were “mainly face-to-face, spontaneous, casual in nature, and took place in common rooms or corridors” (p.11).

Q4: What factors motivate academics to network and what value do they perceive in their personal networks?

Pataraia et al.’s provide a good summary to this question in Table 6. I have reproduced it below.

Table 6: Motivation for networking and the benefits obtained through personal networks

Motivation for networking	Benefits obtained through networks
Access to new teaching ideas	Good personal relationships
Access to disciplinary knowledge	Professional guidance
Access to new learning opportunities	Prompt feedback
Access to diverse resources	Solidarity and the sense of community
Access to professional and emotional support	Confidence

 

***** *****

The notes below from the conclusion section of the paper are also of particular interest to the research we are conducting:

“Despite the fact that personal networks relating to teaching are valued by academics, in most cases these are strongly localised. There is little evidence of personal networks extending beyond immediate (face to-face) contacts. Even if other means were utilized to contact external colleagues, the ties were weaker, the intensity of interactions less frequent, the content of conversations less comprehensive, and generally considered less significant” (p.13).

Pataraia et al. offer two possible interpretations for the fact that networks are largely localized:

1. Teaching practice is highly dependent on local context and therefore meaningful interactions take place with others who understand the local context.
2. Face-to-face contact may be the most effective means for sharing teaching practices and receiving prompt feedback, hence interactions are with those who are geographically close.

The local focus implies densely connected networks where the majority of members know each other considerably well. The possible downside of this is that academics are getting less exposure to radically different ideas because the diversity of the network is limited.

“Academics’ connections did not appear time or context specific, since respondents maintained contact both with current colleagues and with those from previous institutions.” (p.14)

“…there was a wide diversity in intensity of networking relations, but only within the department interactions appeared regular in nature.” (p.14)

And if you’ve made it this far in the post, this statement sums it all up very nicely:

“Given that personal networks offered new teaching ideas, learning opportunities, diverse resources, and also shaped academics’ perceptions about teaching, it can be presumed that personal networks play an influential role in academics’ professional development.”  (p.14)

 

Reference:

Pataraia, N., Falconer, I., Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Fincher, S. (2014). ‘Who do you talk to about your teaching?’: Networking activities among university teachers. Frontline Learning Research, 2(2), 4-14.

Photo credit: Loren Kerns, “100/64: Side Conversation” https ://flic.kr/p/qcfZw7