“Data revealed that participants’ learning networks were based around both physically and emotionally close ties, which appeared the most homphilious with respect to occupation”(p.67)

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., Margaryan, A., Falconer, I., Littlejohn, A., & Falconer, J. (2013). Discovering academics’ key learning connections: An ego-centric network approach to analysing learning about teaching. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(1), 56-72.

Below is a summary of the findings, as presented in the paper. Participants were 37 academics from UK-based universities.

The form of participants’ personal learning networks relating to teaching  

• The highest percentage of connections that academics considered key to their learning and teaching were within their department and institution (56%).
• Participants used their network’s expertise, information, and guidance, to carry out work-related tasks and  solve teaching-related problems. They reached out to people they perceived as being most helpful for addressing a given challenge/situation.
• The majority of participants emphasized that a good personal relationship was critical for establishing and maintaining learning connections.
• Most academics’ learning networks are comprised largely of other academics.

Homophily evident in participants’ networks relating to teaching

• In this study, homophily was not seen in terms of gender or experience level but it was seen in the type of profession. That is, academics’ networks were comprised mainly of other academics.
• Academics with more than 11 years of experience had colleagues of all ranks in their networks; however early- and mid- career academics mainly had colleagues who were at a higher rank than them (the authors refer to this as “hierarchical levels”).

Physical proximity

• Participants’ networks are largely made up of people who are physically proximate and within the organization.

Length of time known

• Academics’ networks were comprised of colleagues that individuals had known for periods of time ranging from short to long. As can be expected, the most experienced academics had the most diversity in their network with respect to the length of time they had known their colleagues.
• Academics interacted most often with strong-tie connections than with weak-tie connections. (For a brief introduction to the concept of strong and weak ties, see here).

Discussion section of paper – More take-aways

“Data revealed that participants’ learning networks were based around both physically and emotionally close ties, which appeared the most homphilious with respect to occupation” (p.67)
This suggests that creation of learning networks and maintenance is aided by:
– Physical proximity
– The strength of tie in terms of friendship
– Homophily of occupation

Participants (often) shared more than one type of relationship with their contacts (i.e., individuals in the network were both a professional acquaintance and friend).

“Despite the widespread popularisation of technologies, participants tended to favour face-to-face encounters for their learning, which occurred largely with their institutional colleagues.” (p.67)

Academics’ networks are diverse in terms of hierarchical position (compared to self) and length of time they had known their contacts. This type of diversity should be favourable for learning new teaching practices.

“Given that heterogeneity in the network structure was more visible among experienced participants, we may hypothesise that their networks stand a better chance of promoting serendipitous learning and innovation.” p.68

Recommendations for educational developers

• Help academics recognize value/potential of personal networks for learning about teaching
• Teach networking skills and raise awareness about importance of networks.
• Provide more opportunities for networking.

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

***** *****

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

In the upcoming weeks, as I prepare for a pre-conference workshop and conference workshop at the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2016, I will be writing  posts related to 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.

Today’s post is a brief introduction to Social Network Theory.

Social network theory: A brief introduction

A network consists of a set of relationships (Kadushin, 2004).  Networks are made up of the actors (referred to as “nodes”) and the relationships (or “ties”) between those actors (Pataraia, Falconer, Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Fincher, 2014) .

Social Network Theory is the study of how people, organizations or groups interact with others inside their network (Claywell, 2016). It describes the structure and properties of the interactional links between the individuals that comprise a social network (Pataraia, Margaryan, Falconer, Littlejohn & Falconer, 2013). This theory can be applied to small groups as well as those that are global (Kadushin, 2004) and can be used to describe various forms of interactions. Interactions may include the exchange of advice, knowledge, materials, and resources (Pataraia et al., 2013).

There are three types of social networks:

1. Ego-centric networks. These are connected with a single node or individual. For example, all your followers on Twitter (you are the node) or everyone who does business at Store X (Store X is the node).
2. Socio-centric networks. These are closed networks by default. For example, all the students in a classroom or employees within an organization.
3. Open-system networks. These networks have ill-defined boundaries. Examples include: the ‘middle-class’ in Canada, the influencers of a particular decision, or the adopters of a particular approach.

(Claywell, 2016; Kadushin, 2004).

Social scientists are interested in the interactions between members of a network.  In the context of the SoTL research that Gary Poole, Roselynn Verwoord and I are conducting, we seek information about how academics use their networks to learn about university teaching.

References:

Claywell, C. (2016). What is social network theory? Retrieved from http://socialnetworking.lovetoknow.com/What_is_Social_Network_Theory

Kadushin, C. (2004). Introduction to social network theory. Chapter 2: Some basic network concepts and properties. Retrieved from www.cin.ufpe.br/~rbcp/taia/Kadushin_Concepts.pdf

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, N., Margaryan, A., Falconer, I., Littlejohn, A., & Falconer, J. (2013). Discovering academics’ key learning connections: An ego-centric network approach to analysing learning about teaching. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(1), 56-72.

In the upcoming weeks, as I prepare for a pre-conference workshop and conference workshop at the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2016, I will be writing  posts related to 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.

What is a social network?

A network consists of individuals and the interactional links between them. Network participants come together on a common objective, for example ‘how to grow our understanding of university teaching?’. Networks allow for the exchange of resources and for capacity building; they allow members to collaboratively develop knowledge (Pataraia, Margaryan, Falconer, Littlejohn & Falconer, 2013).

A network consists of a set of actors (“nodes”) and a set of relations (“ties”) between the nodes. Network members may be connected directly or indirectly, and their connections can be informal (trust-based) or formalized through contracts.

Granovetter (1973) differentiated between strong and weak ties within networks. Strong ties have been built over time through frequent, intimate, relationships. They are durable and there has been a significant amount of emotion invested in the relationship. Friendship and familial relationships are examples of strong ties. Weak ties have had less investment of time and intimacy and may be sporadic. Granovetter suggested that weak ties can help connect otherwise disconnected social groups, thereby providing exposure to new people and ideas. In this way, weak ties, as compared to strong ties, are more important for the dissemination of new information and resources (Pataraia, Falconer, Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Fincher, 2014; Powers, Jha, & Jain, 2016).

As it pertains to how academics learn about university teaching, the implication is that weak ties matter.

References

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),1360–1380.

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, N., Margaryan, A., Falconer, I., Littlejohn, A., & Falconer, J. (2013). Discovering academics’ key learning connections: An ego-centric network approach to analysing learning about teaching. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(1), 56-72.

Powers, B. W., Jha, A. K., & Jain, S. H. (2016). Remembering the strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Managed Care, 22(3), 202.

Photo credit: Eugene Kim, “My social network”  https: //flic.kr/p/4pwthA