It’s good to talk: Exploring the influence of facilitated teaching conversations at an Irish university

ABSTRACT

The influence of non-formal professional learning in higher education remains a relatively under-researched area. This paper aims to contribute to the literature by exploring the impact of an implementation of non-formal professional learning operating at an Irish university since April 2017. The initiative – called The Sipping Point – aims to promote and facilitate conversations about teaching among staff through a consistent format of monthly gatherings, short talks, and open discussion. This paper reports findings from an open-ended survey exploring the impact on participants’ practice and views about education. Following a process of thematic analysis, key themes included the value of connecting with peers, the perception of the space as a source of new ideas, and a sense of encouragement to try new things in teaching practice. The study includes analysis from a lead facilitator who reports strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats potentially of interest to those considering similar activities.

KEYWORDS:

• Teaching conversations
• professional development
• professional learning
• non-formal learning
• cpd
• impact

Introduction

Despite the fact that peer learning is so strongly advocated for students in higher education today, opportunities for university staff to learn from each other for professional growth seem relatively sparse. Savin-Baden (2007) wrote about this over a decade ago when she reiterated the importance of dialogue as a learning space. Meanwhile, with ever more hectic workloads and increasing stress (Peat et al., 2019), not to mention the implications of a global pandemic, the opportunity for staff to meet other staff in person is becoming rarer than ever.

Recent research would seem to prove that there can be significant value in informal ‘corridor conversations’ when they do occur. In one study of mid-career academics, Thomson and Trigwell (2018) found that while teaching staff frequently exchange immediate practical ideas and fixes during informal conversations with colleagues, they sometimes also discuss more strategic concepts that can potentially transform the thinking and practice of teaching. Similarly, Roxå and Mårtensson (2009) suggested that university teachers seem to have sincere, often personal, conversations about teaching and learning with a small number of trusted colleagues.

In addition to somewhat serendipitous, unplanned teaching-related conversations that can arise between colleagues, there is also a branch of professional learning that sits between formal and informal modes. These could be described as non-formal professional learning activities which are typically organised events that are structured and planned but generally do not have an associated accreditation (National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 2016). Eraut (2000) describes non-formal learning as operating on a continuum that varies in accordance with the level of intention to learn: ‘At one extreme there is the now widely recognised phenomenon of implicit learning, at the other there is deliberative learning in time specifically set aside for that purpose’ (p. 115). In other words, the latter is a type of semi-structured, non-formal learning that is engaged in consciously and with purpose. Informal learning may be described as learning that is not measured against a construct and is not consciously done. Non-formal learning is always organised, structured and engaged in consciously (National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 2016).

Some individual staff and centralised Teaching & Learning units have attempted to establish opportunities or spaces to foster teaching-related conversations. These approaches, which exhibit non-formal learning characteristics, may be described as lunchtime seminars, TeacherTalk sessions, Faculty Learning Communities, or Brown Bag lunches (Popovic & Plank, 2016). There are a number of such activities happening across Ireland, the UK and the Netherlands (Gormley, 2019), and more operating in a similar vein internationally. Food, beverages and an inclusive, open ethos appear to be common features (Bovill, 2018; Peat et al., 2019).

Given the time and effort involved in facilitating and participating in such initiatives, questions may arise about whether they are worth establishing for the impact they might have. This paper attempts to explore such questions by evaluating a non-formal practice-sharing approach that has been running at an Irish university since April 2017. The purpose of the study was to address the following overarching research question: What impact has participation in this community had on participants’ pedagogical practice and/or thinking about education?

Background & context

The initiative being investigated is called The Sipping Point – a regular gathering for lunchtime conversations aimed at encouraging the sharing of teaching practice. Echoes of a range of theoretical underpinnings, such as community of practice and informal learning, are evident in the approach. However, being planned and organised in advance, the dialogue is not a truly spontaneous ‘corridor conversation’ so could not accurately be described as informal learning. Also, while it certainly draws on social learning theories in the way peers with varying levels of experience can learn from each other (Bandura & Walters, 1977), it does not typically involve deep collaboration on a specific project over time, such as might happen within a community of practice. The design of the Sipping Point most closely relates to what is referred to as a community-building model that is ‘focused on breaking down the individualism common in teaching and encourage the sharing of ideas, peer support and networking’ (Popovic & Plank, 2016, p. 218).

Established in April 2017, these one-hour monthly sessions have been established by the author and hosted by the Teaching Enhancement Unit at Dublin City University (DCU). The name is a play on Malcom Gladwell’s ‘Tipping Point’ (Gladwell, 2000) concept described as the point at which ideas reach a critical threshold and spread. Adopting The Tipping Point thinking on social dynamics, it was envisaged that The Sipping Point might help to spread new ideas and behaviours via conversations about teaching and learning. The name was chosen to be memorable and distinctive so that it would attract attention and convey a welcoming and enjoyable tone.

Before the Covid-19 pandemic, sessions were held monthly at 2–3 different campus locations and always ran from 1 to 2 pm. As a result of the restrictions, the original face-to-face sessions have moved online since May 2020, but still adhere to the same format. They usually start with 10-min talks by two speakers and then the discussion is thrown open to the floor for questions and comments. The speakers provide a title and a short abstract about their proposed talk before each event. As of February 2020, the total attendance at the Sipping Point reached 593 with staff from all five faculties participating at different points. While the vast majority of attendees have teaching responsibilities, staffs from areas, such as student support & development, ISS, and the library have also joined in. Typical attendance at the on-campus sessions ranged from 7 to 16 participants per session. Following the move online necessitated by Covid-19, further 357 participants have attended the five online sessions to date (as of January 2021), increasing the numbers significantly, ranging from 36 to 148 attendees per session.

The topics discussed within the timeframe of this study include the following: group work, assessment methods, creative approaches to video, audio feedback, quizzes, gamification, reading and reflection techniques, educational research, laboratory teaching, universal design for learning, when good plans ‘go bad’, digital literacies, learning spaces, outdoor learning and student attendance. The majority of these topics were developed via various consultations with attendees about themes of interest. Certain topics, such as the session on outdoor learning, came about to add variety and novelty.

To provide some measure of continuity between sessions, there is a centralised hub for the Sipping Point on the local Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). Relevant readings are shared as well as slides of the presenters’ talks. This hub also facilitates the sharing of blog posts and supplementary readings and resources. ‘Thank You’ gifts are given to all speakers in the form of handmade pottery mugs branded with the Sipping Point teacup logo. These items have been very popular with a number of the recipients sharing via Instagram and Twitter.

Methodology

A case study research design has been employed. According to Cousin (2009, p. 131), ‘case study research systematically explores a setting in order to generate understandings about it.’ In this case, study, the unit of analysis – the case – is the Sipping Point practice-sharing initiative at DCU. The specific group of people being studied are those who attended at least one on-campus session between April 2017 and June 2018. A developmental evaluation (Fleming, 2013) was carried out in December 2017 to get early feedback. Key comments made at that point were that it was a valuable opportunity to ‘learn from each other’ and it was reassuring to ‘see other people have the same problems’ in teaching. Suggestions were made about publicising the sessions more widely and providing more details about speakers and talks.

Approximately 18 months later, a survey was developed to probe further on what kinds of impact were occurring. An anonymous open-ended survey was circulated during the summer of 2018. This survey aimed to explore self-reported descriptions of impact, particularly in terms of impact on teaching practice and participants’ thinking about education.

Nine open-ended questions (Appendix A) were circulated through Google Forms. The questions were drawn from an extensively piloted toolkit (Kneale et al., 2016) for evaluating the impact of teaching and learning workshops. The questions exploring how the experience aligned with expectations, what new information, approaches or ideas were introduced and the impact on teaching practice were based on template four (p. 35) of the toolkit.

This survey was distributed by email to the 108 individuals who had attended at least one Sipping Point session between April 2017 and June 2018. Thirty-two of those individuals responded to the survey leading to a response rate of 30%. Responses were analysed using the Braun and Clarke (2006) Thematic Analysis approach. The responses were read and re-read several times to identify potential codes which were then clustered into themes (patterned responses) by the author. For each survey response, codes were also counted, which highlighted the extent of recurring concepts and helped to confirm the most significant themes. Ethical approval for this project was obtained from the DCU Research Ethics Committee (reference number DCUREC/2018/062).

In addition, the observations of the author who has organised and facilitated 50+ Sipping Point sessions are included, alongside a model of SWOT analysis presented in Popovic and Plank (2016, p. 218). Facilitator perspectives are included in the research design as ‘The evidence needed to identify and capture impact should be a mix of scientific and professional (reflecting practitioners’ expertise and judgement) evidence.’ (National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 2019, p. 1). It is also important to note that the author acknowledges that she is acting as an ‘insider researcher’ in this case. According to Hanson (2013) potential advantages are that working within the same organisation enables richer data to be obtained because of the insider’s knowledge of the history, practices, behaviours and attitudes of individuals within the group. This can lead to greater veracity of research findings, better access to research respondents, and higher levels of trust and openness. But it could also lead to issues of bias, misplaced assumptions, and potentially even discomfort. In this case, efforts have been made to minimise these risks by employing an anonymous survey and using direct quotes.

Findings

Five of the survey questions related to expectations and impact while further four questions explored topics for the future and suggestions for improvement to the format. Responses to the expectation and impact-related questions will be focused on in this paper.

What were your initial expectations of ‘The Sipping Point’?

Thirty-two responses were received. It was clear that the vast majority expected to use the space to meet colleagues and hear about their teaching practice. Twenty-four of the 32 responses specifically highlighted the practice sharing aspect and the potential value associated with it. ‘I hoped that meeting other staff members – especially those from outside my immediate discipline – would lead me to discover new methods or approaches applicable to my teaching and assessment.’ Several respondents hoped it would lead to novel or new ideas for teaching and expected the forum to be ‘collegial’ and ‘informal’ in style. Four of the comments said that they hoped to be inspired/enthused/interested by what they might hear.

How has your experience aligned with your expectations?

Of the 32 comments, it appeared that expectations were broadly met, with comments that could be categorised from the ‘exceeded expectations’ (8) to ‘met expectations’ (14) to ‘met expectations to some extent’ (10). Those who felt their expectations were exceeded highlighted the exchange of ideas/experiences and the meeting of people they would not have met otherwise. ‘There have been several ideas taken from the sessions and put to use in my teaching practice. Perhaps more usefully and less anticipated, I found the process to be very effective in building solidarity around the common challenges faced as lecturers of increasing class sizes.’ Two respondents specifically complimented the structure and clarity of the presentations they saw, and several more suggested that the presentations plus discussion format was working well. Those who indicated that their expectations were partly fulfiled indicated that they expected more time for discussion, slightly less ‘formal’ presentations, and more staff in attendance.

What (if any) new information, approaches, or ideas were youintroduced to?

Participants seemed to perceive The Sipping Point as a valuable source of new ideas and information. The following items were all mentioned several times as new knowledge for those attending:

• Various technological tools and activities (including quizzes, video assessment, and in-class interaction techniques)

• Ideas and approaches to support group work

• Innovative assessment and feedback approaches, such as audio-based feedback

• Large class-oriented strategies

• The advantages and disadvantages of compulsory attendance policies

One respondent said: ‘I always came away with something new; either learning how other lecturers approach topics, or a better understanding of processes.’

There were a number of statements about the confidence-building and affirming benefits being of most immediate advantage: e.g. ‘Rather than new ideas I found that knowing other people were encountering the same issues was helpful.’. A subsection of respondents indicated that the sessions had not introduced completely new ideas but had ‘accentuated’ learning from the accredited CPD they have previously undertaken.

What (if any) impact has participating in ‘The Sipping Point’ had onyour teaching practice?

Of the 29 responses, nine described specific changes they had made to aspects of their teaching, including strategies around group work, usage of more technology, and new assessment techniques. Five said they had not yet made any related changes to their practice. Five indicated that they intended to make specific changes. Ten did not describe any specific changes but spoke of impact in terms of how it opened their eyes to new ideas. ‘Food for thought and possibilities for the future’ seems to sum up several of the comments. However, a sense of adventurousness and informed risk-taking may be emerging as one respondent said: ‘It has given me the confidence to experiment and admit when a new approach doesn’t work.’

Out of all the changes that participants seemed to be considered, group work practices were the most frequently cited. This was also one of the most well-attended sessions (34 attendees that month) indicating the popularity and strong views aroused by this particular topic. According to several comments, participants also intended to make better and more informed use of the technological tools they became aware of – discussion forums, quizzes and portfolio tools being specific examples cited. There were two comments that mentioned how seeing other people sharing their research project inspired them to initiate projects of their own.

Others found it hard to pinpoint specifics on the changes they were likely to make: ‘Hard to say what impact exactly. I feel attending the sessions helps develop a more adventurous approach to teaching, learning and assessment.’ In general, definitive changes to teaching practice were unclear and this is also indicated in the responses to question six about future intentions. The following comment illustrates this point: ‘I wish that I could have attended more of the sessions and I have not really made progress in actually making changes to teaching practice despite “noble intentions”.’

What (if any) impact has participating in ‘The Sipping Point’ had onyour thinking about education?

Of the 31 responses to this question, the most frequently recurring theme related to increased recognition of the commonalities between disciplines. Three of the comments highlighted the encouragement respondents received from interactions with committed colleagues interested in and indeed passionate about learning. The point was made that ‘Mostly it is very encouraging to see so many colleagues interested in the problems of education’.

Three more discussed how useful it was as a new lecturer to learn from colleagues with more experience while two comments highlighted the greater criticality of their own approaches that the sessions promoted: ‘Has helped me be more critical about use of different approaches and to be forensic in evaluating the effectiveness or not of an approach.’

Four of the respondents did not see a significant impact or were unsure as to impact. Overall the responses to this question were more varied and the following were each mentioned once: intention to pursue a Masters qualification in teaching and learning; encouraged reading of literature, raised awareness of challenges facing students today, highlighted the potential of technology to magnify workloads, introduced new knowledge of ways to stimulate reflection, showed that innovation is always possible, increased enjoyment of teaching:

Discussion

Part 1: Participant perspectives

The value of contact with peers

Simple and obvious as it may seem, the opportunity for teaching staff to meet, exchange views, and learn from other staff came up as a major motivator for many to attend. There is a solitary nature to much of academic life and perhaps a myth that communities of practice are easily accessible to new lecturers in particular (Gourlay, 2011). If we consider the emphasis rightly accorded to students needing a sense of place and belonging to the university, more efforts could be made to help build positive peer relationships between teaching staff. While the concept of community in this context should not be overstated or romanticised (Henderson, 2015), conversational spaces that allow staff to come together and talk about what they do are valued and beneficial, as this small-scale study seems to confirm. Considering this potential, such spaces appear to be in relatively short supply in higher education (Thomson & Trigwell, 2018, p. 1537).

Source of new & challenging ideas

Given that there is a natural tendency for teaching staff to ‘flock together’ with people who share similar beliefs about teaching (Poole et al., 2019) the fact that many attendees welcomed hearing from colleagues across the university was significant. Because speakers and participants come from multiple disciplines, there is a greater chance of hearing viewpoints that are sometimes affirming but are sometimes challenging to participants’ current teaching philosophy and approach. Having an accessible platform to hear these different perspectives appeared to have positive effects. There was also evidence that being able to see and compare different approaches enabled a degree of self-reflection and criticality that might not always be readily available in such digestible form.

However, the fact that a number of respondents were unsure of impact suggests that the impact is challenging to think about and in retrospect, perhaps some examples should have been provided as prompts. The broad list of examples cited (from reading more literature to enhancing enjoyment of teaching) indicates that impact can sometimes be felt in unexpected, quiet ways that are not immediately evident to anyone beyond the respondent themselves.

Encouragement to make change – at some point

Almost one-third of respondents had made technological and pedagogical changes to their teaching practice and the majority of the remaining either intended to make changes or had their thoughts/beliefs about teaching altered in some other way. Although it could be argued that there was little conclusive evidence to show significant change as a result of participation in these short sessions, it was apparent that even if changes had not yet occurred, the seeds were sown for the future. Jones et al. (2017) suggested that educational change and impact should be viewed as a long-term process. It is therefore important to acknowledge that impacts may not happen in the short term and may take some time to come to fruition. Expectations may need to be tempered about the extent of immediate impact from non-formal approaches that involve just one hour once a month.

Part 2: Facilitator perspectives

Professional experience of running these types of activities is under-explored. Facilitators have a unique vantage point for considering impact, especially for initiatives that have run over several years and involve multiple staff members. They are in a position to hear about promising innovations, encourage staff to share their practice, and promote attendance at these events.

The data that showed several positive benefits emanating from greater contact and sharing between academic peers was not entirely unexpected. Anecdotal feedback had been received in a similar vein, although it should be acknowledged that those who attend are most likely to be positively disposed to this type of activity. What may be less obvious is the administration and preparation time it takes to sustain community-building work. This may explain why these activities are not more widely available, especially if less formal modes of professional learning are not acknowledged as important.

Another aspect of time to be considered is the time it takes to build up a community of this type. Early sessions attracted small (<10) numbers of participants, typically full time academic staff based in situ. It was not until we were forced to move the sessions online that significantly more staff participated. While initially nervous about losing something important in the move, the significantly increased attendance and the fact that more staff, including part-time staff, can contribute seems to justify the online approach.

Building on the community-building model outlined in Popovic and Plank (2016, p. 218), Table 1 outlines the author’s view of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that this type of approach can offer.

Table 1. SWOT analysis.

Strengths	Weaknesses
Provides a vehicle for teaching-related discussions without substantial participant time Non-hierarchical – lecturers at any level of experience or discipline can learn from each other Helps foster a teaching-focused culture and is relatively inexpensive	Attracts the ‘usual suspects’ to some extent Drop-in ethos is generally a positive but can lead to limited engagement Discussions can go off tangent Impact is not easy to evidence
Opportunities	Threats
The move online has significantly increased numbers of full and part time staff Can act as a seeding ground for other forms of professional learning Interest groups focused on common areas of interest may emerge	Limited time available to participants and facilitators ‘Exclusive’ facilitation by one individual is not sustainable – rotating or guest facilitators can help Has potential to become invisible work that is time-consuming for facilitator(s)

Conclusion

Although findings from such a small-scale study are not generalisable, the above findings highlight the potential value of teaching conversations as a form of professional learning. Through these conversations, staff were interacting with their peers, gleaning new ideas, and building confidence to make change, where appropriate. It shows that impacts on teaching can be identified, to some extent at least, if we ask participants directly. Evans (2019) points out that there are relatively few studies on informal professional learning and although it is a challenging area of research, we should employ additional research methodologies to develop our knowledge of the field. The use of ethnographic or anthropological approaches that are less dependent on memory recall could significantly expand this research area.

This study also confirms how difficult it is to measure changes to teaching practice. It would be impossible to attribute any specific change exclusively to participation in The Sipping Point and impacts may not show on the student side for years, if ever. We therefore have to be realistic about the extent of change we can directly evidence from this type of intervention, in the short-term at least.

However the underpinning idea of creating conditions where academics can converse and learn from their colleagues appears to be effective and The Sipping Point has been included in a European Commission case study of innovative CPD practices (Inamorato et al., 2019). The following comment sums up what seems to be a key impact of this approach which may present a case for offering more of these spaces elsewhere:

‘I think it’s a really valuable initiative and I hope that it continues. I like that you can dip into topics in a lunchtime session without feeling too intimidated and leave having learned something new, or with ideas for a new approach to teaching.’

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Clare Gormley

Clare Gormley is an academic developer with the Teaching Enhancement Unit of Dublin City University. She has a particular interest in researching professional learning for teaching in higher education. She is also interested in the intersections of technology and educational change and is currently studying for an EdD in digital learning. Clare is a Senior Fellow of Advance HE (SFHEA) and Fellow of the Staff and Educational Development Association (FSEDA).

Appendix A

1. What were your initial expectations of ‘The Sipping Point’?

2. How has your experience aligned with your expectations?

3. What (if any) new information, approaches, or ideas were you introduced to?

4. What (if any) impact has participating in ‘The Sipping Point’ had on your teaching practice?

5. What (if any) impact has participating in ‘The Sipping Point’ had on your thinking about education?

6. Do you intend to make use of anything you have learned at ‘The Sipping Point’ in the future, and if so, how?

7. What suggestions do you have to improve ‘The Sipping Point’?

8. What particular discussion topics would be of most value to you over the coming year?

9. Do you have any further comments on ‘The Sipping Point’?