Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The nature of academics‟ informal
conversation about teaching
Kate Eileen Thomson
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2013
The University of Sydney
i
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION
This is to certify that:
I. this thesis comprises only my original work towards the Doctor of Philosophy
Degree
II. due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used
III. the thesis does not exceed the word length for this degree.
IV. no part of this work has been used for the award of another degree.
V. this thesis meets the University of Sydney‟s Human Research Ethics
Committee (HREC) requirements for the conduct of research.
Signature:
………………………………………………………………………
Name: Kate Eileen Thomson.
Date:
ii
Acknowledgements
This research project would not have been possible without considerable support and I
will be forever thankful and indebted to an amazing group of people.
To both my supervisors, thank you for being available to guide me throughout each
stage of my candidature. To Keith – for your inspiration, attention to detail, and
insistence on excellence. To Simon, firstly for volunteering yourself and Keith as
supervisors before there was even a proposal, and significantly, for changing my
thinking. I have greatly appreciated the opportunity to learn from both of you and your
incredible patience with me as a student. Your support and my gratitude are
immeasurable.
Thank you to everyone at the Institute for Teaching and Learning for always making
me feel wonderfully looked after. This feeling came not just from the provision of
space and resources, but from the generosity with which you shared your technical and
academic expertise.
Thank you to the Faculty of Education and Social Work for working to establish a
community of students. The student conferences and workshops (thanks Lindy
Woodrow and Brian Paltridge) helped me to write about and present my work.
To all my family and friends, thank you for providing me with support and
entertainment, despite my occasional neglect of you. To my parents, for everything
from teaching me to read and ask questions to proofing thesis drafts. To my sister, for
her endless encouragement and for keeping me grounded. To Dave, for ensuring that I
ate and slept regularly, and for always challenging me.
I was very fortunate to be assisted financially during my candidature: an Australian
Postgraduate Award (APA), a NSW Institute for Educational Research Student Grant
and funds from the Faculty of Education and Social Work as part of the Postgraduate
Research Support Scheme (PRSS).
iii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Rationale for this study 1
1.2 Context of this study 1
1.3 Approach of this study 3
1.4 The outline of the thesis 5
Chapter 2 Literature review 7
2.1 Learning through informal conversation about teaching 8
2.2 Contexts which support informal learning 10
2.3 Departmental contexts 14
2.3.1 Discipline 15
2.3.2 Climate 16
2.3.3 Leadership 17
2.3.4 Teaching in a research-intensive context 19
2.3.5 Academic development in departments 20
2.4 Academic development 21
2.4.1 Central and distributed formal academic development
programs 22
2.4.2 Collaborative academic development: Peer observation
and mentoring 23
2.5 This study: Informal conversation about teaching 25
Chapter 3 Methodology 27
3.1 Introduction to grounded theory 27
3.1.1 „Theory‟ in grounded theory 27
iv
3.1.2 A „grounded theory‟: An outcome of using the grounded
theory method of constant comparison 28
3.2 Grounded theory literature 29
3.2.1 Addressing some of the critique of grounded theory 30
3.2.2 Understanding the differences between versions of
grounded theory 32
3.2.3 Credible grounded theory 34
3.2.4 Summary 35
3.3 Introduction to the grounded theory process used in this
study 36
3.3.1 Advice and examples of grounded theory 36
3.4 Theoretical sampling 37
3.4.1 Sampling in this study: Departmental variation 38
3.4.2 Sampling in this study: Individual variation in planned
interviews 39
3.4.3 Supplementary interviews to build emergent concepts 40
3.5 Ethics approval 41
3.6 Data collection through interviews with academics 41
3.6.1 Interview guides 42
3.6.2 Interview process to collect data 43
3.7 The constant comparative method of data analysis 45
3.8 A summary of my process using the comparative method 46
3.9 From making sense of the data to Stage 1 ‘Comparison’ 47
3.10 From Stage 1 ‘Comparison’ to Stage 2 ‘Integration’ 49
3.10.1 Topics discussed during informal conversation (Chapter 4) 50
3.10.2 The usefulness of informal conversation about teaching
(Chapter 5) 53
v
3.10.3 How context influences informal conversation about
teaching (Chapter 6) 56
3.10.4 Relations between a formal academic development
program and informal conversation about teaching (Chapter 7) 62
3.11 From Stage 2 ‘Integration’ to Stage 3 ‘Delimiting’ 62
3.12 From Stage 3 ‘Delimiting’ to Stage 4 ‘Writing’ 64
Chapter 4 Topics discussed during informal conversation
about teaching 66
4.1 Informal conversation about students 67
4.2 Informal conversation about their curriculum content and
implementation 71
4.3 Informal conversation about assessment 74
4.4 Informal conversation about evaluation methods and
evaluation results 77
4.5 Summary 81
Chapter 5 The usefulness of informal conversation about
teaching 83
5.1 Academics have informal conversations to vent about
issues related to teaching 85
5.2 Academics have informal conversations to reassure
themselves about their teaching 87
5.3 Academics have informal conversations to manage their
teaching context 88
5.4 Academics have informal conversations to improve
teaching and student learning 89
5.5 Academics have informal conversations to evolve teaching,
thinking and practice 90
5.6 Incidence of usefulness subcategories 91
vi
5.7 Summary 93
Chapter 6 How context influences informal conversation
about teaching 94
6.1 Developing a grounded theory about informal conversation 95
6.2 Colleagues with whom academics work 98
6.2.1 Helpfulness of colleagues 99
6.2.2 Expertise of colleagues 100
6.2.3 Shared teaching ideology 102
6.2.4 Collegial friendship 105
6.3 Processes for reward and recognition 107
6.3.1 Peer recognition and advice 108
6.3.2 Survival and promotion 110
6.3.3 Financial incentives 112
6.4 Time and place 116
6.4.1 Time and workload pressures 116
6.4.2 Timing 118
6.4.3 Office proximity 118
6.4.4 The „water-cooler‟ effect of corridors and coffee 120
6.5 Formal management of communication 121
6.5.1 Role of leaders in facilitating communication 121
6.5.2 Formal meetings 122
6.5.3 Semi-formal meetings 126
6.5.4 Semi-formal academic development strategies 129
6.5.4.1 Workshops 130
6.5.4.2 Peer observation 131
6.5.4.3 Mentoring 132
6.6 Summary 135
vii
Chapter 7 Relations between a formal academic
development program and informal conversation about
teaching 137
7.1 An example of a formal academic development program 138
7.2 Relations between the Principles and Practice of University
Teaching and Learning program and informal conversation about
teaching 139
7.2.1 Informal and formal learning as conflicting and
disconnected 139
7.2.2 Informal and formal learning as complementary and
mutually reinforcing 144
7.3 Mapping the Principles and Practice program topics to
informal conversation topics 146
7.4 Comparing the perceived usefulness of the Principles and
Practice development program and informal conversation 149
7.4.1 Informal conversation during a formal academic
development program 153
7.5 Summary 155
Chapter 8 Strategies for stimulating informal
conversation about teaching 156
8.1 Discussion 158
8.2 Methodology: Process, critique and outcome 169
8.2.1 Process of using grounded theory 170
8.2.2 Limitations of method 174
8.2.3 Grounded theory outcome: Conversation as a function of
Commonality 177
8.3 Implications 184
8.3.1 Rethinking approaches to academic development 184
viii
8.3.2 Introduction to this study‟s implications for three groups 191
8.3.3 Academic developers 191
8.3.4 Department leaders 194
8.3.5 Individual academics 197
Chapter 9 Conclusion 201
9.1 Summary 201
9.2 Further research 203
9.3 Contribution 205
Reference List 206
Appendices 227
ix
Appendices
Appendix 1: Interview guide 1 228
Appendix 2: Interview guide 2 230
Appendix 3: Variation in departments 231
Appendix 4: Variation in individuals 232
Appendix 5: Coding extract 233
Appendix 6: Poster presentation 234
Appendix 7: Poster presentation 235
Appendix 8: Ethics Approval 12521 236
Appendix 9: Ethics Approval 13549 238
x
List of tables
Table 3.1 Preliminary ideas about informal conversation 48
Table 3.2 Preliminary categories suggesting how conversations are useful 54
Table 3.3 Extract from coding the usefulness of conversation 55
Table 3.4 Contextual influences associated with variation in conversation 58
Table 3.5 Contextual influences on conversation 59
Table 6.1 Categories and subcategories of contextual influences on informal
conversation 95
Table 7.1 Mapping informal conversation topics to formal program session topics 147
List of figures
Figure 3.1 Summary of terms most frequently used to describe the topics addressed in
informal conversation about assessment (before meaning was clarified) 52
Figure 4.1 Terms most frequently used to describe informal conversation about
students 71
Figure 4.2 Terms most frequently used to describe informal conversation about
curriculum 74
Figure 4.3 Terms most frequently used to describe informal conversation about
assessment 77
Figure 4.4 Terms most frequently used to describe informal conversation about
evaluation 81
Figure 4.5 Summary of terms most frequently used to describe the topics addressed in
informal conversation about teaching 82
Figure 8.1 The nature of academics‟ informal conversation about teaching 157
xi
Abstract
Conversations are a recognised form of informal learning in professional workplaces.
Informal conversation about teaching within university departmental contexts
represents one way academics learn about university teaching. Such conversations also
have the potential to more effectively link learning on formal professional development
programs with teaching. As professional development of teaching is usually focused on
formal courses, workshops and projects, informal conversation has not been
investigated as a professional development strategy.
The lack of substantial exploration of conversation as a professional development
strategy was the impetus for the current study. This study investigated academics‟
experience of informal conversation about teaching within their departments. Thirty
academic staff working in different departments at an Australian research-intensive
university were interviewed and the transcripts were analysed using grounded theory
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
The analysis revealed that academics were learning about many aspects of teaching
from informal conversation with their departmental colleagues. Four elements of
informal conversation were explored: the content of conversation, the purpose for
which academics used conversation, the context which influenced conversation and the
relationship between conversation and formal (course-based) professional
development.
In summary, academics‟ conversations were about topics that included students,
assessment, curriculum and evaluation, with their purposes ranging from venting their
frustrations, and reassuring themselves, to managing, improving and evolving their
teaching. The investigation of the role of contextual influences on informal
conversation about teaching yielded a theory for the nature of conversation, based on
„commonality‟. In a context which provides variable support for teaching, increases in
commonality between academic colleagues are associated with increases in frequency
and usefulness of their informal conversation. The theory of commonality and the
description of the nature of informal conversation derived from this study are used to
show how informal conversation can enhance professional development.
1
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Rationale for this study
Informal conversation about teaching within university departmental contexts
represents one way academics learn about university teaching. Such conversations also
have the potential to link learning on formal professional development programs with
teaching. As professional development of teaching is usually focused on formal
courses, workshops and projects, informal conversation has not been investigated as a
professional development strategy.
Even though conversations are not recognised as a means of professional development,
academics use conversations to learn about teaching. Despite the visible presence of
such conversations in university department corridors and staff rooms, there has been
little research reported on the effectiveness of these conversations in facilitating
academics‟ learning. Admittedly, the lack of formal recognition for conversations as a
professional development strategy, in combination with the informal nature of
conversation, make conversations a challenging area to research. Without substantial
exploration, we can not identify how academics use conversations to educate
themselves and their colleagues about university teaching. The lack of research into
conversation as a professional development strategy is the impetus for the current
study.
1.2 Context of this study
Teaching is one of the fundamental activities of a university. However, as universities
often value and prioritise research over teaching, staff may put less time and effort into
activities associated with teaching, including teaching-related dialogue.
Communicating about teaching is vital to improving practice, developing our
understanding of teaching, and enhancing student learning (Boud, 1999; Trowler,
2001). The literature on university teaching is now extensive, but one of the less well-
researched aspects of the scholarly discourse on teaching is the informal conversation
that occurs between departmental colleagues.
2
An informal conversation about teaching might represent an academic's introduction to
the scholarship of teaching and learning, and their first step towards contributing to the
discourse; and as such, it plays a critical role in their academic identity and
development. Informal conversation may be effective for learning because its nature
could encourage academics to solve issues in a very practical way and contribute to
them engaging more effectively in thinking about teaching. Traditionally, changes to
university policies or new agendas may lead to the organisation of formal professional
development such as workshops or seminars, but these do not necessarily solve
problems or assist academics to understand and meet departmental expectations for
teaching. Conversation could present opportunities for academic developers and
department leaders to transform departmental and university contexts to support
academics to adapt to change and develop their teaching.
This study sought to explore informal, „water-cooler‟ conversation on the topic of
teaching, with the intention of contributing to our understanding of the variation in
conversation across a single research-intensive university and potentially, to the
recognition of conversation as a strategy for professional development. It adopted a
socio-cultural perspective with a focus on the nature of teaching conversation, and how
conversation was influenced by departmental contexts. Departments have not often
been at the centre of inquiry. Trowler, Fanghanel, and Wareham (2005) identified a
deficiency in research done at the meso level, or the level of the “local
disciplinary/pedagogic community in higher education” (Fanghanel, 2007, p. 204). The
„meso‟ or mid-level, is distinct from macro (institutional policy/management), and
micro (individual student/teacher experience) levels. This study is located at the mid or
departmental level, where disciplinary culture is enacted (Trowler & Cooper, 2002),
and where little previous research has focused. It adds to knowledge about
departments, and how the complex interplay of institutional, disciplinary and
departmental factors contribute to the ways academic staff experience their workplace
contexts.
Departments represent both the fundamental context in which academic staff work
(Knight & Trowler, 2000) and an intersection of university culture and disciplinary
identity (Argyris & Schön, 1974; Kreber, 2009; Trowler et al., 2005). As such,
departments play a key role in the development of academics. Unsurprisingly, there
have been arguments for a greater connection between initiatives based in faculties or
3
departments and programs offered by central academic development units; for
example, Kreber and Castleden (2009) argue for an integrated approach to academic
development and Jenkins (1996) suggested that the development of academics should
be focused on their disciplinary concerns. Academic development that is tailored to and
located in departments is more likely to change practice (Blackwell & Blackmore,
2003; Trowler & Cooper, 2002). Boud (1999) suggests that the informal exchange of
ideas amongst colleagues within departments has a more significant effect than formal
generic activities specifically designed to develop academics. In addition to
representing a strategy for professional development in its own right, conversation with
departmental colleagues may present an informal opportunity for academics to connect
ideas from central programs with their teaching.
Although conversation about teaching within university contexts has not been
substantially explored, there are examples of research into conversation, such as the
work of Roxå and Mårtensson (2009). They found that academics spoke to more
people and described conversation as more significant in a supportive teaching context
(Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009). A supportive context is one in which there is visible
encouragement of quality teaching, such as through leadership and development of
teaching. Considering their work, and the related research on departmental teaching
contexts (Austin, 1996; Gibbs, Knapper & Piccinin, 2009), staff interviewed for this
study may be expected to attribute their opportunities for talking about teaching to the
University structure and climate, including the support offered for teaching.
This study investigates whether conversation represents a way for academics to learn
about teaching, and should be recognised as a strategy for professional development.
Insights from academics interviewed during the study may inform department-focused
academic development strategies designed to enhance teaching. The interviews may
also provide ideas for what academic developers can do to foster informal conversation
about teaching and strengthen the links between the learning from informal,
department-based conversation and that from formal academic development programs.
1.3 Approach of this study
The complexity of the challenge of investigating conversations has meant that little has
been reported on theory or framework relevant to academics‟ informal conversation
4
about teaching. The absence of appropriate frameworks influenced the nature of the
current study, particularly its methodology. The current study is exploratory, in that it
did not seek to validate existing theories of communication or learning. For such a
study, grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was considered an appropriate
methodology to use because of its emphasis on theory emerging from data. The
purpose of using the grounded theory methodology is to develop a theory that can
explain much of the relevant behaviour within a context, rather than reinforce existing
models or frameworks. This is unusual for higher education research, Ashwin (2011)
and Tight (2004) found that higher education research is not often used to develop
theory. This study aimed to contribute to higher education research by using data to
develop theory around informal conversation, specifically how it can encourage
academics to learn about teaching.
The literature on grounded theory is extensive and provides guidance on all stages of a
research project (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The approaches to design and analysis that
are encouraged in grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) reinforce its suitability for
exploratory research. The study was informed by the grounded theory methodology at
all stages of the project – research design, data collection and analysis. It was important
to investigate the nature of conversation from the perspective of those academics who
participated in conversations, which made semi-structured interviews an appropriate
method of collecting data, as interviews enable the exploration of a topic area of
interest while allowing individual perspectives to emerge. Glaser and Strauss (1967)
encourage broad sampling in grounded theory research as this will likely lead to a
variety of emergent categories and diversity in concepts and relationships between
categories. The sample of academics selected for interviews reflected this aim of
generating variety. Interviews were conducted with thirty academic staff working in ten
departments of different sizes, offering professional and non-professional degrees, and
at main and satellite campuses, at one Australian research-intensive university.
Twenty-four of the academics were experienced teachers who had worked for the
university for at least two years, and were appointed at mid-career level. Six academics
were recently appointed to teaching roles, and had participated in a formal professional
development program.
This study aimed to begin to explore the nature of the informal „corridor‟ conversation
about teaching that happens in university departments. This was partly to find out if
5
academics were learning from conversations with colleagues. Understanding whether
and how academics were learning from their conversations could provide support for
the recognition of conversations as a professional development strategy.
Three main topic areas were examined within the interviews: the nature of informal
conversations, the role of departmental contexts in encouraging conversations and
whether conversations served a purpose for academics. The main topic areas were
designed to contribute to our understanding of conversations and had also been
suggested by an earlier review of the literature related to how academics learn to teach.
All interviews were conducted using a semi-structured approach with guiding questions
and prompts. Questions were broad, for example, „Can you tell me about the times you
talk about teaching?‟ and „Since completing the formal development program, have
you talked about your teaching? Can you tell me about those conversations?‟ The
interviews were transcribed and the transcripts were analysed using grounded theory as
outlined by Glaser and Strauss (1967).
This thesis presents the scholarship behind this methodology and these results.
1.4 The outline of the thesis
Following this introductory chapter are eight chapters that situate this study with the
relevant literature, demonstrate the methodology used, and reveal its results and
implications.
Chapter 2 examines the literature related to informal learning, departmental contexts
and professional development. This review identifies the gap in the existing research
surrounding conversation about teaching as an informal development strategy for
academics.
Chapter 3 provides a rationale for the use of grounded theory methodology and an
introduction to the research design, data collection and analysis associated with this
method. This leads into a description of this study‟s use of grounded theory, using the
constant comparative method recommended by Glaser and Strauss (1967).
The data that were collected about the nature of conversation are presented in four
chapters: 4, 5, 6 and 7. These document the nature of informal conversation, and
6
connect it to the context within university departments, and to other opportunities for
learning about teaching. The foci of the results chapters are:
Chapter 4 Topics discussed during informal conversation about teaching
Chapter 5 The usefulness of informal conversation about teaching
Chapter 6 How context influences informal conversation about teaching
Chapter 7 Relations between a formal academic development program and
informal conversation about teaching
The results are summarised and discussed in Chapter 8 and this is used as the basis for
the recognition of conversation as a professional development strategy. This chapter
also presents some practical ways readers might take forward the ideas from this thesis,
with specific reference to three groups with an interest in academic development:
academic developers, department leaders and the individual academics themselves.
Chapter 9 summarises the contribution of this study to professional development and
provides suggestions for how further research could build on the results presented in
this thesis.
7
Chapter 2. Literature review
Communication offers academics the opportunity to explore ideas, share practice,
develop strategies, and apply professional and disciplinary knowledge (Boud, 1999;
Mezirow, 2000). Communication about teaching is key to the scholarship of teaching
(Healey, 2003; Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin & Prosser, 2000) and vital to enhancing
practice (Boud, 1999). The „scholarly discourse‟ around teaching may range from
informal, „corridor‟ conversations through formal meetings to publications in
international scholarly journals. There has been much research investigating teaching
practice and developing the scholarship of teaching (for examples, see Healey, 2000;
Huber & Morreale, 2002; Hutchings & Shulman, 1999; Trigwell et al., 2000), but little
focus on informal conversation between department colleagues.
Informal conversation about teaching, as explored in this study, includes spontaneous
conversation between academics who are departmental and/or disciplinary colleagues.
Conversation may take place either face to face in a university corridor, office or coffee
shop, or through an email exchange. Conversations differ from formal communication,
such as regular department meetings and formal academic development workshops,
because they do not have pre-arranged agendas and schedules determined by
facilitators. The nature of an informal conversation is likely to be interactive and might
be focused on a current teaching issue for one or both conversation partners. An
effective informal conversation about teaching might be described as one where the
colleague who was approached offered an appropriate idea to the academic who
initiated the conversation. Although he was referring to conversation in the context of
academic leadership, Ramsden (1998a) provides a useful definition of a satisfactory
conversation.
In a satisfactory conversation, we listen as well as talk; we try to engage in
productive dialogue; we respect the other‟s right to contribute, we imagine
ourselves in the shoes of the people with whom we are conversing. (Ramsden,
1998a, p. 163)
Informal conversation about teaching may represent a personal, unstructured way for
academics to learn about teaching and therefore, appears to be a professional
development strategy and a complement to formal academic development. Prior to
8
examining the established literature on academic development, and that on
departmental contexts, the literature which relates to informal learning, and to learning
from conversation specifically will be outlined, as these contributed to this study, and
can inform our understanding of professional development.
2.1 Learning through informal conversation about teaching
Despite receiving some support in the literature (e.g., Knight, 1998, p. 251), and its
potential for having a personal, experiential focus, the nature of informal conversation
and the emphasis of universities on formal, traditional modes of learning about
teaching have meant it has generally not been targeted as an avenue for academic
development. The limited relevant research is generally encouraging of conversation as
a way to learn, for example, Trowler and Knight (2000, p. 39) argue for “the creation
of as many opportunities as possible for informal discussions and shared work”, in
conjunction with other strategies, to help new academics learn. Haigh (2005) realised
the potential of informal conversation for professional learning, after reflecting on the
literature and his own experience. He notes the importance of features such as
“serendipity, improvisation, an open agenda, permissiveness and risk-taking” (Haigh,
2005, p. 14) for development, and the role of storytelling in conversation. McDrury and
Alterio (2003) provide practical strategies for the use of storytelling to facilitate
learning in higher education contexts. Gargiulo (2005) also describes the role of stories
in organisational communication and suggests that it is the personal channel of
communication, including that directed internally, where the least amount of resources
are usually expended. Although it is difficult to measure the success of personal
communication, he argues for increased organisational support designed to generate
stories, as stories connect people with an organisation and motivate them to improve
(Gargiulo, 2005). Senge (2006) provides strategies for creating a „learning
organisation‟, a place where staff learn collectively, and he illustrates the effectiveness
of these strategies using examples. One of these strategies is to establish dialogue.
Senge refers to Bohm (1965) to clarify the purpose of dialogue. Dialogue aims to move
thinking beyond individual understanding through suspending assumptions, acting as
colleagues and often with the help of a facilitator, asking questions (Senge 2006, p.
226-244). Although Senge emphasises the importance of team or organisational
9
learning, such dialogue or conversation can be useful for individuals within
organisations, such as academics working for universities.
There is evidence that academics would like to have more opportunities to learn
through conversations with departmental colleagues, in addition to participating in
workshops and mentoring programs (Knight, Tait & Yorke, 2006, p. 323). Advice for
how to engage in critical conversation about teaching exists (e.g. Brookfield, 1987;
1995), but there have been few instances of informal conversation deliberately being
used to facilitate learning. One example is from Clark (2001), who established a series
of semi-formal schoolteacher conversation groups and described their significance for
professional learning. He summarises what participants reported as being stimulated by
learning conversation
Articulation of implicit theories and beliefs
Perspective taking: seeing the world through the eyes of others
Developing a sense of personal and professional authority
Reviving hope and relational connection: An antidote to isolation
Reaffirmation of ideals and commitments
Developing specific techniques and solutions to problems
Learning how to engage with students in learning conversation (p. 173).
These might be a preview of what the academics in this study are able to derive from
informal conversation about teaching with their departmental colleagues.
Just as contexts can affect the impact of formal academic development, departments,
disciplines and colleagues may hinder or encourage academics to engage in effective
conversation about teaching. Roxå and Mårtensson (2009) identified individuals, the
context and even existing discourses as responsible for barriers to critical conversation
about teaching between academics. Investigating three different workplace contexts,
Fayard and Weeks (2007) found that informal conversation was afforded by
appropriate levels of privacy, proximity and social designation, such as those provided
by a photocopier room. Conversation about teaching amongst academics has been
described as not culturally acceptable (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009), partly because it is
seen as a private activity (Handal, 1999). In the case of university teachers,
conversation takes place at the “back-stage” (Goffman, 1959; Roxå & Mårtensson,
2009). Goffman (1959) distinguished the behaviours that appear at the front and back
stages (Goffman, 1959, p. 22) and suggested that there is a performance mode enacted
10
at the stage front, while back stage behaviours include errors and less than ideal
practices (Goffman, 1959, p. 43). Roxå and Mårtensson (2009) found that conversation
about teaching took place with few selected colleagues, and within „significant
networks‟; a similar pattern may be found in this study. Especially relevant for this
study is the idea that with support from departmental leaders and academic developers,
individual academics may be more likely to engage in conversation, and conversation
which is useful for their learning.
2.2 Contexts which support informal learning
Informal conversation is merely one form of informal learning available to academics
within university departments. Informal learning has been recognised in workplaces
other than universities. Building on the research from other workplaces to promote
conversational and informal learning may be a way to enhance professional
development in university departments. Academic development may usefully be able
to draw on various examples of learning theories or frameworks, such as self-directed
learning (Garrison, 1997; Knowles, 1975), and learning from problem solving (e.g.
Laurillard, 1987; 1995). The compilations provided by Boud and Miller (1996) on
learning from experience, and Boud and Garrick (1999) on workplace learning,
represent connections between these theories and ideas for adult and higher education.
McLean and McManus (2009) argue for the restructuring of academic development
from a „workplace learning‟ perspective, to improve its contextual relevance for, and
impact on, academics. Clegg (2003a) suggests that „continuing professional
development‟ presents a perspective from which to consider the development of
academics, and notes particularly its implications for the breath of activities, emphasis
on learning and the role of non-formal and informal opportunities. Another particularly
relevant theory for this study is experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), which emphasises
learner autonomy through activities which have varying degrees of learner authenticity,
personal engagement and control (Boud, 1989, p. 39). Weil and McGill (1989, p. 249)
note that experiential learning is the result of dialogue. They suggest that traditional
ways of learning (didactic models, with clearly defined „right and wrong‟ responses
and modes of learning) could be replaced with dialogue, which would allow for
personal or individual differences in learning and argue that this could deepen
understanding (Weil & McGill, 1989). These theories can also be used to measure the
11
impact of professional development. The effectiveness of one development program,
which drew on the perspectives of continuing professional development and
experiential learning, was attributed to academics determining their own learning
objectives, and it being a problem-based and research-based program (Stefani & Elton,
2002).
Non-formal or informal learning is often based on experience, for example, learning
from colleagues‟ practice and errors (Gola, 2009). A key to learning from informal
conversation about teaching may be the opportunity for an exchange of experiences
between academics – and that both academics must build on their colleagues‟
understanding and experience to share their own. Below, Dewey (1916) draws a
parallel between the social aspects of communication and learning.
Not only is social life identical with communication, but all communication
(and hence all genuine social life) is educative. To be a recipient of a
communication is to have an enlarged and changed experience. One shares in
what another has thought and felt and in so far, meagerly or amply, has his
own attitude modified. Nor is the one who communicates left unaffected. … any
social arrangement that remains vitally social, or vitally shared, is educative
to those who participate in it. (Dewey, 1916, p. 5)
Dewey (1916) suggests that a distinction or disconnection between formal (school-
based) learning and experiential or informal types of learning may hinder learning, and
that this is undesirable.
… As formal teaching and training grow in extent, there is the danger of
creating an undesirable split between the experience gained in more direct
associations and what is acquired in school. (Dewey, 1916, p. 9)
It is this disconnection between practice and formal learning for which professional
development has been criticised, and which Boud (1989) and Clegg (2003a), amongst
others, have attempted to address. Conversation, particularly with departmental
colleagues may provide this connection because of its informal and practical nature.
Although it has advantages, conversation and informal learning can be difficult to
support and measure. Despite the challenges, there have been attempts to define and
recognise informal learning in the literature and policy. Eraut (2004) provides a useful
12
framework for examining what is meant by the term „informal learning‟, and how
informal learning appears in the workplace. He lists some challenges to research into
informal learning as it being invisible, tacit and not easily explained out of context
(Eraut, 2004). Hager (1998) provides a summary of some of the factors that make it
challenging to recognise informal learning. The four factors relate to linking informal
and formal qualifications, non-traditional knowledge types, learner awareness of their
own learning, and the effect of context on informal learning. A report of policy and
practice published by The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(Werquin, 2010) outlined some of the strategies for, challenges of, and benefits from,
recognising informal and non-formal learning outcomes. Even with its associated
issues, informal learning exists, and there is emerging literature demonstrating the
significance of informal learning and knowledge sharing in workplaces other than
universities (for example, Boud & Middleton, 2003; Idema, Long & Carroll, 2010;
McNally, Blake & Reid, 2009; Waring & Bishop, 2010).
There has been recognition of the importance of the contributions of colleagues to
learning and specifically, to academic development. Lave and Wenger (1991)
recognised that learning was a social process that occurred within a context through
their theory of communities of practice. Their model identifies how members learn
from each other and contribute in appropriate ways to embed themselves in a
community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Context has been shown to contribute to teachers‟
opportunities for informal learning through leadership, and professional relationships,
in combination with teachers‟ individual stances as learners (Jurasaite-Harbison, 2009).
The role of colleagues in learning was also reported by Loan-Clarke and Preston
(2002), who suggest that the potential benefits of collaboration include more effective
use of individual abilities, opportunities to share knowledge or skills, intellectual
companionship, and increased motivation, networking and dissemination. Extending
the idea of collaboration with colleagues, there have been arguments for personal
attributes to be considered when facilitating teachers‟ professional development, such
as those of Hoekstra and Korthagen (2011),
...our findings indicate that teachers‟ professional behaviour is strongly
related to their personal life histories, their missions, ideals and passions, and
that support in teacher learning should consider these personal aspects and
facilitate developing self-knowledge ... We hypothesize that it is pivotal to
13
consider all aspects of teachers as whole human beings, in whom cognitive,
behavioural, emotional, and motivational aspects are interwoven in their
teaching and learning practices ... professional development initiatives should
not separate the personal from the professional. (Hoekstra & Korthagen,
2011, p. 89)
Traditionally, formal academic development programs attempt to minimise their
emphasis on personal characteristics, as these are often perceived to be unalterable, and
an inappropriate focus for such programs. Informal conversation may be able to tailor
to the individual needs of academics and feature aspects of support which encompass
the „whole human being‟, in a way similar to that suggested by Hoekstra and
Korthagen (2011, p. 89).
The contexts in which conversation and professional learning occur are significant.
Eraut‟s (1994) summary of what can affect professional learning provides a way for us
to consider what might be useful to encourage (or conversely, hinder) academics‟
learning within their departmental contexts.
1. Appropriate combination of learning settings
2. Time for study, consultation and reflection
3. The availability of suitable learning resources
4. People who are prepared (willing and able) to give appropriate support
5. The learners‟ own capacity to learn and to take advantage of the opportunities
available (Eraut, 1994, p. 13).
Several of these aspects may be especially relevant for attempting to encourage
academics to learn through informal conversation. For example, it may be important to
have expert colleagues available within departments, and departmental leaders may
need to provide support to individual academics so they have the capacity and time to
initiate and learn from a conversation.
Based on examples of education from around the world, some in very remote locations,
Vella (1994) provides some principles for effective adult learning through dialogue.
These include assessing learners‟ needs, a good relationship and respect between
learner and teacher, and praxis and immediacy of the learning. She builds on the ideas
14
of Knowles (1980) that the life experience of adults means that dialogue is the best way
for them to learn in relation to their experience (Vella, 1994).
Thinking about the literature around informal learning and departmental contexts may
develop ideas for how to enhance academic development. For example, formal
academic development may not be able to fully incorporate individual learning needs
in the same way as an informal conversation about teaching. This may suggest that
formal and informal opportunities for learning should be connected or integrated, such
as through supporting informal conversation within formal academic development
programs. To consider the nature of informal conversation, understanding the contexts
in which it occurs, i.e. the department, is necessary. The university department is the
focus of the next section.
2.3 Departmental contexts
This study is focused on academics‟ conversation about teaching within the context of
university departments. In addition to rarely being a focus of research (Ashwin, 2011;
Tight, 2004), departments play a significant role in academics‟ communication and
development. The department or faculty is the fundamental context in which academics
work in universities (Knight, 1998; Knight & Trowler, 2000; Trowler & Knight, 2000).
Departments also represent the interaction of the values and norms of a discipline and a
particular institution (Austin, 1996; Clegg, 2009; Kreber, 2009). Department cultures
may be affected by various factors, including leadership style, staff and student
characteristics, the physical environment, a department‟s history within the institution
and its relationship to other departments (Austin, 1996). In departments, the espoused
beliefs of an individual or discipline must become practices that align with
departmental and/or institutional strategy and policy (Argyris & Schön, 1974; Trowler
et al., 2005).
Academics may be members of multiple communities of practice or activity systems in
higher education (Trowler & Knight, 2000), and these groups may have competing
agendas, for example, disciplinary, institutional, educational-political and pedagogical
(Zukas & Malcolm, 2007). Austin (1996) argues that certain departments may
experience a conflict between the expectations of their discipline and those of the
university. When seeking to transform higher education, departmental level
15
communication is important because academics may attend to departmental
communication even when there is a different external agenda, for example, at the
institutional or national level (Clegg, 2003b). Knight and Trowler (1999) demonstrated
the significance of the departmental culture, as they found that messages received from
outside the department that did not align with departmental culture, were likely to be
disregarded by academics.
Academics‟ conversation about teaching may reflect the compromise between their
conceptions of teaching, (for example, what they value and prioritise) and contextual
influences, in a way similar to the link already established between these and their
approaches to teaching. Context (Norton et al., 2005) and conceptions of teaching
(Kember & Kwan, 2000; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999) influence academics‟ intentions for
or approaches to their teaching. Academics perceive that the following aspects
influence their approaches to teaching; whether they have some control over what and
how they teach, their class sizes are not too large to prevent interaction with their
students, students are able to cope with the subject matter, teaching is valued in their
departments, and their workload is appropriate (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999, p. 151). A
positive response to these aspects is associated with a conceptual change student-
focused approach to teaching and a negative response to these aspects is related to a
transmission teacher-focused approach (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). These approaches
and contextual influences will likely contribute to the nature of academics‟ informal
conversation about teaching.
2.3.1 Discipline
Disciplines form an integral part of academic identity, and disciplines link staff across
institutions working in the same or similar fields (Palmer, 1993). Early on, post-
graduate students are socialised into their disciplines, and this connection is
strengthened by disciplinary communities as their careers progress (Austin, 1996).
Academics from disparate disciplines have different epistemologies, different
approaches to teaching, and spend different amounts of time on teaching activities
(Smeby, 1996).
One of the most frequently cited descriptions of academic disciplines is that of Becher
(1989), who grouped academics according to their epistemologies into „hard pure‟,
„soft pure‟, „hard applied‟ and „soft applied‟, based on earlier work by Biglan (1973).
16
Approaches to teaching have been found to vary by discipline and context; those
teaching in „soft‟ disciplines have been shown to appreciate a conceptual change-
student-focused approach to teaching, in contrast to those from „hard‟ disciplines, who
identify with a transmission-teacher-focused approach (Lindblom-Ylänne, Trigwell,
Nevgi & Ashwin, 2006). In a summary of the literature, Neumann, Parry and Becher
(2002), found that those from both hard applied and soft applied disciplines are more
likely to focus on practical experience, and hard disciplines are often taught using large
lectures and laboratory sessions, while soft disciplines, through small seminars,
encourage students‟ ideas and face-to-face discussion.
The role of disciplines in shaping teaching and learning (including communication
about teaching) may not be as apparent as previously thought. The third and most
recent edition of Tribes and Territories (Trowler, Saunders & Bamber, 2012) suggests
that factors such as changes to higher education, and staff and student identifies, have
weakened the influence of disciplines, and that the idea of tightly held discipline
„territories‟ might be less relevant. Albeit weakened there is discipline influence, and
Kreber (2009) proposes we use Brookfield‟s (1987, p. 89) suggestions for encouraging
critical thinking by using disciplinary differences to help to identify and challenge
assumptions. Kreber advocates for communication across disciplines, because “when
discipline-focused dialogue is enriched through cross disciplinary exchanges, the
environment that is created has both supportive and challenging elements, rendering
critical reflection on practice more likely to thrive” (Kreber, 2009, p. 29). An academic
discourse is one that involves debate, where the experiences and ideas of all
community members and disciplinary communities contribute to the contexts in which
it is situated (McArthur, 2009). McLean (2006) notes the Habermasian view that an
institution is a place where academics and students have an open dialogue, and a
stimulating debate. Whether a university creates spaces for debate and discussion,
whether certain topics are promoted and others overlooked is largely due to its climate
and leadership.
2.3.2 Climate
Climate has long been established as a factor that influences how individual staff act
and interact. In 1961, Gibb showed that individuals working in a supportive climate
were more likely to exhibit trust, openness, empathy and confidence. Those in a less
supportive climate were characterised by criticism, judgement, and feeling they were
17
constrained by superfluous rules and procedures (Gibb, 1961). McGregor (1960)
outlined how management‟s assumptions of employee capacity and trustworthiness
contribute to organisational climates. A Theory X, or authoritarian, style of
management assumes that workers have limited abilities and cannot be trusted; the
more participative Theory Y is associated with the belief that people can be trusted,
and that trust leads to better outcomes. Biggs and Tang (2007) adapted McGregor‟s
(1960) management climates to an educational context and this provides an informative
example of how climates influence learning. They explained how teachers can create a
climate for learners, for example a wholly Theory X climate would create negative
feelings for learners and prevent them from engaging with curriculum or assessment
meaningfully and restrict their development. A Theory Y climate would send an
explicit message to learners that an assessment task is worthwhile, and this, combined
with an organised teacher (for example, one who provides timely feedback), would
contribute to making teaching more effective and enhancing learning (Biggs & Tang,
2007). Successful development might occur where a Theory Y climate exists, in
conjunction with the message from senior leadership that teaching is valued, and the
emergence of organised, positive (not critical) academic development processes. As
suggested by Trowler and Cooper (2002), and Kreber (2009), an awareness of climate
is important for understanding the contexts in which academics work, and for
determining what academic development might effectively enhance teaching.
A more negative climate reduces academics‟ willingness to communicate, share ideas
and information, and take action (Ramsden, 1998a, p. 78; 1998b, p. 363). In a
university context, teaching is merely part of academics‟ responsibility and in addition
to teaching, there are a multitude of topics competing for discussion time. Roxå and
Mårtensson (2009) explored the effect of a supportive teaching context on academics
and found it led to an increase in the quantity and quality of informal communication;
academics spoke to more people and described conversations as more significant in a
supportive teaching context. A feature of a supportive context is the departmental
leadership of teaching.
2.3.3 Leadership
Research into the influences upon departmental teaching climates (Austin, 1996; Gibbs
et al., 2009), suggests that staff may credit their opportunities for conversation about
teaching to departmental leaders, and values. For example, they might indicate that
18
those working in leadership or management roles (such as department heads, quality
advisors, mentors), or leading staff members (such as key teaching grant and award
recipients), provide a major contribution to determining what is recognised and
rewarded, and thus what staff within their faculty prioritise.
Gibbs et al. (2009) conducted case studies of departments that were identified as
excellent in teaching to explore how leadership contributed to departmental excellence.
Gibbs et al. (2009) use the term „leadership of teaching‟ to cover the work done by
department heads and other academic staff which enhances student learning through its
impact on the teaching culture. They identified a culture of collegiality and
entrepreneurism more often than bureaucratic or corporate cultures, suggesting these
are the cultures associated with excellent teaching (Gibbs et al., 2009). This has
implications for other department leaders and managers developing strategies to foster
excellent teaching.
Middlehurst and Elton (1992) reflected on management and leadership in institutions
of Higher Education in the United Kingdom using models of academic governance.
They suggest that universities have drifted away from the most appropriate system in a
normal context, a cybernetic model (a system that takes care of itself provided there is
a set agenda). They argue that this drift is a result of a perception of unacceptable
performance and external pressures, and these can lead to a focus on management not
leadership (Middlehurst & Elton, 1992). They support the assertion by Birnbaum
(1989) that without the cybernetic model and with an inappropriate balance between
leadership and management, the university‟s ability to adapt to ongoing change is
jeopardised. This is most likely linked to increased monitoring of rules and the
associated reduction in collegiality, trust and morale.
Ramsden (1998a) argues that departmental management or leadership affects the
quality of teaching and learning provided and he offers some guidance on how
effective leadership can be achieved in higher education. Bryman (2007) reviewed the
literature on leadership in higher education, and suggested that allowing academics the
opportunity to participate in key decisions, encouraging open communication and
creating a positive or collegial work atmosphere in the department are effective
strategies. Informal conversation will also likely be influenced by contextual influences
such as leadership strategies.
19
2.3.4 Teaching in a research-intensive context
This study aimed to investigate the nature of informal conversation about teaching in a
research-intensive university, a particular context, which brings with it a set of
assumptions about the role of teaching and communication about teaching. Brookfield
(1995) outlined the institutional cultures of silence, secrecy and individualism as some
of the barriers to critical reflection about teaching, and these may have a similar
inhibitive effect on informal conversation about teaching. A long-standing challenge
for academics is balancing their teaching and research responsibilities, and the
relationship between teaching and research has been explored in a number of studies
(e.g. Brew, 2006; Gibbs, 1995; Hattie & Marsh, 1996; Healey, 2000; 2005; Marsh &
Hattie, 2002; Neumann, 1992). For many academic staff there is an intuitive
relationship between research and teaching in universities (see, for example, Neumann,
1992), demonstrated by their key responsibilities, such as supervision of post-graduate
student theses (Bruce & Stooley, 2011). Research and teaching both have a role in
learning (see Brew, 2006); and this is evidenced by institutional strategies supporting
research-informed teaching (Brew, 2003; Healey, 2005; Huber, 2006), and it has even
been suggested that academic development could strengthen the links between research
and teaching (Clegg, 2003b; Macfarlane & Hughes, 2009). Despite the connections, a
frequently cited issue is that research is recognised, rewarded and consequently
prioritised over teaching activity (e.g. Gibbs, 1995).
Informal conversation about teaching may not be explicitly supported because its
content (i.e. teaching, teaching development) may not be perceived as strategic in a
research-intensive context. Additionally, the culture of a research-intensive university
might lead people to communicate or network more with individuals outside their
department, who will earn them prestige nationally and/or internationally. A
conversation about teaching in a research-intensive university (especially in a research-
intensive department), that does not incorporate some aspects of research may be rare.
Informal conversation may reference teaching only as academics tap into colleagues‟
experience of balancing research and teaching. It is likely that in this study, academics
will explain the nature of informal conversation about teaching with reference to the
ways teaching and research are valued within their institutional and departmental
contexts.
20
2.3.5 Academic development in departments
It is argued that academic development initiatives which are focused on and located in
departments are more likely to lead to changes in practice (Blackwell & Blackmore,
2003; Knight, 1998; Trowler & Cooper, 2002). Hicks (1999) suggests that the most
effective model for academic development might be an integrated model – a mix of
central and dispersed initiatives that are inter-related. Kreber and Castleden (2009, p.
528) propose an example of an integrated approach to academic development, where
small faculty/discipline based groups of staff attend „generic initiatives‟, to “extend
discipline-focused dialogue through cross-disciplinary exchanges” and to improve the
likelihood that their “discipline-enriched dialogue” will be promoted upon their return
to the faculty. This example strategy also highlights the significance of connecting
generic initiatives to disciplinary or faculty communication.
The degree of alignment between a situated academic development initiative and a
departmental context, or „regime‟ may be one reason for the effectiveness of the
initiative. Trowler and Cooper (2002) introduced the concept of Teaching and Learning
Regimes to explain why some academics respond positively to academic development
programs focused on teaching and learning enhancement, while others avoid or resist
such program. A Teaching and Learning Regime can be thought of as the climate or
culture in which issues of teaching and learning are made apparent. It encompasses
elements of identity, power, assumptions, rules of appropriateness, discourse, practice,
and teaching and learning theories. Trowler and Cooper (2002) state that a Teaching
and Learning Regime does not represent reality, but is a way to understand why a „one
size fits all‟ approach to academic development will not work, and they argue that this
awareness should inform the development of such programs. The influence of
Teaching and Learning Regimes on academic development initiatives may be extended
to informal conversation, for example, academics may seek conversation with those
who have similar teaching assumptions and practices and avoid those who do not.
There is a rationale for formal academic development to be connected to departments,
but there are many forms of academic development available that may be worth
considering. A deeper understanding of academic development more broadly may help
to frame this study.
21
2.4 Academic development
For conversation to be proposed as a complement to formal professional development,
it is necessary to understand what is generally understood by the term „development‟ in
the context of universities. A summary of academic development practice has been
provided by Ling and CADAD (2009), who reviewed studies of academic development
from Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and International contexts
(Blackmore et al., 2004; Dearn, Fraser & Ryan, 2002; Gosling, 2008; Prebble et al.,
2004; Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy & Beach, 2006). Academic development usually
includes induction and orientation for academic staff, formal workshops and courses
(either in situ or centrally facilitated), individual consulting, and systems for measuring
the quality of teaching and learning. Part of the academic development role may
involve leadership through committee and project work, resource development, and
research and innovation into the scholarship of teaching and learning (Ling &
CADAD, 2009).
Academic development has made a significant contribution to our understanding of
teaching across higher education (Clegg, 2009). There has been support for academic
development to be considered an academic discipline, due to parallels between the
scholarly nature of the research, teaching and service activities performed by
academics and academic developers (e.g. Bath & Smith, 2004). Given recent
arguments about the reduced significance of disciplines in influencing teaching and
learning (Trowler et al., 2012), it may be less important to establish academic
development as a discipline, and instead emphasise its interdisciplinary nature. Much
has been written about the nature of academic development, for example, Blackmore
and Blackwell (2006) argue that the profession of academic development is integrated
and holistic, and recognise that the emphasis may be placed on different roles or
activities during a career. Macfarlane and Hughes (2009, p. 9), argued for academic
development to be scholarly, inclusive (or holistic) and decentralised. Macfarlane
(2011) describes those who limit themselves to one academic function, such as
academic development, as „para-academics‟, and suggests this fragmentation of
important roles in higher education may have adverse effects on the experience of
students and staff. Academic development faces the challenge of providing core
support to universities whilst maintaining academic credibility (see Lee, Manathunga
22
& Kandlbinder, 2010, for reflections on the Australian context). Specific strategies for
academic development will be discussed in subsequent sections.
Formal and semi-formal academic development strategies and relevant committee
meetings represent settings for dialogue and learning about teaching. In this study,
academic development includes formal strategies organised centrally or within
faculties, such as formal workshops and courses run by facilitators, and initiatives
where academics work more directly with colleagues, such as mentoring and peer
observation.
2.4.1 Central and distributed formal academic development
programs
Although conversation is not recognised as a strategy for professional development,
many other strategies are available to support academics‟ teaching development.
Central programs for academic development can range from short focused workshops
to year-long courses designed to change the way academics conceptualise teaching;
they can be open invitation or academics may be required to attend as a condition of
their university appointment. Formal central programs have been shown to have an
impact on university teachers‟ conceptions of and approaches to teaching (e.g., Gibbs
& Coffey, 2004; Hanbury, Prosser & Rickinson, 2008; Ho, 2000; Ho, Watkins &
Kelly, 2001) and importantly, their students‟ learning experience (Gibbs & Coffey,
2004; Trigwell, Caballero-Rodriguez & Han, 2012). The content of programs differs
according to their purposes and institutional contexts, and has received some criticism
(e.g., Devlin, 2006), but in longer courses leading to a formal degree, there is
frequently an emphasis on the scholarship of teaching and learning, and approaches to
learning (Chalmers, 2011; Prosser & Trigwell, 1997; Roxå, Olsson & Mårtensson,
2008). Kandlbinder and Peseta (2009) surveyed academic developers in Australia, New
Zealand and the United Kingdom, and found that, in addition to the scholarship of
teaching and learning and approaches to learning, assessment as a driver of learning,
constructive alignment and reflective practice, were the key concepts taught during
these courses. These activities are often facilitated by members of a central or
disciplinary unit dedicated to the development of academic staff. In Australia,
academic development is usually limited to development of teaching (and perceived as
distinct from the development of research or service, further fostering the divide
23
between research and teaching summarised in section 2.3.4). The academics who
participate in development programs and activities represent all disciplinary
backgrounds, levels of interest and experience in teaching, and academic appointment
levels.
Activities designed to develop university teachers that are tailored to departmental,
faculty or disciplinary knowledges serve the function of contextualising teaching and
learning ideas for academics. They can also employ disciplinary jargon and examples
in ways not possible for centralised programs, ensuring that practical advice and
relevant expertise are provided in ways easily understood by participants. This may be
especially useful for academics who consider their teaching-related issues to be linked
to disciplinary content and departmental approaches to teaching. Section 2.3.5
summarises the literature that proposes that if academic development were to include a
focus on the departmental level, it could become more effective.
Centrally facilitated or in situ academic development activities can include options for
academics to learn from and work with colleagues to improve their teaching.
Enculturation into the academic community requires that academics learn from peers
(Boud, 1999), and so academic development programs often encourage collaboration.
Two examples of academic development strategies that are inherently collaborative are
peer observation and mentoring.
2.4.2 Collaborative academic development: Peer observation and
mentoring
Conversations and formal central programs represent different ways for academics to
learn about teaching. If both ways were placed on a continuum of professional
development in their most simplified forms, they would likely be at opposing ends, one
informal and department-specific, the other formal and central. There are also
strategies that represent a possible midpoint on such a continuum; these are designed to
build on knowledge from disciplinary practices and the literature on scholarly teaching,
and offer semi-formal development strategies. Those that are particularly relevant to
this study are the collaborative strategies of peer observation and mentoring, as these
include collegial communication as part of the development process.
24
Peer observation and peer review processes can help academics to demonstrate their
teaching abilities and these processes have been recognised as academic development
strategies (Crisp et al., 2009). Guidelines are available to help staff to manage the
process, which can be reciprocal and usually involves an academic observing a
colleague and providing constructive feedback (Harris, Farrell, Bell, Devlin & James,
2008). Peer observation has been criticised for increasing anxiety and „showmanship‟
amongst teachers, in addition to being subject to personal bias of observers, and
serving to ensure compliance rather than encourage learning (Byrne, Brown & Challen,
2010; Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004). Research has only recently started to
focus on the learning of the observer; Bell and Mladenovic (2008) reported finding
more positive responses from tutors about the benefits of peer observation from
observing colleagues rather than being observed and receiving feedback from
colleagues. Hendry and Oliver (2012) found that the benefits for lecturers included
both seeing how new strategies work and enhancing their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997)
for teaching, implementing these strategies. The benefits of observing peers may be
linked to the autonomy of observers, for example, to choose to focus their learning on
the areas of their colleagues‟ teaching they find most relevant (Byrne et al., 2010).
Schuck, Aubusson and Buchanan (2008) found that it was not solely peer observation,
but the conversations that followed observation, that led to critical reflection,
suggesting that the conversations represent an important part of the learning process.
Mentoring has been shown to be an effective strategy in different workplace contexts
to increase productivity and employee satisfaction (Ehrich, Hansford & Tennent, 2004;
Ewing et al., 2008; Hall, Draper, Smith & Bullough, 2008; Moles, Roberts, Diamandis,
Bell & Nichols, 2007). It can offer mentees opportunities for networking, career
development, emotional and professional support, and personal growth. It can develop
mentors‟ confidence and critical reflection and its often altruistic nature can be
fulfilling. However, mentoring is profoundly reliant on a successful connection
between a mentor and their mentee. Ehrich et al. (2004) identified a discipline and
personality mismatch between mentor and mentee as one of the problems associated
with an ineffective mentoring relationship. Furthermore, without a clear statement of
the objectives and expectations of a mentoring program, feelings of vulnerability and
reduced confidence may develop in mentors (Ehrich et al., 2004; Hall et al., 2008).
Mentoring has been criticised for its reliance on hierarchies to determine mentors, time
25
and role constraints that limit the potential for learning, and the inherent imbalance of
power between mentor and mentee (McGuire & Reger, 2003).
Ewing et al. (2008) implemented a program for academics designed to mitigate against
the challenges associated with mentoring. They encouraged mentees to select their
mentor based on a list of all potential mentors and incorporated flexibility into their
articulation of the program objectives by allowing each mentoring pair to develop their
own goals for the relationship. This was found to be effective for reviewing the
outcomes of the mentoring program by the organisers and participants (Ewing et al.,
2008). What may be relevant for the current study is that whilst the organisers provided
some support, the in-built flexibility of the program enabled academics to be
autonomous in the learning process and match themselves to an appropriate mentor. It
may be worth considering whether the effectiveness of informal conversation for
learning could be influenced by academics being able to determine the conversation
content and the colleagues to whom they speak.
2.5 This study: Informal conversation about teaching
This study seeks to understand the nature of informal „corridor‟, or „water-cooler‟
conversation about teaching between departmental and disciplinary colleagues. It also
seeks to understand the relationship between informal conversation and the ways
academics develop their teaching.
Throughout this thesis there are references to both the use and usefulness of informal
conversation. Although similar, there are different meanings associated with each word
and clarifying the distinction between the two may assist the reader. The data show that
conversations were able to serve different purposes for different academics. The ways
in which these conversations about teaching were used provide evidence that the
conversations were useful for academics‟ learning. The argument (and the
consequential appearance of both terms) is that conversations represent an effective
(i.e. useful) strategy (i.e. an approach that can be used) for academic development.
The results chapters document the nature of informal conversation, and connect it to
the context within university departments, and to other opportunities for learning about
teaching. Chapter 4 describes the content of informal conversation and outlines which
topics appear frequently in conversation. Chapter 5 focuses on the qualitatively
26
different ways academics experience the usefulness of informal conversation. Chapter
6 explores what influences the occurrence of informal conversation about teaching, for
example, having access to individuals with whom to converse, and an interest in
improving the quality of teaching may encourage informal conversation. Chapter 7
examines the connection between informal conversation and one aspect of formal
academic development, a program that introduces academics new to teaching or new to
the university to relevant policies and practices. Chapter 8 discusses the results
presented in Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the implications of this study for academic
development. Prior to the presentation of the outcomes of this thesis, the process by
which they emerged should be described. This process is the focus of the next chapter,
Chapter 3.
27
Chapter 3. Methodology
From a social-cultural perspective, the complexity of the challenge of investigating
informal conversation about teaching has meant that little has been reported on theory
or framework. Thus, grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was considered an
appropriate methodology because of its emphasis on theory emerging from data. This
study used interviews to explore academics‟ informal conversation about teaching,
with a view to understanding how conversation was useful.
3.1 Introduction to grounded theory
Grounded theory is a methodology where the aim is for theory to emerge from data
generated during the research process. Glaser and Strauss (1967), the originators of
grounded theory, argue for its distinctiveness from other methodologies where data is
collected to support or verify pre-conceived theoretical frameworks.
… grounded theory is the systematic generation of theory from data acquired
by a rigorous research method. Grounded theory is not findings, but rather is
an integrated set of conceptual hypotheses. It is just probability statements
about the relationships between concepts. Again, it is not findings! (Glaser,
1998, p. 3).
Grounded theory aims to identify a basic social process, and the nature of this process
forms the basis of the theory (Parry, 1998). Insights offered through the use of the
grounded theory method can help in planning, as “grounded theory tells us what is
going on, tells us how to account for the participants‟ main concerns, and reveals
access variables that allow for incremental change” (Glaser, 1999, p. 840). The
grounded theory literature provides detailed guidelines for how researchers can use
empirical data to develop theory, primarily using a general method of comparative
analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
3.1.1 ‘Theory’ in grounded theory
As „theory‟ is a term referred to frequently in this thesis, it may be helpful to clarify its
meaning. For Glaser and Strauss (1967), and in grounded theory research, theory is a
way to manage data, to describe, interpret, explain and make predictions. The
comparative analysis strategy used in grounded theory research emphasises that theory
28
is an ever-developing process, which can be modified, but not destroyed (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967, p. 28-32) or invalidated (Martin & Turner, 1986).
Theory can be developed for areas, topics or fields of inquiry, and in grounded theory,
there is a distinction made between substantive and formal theories. Substantive theory
is that developed for an empirical area and formal theory is that developed for a
conceptual area (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 32). As different strategies are required for
each theory type to emerge, research must be focused on developing one of the two
types (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This study aimed to develop theory in the empirical
area of academic development, and so it is at the substantive level. The following
section, 3.1.2, describes the intended outcome of research using this method – a
grounded theory.
3.1.2 A ‘grounded theory’: An outcome of using the grounded
theory method of constant comparison
[Grounded theory] is concerned with producing theoretical accounts of small
fragments of the world in which we live, the world which affects our everyday
life and the world which we need to cope with in handling many mundane but
nonetheless pressing matters. (Turner, 1983, p. 347)
The purpose of grounded theory is “not to provide a perfect description of an area but
to develop a theory that accounts for much of the relevant behaviour” (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967, p. 30) (e.g., informal conversation about teaching) within the contexts
(e.g., university departments) from which the data was collected. A theoretical account,
or theory, is made up of two main elements, categories (and their corresponding
properties) and hypotheses.
Categories and properties are conceptual elements, or concepts, indicated by data. A
category is an independent element of the theory and properties are used to define each
category (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Properties can be, but are not limited to “causes, …
conditions, consequences, dimensions, types, [and] processes” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967,
p. 104). A distinction is made between lower and higher level categories. Lower level
categories should emerge rather quickly during the early phases of data collection and
higher level, overriding and integrating, concepts, should tend to come later during
concurrent data collection and analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 36).
29
Hypotheses or relationships amongst categories and their properties make up the
second element of theory. Initially, hypotheses are the suggested relations among
categories and their properties (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 39). As data analysis
progresses, Glaser and Strauss (1967), suggest that it is natural for the researcher to
begin to generate and verify hypotheses through comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Although hypotheses may initially seem unconnected, “as categories and properties
emerge, develop in abstraction, and become related, their accumulating interrelations
form an integrated central theoretical framework – the core of the emerging theory”
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 40, emphasis in original). Consistent with the aims of
grounded theory, the emphasis is on all aspects, including the theory integration
emerging (and not being forced).
3.2 Grounded theory literature
Glaser and Strauss published The Discovery of Grounded Theory to further “the
discovery of theory from data – systematically obtained and analysed in social
research” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 1). The book was intended as a “beginning
venture in the development of improved methods for discovering grounded theory”
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 1), and was designed to stimulate others to codify and share
their methods for generating theory. Since then, there have been multiple publications
from its originators, Glaser and Strauss, and from their students (e.g. Morse, Stern,
Corbin, Bowers, Charmaz & Clarke, 2009), as well as from many other grounded
theory researchers and those who use aspects of grounded theory. Interpretations and
extensions of grounded theory exist, for example, situational analysis (Clarke, 2005),
and constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). Grounded theory has been used
for research into various disciplinary areas, including nursing (e.g., McCann & Clark,
2003), education (e.g., Kirchhoff & Lawrenz, 2011), business (e.g., Prime, Obadia, &
Vida, 2009), and Information Technology (Bryant, 2002a). It can be used for social
units of any size (Glaser & Strauss 1967, p. 21), and allows cultural dimensions to
emerge, regardless of the level of focus or the processes used for data collection and
analysis (Calloway & Knapp, 1995). Grounded theory is useful for organisational
research because it is understandable, provides insight and helps to improve contexts
(Martin & Turner, 1986). It is appropriate for leadership research, and when interviews
are used to collect data, for researching social processes (Parry, 1998).
30
Grounded theory advice, guides and examples co-exist with critique and debate of how
it can and should be used in research. The major factor contributing to a sense of
uncertainty and a perceived lack of rigour associated with grounded theory is the
disagreement between its originators, Glaser and Strauss. The divergence has led to
Glaser and Strauss each attempting to claim their place as the authority on grounded
theory, by publishing their own versions, and in some cases, condemning each other‟s
work. For example, Glaser wrote „Emergence vs. forcing - Basics of grounded theory
analysis‟ (1992), to correct what he perceived were mistakes published by Strauss and
Corbin in „Basics of Qualitative Research‟ (1990; 1998). Glaser (1992) argues that the
description and logic advocated in the method of Strauss and Corbin (1990) leads to
“preconceived, forced, conceptual description” and “not emergent grounded theory”
(Glaser, 1992, p. 4).
The following paragraphs (in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2) are my attempts to make sense
of the discourse and debate surrounding grounded theory and then, to summarise the
aspects of grounded theory methodology that appealed to me for use in this study.
3.2.1 Addressing some of the critique of grounded theory
Grounded theory and its status within qualitative research has been debated, with the
major criticisms referring to the aims and outcomes of grounded theory, and the lack of
clarification around process, for example, Bryant (2002b) described the process of
emergence as “ill-defined and unexamined” (p. 56). Despite other researchers
accepting what might be termed a „compromised‟ version of grounded theory, Thomas
and James (2006) assert that its inherent flaws mean it is not worth salvaging, even in
parts or modified. Thomas and James‟ (2006) argument is that by using the methods of
grounded theory, the researcher „invents‟, rather than „discovers‟ theory. For me, this
simply reflects the inherent creativity and autonomy of research; projects using
experimental designs and statistics are still conceived, conducted, and their results
reported by researchers. Part of the originators‟ intent was for grounded theory
researchers to have a role in „discovery‟; Glaser and Strauss allowed “for some of the
vagueness and flexibility that aid the creative generation of theory” (1967, p. 103).
Thomas and James (2006) also go on to claim that grounded theory rejects simple
understanding. I think that grounded theory builds on the idea that simple
understanding, when deepened or developed, can lead to insights not otherwise likely
to become apparent, similar to the process of critical reflection (Brookfield, 1995).
31
Glaser and Strauss (1967) saw grounded theory as more than simple understanding or
„everyday observation‟ because of its processes of data collection and analysis.
Thomas and James (2006) argue that using grounded theory procedures, and even the
term grounded theory, “stunts and distorts the growth of qualitative inquiry” (p. 790)
and loses the voice of participants, and the narrative style, the most significant outcome
of qualitative inquiry. I think that advocating for collecting data through interviews
suggests an appreciation of listening to participant voice, and helping the data to speak
for itself. In this study, grouping data together did not „fracture‟ or lose the voice of
participants, but developed the ideas and experiences of all participants to create a
more substantial and coherent picture of the behaviour in context.
An issue with grounded theory is linked to whether it is possible for researchers to
examine data without supporting preconceived frameworks. Harry, Struges and
Klingner (2005) state that the dichotomy between researchers who are theory-driven
and those who aspire to be „tabula rasa‟ (i.e. a blank slate) should not be a problem in
qualitative research if the researcher is “truly reflective” (p. 11). Urquhart (2002)
clarifies that theoretical sensitivity is not the same as tabula rasa, and argues that
Glaser suggests an “injunction against a deductive mode of thinking rather than an
injunction against the literature” (p. 49). In fact, additional perspectives or sources of
data may come from the literature and be incorporated and extend the theory (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). Kelle (2005, para. 5) acknowledges that all researchers bring their own
perspectives and frameworks, so analysis would take these into account, and without
these, qualitative research would be impossibly complex and lack meaning.
One major criticism is founded on the implication that a researcher who uses grounded
theory to allow categories to emerge will uncover truth (Kelle, 2005, para. 23). The
inference comes from the idea that a correctly conducted grounded theory project
cannot have incorrect outcomes. The assertion in grounded theory is not that the theory
is „correct‟ or „complete‟, but that the theory developed should be able to accommodate
new perspectives from the literature or what other researchers will see in the data.
Glaser (1998) does not suggest that theories cannot be modified, or are infallible, as
Kelle (2005, para. 23) would have us believe, instead he recommends that new data or
insights should be used pragmatically to enhance theory, not disprove it. The data
collection and analysis common in grounded theory would never allow for theories that
32
could be claimed to be true; theoretical sampling and the coding process used for
theoretical saturation are not appropriate for testing theory. Grounded theory can only
suggest theory because all available data are not considered and “no attempt is made to
ascertain either the universality of the proof of suggested causes or other properties”
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 104). Furthermore, the data upon which concepts and
theories are based may be inaccurate (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 23). Glaser and
Strauss (1967) go on to suggest that substantive theory should appear in a form which
could be implemented in some way for testing in quantitative research, reinforcing
their ideas for the uses and limits of grounded theory.
3.2.2 Understanding the differences between versions of grounded
theory
Many researchers and authors fail to engage fully with the differences apparent in the
advice of Glaser and Strauss and this helps to foster confusion about what is meant by
„grounded theory‟. Wilson and Hutchinson (1996) argue that when referring to
grounded theory, it is important to clarify whether the approach used was Glaserian or
Straussian, and which of their later works have been used to inform the research.
Grounded theory “combines creativity and some rules to enhance that creativity”
(Urquhart, 2002, p. 50). The difference between Glaser and Strauss seems to be
whether the rules presented are principles or guidelines (Glaser) or whether they are
important procedures to follow (Strauss). Walker and Myrick (2006) suggest that
analysis is “simply more a science with Strauss and more an art with Glaser”, and that
it is “more about the researcher and less about the method” (2006, p. 558). This
simplistic description helped to reinforce my understanding of how and why there are
similarities and divergences between grounded theory versions and publications based
on grounded theory and why some researchers identify strongly with one version and
denounce others.
McCallin, Scott and Johnston (2009) prepared a guide to grounded theory and reading
this validated my decision to use classic or Glaserian grounded theory. Reading the
description of why grounded theory suited them, and to whom it would be suited was
an „ah-ha moment‟ for me, as I identified very strongly with the descriptions. They
describe Glaserian grounded theorists as “simultaneous inductive-deductive thinkers”
(McCallin et al., 2009, para. 8), those who are able to manage line by line open coding
33
at the same time as seeing the whole dataset. McCallin et al. (2009) warn against
researchers conducting projects in areas that are ill-suited to their values and abilities,
as this will likely lead to problems. To be sure that the Glaserian grounded theory
methodology was appropriate for me, and for the questions I wished to pursue, I
explored the processes described by Strauss and Corbin (1990; 1998) and the critiques
and advice on versions of grounded theory.
Walker and Myrick (2006) attempt to detail the debate between Glaserian and
Straussian versions of grounded theory by comparing the work each has done in
elaborating and developing grounded theory. They summarise the divide and debate as
“centered on the researcher‟s role, activity, and level of intervention in relation to the
procedures used within the data analysis process” (Walker & Myrick, 2006, p. 547).
The versions of grounded theory published by Glaser and Strauss are similar in
language and general process, but there are differences in the way their processes are
enacted, and the ideologies that underpin these processes (Walker & Myrick, 2006).
Kelle (2005) provides an insightful critique of grounded theory, as disseminated from
each of the perspectives of Glaser and Strauss. Kelle (2005, para. 9) suggests that
Glaser‟s (1978) „coding families‟ and Strauss and Corbin‟s (1990; 1998) „coding
paradigm‟, are their respective ways of dealing with the inherent conflict in the 1967
version of grounded theory between theoretical sensitivity and emergence. Glaser‟s
(1978) strategy is “applicable for a greater variety of theoretical perspectives” (Kelle,
2005, para. 22) than that of Strauss and is less likely than the coding paradigm of
Strauss and Corbin (1990; 1998) to lead researchers to force the data (Kelle, 2005,
para. 19). However, Kelle (2005, para. 14) does not find the coding families of Glaser
useful, as formal and substantive codes are grouped together, and Glaser does not tell
novice researchers how to use the codes. The lack of organisation of the coding
families and the variety of theories from which they are drawn makes them even more
of a challenge for novices to manage (Kelle, 2005, para. 20). Kelle (2005, para. 21)
suggests that the „axial coding‟ approach provided by Strauss (1987) and later
developed with Corbin (1990; 1998) would potentially be more appropriate for a
novice, as it is less likely to lead to the data overwhelming the researcher. The main
issue I had with Strauss and Corbin was that it was prescriptive and did not allow for
the vagueness and flexibility (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 103) that is inherent in
conducting this type of research. For me, Strauss and Corbin‟s process felt as though
34
they were looking for something in particular, and had a clear strategy about how they
will find it, but Glaser‟s process involved exploring while not knowing what you are
looking for, or where you will necessarily look for the longest time, or in what order
the data will be examined. Essentially, while Strauss and Corbin‟s process may be
easier to achieve, especially for novices, it did not suit my way of thinking. Thus, for
the remainder of this thesis, the term „grounded theory‟ will refer to traditional or
Glaserian grounded theory, as described in Glaser and Strauss (1967) and developed by
Glaser (1978; 1992; 1998).
3.2.3 Credible grounded theory
Perhaps even more so than for projects attempting to use less contentious
methodologies, grounded theory research should be able to demonstrate its integrity.
Glaser (1998) presented four criteria for completing and evaluating a credible grounded
theory research project; fit (validity), workability, relevance and modifiability. These
were later elaborated by other grounded theory researchers and they could be used to
inform readers‟ consideration of the methodology used and the theory developed
during this study (described in section 8.2).
The first and most fundamental (Giske & Artinian, 2007) criterion is fit, or validity
(Glaser, 1998). Turner (1983) describes a good theoretical account as one which “fits
closely and adequately the social scene with which it is concerned” (p. 347). To
address this criterion, Piantanida, Tananis and Grubs (2004) encourage researchers to
ask whether their substantive theories have “coherent conceptual integrity” and “ring
true” (p. 341).
The second criterion of work or workability refers to whether the concepts and the way
they are related into hypotheses sufficiently account for how participants in a
substantive area resolve their main concern (Glaser, 1998). This is the criterion which
makes a grounded theory a theory. It is important that a theory can explain, predict, and
interpret behaviour within the context under investigation (Giske & Artinian, 2007;
Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Glaser (1998) argued that relevance, the third criterion, makes the research important,
because it deals with the main concerns of the participants involved. Another way to
measure this criterion is to determine whether the theory is able to “offer useful
insights” (Piantanida et al., 2004, p. 341). Turner (1983) suggested a good account is
35
“understandable and enlightening to individuals who have some familiarity with the
social phenomena under investigation, either as participants or as „lay‟ observers” (p.
347). The three criteria of fit, work and relevance were those I tried to address during
this study, with the key question being whether this study offered useful insights to
those familiar with informal conversation about teaching, and more broadly, those
interested in how academics learn how to teach.
Glaser emphasised the significance of the fourth criterion, modifiability; “New data
never provides a disproof, just an analytic challenge” (Glaser, 1998, p. 18). Additional
ideas, data and literature can be used to modify, but never verify, theory.
Understanding this was important when I was clarifying the aims and outcomes of my
grounded theory research.
Piantanida et al. (2004) also provide other useful questions, including, “does the
portrayal of the inquiry provide evidence that the research was conducted in a rigorous
and ethical manner” and “does it have the vitality and aesthetic richness to be
persuasive?” (p. 341). These questions were able to contribute to the design of the
research and assist me in following grounded theory procedures to produce a good
theoretical account.
3.2.4 Summary
Grounded theory is the systematic generation of theory from data and offers
researchers guidance on processes for data collection, coding and analysis, while
applying the method of constant comparison. Using these processes of theoretical
sampling, „memoing‟, sorting and writing, should lead to a grounded theory that
“provides us with relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations and applications”
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 1). The properties of grounded theory are more likely to
result in “theoretical accounts which are understandable to those in the area studied and
which are useful in giving them a superior understanding of the nature of their own
situation” (Turner, 1983, p. 348).
The purpose of this study was to offer insight into academics‟ experience of informal
conversation about teaching, the topics discussed, its usefulness, and how it was
encouraged, triggered or hindered by the contexts of university departments. Grounded
theory was an appropriate methodology because the theory based on the data from this
study will help to suggest what could be done to facilitate effective informal
36
conversation, and connect it to other forms of learning and communicating about
teaching.
3.3 Introduction to the grounded theory process used in this study
One challenge for novice researchers is to follow their chosen methodology
consistently and not just adopt and adapt a few of its aspects, or use it as a base. A
specific challenge for grounded theory novices is to delay attempting to develop theory
until they have properly analysed their data. I endeavoured to avoid poor grounded
theory and common mistakes made by novices by familiarising myself with grounded
theory literature and examples and implementing others‟ advice.
Glaser (1998) adopted Stern‟s (1994, p. 213) term of „minus-mentoring‟ to refer to the
process of novices learning about and using grounded theory in the absence of having
supervisors or mentors who are grounded theorists. Rather than being trained by an
expert, these novice researchers learn how to do grounded theory from reading books.
Glaser does not take the perspective that allowing researchers to do grounded theory
dissertations without training or experience contributes to the “erosion and distortion”
of the methodology, as he believes the disadvantages can be overcome (Glaser, 1998,
p. 5). To complement the earlier text (1967) he had co-authored with Strauss, Glaser
has written several books that describe how to use grounded theory methodology
(Glaser, 1978; 1992; 1998), and gathered volumes of examples of grounded theory
research (Glaser, 1995; Glaser & Holton, 2007). Glaser‟s (1998) text was written as a
colloquial second person narrative; its readers could feel as though Glaser is speaking
directly with them, as he addresses potential issues likely to be experienced by
grounded theory researchers. Following Glaser‟s (1998) suggestions and allowing
myself a substantial amount of time for reading and re-reading through the interview
transcripts was helpful for me in ensuring that I followed the methodology
appropriately.
3.3.1 Advice and examples of grounded theory
Similar to the aims and processes common in other research, grounded theory
researchers investigate an area from their particular sociological perspective, and with a
focus, general question, or a problem. What is different about grounded theory studies
is that in these, the researcher should not have preconceived a theory that determines
37
the relevant concepts and hypotheses to be considered in the research (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). Broadly, researchers are advised to “ignore the literature of theory and
fact on the area under study, in order to assure the emergence of categories will not be
contaminated by concepts more suited to different areas” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.
37). Once the “analytic core of categories has emerged”, a detailed review of the
relationships between the results and the literature can be established (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967, p. 37). To build on the advice of Glaser and enhance my understanding
of grounded theory, I read and reviewed relevant grounded theory research.
Providing insights into the research process in a way that a reader or fellow researcher
can follow, and potentially adapt, critique or use in some way, makes qualitative
research seem more transparent, in a way that is analogous to quantitative research.
The work of Harry, Struges and Klingner (2005) is one example where the authors
outline their research process. They quote Glaser and Strauss (1967), and then Strauss
and Corbin (1998), and highlight the relevant aspects of their data so that readers are
able to understand grounded theory, and grounded theory as used in the study by Harry
et al. (2005). Harry et al. (2005, p. 6) use a data analysis map to provide a clear
example of how their grounded theory process led to their theory. Other examples of
grounded theory research that were useful to me included an account of doing
grounded theory, which explained that for the authors, their thinking developed over
time, and that there was a stage of „muddiness‟ before things became clear for them
(Piantanida et al., 2004). These authors struggled with their „journey‟ of doing
grounded theory research, and offered insights and advice for others engaged in similar
experiences (Piantanida et al., 2004). I found that one particular PhD thesis (Senior,
1999) was a good model of what should be included in terms of incorporating literature
into the research process, and when it was appropriate to provide example codes and
analysis, such as those that didn‟t work but led to the thinking that did work. A
summary of how my grounded theory approach worked and where the advice of
experienced researchers has been used in this study appears in section 8.2.
3.4 Theoretical sampling
Fortunately for novice researchers such as myself, grounded theory processes and
advice are available for all stages of research projects. Theoretical sampling is the term
used for the process of data collection employed to generate theory. During this
38
process, the researcher concurrently collects, codes, and analyses data and determines
subsequent data collection based on the emerging theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.
45). Theoretical sampling differs in purpose and data collection process to statistical or
probability sampling. The purpose of theoretical sampling is to “discover categories
and properties and suggest their interrelationships into a theory” (Glaser & Strauss,
1967, p. 62). Theoretical sampling works to „saturate‟ (i.e. fully develop) the core
categories, those categories which are most relevant for prediction and explanation
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Glaser and Strauss (1967, p. 64) state that random sampling is not essential to achieve
saturation, but Glaser (1998) acknowledges that it may be necessary for research
requiring approval by a committee whose members are unfamiliar with grounded
theory. Parry (1998) suggests that using a combination of theoretical and statistical
sampling can mitigate against potential issues associated with grounded theory
research. In this study, sampling was initially done using more of a stratified sampling
approach, with the aim of interviewing between four and five academics from between
four and five departments. Later, when completed interviews and emergent concepts
were able to inform data collection, the approach to sampling was able to become more
theoretical.
3.4.1 Sampling in this study: Departmental variation
A broad approach to the process of data collection is advisable for research aiming to
generate theory, as this will likely lead to a variety of emergent categories and diversity
in concepts and relationships between categories, important in grounded theory (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967). Thus, to facilitate variation in responses in this study, departments
representing different sizes, professional and non-professional degrees, and main and
satellite campuses were selected. It was also important to generate disciplinary variety,
and the disciplinary classifications used were those of Biglan (1973), adapted by
Becher (1989). Academics that were interviewed were from discipline backgrounds
that have been classified as pure soft (for example, History, Philosophy), applied soft
(for example, Marketing, Accounting), pure hard (for example, Physics, Mathematics)
and applied hard (for example, Nursing, Pharmacy) (Biglan, 1973; Becher, 1989). See
Appendix 3 for a summary of the departmental variation.
39
3.4.2 Sampling in this study: Individual variation in planned
interviews
A list of mid-career academics (appointment level of Australian senior lecturer) who
were employed by each of the relevant departments (see previous section 3.4.1) was
created using details available on the University website. Senior lecturers were targeted
as it was thought that these academics would be able to provide and accept resources
and ideas through conversation about teaching (intended to contribute to achieving the
grounded theory aim of generating diversity in data). A criticism of this decision might
be that it limits the results and that they simply reflect the career stage of the academics
in the sample. However, the range of conversation described by academics during
interviews confirmed the sample had achieved its aim of facilitating variation. For
example, one interviewee said-
That‟s the thing about being a Senior Lecturer [mid-level academic
appointment]. You‟re in the middle but you probably take responsibility for a
lot more than people who are on a lower level, or on a higher level do. If
you‟re directing, you shouldn‟t really be doing, whereas the senior lecturers
are working with the lecturers to make sure it‟s happening. I think the
conversations where I‟m at go both ways. (Chris, a pseudonym, as with all
quotes included).
The list of senior lecturer academics was then decreased by deleting the names of
leading academics (those who were appointed to leadership roles in their departments),
exemplar academics (those who had completed formal degrees in education or tertiary
teaching), those who had not completed a PhD, and those who were not teaching-active
or whose teaching was limited to research supervision (e.g., research fellows). Part of
this study was focused on the potential influence of context, and so staff who had been
employed by the university for a minimum of two years were targeted, and academics
who were new to the university (i.e. those who had worked there less than two
semesters) were removed from the list of prospective interviewees. This should have
led to a sample of academics who had worked within, and could describe, institutional
culture, and departmental climate, and their potential influence on informal
conversation.
40
The final list was used to email 20 academics to invite them to participate in the study.
One reminder email was sent between two and four weeks after the first email.
Emailing and interviewing alphabetically through the list, this process was repeated
until theoretical saturation had been achieved, which meant that interviews were
neither generating new concepts nor developing existing concepts (Glaser & Strauss,
1967). This occurred after completing approximately 30 interviews; 20 were with the
senior lecturers originally targeted, and an additional 10 were used to build on concepts
which had emerged during earlier interviews (see next section 3.4.3 for detail on the
supplementary interviews, and Appendix 4 for the complete sample of individual
academics).
3.4.3 Supplementary interviews to build emergent concepts
Glaser and Strauss (1967) emphasise that grounded theory enables concepts to be
explored as they emerge, and so, in addition to the 20 planned, ten interviews (making
30 in total) were conducted. These were intended to build on those interviews already
completed and to extend specific topics considered important by participants and of
interest to the researcher. Five concepts were extended, the first four were about
influences on informal conversation, the fifth arose from participant descriptions of the
differences between formal and informal communication about teaching. The five
concepts were
Leadership in teaching and in departments
Quality assurance of courses and teaching
Excellence and innovation in teaching
Recently appointed academics
Relations between a formal academic development program and informal
conversation about teaching
The first four concepts were developed in one interview each, with someone who was
relevant, and/or nominated by an interviewee; one with an appointed department
leader, one with a Quality Advisor, one with someone who was considered an excellent
teacher and one with a recently appointed academic. It should be noted here that these
were the academics who had been excluded from the original sample (section 8.2.1
provides a discussion of the sampling process). The fifth concept, the relations between
communication about teaching in formal academic development and informal
41
conversation, was explored in six interviews with academics who had recently attended
a formal academic development program, „Principles and Practice of University
Teaching‟. The program registration list for „Principles and Practice‟ was accessed to
target the sample. The recruitment process was the same as that used for the earlier
interviewees, where to facilitate variation in responses; a list of academics representing
different disciplines (Becher, 1989; Biglan, 1973) was created. Academics on this list
were sent an email inviting them to participate in the study. Interviews were conducted
between two and twelve weeks after academics had attended the formal program. This
gave the total sample of 30 (20 planned, and 10 supplementary) academic interviewees.
The additional information gathered from the four supplementary interviews was
incorporated into the main dataset as appropriate, and the data from the six interviews
used to explore the connection between informal conversation and academic
development has been presented in a separate chapter (Chapter 7).
3.5 Ethics approval
An application to the University Human Research Ethics Committee was submitted for
the first set of interviews and approval was received in February 2010 (Reference
Number 12521, which covered the 20 planned and 4 additional interviews, see
Appendix 8). For the interviews exploring the connection between formal and informal
communication about teaching, the group of interviewees targeted and the interview
guide used were different to the original group and guide, so a separate application was
submitted to the University Human Research Ethics Committee. Approval for this was
received in March 2011 (Reference Number 13549, which covered the six additional
interviews, see Appendix 9).
3.6 Data collection through interviews with academics
The use of qualitative methods is encouraged in grounded theory research because
crucial elements of sociological theory are often found best with a qualitative
method, ... [it] is often the most „adequate‟ and „efficient‟ way to obtain the
type of information required to contend with the difficulties of an empirical
situation. (Glaser & Strauss 1967, p. 18)
42
Qualitative research has many available methods, one of which is interviews.
Grounded theory is appropriate for, amongst other things, semi-structured interviews
(Martin & Turner, 1986). Interviewing is preferable to observations to overcome a
potential validity issue of “researcher reactivity” (Parry, 1998, p. 96) and can be
supplemented with observation and document analyses. The approach to collecting
qualitative data used in this study was semi-structured interviews, using a guide, with
some analysis of documents related to the formal academic development program. One
way to mitigate against the limitations of grounded theory interviews is to ask
questions about topics related to the concept of interest (Parry, 1998). For example, in
some interviews in this study, some questions were indirect and asked about how
academics developed aspects of their teaching, rather than whether they had
participated in conversation about teaching.
3.6.1 Interview guides
To assist the facilitation of the semi-structured interviews, a guide (see Appendix 1)
was used which had been developed and revised following pilot testing on four of my
academic colleagues (not included in the sample). The pilot testing was done with the
intention of ensuring misunderstandings between the interviewer and interviewees
would be minimal, and the questions asked could elicit sufficient relevant information
within an appropriate timeframe.
The aim of the interviews was to explore academics‟ experience of informal
conversation about teaching and the role of departmental climates in facilitating
conversation about teaching. I used the guide to conduct all interviews to generate
comparable responses across interviews. Each interview began with somewhat generic,
„warm-up‟ questions to establish a connection. As an entry point into asking questions
about informal teaching conversation, I asked some questions about academics‟ current
teaching experience.
The following are examples of the sorts of questions that were used in the first group of
interviews. Follow-up questions and prompts were used to invite participants to clarify
or expand earlier comments.
Can you tell me about the times you talk about teaching?
43
Is there anything about your department that encourages you to
talk about teaching? Is there anything that discourages you from
talking about teaching?
What might prompt a conversation about teaching in your
department?
For the six interviews which explored the connection between informal conversation
and a formal academic development program, a second interview guide (see Appendix
2) was developed, informed by both the first interview guide (see Appendix 1) and the
experience of the completed interviews. This second guide focused on interviewees‟
learning and development during the formal academic development program (which
also served to extend the current program evaluation) and the nature of their informal
conversation about teaching since attending the program. The following are examples
of the sorts of questions that were used in the interviews.
What did you learn during the program? Do you plan to change
anything about your teaching?
Since completing the program, have you talked about your
teaching? Can you tell me about those conversations?
3.6.2 Interview process to collect data
Glaser (1998) divided data into four types and suggested that within these types, the
data ranges conceptually from “factual descriptions to airy ungrounded
conceptualizations” and is often a combination (Glaser, 1998, p. 8). There are
„Baseline‟ data, the “best description a participant can offer”; and other types of data
are „Properline‟ (what a participant thinks a researcher should be told), Interpreted data
(what a participant considers their expert opinion) and „Vagueries‟ (where the
participant has no stake in the research and so shares little or no information) (Glaser,
1998, p. 8). I aimed to gather baseline data and avoid the other types of data wherever
possible, and the strategies I used when designing interview questions and conducting
interviews reflect this aim.
All participants were interviewed individually, face-to-face, and during business hours,
and most interviews were held in the academics‟ offices on university campus. Four
participants chose to have their interviews at locations near (rather than in) their
offices; two were at cafés, one was held in a meeting room and one took place in a
44
foyer. Part of the rationale for having the interviewees choose the interview location
(apart from the researcher‟s motivation to collect data) was to encourage the
interviewee to feel comfortable. This combined with my earnest, open approach to the
interviews may have helped to create rapport between the interviewees and myself.
During the interviews, I generally tried to respond with active listening techniques to
encourage further comment by the interviewees. Using a semi-structured interview
guide meant that I used many questions of clarification, paraphrasing, and a process of
repeating interviewees‟ responses then inviting the interviewee to expand on, or
explain their response. This was one way to avoid „vaguing out‟ (Glaser, 1998, p. 8),
where participants are vague and do not provide useful information. I used non-
committal responses, or non-words to help develop an accurate picture of the
interviewees‟ experience, rather than what they thought I wanted to or should hear
(described as „Properline‟ data by Glaser, 1998). Responding with a direct „yes‟ or „no‟
or displaying positive or negative facial expressions could have influenced the
interviewees and affected the data they provided.
Incidents from interviews indicate that the strategies were successful and the
interviewees felt comfortable and genuinely wanted to disclose information about their
experiences. That the „Baseline data‟ (Glaser, 1998, p. 8) planned for was achieved was
demonstrated by the levels of detail, humour and negativity provided by the
interviewees. For example, several of the interviewees laughed during their interview
as they recalled a humorous experience, or an especially difficult colleague. Other
academics recounted detailed stories and what could be classified as „gossip‟ and
several academics continued to speak after the interview was completed. The duration
of interviews ranged from about 20 to 60 minutes, with an average of 40 minutes.
Glaser (1998) argued that everything is data; “interviews, notes, biases, spurious
variables” (Glaser, 1998, p. 8). Consistent with this, the interviewer took notes
throughout each interview and all interviews were recorded using a digital dictaphone
and transcribed as soon as possible after they occurred, as part of the process of
collecting and analysing data involves reviewing the data previously generated. As
mentioned previously, this leads to interviews informing subsequent interviews, so that
interesting data and concepts can be built upon with other participants, and categories
and theory are developed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
45
3.7 The constant comparative method of data analysis
Grounded theory uses the constant comparative method to analyse data. The purpose of
the constant comparative method is to generate theory systematically by using explicit
coding and analytic procedures (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This process is described as
one where the researcher is “generating and plausibly suggesting … many categories,
properties, and hypotheses about general problems” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 104).
Glaser and Strauss (1967) argue that this method assists the researcher to develop a
theory that is integrated, consistent, credible, and representative of the data. Broadly,
there are four stages suggested in the constant comparison process (Glaser & Strauss,
1967, p. 105) and these are briefly described below, and then each stage is outlined in
subsequent sections with respect to this study. Although they will be described
separately for simplicity, “each stage … is transformed into the next – earlier stages do
remain in operation simultaneously throughout the analysis and each provides
continuous development to its successive stage until the analysis is terminated” (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967, p. 105).
Stage 1. Comparing incidents applicable to each category
This stage involves the researcher comparing incidents and data that are applicable to
each category, with previous incidents in the same category, and with other data that
are in the same category. Initially, this means coding each incident in the data into as
many categories of analysis as possible, as categories emerge or as data emerge that fit
an existing category (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 105).
Stage 2. Integrating categories and their properties
In this stage, the constant comparative units change, from comparison of incident with
incident to comparison of incident with properties of the category that resulted from
initial comparisons of incidents. This leads the diverse properties to start to become
integrated and the category to become integrated with other categories (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967, p. 108).
Stage 3. Delimiting or bounding the theory
Glaser and Strauss (1967) argue that as the theory develops, various delimiting features
of the constant comparative method begin to curb what could otherwise become an
overwhelming task. This should occur at two levels, theory and categories. First, as the
theory solidifies, major modifications become fewer as the analyst compares the next
incidents of a category to the category properties (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Second, as
46
the original list of categories for coding reduces, the consideration, coding, and
analysing of incidents can become more select and focused. This allows the researcher
more time to compare incidents applicable to this smaller set of categories and for the
categories to become theoretically saturated (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 109).
Stage 4. Writing about or setting out the theory
At this final stage, the researcher should possess “coded data, a series of memos, and a
theory” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 113). The discussions in memos (or written ideas)
provide the content behind the categories, which become the major concepts of the
theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
The theory can be published when the researcher is convinced that the analytic
framework forms a systematic substantive theory, that it is a reasonably accurate
statement of the process or area studied, and that it is presented in a form that others
could use (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
The theory of this study is presented in section 8.2.3, and as this study has an academic
development focus, suggestions for how others could use the theory are provided in
section 8.3.
3.8 A summary of my process using the comparative method
The focus of analysis was on the nature of informal conversation about teaching. The
intention was not to attempt to find out how frequently these conversations take place
or identify a typical conversation, but rather, to explore whether conversation occurs,
and how it might have been brought about, and begin to understand academics‟
experience of informal conversation about teaching.
A summary of how each of the four recommended stages of the constant comparative
method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) were implemented in this study is provided in the
following sections, with references to appendices to illustrate aspects of my process.
The thesis chapter framework has been used as a guide, rather than an account of my
experience in chronological order.
The results presented in each chapter emerged during the transition between Stage 1
and Stage 2 of the constant comparative method. The transition process (from section
3.10) will focus on the content developed for each of the chapters. In order, these are,
47
„Topics discussed during informal conversation about teaching‟ (Chapter 4), then „The
usefulness of informal conversation about teaching‟ (Chapter 5), then „How context
influences informal conversation about teaching‟ (Chapter 6), followed by „Relations
between a formal academic development program and informal conversation about
teaching‟ (Chapter 7). There will then be sections on the transitions to Stages 3 and 4
of the method, on integrating the results of the chapters, and developing a grounded
theory (sections 3.11 and 3.12).
Prior to the foci on the development of the content for each chapter, an introduction to
the first part of my analysis process (i.e. prior to Stage 1) is provided in section 3.9.
3.9 From making sense of the data to Stage 1 ‘Comparison’
Conducting all the interviews led to ideas about possible codes, as did re-reading
through the transcripts. I made a few notes on each interview transcript to see if there
were ideas and possible categories that were important across several interviews.
Martin and Turner (1986) outline the difference between „good notes‟ and „poor notes‟;
good notes are thorough, and include details and explanations, and are “useful even
after a considerable period of time” (p. 147). With this advice in mind, I tried to be
thorough, dating all notes and including identifying details of relevant quotes.
Throughout my candidature, I kept a journal of notes and looking at the differences
between initial and recent entries shows how my ideas have evolved over time.
Glaser and Strauss (1967) “believe that the generation of theory should aim at
achieving [as] much diversity in emergent categories, synthesized at as many levels of
conceptual and hypothetical generalization as possible” (p. 37, emphasis in original). I
took the advice of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and my supervisor, and started analysis by
generating as many different classifications as I could. The list was originally bullet
points, and later, I organised these into a table, see Table 3.1 Preliminary ideas about
informal conversation. This table presents what is almost a map of the data. It shows
ideas about the nature of conversation in terms of who was participating in
conversation, its usefulness, what is discussed, and how this fits into the broader
context. The concepts presented in Column 1 of Table 3.1 were later to become the
categories that were used as a starting point for each part of the remainder of the
48
analysis. The properties in Column 2 of Table 3.1 appear to be broad and are listed
arbitrarily.
Table 3.1 Preliminary ideas about informal conversation
‘Concept’ Properties
Conversation
partners
Friends/colleagues/select few/lone/most expert on (Talk to friends,
people with expertise)
Male/female
Individual/group
Teacher/non-academic/mentor PEOPLE
Superior (senior) colleague or less senior
University/discipline/department/community of practice (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2000)
Nature of
conversation
Regular/frequent/spontaneous/candid
Formal/informal
Links to initiatives tried by Head of Department e.g. morning tea
Initiated or visited e.g. I wanted help or they came to me
Up to academics (they need to initiate conversation for themselves)
Forced (by senior staff) (undesirable student survey result)
Usefulness
of
conversation
Useful/Exploratory/Interesting/Important
Desirable or a waste of time
Beneficial/influential/supportive IMPACT/CHANGE
Venting/whinging
Development of resources or sharing PEDAGOGY
Conversation happens as needed, to solve problems or vent
„How are you going?‟ – check-in function of conversation
Talk about what has worked
Topics
discussed
during
conversation
Regular business e.g. timetable, undergraduate
Celebratory e.g. congratulations on promotion/ award
Alignment of unit to program – teaching teams
Problem-based e.g. difficult studentstrategies
Evaluation – peer, own, student feedback
49
Assessment/standards
Strategic plan/other e.g. funding/current ISSUE/student numbers and
quality
Curriculum development
Classroom focus e.g. dynamics/participation
How
conversation
fits into the
broader
university
context
University structure e.g. policy/how university policy is interpreted and
enacted at disciplinary/department levels
Conceptions of teaching (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999)
Perceptions of value of teaching – avoid versus improve
Comparison with research
Time – duration of conversation, proportion of teaching-related
activities to others, length of time working for the university
Academic identity/priorities
Negative aspects e.g. of department culture
Leadership e.g. Associate Dean or chair
Research versus Teaching
Too busy
Doing versus thinking/efficient versus effective teaching
Formal meetings are not good for teaching (most participants), but a
few said formal processes worked well and they had no need for
informal OR that formal encourages informal (memo: point of
difference and similarity)
Some describe processes e.g. mentoring, others describe individuals or
groups e.g. co-ordinators of units in one program, others describe
different types of interactions, e.g. tutor meetings (memo: maybe these
are part of the theory?)
3.10 From Stage 1 ‘Comparison’ to Stage 2 ‘Integration’
This section represents the transition between Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the constant
comparative method used in grounded theory. During Stage 1, the researcher compares
incidents and data that are applicable to each category, with previous incidents and
other data that are in the same category. During Stage 2, the researcher compares
incidents with properties of the category that resulted from the Stage 1 comparisons
50
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, pp. 105-108). This was the stage when the majority of time
and effort was spent on analysis. Although later stages required more critical thought,
the volume of as yet unsorted data made this a particularly challenging stage for me.
The process for developing each of the chapters is presented separately, in the order in
which they appear in this thesis.
3.10.1 Topics discussed during informal conversation (Chapter 4)
To explore the topics which appeared in informal conversation, I separately printed
each of the categories that had emerged during my earlier scan of the data, and took
notes on each. The idea with this was to help me to generate as many codes as possible,
and this worked and led to more than 160 coded incidents. There were broader, higher
level concepts suggested by the data, for example, “formal versus informal and
communication in general, a single idea or issue leads to conversation which leads to
„other suggestions‟, students are a major topic of conversation”. It makes sense to
illustrate the difference between one of these broader concepts, and the related
incidents using an example. Within the broad concept topic of „Students‟, some of the
specific incidents were:
Those students who find it difficult or do not have the skills we would expect
by this stage
Individual students – a terrifically good or bad essay
How to deal with difficult students and get ideas from colleagues‟ experience
How to manage student numbers
Dealing with students „at-risk‟
To manage the list of incidents, the topics of conversation were sorted according to
their aim. I thought that this might have reflected stages or phases of academics‟
development, at the time of their conversation. I found four topics: designing,
moderating, managing and reviewing were most prominent, but was later to realise that
these more accurately reflected the purpose (i.e. usefulness) of conversation, and not
the topics of conversation. A new strategy was then needed to explore the topics of
conversation.
As part of their vision for grounded theory, the originators of grounded theory
encouraged grounded theorists to develop their own tools for analysis which supported
51
grounded theory methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I needed to explore and
summarise the range of topics and present them in a format that would be easily
interpreted by those unfamiliar with the whole dataset (an important aim for grounded
theory, see Glaser, 1998; Piantanida et al., 2004; Turner, 1983). To achieve this aim, I
used a freely available software program, Wordle™ (sourced from
http://www.wordle.net/) which turns passages of text into word cloud images. Text-
matching software can help to identify themes and sort large amounts of text (Morris &
Ecclesfield, 2011) and Wordle™ is one example of this type of software. McNaught
and Lam (2010) argue that Wordle™ can be used as a supplementary research tool,
particularly for exploratory or validation purposes, which meant it was suitable here.
Wordle™ and other tools that produce similar images cannot be considered self-
sufficient methods for text-based analysis. As with all software, the researcher is
responsible for how the data is managed and analysed (Crowley, Harre & Tagg, 2002;
Gweon, Rosé, Wittwer & Nueckles, 2005; Welsh, 2002), because a program cannot be
relied upon to perform rigorous analyses.
The „sorting‟ process of Wordle™ is very user-friendly, as any length of text can be
submitted to create a word cloud. The product of Wordle™, the image or „word cloud‟
is a visual representation of the text submitted, with the size of the font of each word
reflecting the frequency with which the word appeared. The largest words represent the
most frequently discussed topics, and the smallest words those topics which appeared
less frequently in the text submitted. The Wordle™ image displays the most commonly
used words, and a limit can be set on the number of the most commonly used words
displayed, for example, up to 100 words. A quick glance at the word cloud, even by a
„lay observer‟ can reveal key themes and provide a guide to the ideas which were
presented in the text submitted.
An example of a word cloud is presented as Figure 3.1. This figure represents a
summary of the terms most frequently used to describe the topics addressed in informal
conversation about assessment, before meaning was clarified using the process outlined
in the subsequent paragraphs.
52
Figure 3.1 Terms most frequently used to describe the topics addressed in informal
conversation about assessment (before meaning was clarified)
One reason that this software was useful for a novice grounded theorist is that the
nature of the Wordle™ program ensures that the analyst has to decipher the meaning of
words and code them appropriately, before the text submitted will accurately represent
the data. The software program recognises words (and counts them) as the same word
only if they are exactly the same; for example, the term, „student‟ is considered to be a
different word to „students‟, „Students‟, „learners‟ and so on, despite these being used
interchangeably in interviews. In Figure 3.1 above, visible examples of this are exam
and exams, and type and types. The Wordle™ program is able to recognise phrases if
words within the phrase are connected by the symbol, „~‟ and there are no spaces. This
feature was employed prior to the creation of Figure 3.1, for example, the phrases,
„how to‟ and „constructive alignment‟, were changed to „how~to‟ and
„constructive~alignment‟, to clarify their meaning.
This process of coding , sorting and meaning clarification, involved several steps:
1. Turning pairs of word into phrases as appropriate, e.g. how~to, deal~with,
what~works, making~sure, constructive~alignment
2. Collapsing words into categories of meaning, e.g. better and improve=improve;
gripe and whinge=whinge; change and changing=change; numbers,
big/small/large classes=class~size; approaches, ways, styles and
strategies=approaches; deliver, delivery and implement=delivery; develop,
developing and developments=developing
53
3. Deleting words that were used frequently but did not add to the meaning of
topics. This was because that way, they did not appear in the word cloud
representation. Examples of these words were „about‟ and „especially‟.
An advantage of Wordle™ is that it forces the analyst to ask, „what is going on here?
What does this mean?‟ (a key to grounded theory research, Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
When the words were coded into appropriate categories, the representation displayed
the words and phrases that were most commonly used, and the differing text sizes
made it easy to see what was of most significance in the text submitted, in this case, to
begin to answer the question, „what are teaching conversations about?‟ (see Chapter 4
for the results related to the topics of informal conversation).
The word cloud, which was the result of completing these steps, appears as Figure 4.3
Terms most frequently used to describe informal conversation about assessment.
3.10.2 The usefulness of informal conversation about teaching
(Chapter 5)
As staff reported how important conversation with colleagues was for developing their
teaching, a key focus of analysis was on the patterns of usefulness of conversation
about teaching. Each interview transcript was read and re-read to identify and code the
data that related to conversation having an impact or being useful to academics.
Where appropriate, software programs provided by Microsoft Office and QSR
International were used to facilitate the data analysis process. Initially, line by line (or
incident by incident) coding was done using QSR NVivo software (NVivo8
http://www.qsrinternational.com), and as I became better able to manage and code the
data, I was able to migrate the data to Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel (2007; then
2010 versions http://www.office.microsoft.com/en-au). One reason for this was that I
was more comfortable and competent using the programs with which I was familiar.
Although there is a perception that software programs that are designed to facilitate
qualitative research can increase the efficiency and validity of analysis, they are only as
rigorous and reliable as the analyst who is using the software (Crowley et al., 2002;
Gweon et al., 2005; Welsh, 2002).
Students (and novice researchers) using grounded theory are criticised for not being
able to use it properly, for failing to develop theory, and for coding inconsistently (Tan,
54
2010; Wilson & Hutchinson, 1996). I was very conscious of the importance of making
sense of the data, so I could manage it, familiarise myself with it, and not pursue
connections between categories unless they emerged, that is, to follow grounded
theory. During the early stages of analysis, there seemed to be some core codes related
to the usefulness of conversation, see Table 3.2
Column 1 of Table 3.2 represents the preliminary stages of coding, where there were
multiple codes, and lower level categories, and in Column 2 of Table 3.2, these have
developed into higher-level categories. While the focus of this part of the analysis was
on the usefulness of conversation, looking back now, I can see that Column 1 of Table
3.2 incorporates more codes and more categories of codes than I had intended. That I
was unable to limit myself to coding only within the „usefulness‟ category was to be
predicted, given that the categories were not yet fully developed or integrated at this
stage of analysis. Column 1 includes references to data about the usefulness but also
the topics of conversation and whom conversations were with, and facilitators and
barriers to informal conversation. Column 2 was the result of an early attempt to sort
the codes of Column 1, and to focus on the codes relevant to the usefulness of
conversation.
Table 3.2 Preliminary categories suggesting how conversations are useful
Lower level categories and properties Higher level categories
and illustrative quotes
Support – vent rant war/horror stories
Permission/Encouragement – maintain motivation
SUPPORT
“reassure yourself
you‟re not doing a
terrible job” (Patrick)
Exchange of resources – internet, books, readings, also,
especially for new staff or staff new to teaching,
Coordination and organisation
Exchange of ideas – linked to assessment, approaches to
teaching, how to get students engaged in large, compulsory
classes
PRACTICAL
55
Quality assurance and enhancement – teaching,
assessment/feedback, student learning, marking, standards,
expectations, also external requirements such as
professional courses
Review, develop and align curricula
PRACTICAL
“guided by my
colleagues who had
extensive experience in
developing new
curricula” (Ellen)
Tacit knowledge – having similar levels of interest in
teaching and a philosophy of teaching tended to generate
conversation, being aware of what the department
emphasises, what was important for courses, e.g. first year
Foster strategy – how to „get this through‟ – not just about
teaching practice, but also a bit of political strategy – what
you can “get away with” (Meghan)
STRATEGIC
“this repertoire of ideas
and tricks and
techniques and things to
say ... that you‟ve built
up over the years”
(Allan)
Barriers – learning spaces for example – some blamed the
corridor layout, mostly the pressures to publish research,
student unwillingness to engage.
As would be expected for this stage of analysis, the categories which appear in Column
2 of Table 3.2, the categories of Support, Practical, and Strategic, could be classified as
descriptive and not interpretive. They were later to become Compliance,
Encouragement, Development and Enculturation, see Column 3 in Table 3.3. The
changing labels of codes reflects how they were developing into categories, i.e.,
becoming defined and saturated.
Table 3.3 Extract from coding the usefulness of informal conversation
Illustrative quotes Codes Properties/
Categories
“Problem cases are really important because you
don't want to make decisions on your own, and
you want to know what the precedents are, and
you want to know what you're supposed to do.
Obviously you can go to the chair and all that sort
problems lead
to conversation,
this is how we
do things
Compliance
56
of stuff, but I think you also like to know what
your colleagues would do in the situation” (Grace)
“All I had to do was just tell him what he was
doing was fine – he really needed someone to
come and talk to him that said, look it's not your
fault, you're not being nasty, you just have to do
this” (Grace )
validation,
permission,
reassurance
Encouragement
“… talking about teaching is so important because
it's when you're trying to explain to someone now
this is why it works that you really have to think
about well why does it work? Those reflections
and those conversations lead to a better
understanding of your own teaching as well.”
(Meghan )
talking about
teaching is
important,
reflection and
self-
development
Development
“How do we combine our philosophy about
teaching with their philosophy about teaching in a
way that no-one explodes?” (Lilly )
existing within
the dominant
culture
Enculturation
As the categories and my understanding of „what was going on for the participants‟
developed with ongoing analysis and presentation of data to colleagues (see Appendix
6 for the poster presentation), the labels for the categories changed. The qualitatively
different ways conversation was useful, which appear in Chapter 5, have elements of
the first set of codes (support, practical, strategic, as in Table 3.2, Column 2), but they
are more interpretive and more accurately represent the data. It should be noted that
although other relevant words could be used to code and categorise and label the data
(and a different researcher may have selected different codes), the data provides
evidence for the ideas that are represented by the labels (i.e. category codes) that were
used.
3.10.3 How context influences informal conversation about teaching
(Chapter 6)
For some stages of the analysis, I coded the hard copy of the data (see Appendix 5 for
an extract) for emergent concepts and categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This
included techniques such as highlighting incidents, writing notes next to the extract
incidents, grouping incidents from similar concepts, and summarising my ideas in
57
memos. Memos helped me to keep a record of what I was doing, to be consistent, and
to be able to continue the analysis even after time had elapsed. Although they were
notes to myself (and not designed to make sense to others), I have chosen to present
several here as illustrative of the analysis process. The following extracts from a
summary memo indicate how my ideas around the contextual influences of informal
conversation were developed.
Looking at the Contextual influences associated with variation in conversation,
I asked, “What prompts a conversation about teaching? Any conversation?
What influences or changes the topics of conversation? What supports
conversation about teaching? What does the variation mean?”
Recording my ideas and thinking in memos was important to document step by
step how I coded the data, so that I could retrace or justify my steps whenever
necessary. The extract below is one of those memos that recorded the steps in my
process. The underlined text in the extract below shows my provisional categories
or columns – although these were broad, descriptive and not abstract, they were
what I had used initially to group incidents within the data while developing the
categories.
Initially, I started with whole data set. Then focused on relevant data in
categories; Experience of conversations, Conversations are about,
Conversations are with, (these three as a group) Experience of support,
Spaces: time/physical/connection to formal, What is the culture (these three as
a group) and Support: why/why not. Using a printed version of each column,
or category, I cut out any irrelevant data, for example, participants‟
descriptions of their „ideal‟ context. I also wrote notations next to any relevant
data, and placed a question mark next to potentially relevant data. Taking the
relevant data, I tried to shorten quotes to manageable incidents and removed
quotes that repeated or reinforced (but did not extend the content of other
quotes). Irrelevant data was culled, four times in excel, so that I would be able
to create a manageable set of data about the context, the influences. Then the
coding and culling process was repeated using a word document, and data
was culled three more times (seven versions).
58
This „contextual influences‟ part of the analysis was to be presented at a research
forum where I would receive feedback, so the aim was to prepare an interesting
presentation upon which colleagues could comment. The extract below continues
this illustrative memo of my analysis process. I used a basic numbering system to
keep track of my process, so that Version 7 refers to my seventh attempt at culling
and making sense of the data.
Word version 1 [version 5 of the culling process] was more about analysis, by
word version 3 [version 7], I was trying to remove repetitive quotes and
irrelevant concepts so that I could present something within the timeframe
[that I had been allocated at the forum]. I chose these concepts [see Tables 3.4
and 3.5] because they seemed the most significant to participants. [For the
presentation,] I also chose quotes that I thought illustrated each concept well,
rather than those that made it seem complex.
Table 3.4 shows how the coding and concepts evolved to become more developed, and
integrated between coding version 5 (column 1) and coding version 7 (column 2), the
set of contextual influences used for the presentation. The contextual influences in
Column 1 of Table 3.4 that appear in bold are those that also appear in Column 2.
Table 3.4 Contextual influences associated with variation in conversation
Contextual influences
(Coding version 5)
Contextual influences
(Coding version 7)
Have to seek it out
Friends as well as colleagues
Personality
Working together
Experts
Discipline Professionals
Shared values about teaching
Shared interest, not teaching, but something else
Particular topics
Mentoring
Peer Observation
New people (recent appointments)
Psychological Support
Spaces
“Friends as well as colleagues”
“Colleagues who work with me”
“The structure doesn‟t help”/ If she
wasn‟t at the door
“10.30 would be morning tea”
Formal meetings allow informal
time
59
Co-located
Corridors
Grants
Time
No time/too busy
Formal meeting relationship to informal
Formal meeting
Organised morning teas
Promotion policy versus practice
Salary loading
Workshops
Leaders
Leader creating a structure
Perception of what teaching matters
Discipline changes the way you discuss teaching
Teaching not valued
If evaluations are low, it gets noticed
The codes from column 2, Table 3.4, complete with illustrative quotes, were presented
to colleagues, in a layout similar to that of Table 3.5 Contextual influences on
conversation. Table 3.5 represents the seventh version of the coding process. Having
completed the analyses, reviewing the codes in column 1 of Table 3.4 makes it
apparent that some of these were „in vivo‟ and descriptive, not interpretive. Although I
thought the meaning was clear, responses from colleagues who had attended my
presentation indicated that these codes did not make sense to others at the time.
Table 3.5 Contextual influences on conversation
Codes
(version 7)
Illustrative quotes
“Friends as
well as
colleagues”
“... [she] is a friend as well as a colleague and ...and we have talked
regularly ... informally about the ways that we teach ... in part because ...
we have similar ideas about what we are here for ... students and
approaches and ... we share a lot of our ideas and in fact have had
mutually an impact on each other's teaching.” Patrick
“I guess talking about teaching would mostly be between colleagues
either within the department ... at meetings and that kind of thing, but I
think the majority of talking about teaching happens informally,
60
among colleagues who are also friends.” Grace
“Talking to friends like a regular place every day in the coffee break, but
of course a person teaching [the same] year, we have the meeting and we
have discussion about teaching. So I'm not talking about teaching only
with my friends, but with friends [it] happens more on a regular basis
and we just share our problems and experience in teaching.” Suren
“Colleagues
who work
with me”
“I think a lot of the actual informed discussions are sort of need driven
where more than one person ... has to co-operate with somebody else or
solve an issue”. Michael
“Usually I will talk to other colleagues who work with me in the same
unit of study. So we will sit down and have a big talk, and yeah just give
each other a big hug and see what we can do.” Maxine
“You're either talking about operationalising it, you're talking about
evaluating it, or planning, and then to some degree delivering. That's
usually done on a sort of one on one basis. The majority of those
conversations happen with colleagues you're working closely with.”
Chris
“The
structure
doesn‟t
help”/ If
she wasn‟t
at the door
“...obviously the structure doesn't help. The fact that we don’t have a
tea room, the fact that its long corridors doesn't help but we still had
plenty of conversations previously – you just have to maybe work a little
bit harder for them.” Liam
“I think it also has a lot to do with your geographical co-location, so for
example, one of my PhD students has a desk just outside. ... we've had a
number of informal discussions ... Whereas if [she] wasn't literally at the
door I would have to organise something a little more formal or I would
ring her up.” Margaret
“... I've noticed much more contact of staff around the place. ...
Everything, at this point anyway has a fairly logical position. ... So that
lends itself to likeminded people and people who are teaching on
similar courses being co-located and that helps a lot.” Marie
61
“10.30
would be
morning
tea”
“... a lot of ex-union people ... making sure they had a tea break at the
same time every day. 10.30 would be tea and you get an email and you'd
get the door knocked if you weren't down there. ... It worked in giving us
an opportunity to talk about research, to talk about admin, maybe just
sound off about teaching.” Liam
“... the [department] values as a means of interaction between people.
...This [department] sort of persisted. ... I would go perhaps more
mornings than not personally and have tea there. ... If you've got some
business or something that you need to discuss about teaching, sometimes
it's a way of getting someone's attention for 10 minutes, which might
otherwise be difficult to do.” Michael
“There used to be much more opportunity I think for general morning
teas and stuff like that. ... if they happen, they don't happen on the basis
that they used to whereby everyday you'd be bringing things up and
thrashing them out. ... it is an impediment to, this cross-fertilisation of
ideas and stuff like that.” Grace
Formal
meetings
allow
informal
time
“... we have not had one formal meeting around teaching, which ... is
often the catalyst for informal discussions around teaching. ... at the
moment people are even more in their silos when it comes to teaching
because that opportunity to gather formally has not been there.
Therefore we have to actually seek each other out and that's not really
happening at the moment.” Margaret
“... once those regular discipline meetings stopped, there was not
much formal or informal discussion of teaching.” Raj
“... the benefit of having these formalised meetings, these regular
meetings was it did allow us the informal time before and after.” Liam
Moving from descriptive and in vivo codes to interpretive, abstract codes is part of the
process of grounded theory analysis. Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggest that “as
categories and their properties emerge ... the concepts abstracted from the substantive
situation will tend to be current labels in use for the actual processes and behaviours
that are to be explained, while the concepts constructed by the analyst will tend to be
the explanations” (p. 107).
Appendix 7 shows the poster that was used to display the data in a subsequent
presentation to that shown in Table 3.5, as the codes became even more integrated and
62
started to suggest relationships and hypotheses. I used feedback from colleagues who
had attended my presentations to refine the codes and categories so they were more
explanatory (and less descriptive) and their meaning was explicit to others. Eventually,
after revision, these codes became those presented in Table 6.1 in Chapter 6.
3.10.4 Relations between a formal academic development program
and informal conversation about teaching (Chapter 7)
The ways that academics described informal conversation as useful, and the distinction
made between informal conversation and other opportunities for communication about
teaching led to me conducting a supplementary set of interviews. These interviews
explored the links between one form of academic development, an introductory
program designed for novice university teachers, and informal conversation about
teaching within departments after attending the formal program. The analysis started
with interviewees‟ descriptions of their experience of and learning from both the
formal program and informal conversation. The intention was to determine if and how
these discrete forms of learning about teaching were connected. The relevant data is
presented in Chapter 7.
The connection between learning from conversation and from the formal program was
at the integration and theory development stages, i.e. more Stages 2-3 than Stages 1-2
and so it is outlined in the next section, 3.11.
3.11 From Stage 2 ‘Integration’ to Stage 3 ‘Delimiting’
The transition between Stage 2 and Stage 3 reflects a change in process to attain the
aim of theoretical saturation. Stage 3 involves the comparison of incidents that are
relevant for the reduced, integrated set of categories and their properties, which were
achieved during Stage 2 (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, pp. 108-109).
There were several efforts made to find relationships, and integrate and link the various
categories. This was initially quite difficult, but the links started to appear as the
categories emerged and became more well-defined, and their properties became more
clear and cohesive.
One integration I attempted was to try to connect the topics of conversation (Chapter 4)
to the usefulness of conversation (Chapter 5), to see if there was a relationship, and
63
whether certain topics were associated with certain aspects of usefulness. For example,
a relationship between topics and usefulness might be revealed if academics find
conversation useful to vent about the topic of students, but when they are talking about
the topic of assessment, their conversation is focused on improvement. This integration
was unsuccessful, as the usefulness categories and topics categories both varied
depending on the issues being faced by academics. After this failure, I realised that this
was the result of my trying to force the data into a pattern, so I started with the topics
again, and the grounded theory principle of using the data to explore the participants‟
main concern (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This is an extract from a memo that includes
the sorts of questions I began to ask as I was trying to understand the nature of informal
conversation.
Do academics talk about what matters to them? In the informal teaching
conversation, what dominates the content? Students and Curriculum? … Are
these the aspects of teaching most of interest to academics? The areas of
teaching which cause the most issues for academics? Is this why these are the
focus of informal „teaching‟ conversations?
This failed integration attempt was able to not only remind me to let connections
emerge, but was also an important stage in differentiating categories from properties
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I discovered for example, that the category of „usefulness‟ is
an independent concept, but „venting‟ is not, and is simply a subcategory of the
usefulness category.
At this point, I had an understanding of the topics and usefulness of conversation, and
data relating to departmental contexts. The next link that seemed relevant to pursue was
that between the nature of conversation and the contexts in which it occurs. Having an
understanding of the topics and usefulness of conversation was able to inform my
thinking about the context surrounding informal conversation (Chapter 6), for example,
why colleagues who were also friends would be sought after for informal conversation.
The contextual influences contributed to how teaching was supported and recognised,
and these affected the nature of academics‟ informal conversation about teaching. If
conversation occurred, the advice that colleagues can provide that is not available
elsewhere (usefulness), and the content that is appropriate for informal conversation
(topics) were linked to the contexts in which academics teach.
64
It was partly the relationship between conversation and its context, and the data
indicating that conversation was a useful way to learn about teaching, that led into the
next focus of analysis, and the collection of supplementary data. The supplementary
data were interviews with academics who had participated in a central formal academic
development program and then returned to their departments, and potentially, engaged
in informal conversation with their departmental colleagues. The aim of collecting the
supplementary data was to determine whether there were any links between the ideas
of the formal program and what academics had learnt during informal conversation.
After the supplementary interviews had been conducted and the analysis revealed that
there were aspects of the formal program that were complementary to conversation and
others that were disconnected, I decided to explore why this might be so. I mapped the
informal conversation topics to the formal program session topics. I also mapped the
responses of participants on the standard formal program evaluation to the usefulness
of informal conversation. This was different to me deciding to do this (as had been the
case when I was looking and „forcing‟ a relationship between the categories of topics
and usefulness), as this link had appeared in interviews. Chapter 7 provides the
outcomes of the mapping process and shows how the informal conversation categories
discovered earlier (and presented in Chapters 4 and 5 as topics and usefulness) were
linked to the content of the formal program.
3.12 From Stage 3 ‘Delimiting’ to Stage 4 ‘Writing’
By the end of Stage 3, the categories should be integrated (and have decreased in
number) – and this should have achieved theoretical saturation and allowed the theory
to emerge. The final stage of the constant comparative method, Stage 4, is the process
of writing about and disseminating the theory so that it can be used by others (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967, pp. 109-113).
Stage 4 is an important final stage, and for me, it also embodied the idea that the stages
would not necessarily be well-defined, but may merge into each other. Writing about
the results and thinking about the theory, occurred during all my constant comparative
method stages.
Throughout the analysis process, I found it helpful to think about how the categories
fitted together and to have an idea of the whole dataset. My notes and diagrams
65
developed over time in line with the analysis, so that earlier versions appear basic and
not integrated, but later versions include connections between categories and
explanations for those connections. Actually having to present data to colleagues, and
prepare results in a written format that was understandable for others, meant that I
needed to sort, integrate and clarify my ideas. These documents provide an account of
the analysis process in a way that helps to make it transparent to others. The iterative
nature of grounded theory analysis, which allowed the theory to emerge, becomes more
apparent when I look back at past presentations, my thesis journal, and the draft
versions of the results chapters.
An important part of theory development is a focus on the key area. This study
addressed the questions of how informal conversation about teaching is triggered and
what contributes to certain academics being desirable conversation partners. It was not
until the categories related to the topics, usefulness and contexts of conversation had
been developed, that this key question and its answer emerged. The answer which
emerged, the theory of how professional, personal and physical commonality
contributed to the occurrence and usefulness of informal teaching conversation is
presented in section 8.2.3.
The results of this study will be presented in four chapters, followed by one discussion
chapter (Chapter 8). The first two results chapters are focused on the nature of informal
conversation, its topics and usefulness. The next two results chapters present the
contexts in which conversation occurred and links between the ideas of a formal
program and those from conversation.
Chapter 4 Topics discussed during informal conversation about teaching
Chapter 5 The usefulness of informal conversation about teaching
Chapter 6 How context influences informal conversation about teaching
Chapter 7 Relations between a formal academic development program and
informal conversation about teaching
66
Chapter 4. Topics discussed during
informal conversation about teaching
Informal conversation with colleagues is an effective form of professional and
workplace learning. Yet, informal teaching conversation between academics who work
in the same department is not well understood as a strategy for academic development.
The first step in considering whether and how informal conversation helps academics
to learn about teaching is to examine the nature of such conversation.
Conversation could be examined from various perspective and levels, and it was
important to select those most appropriate for the intentions of this study. This study
aimed to situate itself within the context of higher education research and academic
development, i.e. not conversational or discourse analysis. Thus, conversation was not
explored at the level of words or dialogue exchanged between academics within each
conversation, but at the broad level of ideas and topics, and the purposes for which
academics used conversation generally. To achieve this, rather than observe actual
conversations, academics were interviewed about their teaching conversations.
Analysing the interview transcripts at the broad level of topics enabled the results to be
related to existing understandings of university teaching practice and development.
This chapter is focused on the first part of the analysis of the interview transcripts; the
topics mentioned by academics in their informal conversation about teaching. Four
topic areas were found to be dominant in academics‟ informal conversation about
teaching. They are: Informal conversation about students; about their curriculum
content and implementation; about assessment and about evaluation.
Through conversation on these topic areas, academics aimed to draw on the experience
of colleagues to inform their practice, specifically how to deal with a teaching-related
issue they were currently facing. The extent to which this agenda was achieved is
discussed in Chapter 5, with reference to the usefulness of informal conversation about
teaching. The contextual factors influencing conversation are discussed in Chapter 6.
The four topic areas mentioned by academics in their informal conversation about
teaching are discussed in the following sections, with reference to illustrative quotes
from the interviews with academic staff. Incidents from each interview revealed that in
67
a conversation, there was usually one topic which was foremost, but it was often
related to one or more other topics, and where appropriate, these incidents were coded
as involving both or all topics. For example, curriculum and assessment are connected
aspects of teaching and would often be discussed together. Similarly, a conversation
about assessment that included discussion about the students who submitted the given
task was coded as both topics, and where the focus was on the task, the coding was
assessment only.
The overlapping nature of the topics became more apparent when a technique – in this
case, „word clouds‟ was used in the analysis. A software program, Wordle™, was used
to turn text into „word clouds‟. The product of Wordle™, the image or „word cloud‟ is
a visual representation of the text submitted, with the size of each word reflecting the
frequency with which the word appeared in the text. For this study, the texts submitted
to Wordle™ were the lists of informal conversation topic incidents within each of the
four dominant topics and the complete list of incidents, recoded into appropriate
categories of meaning. (For further detail, see section 3.10.1). The results were five
images of incidents, one for each of the four topic areas of students, curriculum,
assessment and evaluation, and one summary image of all conversation topics. The
purpose of the „word clouds‟ was to provide insight into how the range of topics was
discussed in informal conversation amongst departmental colleagues.
The range of topics and „word clouds‟ within each of the four dominant topic areas are
presented in this chapter, starting with informal conversation about students in section
4.1, and finishing with the summary „word cloud‟.
4.1 Informal conversation about students
The data showed that informal conversation was most often used to draw on the
knowledge and experience of colleagues to seek advice on how to deal with students
and the challenges associated with students. The issues which academics described as
being raised related to students who were considered to be difficult or problematic and
situations that were new to the academic or outside their area of expertise. For
example, Liam explained how a colleague was able to provide him with advice in their
area of expertise.
68
I would take advice [from a particular colleague] on ... actually dealing with
students at risk, so-called „problem‟ students outside the mainstream
[be]cause he's got a very broad cultural knowledge which I tap into. ... [For
example,] my initial reaction [towards an individual student] was that she
wasn't working hard enough, she wasn't engaging with her studies but [then]
there was more of a conversation. ... This colleague [was] giving insight into
[the problem] saying, „that fits a pattern of a student who tends to be
struggling and the reason they're struggling is X‟. When I dug a little bit
further, [I discovered that] she actually fell into that area [that he‟d
suggested] and I was able to provide her [with] a lot more support than I
would have been [able to] if I just sort of passively accepted what she was
telling me. (Liam)
Grace referred to being sought out for conversation because of her previous experience
teaching on a course for which a colleague was currently responsible.
He was also new in the place of course, so that was another problem for him.
… When you've got a problem student case you really do need someone to talk
to and I was the person in that case – because I'd been involved in that same
course beforehand and therefore had experience of people dropping out of it,
and what you did and how much leeway you could give them, or when you had
to call a halt. ... Problem cases are, I think, really important because you don't
want to make decisions on your own, and you want to know what the
precedents are … what you're supposed to do … what your colleagues would
do in the situation. (Grace)
Academics described their students‟ academic honesty or plagiarism as an issue likely
to generate conversation because it was unpleasant to address and could potentially
have required confrontation with a student. The interviews revealed that the purpose of
informal conversation with other academics was to confirm the appropriate response to
suspected cases of academic dishonesty.
Plagiarism is an issue that initially comes up because we catch everyone out ...
and it's always very unpleasant. I feel more strongly even than when I arrived
that you've got to set the boundaries somewhere. So you often have difficult
conversations, students will try and wriggle their way out but if it's [their work
69
is] plagiarised, it's plagiarised. Yes [we talk to students], but we also talk
among colleagues about it when they [instances of plagiarism] occur. Gosh,
how to go about these things, there's always a bit of confrontation. (Jon)
Where you're dealing with difficult students, sometimes, when you are dealing
with work that you're inclined to fail but aren't sure about, then you'll usually
go and consult your colleague about it ... you get the occasional difficult
student. I think people are usually careful to check with one or two colleagues
before they take a particular course of action that might involve say
confronting the student or accusing them of plagiarism or something like that.
(Patrick)
Analysing the range of conversations enabled differences to emerge; one of these was
the distinction between „dealing with‟ an issue and enacting a strategy to reduce the
likelihood of the issue resurfacing in the future. Some issues were particularly likely to
lead to ongoing conversation that contributed to changes in teaching practice and
assessment, rather than a reaction to an isolated case. These issues were those that were
considered broad or important, for example not those restricted to a few „difficult‟
students. These issues were sometimes context-specific, for Meghan, her teaching
experience occurred in contexts where there were high proportions of International
students and students from non-English speaking backgrounds in her classes. To
improve her teaching practice and student learning, she sought the advice of a
colleague. The result of discussing her issues with a colleague was that she changed her
assessment from PowerPoint presentations to posters. She explained her rationale for
this change to practice as follows:
... that really has to inform your teaching and has to inform your assessment. If
you try and do the stuff [that] you were doing with students traditionally, it
may not work, in fact that's why it led me to start doing poster sessions. A lot of
these students, while their English is not 100 per cent they can get by, they can
understand what's going on ... but a lot of them can be very shy about speaking
in English ... [. Traditionally,] we tend to do a lot of PowerPoint presentations.
... What I was finding was with these students [was that] it was just
excruciating, it was just not working. I talked with a colleague ... [and] we
thought, „well there must be something else we could do that would make it
70
easier at the end of the semester for these students to be able to present their
work‟. We came up with poster sessions, ... [now,] instead of having the
PowerPoint presentation, they present their research on this poster. (Meghan)
Although there are opportunities to raise teaching issues in formal settings, it can be
difficult for academics to raise publicly specific student issues, such as suspected cases
of academic dishonesty or those related to student cohort characteristics, as they may
be perceived as potentially breaching confidentiality guidelines or considered more of a
discipline-specific issue. However, an informal conversation in a corridor with a
colleague who understands the context and may teach or has taught the individual
student or student cohort is a much safer situation. This safety enables the academic
who is seeking advice to provide sufficient information to illustrate the issue in a way
that allows a useful response. The privacy that is part of the nature of informal
conversation was one of the advantages revealed by academics during interviews.
The quotes above illustrate part of the range of ways in which student issues are
discussed, and while they could be grouped into themes (such as the quality of
students, student experience and how to increase student engagement) and listed, an
alternate presentation, using the Wordle™ „word clouds‟ (see section 3.10.1) is shown
in Figure 4.1. The largest phrase (“how to”) represents the most frequently mentioned
words, and the smallest words and phrases represent those words which appeared less
frequently in the text submitted. Thus, a quick glance at the word cloud reveals key
themes and provides a guide to the ideas present in the text submitted. The figure
provides a sense of the nature of informal conversation about students.
71
Figure 4.1 Terms most frequently used to describe informal conversation about
students
4.2 Informal conversation about their curriculum content and
implementation
The interviews showed that academics had informal conversation with other academics
when they were designing their curriculum content, and when determining how to
implement that content. As with other issues related to students, experienced academics
were asked during conversations to share their knowledge to ensure tasks were done
correctly or appropriately. The process of consulting colleagues appeared to be
ongoing, where the intention was to build on the previous stage of curriculum
development. Benjamin represents an academic who participated in this ongoing
process. He described communication as firstly about the course framework, followed
by the content and then how to implement the content.
So we had a framework for the course that we agreed on well before we
actually started. Then it was just a matter of, „what the content essentially
would be for the course‟ ... . Then really most of the discussion was down to
the, „implementing every bit of that course‟. (Benjamin)
The department in which Chris worked had a similar process to Benjamin‟s for
developing curriculum through conversation with colleagues (see Benjamin‟s quote
above). In Chris‟s department, it was only after a course had been planned by
72
academics and accredited by their professional body, that the teaching activities and
assessment tasks were topics worthy of discussion.
… [We had] a lot of conversation around planning, accrediting of courses, and
that conversation is now moving more towards the implementation of those
courses, and the planning of the teaching, planning of the assessments, unit
outlines, and the administration of those courses. (Chris)
Marie thought it was important to help a colleague who had taken over her teaching
responsibilities and so she initiated conversation about curriculum implementation. The
emphasis of these conversations was on supporting the colleague to use the “right
stuff”, and on how to teach, given the context in which the teaching occurred.
... we're talking about the curriculum ... somebody took the job that I was
doing ... so I'm helping her a bit ... [I] gave her all my stuff and then tried to
point her in the right direction. So [they were] probably not very theoretical
discussions, more about „how can you achieve this practically, given the small
numbers of students or large numbers of students or the short time or the long
time?‟, ... and also the content, making sure that she's using the right stuff that
I left behind. (Marie)
For some university subjects with large student enrolments beyond the capacity of
lecture theatre seating, there are multiple „streams‟ of classes running in a
semester. „Streaming‟ means that lectures are delivered and repeated multiple
times each week for different classes, similar to the approach commonly used for
tutorials in many subjects. The academics responsible for teaching these classes
stated that it was especially important to communicate with their co-teachers to
achieve consistency in lecture delivery and ensure the same content and examples
were being provided to different classes or „streams‟.
... we often have streaming of lecture courses – certainly in first year at least;
where more than one lecturer will be presenting the same material in different
streams. So obviously, there's co-ordination issues, sort of team-teaching in
that sense. So there are often discussions with the other lecturers that are
doing the same, delivering the same content. ... there are issues about, „are we
73
keeping pace with each other?‟ because people can switch between streams ...
[and], „are we more or less giving the same demonstrations?‟ (Michael)
Within the quotes related to conversations about curriculum, there were individual
differences in what topics were discussed. This difference appeared to be associated
with whether there had already been an agreement of what was to be done and an
organisation of how it would be done, or whether the topic could generate constructive
discussion leading to potential action and change. The following extracts illustrate that
for those academics who had set content and delivery mode, conversations were about
activities, assessment tasks and readings, but not content or lecturing.
... with the content, it tends to be a fairly straightforward one ... The more
interesting discussion tends to be probably around, not so much course
delivery, because we fairly much have set out that we're going to have lectures
and we're going to have tutorials ... So the nature of the actual teaching, the
format of it is pretty much set. But then what activities are done within that can
often generate a lot of discussion. (Kasia)
... assignments we talk about, not so much lecturing. I think lecturing is the
easy part. Group discussions or group activities, specifically among the
younger [first year] students ... So tasks, group work, assignments, those are
central things we discuss. (Jon)
I don't ask them for teaching materials or concept[s] for my teaching but more,
„what can I do to improve my teaching? Like [reduce] the number of hours, or
how they [students] can do the practical classes?‟, this kind of stuff. (Suren)
I've never had a question from anybody about my teaching techniques ... I've
had people approach me for ideas on readings. ... I've had people ask me
about … audio visual materials, images. (Joshua)
It would be expected that some discussion about curriculum would take place in formal
meetings about teaching and learning, but these meetings can be broad, and not
necessarily the appropriate place to address individual or specific problems. An
academic teaching on a unit of study that has a curriculum issue within a narrow
discipline focus may initiate local informal conversation within their department
because it is considered a more effective and appropriate place to seek advice on that
74
issue. The word cloud in Figure 4.2 provides a sense of the nature of informal
conversation about curriculum.
Figure 4.2 Terms most frequently used to describe informal conversation about
curriculum
4.3 Informal conversation about assessment
The data illustrated that “assessment” was almost as frequent and evocative a topic as
“students” in terms of the amount of conversation described, and with an emphasis on
the importance of determining the standard or accepted practice through conversation
with colleagues. Academics sought to find out through conversation what their
colleagues would do in a particular situation and used this to moderate their teaching
practice accordingly, so that it would align with the actions of those colleagues. The
aim with conversation was to ensure that assessments were consistent across individual
students, student cohorts, and units of study, and that tasks selected were appropriate
for that context. Assessment design and weighting were important topics of discussion
for academics seeking to ensure such consistency:
Obviously we have to interact when we're setting exams or [when we‟re]
making sure that the assignments that are set are appropriate and things like
that. (Michael)
I do talk to other colleagues about how they split up their assessment, how
much weighting they put on things ... early in the course. What the length of
75
[an] essay is. So I do look at other course guides and see what other people do
and that's always very useful. Content – obviously that's a very individual
thing. (Joshua)
So often [the] discussion would be, „well you're doing more assessment for the
four unit course than what we are [doing] in a 10 unit course‟. (Kasia)
In a new role as a unit co-ordinator, Ellen found that she relied on the experience of
colleagues when generating the exam paper. She had the knowledge to produce the
content but informal conversation with colleagues provided her with assurance that she
was designing the exam appropriately.
... we're finalising the content of the exam … [to ensure] that it meets the
learning outcomes we've set for the unit of study. As this is the first time that
I‟m doing this I‟m really relying on colleagues that have lots of experience.
While I still develop the actual content itself, I still need that sort of support
and advice to make sure I‟m doing it appropriately. (Ellen)
Once again, the data showed that the role of conversation with colleagues was
significant in addressing issues related to consistency, in this case, it related to
marking. Ensuring grading and discretionary marking were done in a consistent manner
across a course is important, and was reported as particularly challenging for some
academics. For Michael and Allan, because tutors were responsible for part of the
assessment, conversation was important for attempting to make sure that marks were
awarded consistently in their courses (i.e. they achieved an appropriate level of inter-
rater reliability).
Conversations about grading – trying to make sure they're roughly the same ...
[and that] the same [quality of task submitted by] people get the same sort of
grade from all the tutors. (Allan)
... making sure that all of the tutors are approaching things in a consistent
way, because they are actually involved in assessment of the experimental
work. So [making sure that] they're all applying roughly the same sort of
standards in the way that they're assessing and hopefully in the way that
they're actually interacting with students ... because we give discretionary
marks – part of the assessment is the tutor trying to evaluate how
76
independent[ly] the students worked. ... [A tutor might say], „I wasn't sure how
to give – what to do in that situation because of – or this student [was] „cluey‟,
this one wasn't – what do I do?‟ So [I like to give tutors] just a general idea of
how to actually assess – I‟m trying to make sure that they're in step with what
everybody else is doing. (Michael)
In the following examples, academics reported that the topic of assessment feedback
was a cause for ongoing debate, and years of discussion between colleagues about
expectations had led them to compromise in some cases and in other cases, to continue
arguing.
There are various things that we disagree on and continue to argue about.
[She‟s] very much a believer of „getting feedback to the students early‟. She
would turn around most assignment marking within one or two days after it
[the assignment] was due. I‟m much more, „no I want to give them lots of
detailed feedback‟, and I‟m not so concerned if it takes 100 years for it to get
back [to the students], as long as they actually get some information that says
really why they went wrong, rather than three out of whatever as the feedback.
(Benjamin)
... tasks, group work, assignments, those are [the] central things we discuss ...
One colleague of mine says, „you're aiming too low [with your expectations],
you just want to keep the students happy‟. I say, „you're aiming too high, you
intimidate the students‟ ... We started a conversation at the beginning and we
were pretty far apart then. But by just keeping [on] having an ongoing
conversation, yes, we have narrowed the differences. After all, in the
beginning, I was very eager to have the students like me and making [sic] a
good impression ... My colleague has become more flexible ... [he is] realising
[that] he can't convey everything he wants to convey in one unit of study. (Jon)
The quotes above signal how, over time, academics‟ thinking about moderation of
assessment practice broadened (possibly unintentionally), so that informal conversation
that was originally focused on one aspect of teaching practice about implementing
assessment contributed to modifying academics‟ principles for assessment. This is
similar to the distinction made with conversation about students – a reaction to one
77
student is qualitatively different to modifying teaching practice and strategies based on
changed expectations of students generally.
In summary, the purpose of informal conversation about assessment was to maintain
consistency with commonly accepted standards within a department. Informal
conversation represents a way for academics to acquire insights into colleagues‟
assessment practices, which may be implicit and not available elsewhere. Figure 4.3
provides a sense of the nature of informal conversation about assessment.
Figure 4.3 Terms most frequently used to describe informal conversation about
assessment
4.4 Informal conversation about evaluation methods and
evaluation results
During interviews, academics described informal conversation as one way for
colleagues to discuss and to agree on how to address issues identified by formal
evaluation systems. The following data show how at the most basic level, evaluation
conversation was about a response to student feedback about teaching. Academics
suggested that the nature of the feedback determined their conversation and likely
response. If the feedback was positive then a plan was made to maintain existing
practice and repeat the teaching strategies used previously. If the feedback was
negative, then the discussion was focused on determining whether to change anything
about their teaching, and if so, how to implement those changes.
78
... at the faculty level, communication might occur after unit of study
evaluations have been done and if there's any problems that have occurred,
[then they‟ll be discussed]. (Kasia)
Sometimes it's [conversation is] about USE [Unit of Study Evaluation]
feedback, ... especially when it comes to first year. Although, we tend to email
about that so there's an email discussion about the responses to the first year.
Since it's such a big course and since it's taught by three different people each
semester there tends to be a certain amount of email discussion about that,
sometimes it's discussed in the corridors too. (Anthony)
... [It‟s] based on the students' evaluations, so we will talk about, „how to
improve our teaching, [and] what should be covered next year‟. We will talk
about manpower, so, „how can we sort out staffing issues?‟ ... Of course we
focus on positive and negative feedback. For positive feedback, we make sure
„okay, next year we will stay with this strategy, so we will have it next year‟.
But for those negative feedback we will think, „what we can do. Is it
reasonable? Can we really address these issues? Do we have enough staff?‟ ...
But we try when we sit together and then try to sort it out. So we try to address
all the issues. (Maxine)
Analysis of the conversation topics in depth led to the recognition of a different type of
informal conversation related to critiquing the processes used for evaluation. For Sarah,
that type of conversation involved discussing the appropriateness of the design of the
tools used, such as the questions on a survey, and debating whether properly evaluating
teaching necessitated systems of evaluation in addition to student surveys.
We talk about teaching evaluations a lot and we talk about the fact that we
really need peer assessment as well as [student survey] teaching evaluations ...
Or [we talk about] the evaluation sheets themselves – they have questions on
them that don‟t pertain to particular subjects. (Sarah)
Similar to the nature of the data relevant to conversation about curriculum, „evaluation‟
conversation reflected the stage academics were at regarding their evaluation of their
teaching. This stage included their previous and intended future practice. The following
two examples illustrate the nature of the academics‟ focus on the topic of thinking
79
about and implementing their own evaluation. These examples are in contrast to the
previous examples of quotes from academics who were critiquing the University‟s
system of evaluation or responding to issues identified through the process of
collecting student feedback.
... the unit of study evaluations [completed by students as part of the
University‟s evaluation system] ... they're very generic. So they don't actually
give you clues as to what to do, or what really is the essence of the issue. ... A
follow up evaluation which I would like to do with students ... who have
finished my [second year] course ... Once they've had one semester of third
year, ... I want to know what transfer of knowledge there is, what building of
knowledge there's been … – the practicalities and logistics in how we would
evaluate them. ... What I'm interested to do is that extra bit because we've
already evaluated it [the second year course] – implemented and evaluated it.
Now, let‟s see now really what we need to do with it. (Kasia)
...[I] talked to her recently about evaluation, doing that informally, but also
formally. And she advised that ... I should get some informal feedback from
them [the students] about how things are going because there‟s quite strong
evidence about this, [that] if students are not given the opportunity to
[provide] feedback early, and you leave it all to the end, then they get
disenchanted or issues go on unresolved. So I did that, but I‟m now planning to
do a more formal evaluation ... [With her, I‟ll] develop something for my
course as opposed to just, „going off the shelf, take the university generic
evaluation‟, [be]cause I don‟t think that's going to be useful for me. I want to
get more information and nuance out the details a bit more ... And I'd rather
find out sooner, rather than later. (Ellen)
Academics reported that their informal conversation about the evaluation of teaching
was not limited to discussing existing student surveys and planning future surveys,
some interviewees described receiving informal feedback from colleagues as part of a
program of peer observation. This peer feedback focused on classroom management
and student responses to the teacher, and this focus appears in the following example
extracts.
80
We also do have [a] peer observation of teaching system so it depends a bit
where people are. If they are in the first two years, [then] they're sort of
teaching all classes. [The conversation after observation is] not so much to
give it [their teaching] an A, B, or to give it a grade, but [to] say, „okay, this is
interesting how they reacted to this‟, ... [The point is] to give feedback,
specifically for the newer staff members, so they can make use of it. (Jon)
... because [the] teaching [that you observe] is not 100 per cent your area, you
can't really have an opinion of the content of what's being said, and you tend
to assume that your colleagues aren‟t totally incompetent. ... [The feedback]
focuses more on the way the classroom is managed and the extent to which
stuff is prepared. I guess the idea [of peer observation] is ... the extent to
which you feel like you know what is going on – and you [can] assume that the
students will know what's going on, if they're not confused about where they
are in the lecture. (Allan)
The possibility of negative feedback means that for academics, evaluation of their
teaching can be very personal; also, the results of evaluation processes can have an
impact on promotion and peer recognition. This is likely to be one of the reasons why
informal conversation is useful for academics to discuss evaluation of teaching – the
nature of conversation allows the content of what was described to remain more private
than the content of dialogue in formal meetings and formal academic development
sessions. Figure 4.4 provides a sense of the nature of informal conversation about
evaluation.
81
Figure 4.4 Terms most frequently used to describe informal conversation about
evaluation
4.5 Summary
The analysis of academics‟ informal conversation about teaching exposed the dominant
topic areas. Academics described talking about students, their issues, their quality;
assessment design and marking; curriculum content and delivery; and responses to
evaluation practice, during conversation with colleagues. Figure 4.5 shows a word
cloud of the range of different topics that were raised in conversation. Informal
conversation with departmental colleagues appeared to be particularly useful for topics
that raised confidential or discipline-specific issues. There was evidence of a clear
difference within the topics between an informal conversation that was focused on
fixing a problem, and conversation that aimed to improve teaching practice through
redesign. This difference is explored in the following chapter, on the usefulness of
informal conversation about teaching. Chapter 5 outlines the qualitatively different
ways that conversations are useful, irrespective of the topic discussed. The relationship
between the topics presented here and the usefulness of conversation is discussed in
section 8.3 from the perspective of those with an interest in using informal teaching
conversation for academic development.
82
Figure 4.5 Summary of terms most frequently used to describe the topics addressed in
informal conversation about teaching
83
Chapter 5. The usefulness of
informal conversation about teaching
In university contexts, communicating formally about teaching is considered a lower
priority than communicating about research. This means that any opportunity for
communication about teaching is valuable and has potential for professional
development. Thus, informal conversation about teaching may represent a significant
way for academics to learn about teaching from colleagues.
To determine whether academics were having conversations about teaching, and for
what purpose they used these conversations, interviews were conducted with
academics employed across departments at one research-intensive university. The
interviews were transcribed and the transcripts were analysed using grounded theory
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The analysis starts to help us understand the nature of
academics‟ informal teaching conversation with their departmental colleagues.
The previous chapter presented results about the first part of the analysis of those
interview transcripts, on the dominant topic areas of informal conversation. This
chapter presents data showing how academics use and learn from informal
conversation, irrespective of the topics raised. The data in this chapter show that not
only does informal conversation provide reassurance for many teachers; it can also
serve a development role. This development potential was broad; academics described
the usefulness of informal conversations in terms of venting about their teaching issues,
managing and improving their teaching.
The different ways that conversations were used by the academics interviewed for this
study appear in this chapter from section 5.1. Below are several examples of quotes
from academics describing the general nature and usefulness of conversation.
During her interview, one academic described the role of informal conversation as
fascinating, and suggested that the informal conversation in corridors in which she had
participated was, “at least useful” (Margaret). She reported finding that the
conversation was often focused on important and essential aspects of teaching, and
indicated that these aspects might not have otherwise been improved without her
conversation with colleagues.
84
I find it, intellectually, I find it interesting that these things come up sort of
serendipitously in the corridor. … I think it's also interesting that quite often
what comes up might be quite crucial, might be a really important thing. It
might be small but really important and it might even just be around some sort
of procedural aspect related to your unit of study. It might be around
something like marking rather than around changing a part of a syllabus or
something, but they're quite often very important and if they hadn't come up
then something essential may not have been achieved. They're usually at least
useful. I just find that fascinating, that they're at least useful. … you'll have
that sort of, „oh while I've got you I need to talk about X‟. It's not often that you
go away and think, „well, actually I didn't need to talk about that‟. You do go
away thinking, „phew, I'm glad we talked about that‟. So they're at least useful,
and they're usually very useful or interesting. (Margaret)
One of the interviewees provided an overview of the usefulness of informal
conversations about teaching by describing the different ways in which they served
useful functions.
There will be some conversations where you are indirectly or directly seeking
information. There are other conversations where people are seeking ideas or
permissions from you. Then there are other conversations where you formally
or informally mentor, and there are conversations to ensure your sanity.
(Chris)
Another academic suggested that the informal conversations where her own expertise
was sought, prompted her to reflect about her own teaching practice. This supports the
idea that conversation can be useful to the academic who is providing advice about
teaching as well as the one who is receiving it.
… talking about teaching is so important because it's when you're trying to
explain to someone, „now this is why it works‟, that you really have to think
about, „well why does it work?‟ Those reflections and those conversations lead
to a better understanding of your own teaching as well. (Meghan)
The interviews showed that informal conversation was being experienced by academics
as an effective way for them to learn about teaching. This general result is consistent
85
with literature which argues for the improvement of teaching and learning through
communication, and links communication about teaching with thinking about teaching
(for example, Byrne et al., 2010; Healey, 2003; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Schuck et al.,
2008; Trigwell et al., 2000). A detailed analysis of the interview data suggests that
there are five qualitatively different ways that mid-level academics described their
experience of the usefulness of informal conversation about teaching. These are
presented in this chapter as subcategories of the overall category of usefulness.
Informal conversations are useful for academics to:
1. Vent about teaching-related issues
2. Reassure themselves about their teaching practice
3. Manage their teaching context
4. Improve their teaching and student learning
5. Evolve their teaching, thinking and practice.
A more detailed description of each sub-category is provided below.
5.1 Academics have informal conversations to vent about issues
related to teaching
The interviews revealed how academics used informal conversation to release
frustration, rant, swap gossip and “have a bit of a whinge about things” (Margaret).
The word „whinge‟ was often used by academics to describe these conversations; it
means to whine or complain, and after they had „whinged‟ to a colleague, an academic
would feel less negative because someone had listened to them. The quotes below
represent academics‟ descriptions of such conversations.
… corridor conversations. They're very ad hoc. They're often driven by – they
might be driven by somebody wanting to have a whinge about their teaching.
(Michael)
… it‟s almost always in the context of one of the courses that we‟re currently
teaching. So it‟s usually about setting an assignment or whatever. Though a
fair bit of it can be angry ranting. (Benjamin)
It's emotional release because you're frustrated. (Sarah)
86
I would say that the vast majority of informal conversations are whinges,
grumbles and moans. Now I'm not saying that I don't whinge, grumble and
moan, because I do. (Joshua)
Some of the data relevant for „venting‟ conversation related to specific departmental
issues, such as other academics not contributing to teaching in the ways colleagues
thought that they should have been.
We‟re academics so, by nature, gossips. But gossip behind people‟s backs too,
like who doesn‟t pull his or her weight and that kind of thing. (Patrick)
Sometimes it's things like its gripes, it's things like, „we don't have enough
people teaching this‟. Or, „we only have, we don't have‟ – like what I said
before – „we don‟t have our senior people teaching in these areas‟, things like
that, where people will be saying something negative. (Anthony)
In this chapter, the five usefulness subcategories are presented separately, each with its
own supporting data. It should be noted however, that this is done for simplicity, and
does not represent an account of the nature of conversation. During interviews, the
subcategories were not usually described as occurring in isolation. Some of the
academics‟ found that their „venting‟ conversation was also useful for providing
support or solving a problem. The quotes below illustrate this overlap between venting
and conversation about Reassurance, and Management, which appear in subsequent
sections 5.2 and 5.3.
Usually it's whinging … [about] student issues or faculty policy or some
gossiping ... Whinging, but also got [sic] some psychological support from
each other. Because when we get some positive feedback, [then] we're happy,
but when we get negative feedback we try to support each other. … we will sit
down and have a big talk, and yeah, just give each other a big hug and see
what we can do. (Maxine)
… [Conversation is] an opportunity to vent, get a bit of group therapy, think
about what the issues are, and get a bit of gossip around who's pushing what
agenda and then tell each other what we do to avoid that. (Liam)
87
I think when you say talk, I mean, we whinge. That whinging is just a whinge
in, which we sort of groan and whinge or we whinge with the hope of finding a
solution from the other person if they have a suggestion for something they do
in class. (Sarah)
5.2 Academics have informal conversations to reassure themselves
about their teaching
During interviews, academics reported seeking support from colleagues when they
were challenged, for example, after they had experienced a difficult student, negative
feedback or a lecture or tutorial that had not worked as they had planned. Academics
described these conversations as mainly concentrated on support and reassurance.
However, conversations that were associated with this subcategory also included some
discussion of aspects of teaching management or practice, demonstrating the links and
overlaps across subcategories of usefulness.
… we find it [conversation] mutually very beneficial as well as supportive ...
you [are able to] reassure yourself that you're not doing a terrible job by
talking to a colleague. (Patrick)
… [They] like to have advice on how to deal with, or be reassured they‟re
dealing with things in the right way, the appropriate way. (Michael)
This collegial support or reassurance represented a subcategory of informal
conversation‟s usefulness that may be a particular benefit not offered during other
forms of communicating about teaching.
The data analysis process helped to identify instances of conversations that were
intended to reassure academics about their teaching whilst showing links to the other
subcategories. The example quotes below portray collegial conversations that provided
academics with emotional support and suggestions or advice on how to make
improvements to their teaching (see section 5.4).
When I started teaching undergraduate students, obviously I was not very
confident because of the [large class] numbers. That‟s when I talked to one of
the colleagues. She was very experienced in this kind of teaching. So I got
some advice or insights into teaching larger classes. (Raj)
88
I would say that we have changed some things and tried some things. Even just
more, not so much necessarily changed, but more asked for their opinion
before we did stuff and then they‟ve gone, „yes, that sounds like a good idea,
you should do it‟. (Lilly)
5.3 Academics have informal conversations to manage their
teaching context
The data which were associated with conversations within the „Manage‟ subcategory,
highlighted the practicalities of day-to-day teaching – “it tends to be driven by need
rather than having time to actually have yarns about it” (Michael). The topics that were
mentioned within this „Manage‟ subcategory include teaching practice,
assessment/feedback, student learning, marking, quality assurance and enhancement
processes, standards, expectations, and external requirements for professional courses.
These topics will not be explored further within this section; Chapter 4 provided a
summary of the dominant topic areas of informal conversation.
One academic emphasised the practical nature of his managing conversations.
… [We are] either talking about operationalising it, evaluating it, or planning,
and then to some degree delivering ... survival conversations ... „get the job
done‟ conversations, rather than „how creative can we be in the doing of it?‟
(Chris)
Another academic described having many „managing‟ conversations to assist a
colleague because what they needed to know and do to manage as a university teacher
was considerable, and the required information was not available elsewhere.
… you need to know when to lodge reading lists for your new units, who to talk
to about getting special reserve [of resources within the library]. There are
100 other things – purchasing books with the co-op bookshop if you want to,
all sorts of things, and there's no document that's going to be put in your hand
with a checklist of things that you need to do. … So there are many, many,
many conversations about what you need to know, what you need to do, when
you need to do it by and so on. (Patrick)
89
5.4 Academics have informal conversations to improve teaching
and student learning
Some academics described having conversations where they intended to draw on the
knowledge or experience of others to improve a specific course component. This
improvement might have happened through a conversation where they exchanged
resources they had found useful for their teaching; for example, particular readings or
models,
… [We] ask each other which articles are great to bring particular things
across. (Jon)
… if they see a cute idea for a way of explaining something then they‟ll come
by and say, „hey did you see that? You could do that in your course‟, and vice
versa ... we talk about little snippets of things that might be relevant to each
other‟s courses. (Lilly)
Academics also described receiving and offering advice on a particular aspect of their
approach to teaching through conversation with colleagues. These aspects could be
suggestions for how to build on the strategies that worked or how to interest and
engage students, as identified in the example quotes below.
Sometimes it was discussions about things, like what worked. People saying,
„that really worked, that was really good, it'd be good if there was more of
that‟. There's always a question of what you put in and what you don‟t put in ...
people do give you suggestions about that. They'll say, „What about this whole
area? This subject? Maybe that could find its way in there somewhere‟.
Sometimes it's things that aren‟t in the course that could be in the course or
sometimes it's a matter of emphasis. They'll say – „maybe you could emphasise
that more, that would be good‟. (Anthony)
… a colleague and I were talking this week about class participation and how
we can get students involved. She's teaching a compulsory unit and she's got
students who really don't want to be there and so it was a question of „how do
we get students like that engaged in the class?‟ (Meghan)
90
5.5 Academics have informal conversations to evolve teaching,
thinking and practice
The analysis of the range of ways academics used conversation led to the emergence of
the „evolving‟ subcategory. Academics who had conversations that related to this
subcategory, described less of a focus on an isolated instance (as in section 5.4 to
Improve teaching and student learning), and more of a focus on a coordinated and/or
developmental approach. Such an approach involved academics using conversation
with colleagues to work towards establishing a philosophy of teaching or determining
how to be strategic about improvement.
Raj is one of the academics who had adopted this „evolving‟ approach to his teaching
and conversation about teaching. During his interview he described, how, over time,
informal conversation with colleagues had been part of his process of curriculum
redesign. In this case, he had redesigned his assessments within a unit of study to
achieve the aim of developing critical thinking in the students he was teaching.
So therefore eventually, or changing for the last couple of years, based on that
foundation of looking at a subject outline, I believe all my assessments tend to
fulfil my objective ... So it gives them a platform to think about things as
opposed to giving them an answer. We‟re making them aware and making
them critically think about what, at least I believe, is important for them in the
future when they go to [the] workplace. (Raj)
As would be expected for a unit coordinator, Raj was focused on strategic
improvement within his course. The roles to which academics are appointed can affect
the level at which they can implement such a strategic improvement or an „evolving‟
approach. At the time of his interview, Suren was the manager of a group of unit
coordinators. Suren decided that as part of this role he would initiate conversation and
discussion about teaching issues that were happening across all the courses for which
he was responsible. This conversation was intended to identify issues and share
solutions across courses, as well as to ensure that any changes implemented were
justified.
I'm asking all coordinators that coordinate any course in the first semester, to
tell me if they have any particular issues and what they have done and what we
91
can do to solve this problem for the next year. The people who are doing their
second semester, [I‟m asking them] „what are the changes [that they‟ve made]
this semester and why [have] they implemented these changes?‟ (Suren)
Although the usefulness subcategories that emerged were not designed to show a
change over time, this was the experience of some academics. For example, some of
the academics noted that their conversation would not necessarily initially be focused
on evolving teaching, unless that was appropriate. Deciding whether evolving teaching
was an appropriate focus for conversation would likely depend on the academic and the
course on which they were teaching. One academic, Kasia, explained how over time,
the purpose of her teaching conversation had changed. For her there had initially been a
focus on having conversation to deal with issues, but once these issues were resolved,
the emphasis within her conversations changed to become course development.
It [conversation] happens at different levels at different times. How much you
discuss the course depends on how much experience you‟ve had and how many
times you‟ve refined it ... As we refine things further, there‟s probably less
issues that you have, but then you go more into the developing [of] new things.
(Kasia)
5.6 Incidence of usefulness subcategories
Five subcategories were presented here as different ways in which academics were
using informal conversation. In addition to being qualitatively different, the
subcategories did not appear to be uniformly distributed across the interviews.
Conversations that were intended to Reassure academics about their teaching and to
assist academics to Manage their teaching context were reported as occurring regularly,
and often as a challenge arose. Not all academics described conversations within the
subcategories of Improving teaching and student learning or Evolving teaching,
thinking and practice, some in the sample did not even appear to be aware that such
conversation could occur. Although the numbers of academics describing certain types
of conversation do not indicate a proportion of all academic conversation, they do
suggest a pattern across the categories. This pattern and difference between individual
academics is worth investigating because if conversation is recognised as a strategy for
professional development, the ways in which academics use conversation effectively
92
are important. Some (five) interviewees described having conversation within the
Evolving subcategory, whereas almost all (22) described having conversations about
Managing their teaching context. Several (three) academics reported that not having the
time or inclination to develop their teaching hindered them from having conversation
about Improving teaching and student learning and Evolving teaching, thinking and
practice (see section 6.4 for more detail on the influence of time). Strategies for
facilitating greater (quantity and quality) conversation may be worth exploring (see
section 8.3 for suggestions). Academics who described having conversation across
more than one subcategory, reported having more conversations about Managing their
teaching context rather than Improving teaching and student learning or Evolving
teaching, thinking and practice. The following excerpts reflect the sorts of comments
academics made about the practical or „managing‟ emphasis apparent in their
communication about teaching.
… there‟s not much discussion of improving one‟s teaching unless you really
asked for it. I guess you could ask ... but I don‟t know that many people would.
(Anthony)
It‟s around a lot of the practical aspects rather than an intellectual or
academic discussion about the value of this particular element of the unit of
study. We don‟t get a lot of time for that unfortunately. (Margaret)
I don't think I've ever been to a teaching meeting, other than my original
training, where we actually discussed the philosophy of teaching. (Adam)
The above quotes from academics almost suggest that meetings, time and other
colleagues influenced the nature of conversation about teaching rather than the
academics taking responsibility for their own conversation. Another academic had a
different view, and suggested it was up to the individual to determine the focus of their
teaching, and communicating about teaching, and consequently, to seek appropriate
development opportunities.
There are those people that are always going to think broadly and laterally
and look for new creative things to do [To Evolve teaching, thinking and
practice] and how to do it and how to improve it [To Improve teaching and
student learning]. There are those people that will very much focus on the
93
practical and functional processes [To Manage their teaching context] and
things like that. It would come down to individuals and how they‟re managing
their course. (Kasia)
5.7 Summary
Data from the interviews suggest that academics use informal conversation for a
variety of purposes that are likely to enhance both teaching and learning at university.
Within the broad category of usefulness for learning about teaching, five subcategories
were identified; academics have informal conversations to Vent about teaching-related
issues, to Reassure themselves about their teaching, to Manage their teaching context,
to Improve their teaching and student learning, and to Evolve their teaching, thinking
and practice. Combined, these subcategories provide evidence that informal
conversation is a strategy for professional development. Due to this recognition that
conversation was useful, the next step was to investigate the aspects of context which
influence conversation and potentially uncover those aspects that contribute to
academics having useful conversation. The next chapter provides a summary of how
context influences informal conversation about teaching.
94
Chapter 6. How context influences
informal conversation about teaching
Drawing on interviews with academics working in a research-intensive university,
Chapter 5 presented results that demonstrated that informal teaching conversations
were used by academics in at least five ways. This contributes to our understanding of
the nature of conversation between academics and builds on Chapter 4‟s summary of
the dominant topic areas of conversation. The extracts from interviews showed that
informal conversation was an effective way for academics to learn about teaching-
related issues from colleagues. This reinforces existing literature on the significance of
informal learning in workplace settings.
Communication affects and is affected by context, and this includes informal
conversation within departmental contexts. Having obtained evidence that conversation
was useful in university contexts, it was of interest to understand what influences
conversation, so that future conversation might be supported. This chapter focuses on
understanding the contexts in which academics teach and identifying those factors that
trigger, encourage or hinder informal conversation about teaching.
According to the academics interviewed, four categories of influence contributed to a
context which provides variable support for teaching. These categories were:
Colleagues with whom academics work; Processes for reward and recognition; Time
and place; and Formal management of communication. These categories will be
discussed from section 6.2 onwards.
In grounded theory, it is expected that as the categories and properties develop, a core
category (an overarching or underpinning category) will emerge (Glaser & Strauss,
1967). Prior to the sections on each the four categories of contextual influences, the
results relevant to the core category, and to the four categories collectively will be
presented.
95
6.1 Developing a grounded theory about informal conversation
A grounded theory analysis of the data regarding factors influencing informal
conversation about teaching yielded 15 categories (see Table 6.1, column 2), which
were subsequently grouped into four major categories (see Table 6.1, column 1).
Table 6.1 Categories and subcategories of contextual influences on informal
conversation
Contextual Categories Subcategories of contextual influences Section
1. Colleagues with
whom academics
work
1. Helpfulness of colleagues 6.2.1
2. Expertise of colleagues 6.2.2
3. Shared teaching ideology 6.2.3
4. Collegial friendship 6.2.4
2. Processes for reward
and recognition 5. Peer recognition and advice 6.3.1
6. Survival and promotion 6.3.2
7. Financial incentives 6.3.3
3. Time and place 8. Time and workload pressures 6.4.1
9. Timing 6.4.2
10. Office proximity 6.4.3
11. The „water-cooler‟ effect of corridors and coffee 6.4.4
4. Formal
management of
communication
12. Role of leaders in facilitating communication 6.5.1
13. Formal meetings 6.5.2
14. Semi-formal meetings 6.5.3
15. Semi-formal academic development strategies 6.5.4
Although they will be presented as separate categories in this chapter, the contextual
influence categories should be considered as a collective, because it is the combination
of these which worked to trigger, encourage or hinder informal conversation.
Regarding the context in which informal conversation occurs, the main question was,
„how do these categories influence informal conversation in university departments?‟
Asking this question was an important aspect of using grounded theory to integrate the
96
categories and their properties, and enable hypotheses and a theory to emerge (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967). The theory which emerges as part of grounded theory research helps
to explain the behaviour within the context in which it occurred. Thus, the categories of
influence helped to explain what generated informal conversation about teaching, and
on what basis colleagues were selected as conversation partners, within departmental
contexts. Considering the major categories collectively produced the idea that at the
core of informal conversation about teaching is the importance of commonality.
Once a core category or idea has emerged in a grounded theory study, it starts to
suggest hypotheses and theory about the behaviour of interest within context. In this
study, the idea of commonality influencing informal conversation about teaching is
linked to two hypotheses about the quantity and quality of informal conversation. In a
context which provides variable support for teaching, as commonality increases
between academic colleagues, it is predicted that they will have greater informal
conversation; i.e. their informal conversation will increase in both frequency and
usefulness. The idea of commonality is explored with reference to similar ideas in the
literature in section 8.2.3.
The idea of commonality with colleagues influencing informal conversation is
particularly interesting because for academics, it extended beyond what might be the
expected area of professional expertise to include personal attributes and physical
proximity. This is interesting because it suggests that one approach to supporting future
teaching conversation may include increasing personal commonality between
academics. As described in Chapter 5, informal conversations are an effective way to
learn about teaching; they may also represent a complementary strategy to existing
formal modes of learning about teaching, such as formal academic development
programs. What the idea of commonality could mean for academic development is
described from section 8.3.1 onwards.
Brief examples illustrating the interplay between each of the four categories of
influence are given in the next few paragraphs, before detailed descriptions of each
category are provided, beginning with section 6.2.
The academics who were interviewed saw research as being the main part of their work
that was rewarded, and they contrasted the support provided for research with that
provided for teaching. They suggested that their research-intensive context led to some
97
of their colleagues being less interested in teaching than research. Academics‟
experience of this context was revealed through their descriptions of institutional
processes for recognising, rewarding and supporting their involvement in teaching.
The competition between research and teaching was demonstrated through academics‟
descriptions of research activities being prioritised over teaching activities, such as in
Adam‟s quote, below.
... there's continually this, „research versus teaching‟ ... it's very easy for
research considerations to really take priority and the teaching doesn't get
done or [it] gets given to somebody else, or [it] is moved to be convenient
around conferences and research presentations. (Adam)
Academics suggested that their opportunities for conversation about teaching had
lessened because research work was dominant in their research-intensive context.
... if you can't talk about your teaching, it's obviously, it's a real problem.
There have to be conversations; it's such a big part of our lives. I think that
they've been limited as the research culture has taken over, particularly in
[this department], there's [sic] fewer and fewer opportunities for
conversations, and there's no denying [that] the research must get done, but I
think it is at an expense of a leisurely conversation about teaching. (Grace)
One academic who reflected on the impact of being time-poor and busy during his
interview, described this as contributing to a decline in the quality of conversation
about teaching.
... this is a busy teaching climate. I don't know if that's the university or the
faculty, but the faculty is just running at 200 per cent these days. I think in
many ways that diminishes the quality of those conversations. (Chris)
During interviews, academics reported experiencing the support for teaching in their
departments as variable, and suggested that they were not taught to teach by their
leaders or colleagues. Instead, they found that it was largely their responsibility to
initiate access to resources or identify opportunities for teaching development.
This moment of how to teach us, how to even do it speedily and efficiently and
effectively – I remember when I first started teaching that nobody ever told me
98
how to mark anything. You just went in and chatted for 15 minutes with
someone who says, „this is the main points [sic] we're looking for‟. (Sarah)
I know there are resources available to everybody on campus about teaching,
but in the main it is up to the teachers to go off and get those resources. So if
people want to ignore those resources, they can. (Adam)
I'm amazed in some ways that it is left up to the academic to identify
opportunities for development in teaching. I landed here ... I don't have a
DipEd [abbreviation of Diploma of Education, Teaching qualification] and I
was thrust straight into a first year course. … No one said a word to me here
about teaching, or any assistance that I might be able to access. … I've been
frankly flabbergasted by the non-existence of anyone saying, you know, „you're
a young academic, how's the teaching going? Do you need to talk about it?‟ or
you know, „do you feel as if you're getting your points across?‟ It's not
something that upsets me but the non-existence of it I find puzzling ... it's just
assumed that you come and you're a natural teacher. (Joshua)
In the context of university departments, academics perceived that teaching may not
always be a priority for their colleagues, and experienced their teaching development
as largely self-initiated and directed. The previous chapters showed that academics
learn about teaching from informal conversation in a way that focuses on the individual
conversation partners, potentially in relation to issues of a challenging and discipline-
based nature. Such conversations represent one way for academics to learn about
teaching in a context identified by academics as offering variable university and
collegial support for teaching.
The data produced by the analysis of academics‟ descriptions of the context which
influences informal conversation, are presented in the following four category sections:
colleagues with whom academics work, processes for reward and recognition, time and
space, and formal management of communication.
6.2 Colleagues with whom academics work
Informal conversation requires the presence and contributions of another academic, and
the role of the conversation partner is linked to the purpose and usefulness of informal
99
conversation, and so, the profile of this academic was of interest to this study. This
section focuses on academics‟ descriptions of the attributes which made certain
colleagues preferable conversation partners. Associated with this idea of which
colleagues would be sought after for conversation are the rationales for why
conversation did not happen between some colleagues. Critical reflection is achieved
only when others are involved (Brookfield, 1995) and so self-reflection or self-talk,
about teaching is not considered in this study. The following subcategories describe the
individual characteristics which contributed to colleagues being sought after for
informal conversation about teaching. Together with their professional expertise,
colleagues‟ personal attributes were described by academics as important for
conversation about teaching.
6.2.1 Helpfulness of colleagues
Academics reported that having helpful colleagues was important in determining
whether and with whom to have a conversation. This perceived helpfulness included
having a sense that their colleagues were approachable should they have a question,
and were willing to offer assistance and provide advice. The following extracts refer to
how colleagues‟ helpfulness encouraged informal conversation.
Informally I could approach any of them at any time, or send them an email
and set up a meeting. (Liz)
... the people that I work with are fairly approachable. ... so there‟s never been
any issue about asking a question or being left to my own devices. There have
been offers of help to try and develop things more quickly. (Ellen)
People are helpful, it's a good department that way, everyone is trying, it's
very collegial. If anything works or is helpful, they always pass it on „quick
tick‟. So it's not like anyone doesn‟t know anything that others know, we all
know. Especially with technology – we're all trying to use it. (Anthony)
The idea of helpfulness was different in different departments, for some it meant
colleagues offering advice; for others it was simply an awareness that someone was
available if a conversation was desired. Kasia explained that her Head of Discipline
would not initiate conversation, but was interested and available for discussion about
teaching. She appreciated having this support available, and thought it was more
100
appropriate for experienced academics than having a senior academic monitor their
courses. She suggested individual academics should be responsible for the timing and
content of their own teaching practice and course development.
Now we have always had available to us a Head of Discipline to discuss things
like this [course development]. So I guess it's really up to us whether we
choose to go and discuss or what we discuss … She's not the type that will
necessarily come and find out what's going on necessarily. I mean she's
interested and she tutors in some of the different courses, but you know, I guess
she's less hands-on with the more experienced staff as well, which makes
sense. (Kasia)
Some academics self-identified as the teachers who trialled strategies uncommon for
teaching in their discipline or those who put excessive effort into their teaching. These
academics found that their colleagues perceived them as different and were
consequently resentful of them and sceptical of their ideas. The experience of these
academics contrasts with the previous illustrative quotes, where colleagues were
described as helpful and supportive.
... we are the only people doing this [particular approach to teaching]. So we
are perceived as kind of abnormal. Indeed, some of our colleagues say, „why
aren‟t you guys just doing the regular lecturing game with homework and back
to research-type stuff?‟ Some of their comments are extended into, „we hear
students in our class saying that we are not like you‟. (Luke)
... maybe teaching scores by some people are felt to be a little bit like
popularity measures as much as they are about good teaching and maybe some
people feel a bit resentful ... sometimes we‟ve ended up being the „teacher‟s
pets‟ ... I think sometimes our ideas are seen as – „well they always put in too
much work so we have to kind of take whatever they‟re going to say ... with
that in mind‟ ... We do pretty much always put in too much effort. (Benjamin)
6.2.2 Expertise of colleagues
During interviews, it was revealed that academics considered some of their colleagues
to be particularly knowledgeable or skilled in certain aspects of teaching. Colleagues
with particular skills were the colleagues who were sought out for informal
101
conversation because of the advice they could potentially contribute based on their
experience or expertise. These colleagues included those academics who had been
teaching for a long time, in a variety of contexts, or on multiple courses, and because of
this, they were considered to be experienced and possess significant knowledge related
to teaching. Other academics, although potentially less experienced, were recognised as
being effective or excellent teachers. Their recognition may have come from an
external source, such as from a teaching award or grant, or they may have possessed a
relevant skill or held a reputation as the academic in the department who “always put in
too much effort” (Benjamin, see previous section 6.2.1 for the full quote).
I will go into the office of someone a lot more experienced and just say, „look
you know, I'm having a real problem with 'x' in my tutorials (an issue, not a
person, an issue), how would you deal with this?‟ That's very useful because
there's [sic] very experienced and quite brilliant teachers here. (Joshua)
Although this chapter presents the 15 subcategories separately, it is important to note
that they represent influential factors within a context and so are linked. The interviews
revealed that there were multiple and possibly inter-related reasons to converse with
individual academics. The next quote is one of many which illustrated this relationship.
For Meghan, the colleagues she talked to were those who worked in the same faculty,
were good teachers and were interested in teaching (also see section 6.2.3), in addition
to other colleagues whose offices were located in the same corridor as her office.
... most of the people I talk to within the faculty are the people who are known
to be good teachers, ... [or] people in other disciplines who I know have a lot
of interest in teaching. ... [and] there are other people on the corridor who we
do talk to about teaching. (Meghan)
For Lilly, the attributes which made one colleague a desirable conversation partner
were experience and skill, in combination with a previously established mentoring
relationship.
... one of the people I talk to a lot, [name] he is somebody that mentored me for
a few years. So I just drop in and ask him [anything], because he runs lots of
big courses and he's got quite a lot of experience and he's very good at running
large courses. So sometimes, I like to go and talk to him about things to get an
102
unbiased view of what might be [a] good or bad teaching style or philosophy.
(Lilly)
Marie appreciated the advice of a colleague whose teaching approach was unlike hers,
and explained that it was because of this area of expertise that she looked for this
colleague to initiate informal conversation about teaching.
She's got her own ideas ... [she would] look at it more from a lecturing point of
view. More kind of standing back and she's more into – „you've got to bring the
audience in with you‟. So yeah it's that different approach really, I think it's
less of a „telling them‟ and more of a „taking them along with you‟. (Marie)
Although many of the conversations described during interviews referred to academics
seeking advice, they sometimes also provided advice. In addition to seeking the
knowledge of colleagues, experienced academics were prompted to altruistically
initiate conversation with their less experienced colleagues. These academics indicated
that part of the rationale for supporting colleagues through conversation was because
they remembered how difficult it was for them when they were new to the university
This confirmed that the academics in the sample were not only seeking but also
providing resources through informal conversation. The content of these informal
conversations included recently appointed academics being told what the more
experienced academics thought they “needed to know”, and being advised on certain
aspects of teaching delivery.
We are spectacularly bad at telling new appointments what they need to know.
And having been through this myself and it hasn't changed ... There is a [new]
colleague in my area so I feel a sense of responsibility to show him the ropes.
(Patrick)
I've got a lot of newer colleagues that have just joined us in the last few years,
and now that I'm one of the more senior teachers ... I feel that it's really
important for myself and for other more experienced teachers [to] be trying
things out but also spreading things around. (Grace)
6.2.3 Shared teaching ideology
Academics suggested that certain colleagues would be most able to offer an appropriate
judgment and make a useful contribution to an informal conversation. In seeking a
103
conversation partner, academics described the importance of choosing colleagues who
had an interest in teaching and shared common values about what mattered in
university teaching.
I think having a common interest in learning and teaching is important. For a
lot of academics, understandably, learning and teaching is at the bottom of the
pile of priorities. (Margaret)
... that collegial feeling about, „how can we improve our teaching?‟ – I just
don't see that within this discipline at all. There are two or three people who
genuinely are interested in doing a good job in their teaching and they're the
only people [who] you really talk to. (Meghan)
Not all academics had a visible interest in teaching or saw teaching as important.
Academics reported how when an interest in teaching was not present or apparent, then
they would not initiate a conversation with that colleague. In Raj‟s case, the person for
whom he thought teaching wasn‟t important was his head of discipline.
... you don‟t want to approach the head [of the discipline] regarding teaching
issues when they feel that it‟s not very important. (Raj)
The next quote is another example that illustrates the role of multiple factors in
determining with whom academics had an informal conversation about teaching. In this
case, a combination of factors led to two colleagues having a useful, positive dialogue.
These two academics had a similar level of interest in teaching, shared a cohort of
students, had previously taught together, and studied similar PhD topics.
[I speak to] people who have similar ways of working to me, similar ways of
teaching or a similar level of interest. So I have a particular colleague who
also has a PhD in [my topic] and we both happen to teach the same cohort of
students, [and] we've often co-taught together. So because we have similar
interests, a similar level of interest I guess in teaching, it's always good to talk.
(Margaret)
Many of the academics interviewed suggested that it was the combination or cluster of
attributes that determined whether colleagues would have effective conversation. For
some academics, certain attributes or factors were more important than others in
104
facilitating conversation about teaching. In the next quote, a shared disposition towards
teaching mattered more to the academic than either who they were teaching with or
their disciplinary background.
That's not to say that I don't actually have coffee regularly with a few
academics but there's no central location ... They're actually in a different
discipline ... I don't tend to have coffee regularly with the people who I teach
most closely with. ...Having talked about the coffee people – I guess I do mix
with people who are fairly cynical about their teaching, if cynical is the right
word, offhand maybe. (Adam)
The previous quotes described a shared stance towards teaching. The importance of
this shared stance towards teaching was strengthened by the responses of academics to
advice from colleagues who did not share their values about teaching. The response
was to subsequently dismiss this advice as irrelevant for their teaching. The next
academic quoted did not consider an approach (used by his colleague) to be appropriate
for the units of study for which he was responsible.
... there's [sic] certain areas of things I've listened to and then decided that's
not for me. ... for example, „negotiated curriculum‟, as a concept, I don‟t see
the benefit of that ... there are a number of people who are doing it and who
are very committed to it ... I‟m not convinced, ... I think I'll stick with setting
the agenda. (Liam)
The role of sharing (or not sharing) interests or approaches to teaching in facilitating
(or hindering) conversation has been a feature of the previous quotes. An extreme
example of the impact of not sharing interests on communication about teaching was
identified by one academic. When asking questions about unit of study evaluations, one
academic found that her colleagues did not share her interest in measuring and
improving the quality of teaching, similar to the previous quoted experiences.
Additionally, she found that her colleagues considered communicating about how to
improve teaching to be a waste of time, and referred to her efforts as an inappropriate
“witch hunt”. She could not communicate with them about improving teaching because
their response was one which she was unable to tolerate.
105
I actually had to get up and walk out because I was basically being shouted at
and shouted down and being told that, „this was just a complete waste of time‟
and that „I shouldn't be going on a witch hunt to see who the bad teachers
were‟. (Meghan)
6.2.4 Collegial friendship
During interviews, academics described determining with whom to discuss teaching
based on their compatibility and helpfulness (see section 6.2.1). The role of personality
and compatibility was associated with similar teaching approaches (section 6.2.3), as
well as shared interests and perspectives and a collegial relationship, even a friendship.
Some people are just more sociable than others and like to have a chat. Other
people prefer to do things on their own. I think that really varies from
discipline area to discipline area, as well as from individual to individual ... [I
have found that] as a [discipline] group, they're [the academics I work with
are] an extremely friendly, personable bunch of people. (Margaret)
… I think there‟s [sic] probably personality issues within there as well. I think
there‟s a collective approach to what they're teaching ... [and] their
background, some are left wing perspective, union perspective, ... there‟s a
large enough group of them who are really quite friendly as well as
colleagues. (Liam)
The next quote suggests the influence of multiple factors and starts to explain why
being friendly matters in facilitating conversation. Although he acknowledged the
expertise of people who had taught and supervised him, Joshua said he spoke to
academics with whom he had a rapport.
I mean the person I spoke to, [was] someone who taught me, and the other
person was my old PhD supervisor, it's obvious why I talk to him. Otherwise,
it‟s people [that] I get on well with, that you're on good terms with, that you
feel comfortable in talking about these issues with, that you have respect for –
that would be the main sort of reasons. (Joshua)
During interviews, academics described having informal conversations with those
colleagues with whom they shared interests or passions other than teaching. This
connection based on interests unrelated to their university work may be linked to
106
teaching being seen as a personal interest; “There‟s something that‟s just personal
about teaching that doesn‟t apply to research” (Benjamin). Starting a conversation
about interests may lead into conversation about teaching. An example of a non-
teaching interest might be literature (outside an academic‟s discipline area), such as
that associated with a particular genre or author. The example of a non-teaching
interest presented in the next quote is politics.
... there‟s another thing to be said I think about all academics, … that we have
a wide range of interests and we have I suppose obsessional preoccupations
with our own areas of study but we are all interested in all sorts of other
intellectual and cultural questions. I‟m a Australian politics junkie … so there
are particular conversations I have with [a colleague] … I talk current affairs
with him constantly and this also leads into discussions about the political
awareness of students, how these things relate to teaching. So, I have had
many conversations with [him] that are about current political issues that will
end up having some sort of bearing on university life. So it might not be
[conversation about] pedagogy specifically but there will be things that one
feels are important. (Patrick)
One of the most frequent and most significant responses to questions about who
academics spoke to was that their informal conversation about teaching happened
amongst friends. It should be noted that these friendships had arisen subsequent to their
being departmental colleagues, and were not pre-existing personal relationships
developed externally to the university. Although they were colleagues, the term
„friend‟ was used in interviews, and it was clear that the academics understood it to
mean something different to the term „colleague‟, as many of them mentioned the
importance of being „friends and colleagues‟. The quotes below are typical of the
references academics made to such conversations with friends.
I guess talking about teaching would mostly be between colleagues ... at
meetings and that kind of thing, but I think the majority of talking about
teaching happens informally, among colleagues who are also friends. ... even if
you go to workshops and things like that, they're infrequent. So as I said, I
think most of the teaching chat is done between colleagues who also happen to
107
be friends, that [who] might share what you might call leisure time, lunchtime,
coffee time [or] that kind of thing. (Grace)
The combination of factors that increased the likelihood of conversation. In addition to
being a friend, sharing a cohort of students and having similar ideas about teaching (see
section 6.2.3) were seen as important for having an informal conversation,
demonstrating that multiple attributes mattered. In the quote below, one academic lists
his connections with a particular colleague.
Well [she] is a friend as well as a colleague ... and we have talked regularly ...
exclusively informally about the ways that we teach. ... in part because ... we
have similar ideas about what we are here for and similar ideas about students
and approaches and so on, and so for that reason we share a lot of our ideas
and in fact have had mutually an impact on each other's teaching. (Patrick)
The next quote is from Suren, who mentioned that he spoke about teaching with those
academics who shared his cohort of students, but explained that feeling comfortable
(like Joshua, who was quoted previously in this section) mattered more, and he was
more comfortable sharing his teaching problems with friends.
Talking to [my] friends [happens at] a regular place every day in the coffee
break, but of course a person teaching [the same] year, we have the meeting[s]
and we have discussion[s] about teaching. So I'm not talking about teaching
only with my friends, but with friends [it] happen[s] more on a regular basis
and we just share our problems and experience in teaching ... obviously you‟re
more comfortable with your friends to talk about it. (Suren)
6.3 Processes for reward and recognition
During interviews, academics said that they and their colleagues responded to reward
and recognition processes, and adjusted their behaviour accordingly. Peers and
promotion provided recognition, while rewards were seen as employment, promotion
and financial incentives. Academics argued that when teaching was not a core part of
these elements, conversations about teaching were less likely.
108
6.3.1 Peer recognition and advice
Raj based his preference for research over teaching partly on the understanding that
teaching responsibilities were seen as less important than research achievements for
peer recognition and interest and prospective future employment.
I would prefer to concentrate on research, only because I have direct benefits.
Not only in terms of monetary but from my peer recognition. … For example, if
somebody here gets into a top journal, normally an email is sent saying,
„congratulations‟. But it‟s not so forthcoming for teaching achievements. (Raj)
Raj explained that the perception of himself and his colleagues that research was more
important was linked to their motivation and interest in research, and that his
conversation reflected this interest in research.
... the reality really is everybody is more interested in research. We‟d rather
talk about research because it has [a] direct impact on how peers see us in this
context. If you‟re a good teacher then that‟s about it ... you are bracketed as
„the teaching person‟, a „poor cousin‟ to the researcher. (Raj)
For Raj, this was more than peer recognition and interest, he also considered the role
that research would have in determining future employment.
Also [it matters] in an external context, if I want to leave this university, if I
want to go to any reputable university either in Australia or in other countries,
teaching is a factor, but it‟s not the main factor. [The main factor], it is
essentially research. (Raj)
All interviewees, unprompted, described the challenges that they faced balancing their
teaching workloads with their research workloads and many indicated they had been
advised to focus on their research and not waste their time on teaching or any other
non-research activities.
... those of us who do become quite passionate about our teaching are told not
to waste our time ... I was told that I haven't a hope of getting promoted
because I'm concentrating too much on my teaching and my research is
suffering. ... For most of my colleagues as far as they're concerned, „being an
academic is research, you know, you do as little service as possible – you do
109
what you can get away with, you do the bare minimum on teaching, and
research is what it's all about, and [specifically] discipline-focused research,
none of this wasting your time on education-focused research‟. (Meghan)
In addition to teaching, other non-research activities included informal conversation, as
Grace suggested in the quote below.
... the idea that you'd sit around for half an hour everyday with your colleagues
having tea, I just don't think it enters people's heads anymore as something
you'd do. If you've got that much time, you should be doing some more
research. (Grace)
The ways that academics developed an awareness of whether teaching or research was
more important varied. One of the ways was through the advice provided by senior
academics.
The status of senior academic staff in departments meant that their involvement in what
could otherwise be inconsequential incidents or conversations had a significant and
enduring impact on less senior academics. Individual leaders were able to have an
influence on colleagues because their opinion on whether teaching was important or
best avoided, led to them effectively encouraging academics to put effort into their
teaching or their research.
I was lucky because we had a previous professor who felt [that] teaching was
important. He was really great at encouraging people in terms of teaching. I
worked very closely with him … That was really good, especially when it's a
senior colleague who is in a sense almost mentoring. (Meghan)
[A] comment from one of the most senior people in this department, and again
this person would be „Exhibit A‟ in terms of „just does not want to teach
anymore‟. [He had a] long period off teaching, [and he has] been very
successful [at] getting government grants for research and it‟s all wonderful.
But [this person] is apparently fearful of having to go back to teaching, [he]
doesn't want to do it. [He] said to someone [that], „if you're a good teacher,
that is the way to ruin your academic career‟. I will never forget that. (Joshua)
110
Academics who had received government-funded research grants described often being
able to use their funding grants to obtain relief from teaching duties, and this is
explored in a subsequent section, see section 6.3.3.
Joshua and Megan‟s comments (above and below) referred to the influence of their
colleagues‟ as being associated with their seniority and mentoring roles.
... when that is someone very senior and that person acts as a mentor to a
number of other people in the department, that tends to trickle down, that sort
of negativity. (Joshua)
The next quote starts to explain why senior academics may have advised their
colleagues to focus on research. This explanation was due to the promotion criteria‟s
emphasis on having research publications, and time spent teaching being detrimental to
having research publications.
... Because [if you focus on teaching, then] you're going to become engulfed by
students and by the demands of teaching and you're obviously putting so much
into that, that you can't do your research and you can't publish and therefore
you're not going to get promoted. That's the sort of logic that he's following
through there. (Joshua)
The importance of promotion and appointment criteria in determining academics‟
workload and priorities, and their subsequent interest and communication is further
developed in the next section, 6.3.2.
6.3.2 Survival and promotion
During interviews, academics gave various reasons for prioritising research over
teaching. One of these reasons was „surviving‟ in academia, in other words, remaining
employed by a university. To remain employed as academics, they suggested that they
were required to produce evidence of their research.
One of the things [that] you don't want is your teaching to dominate your research
and service. ... For me, it's actually important that the teaching doesn't dominate
my job, that teaching is just a component of the job. I know for other academics,
teaching is their job. I guess I was like that at one time, too, but you can't survive
long-term in academia anymore if you're not research-productive. (Chris)
111
In this research-intensive context, academics reported seeing research publications as
more important than teaching responsibilities, especially because other colleagues were
spending their time on research and not on teaching.
If everyone is doing research, I need to do research rather than teaching. I
[should] have a little bit of pressure on it, and lose a little bit of my passion on
teaching ... you need to have publications. If you spend a lot of time teaching,
[then] you don‟t have time for publications. I have heard from some other
academics; they told me, „don't do too much for teaching. Do more for research‟.
(Maxine)
Academics described how they rationalised that as there was little benefit from
undertaking teaching responsibilities and work, it made sense to focus on their
research.
... there‟s a perception that we don‟t gain too much personally, or maybe even
professionally from doing it [teaching] ... you can‟t change the culture so why
fight it. Just be research-intensive. (Raj)
Sarah and Kasia explained during their interviews, that the impact of any academic
having the desire to be a good teacher, or receiving advice that teaching was respected,
was diminished by the promotion criteria being unrelated to teaching and limiting
teaching-based promotion to a lower level.
I think most people want to do well in teaching but they know … that the
pathway for promotion (you'll hear this 100 times) – is not to do with
teaching. (Sarah)
... certainly in our faculty in the university, you don't get promoted unless you
do research … even though we get told [that] … teaching is valued, just as
much as research is,… at the end of the day, if you're not bringing in grants
and publishing, you will not get promoted. Or you might get promoted, but
only to a certain level. It doesn‟t matter what you've done in teaching. (Kasia)
Liam argued that the University promotion system which supported and encouraged
research but not teaching, reduced teaching to a personal interest, and therefore,
112
teaching conversations were not fostered. He suggested that in a different context, it
might be different.
... when the culture has changed to allow you to be a great teacher and a
shocking researcher and get promoted to associate professor [a senior level
appointment in Australia], for example, then there might be more of an
impetus for formal and informal conversations about teaching. [Then] it'd be
more than our own personal interest to seek our colleagues' advice. (Liam)
He contrasted this with the importance of research for promotion, and hence, the
motivation to communicate about research.
Whereas, at the moment, it‟s very much in our interests to talk about research,
[to be] tapping into people‟s ideas about research. (Liam)
Liam developed this argument to include students as well the University‟s promotion
structure to explain why academics would choose to spend less time on their teaching,
including speaking about teaching with colleagues. He saw the difference between
teaching and research work as based on the contribution of research work to assisting
him in receiving a promotion.
I find it frustrating, when you've got too many students in a bad room, their
English level's not great and you feel as though they‟re here just to finish the
unit of study. If I did a really good, if I strive hard to do a good [job with my
teaching], there‟s only so many labour hours here, if I spend 10 of them
improving my teaching ... I [already] average about 4.2 to 4. 4 [out of a
possible 5 on a student evaluation of teaching survey], the amount of time to
get that up just isn't a good use of my labour hours, because of the promotion
structure and these other things, so therefore it‟s [teaching‟s] not [as]
important for me to talk about [with] my colleagues as the research element.
(Liam)
6.3.3 Financial incentives
Two examples of financial incentives available to academics in the university studied
are salary loading and teaching relief. One academic described how changing the way
academics were rewarded (such as by rewarding quality teaching) would have an
impact on how teaching and research are perceived.
113
... a clearer reward system – I don‟t think there‟s any other motivator. I‟m sure
most of us are influenced by other things than monetary and peer recognition.
If you want to build a certain culture, you will reward them so that the culture
flourishes. At this stage, from my understanding, although theoretically you
can get promoted by teaching [it hasn‟t happened]. … You could get the
market loading [an increase in salary] because of teaching I suspect, [but] the
reality is it‟s more about research. So [we need] a clearer link about why we
should be better teachers than we are. (Raj)
He went on to describe the role of a financial incentive in validating the rhetoric on the
importance of teaching.
I‟m aware [that] the pro vice-chancellor and everybody talks about teaching
as really important. But the perception still lingers [that it isn‟t important] ...
[They need to] show us how exactly [it will impact us]. ... [If] we‟re going to
put more effort in[to] teaching, how is it going to impact us in terms of
promotion [and] in terms of peer recognition and those kinds of issues. (Raj)
Another academic described how implementing a reward system, in this case,
introducing a salary loading related to teaching would affect the perception of whether
teaching was important.
... within the faculty … we get salary loadings and discretionary loadings, …up
until now the focus has always been on research, but our faculty, in fairness to
them, this time around put a section in there on exceptional teaching and [the
faculty] said, „[loading is available] if you can show us that you were
exceptional in teaching‟. (Meghan)
... that will make people sit up and think, „well, there is more to this place than
research‟. I suppose at the end of the day most people are thinking about their
own bottom line and that is, „what's my salary‟ and „if it means my salary is
going to be more if I do a really good job in one of these areas, then that's
important‟. (Meghan)
To complement a salary loading, the availability of grants for teaching, and support for
teaching-related research, were seen to be ways to signal the value placed on teaching
by the university.
114
The other thing is teaching grants, but I think the university is pretty good at
that as well, offering grants in teaching, so people rather than having to
constantly look at research grants can look at teaching research grants.
(Meghan)
These financial incentives which supported teaching were contrasted with financial
incentives which fostered academics‟ research and discouraged academics from
spending time on their teaching. One example which demonstrated how enthusiastic
some academics were about avoiding teaching was the common practice of supporting
successful researchers to replace their teaching duties with time for research. Teaching
was seen by colleagues as something to avoid or escape wherever possible – “there is a
pervasive sense of, if you can get teaching relief or get out of teaching, then that's a
good thing” (Joshua). Below, academics have described the options for teaching relief
or „buyout‟, where colleagues would have their teaching workload allocated to
someone else or use part of their grant funds to hire someone else to take on their
teaching responsibilities.
Most of my colleagues here would do anything to get out of teaching. They
work [out] ways of buying themselves out; they'll take on extra PhD students if
it means they get a buyout on some of their teaching. (Meghan)
It's because there is a desperation to „get out of‟ teaching more than anything
else. Teaching is almost seen as a second or even third class dimension for a
lot of people here ... one of the big things I've noticed is this joyous search for
teaching relief now. A lot of people here are very successful with ARC grants
[National Competitive Research Grants funded by the Australian Research
Council] that give them that teaching relief and that's great. (Joshua)
There was a sense for one academic that receiving an Australian Research Council
grant, without receiving the funds required to buy himself out of his teaching
responsibilities diminished the perceived success of his grant.
I got an ARC but I didn't get teaching relief. I applied for one semester of
teaching relief and I didn't get it. So the reaction to that was interesting too.
„Oh you're a bloody idiot [Australian colloquialism which has a similar
meaning to daft fool], you only asked for one, you've got to ask for two and
115
then they would have given you one‟... It was almost like I'd failed. ... it was
like, „oh god what a strategic error you made‟. „What a disaster‟. (Joshua)
There were negative outcomes associated with this practice of successful researchers
buying themselves out, for both those to whom their teaching was allocated, and the
students who were being taught. For example, there was a perception that junior staff
resented the distribution of teaching workloads, and were less likely to put effort into
their teaching as a result.
… a lot of the newer staff feel like when they first arrived, they got lumped with
a whole lot of teaching and are fairly resentful, I think, of teaching and of
making a big effort for first year teaching. (Benjamin)
Academics described how this practice of replacing senior academics with less
experienced academic staff also led to reduced teaching quality and meant that students
responded negatively on teaching evaluations.
... the less senior the person teaching, the worse ... it's almost inevitable that
they'll get worse comments [on student surveys of teaching]. ... I think we've
really seen - we've got empirical evidence for the fact that buyouts replaced by
junior people affects the teaching experience negatively. There's no question
about that. (Anthony)
This academic made it clear that he understood that the teaching abilities and
experience of his colleagues were distinct from those characteristics important for
disciplinary research.
It's nothing to do with their abilities as a [disciplinary academic]; it's all to do
with the teaching experience and the capacity to enthuse people with the
material. The people who've got more experience just do that better every time,
it's always the way. (Anthony)
Interestingly, an academic in a different departmental context to Anthony suggested
that despite a desire to focus on their research, senior academics were unable to replace
their teaching activities with research. This was attributed to the inability of less
experienced colleagues to teach the necessary content at an appropriate level, and led to
the more experienced academics being “stuck” with their teaching workload.
116
In a school like this, the more experienced and senior people here are the
people who probably should be doing most of the teaching because that's the
level that the students need – they need that [disciplinary] expertise to teach it.
You can't really have a bunch of 22-year-olds teaching the bulk of the content
under your direction. You can't do that like other faculties can do, because
they don't have the depth of knowledge, and the experience to teach the
content, even if they had the methodology. So we're stuck. We have to do the
teaching, and there's no backing out of it. (Chris)
6.4 Time and place
The following subcategories relate to when and where informal conversation was likely
to occur; availability and accessibility of colleagues were the keys to informal
conversation taking place. Physical proximity was an aspect of commonality that
triggered conversation. Semi-formal meetings such as morning teas were important in
encouraging informal conversation, though they are not included in this section (see
section 6.5.3 for a discussion of their role in informal conversation).
6.4.1 Time and workload pressures
Informal conversation about teaching happened when academics had time, and with
colleagues who were also perceived to have time to talk about teaching. During the
interviews, workload and research commitments (which may be linked to promotion,
see section 6.3.2) were suggested as reasons why academics might not have time for
conversation.
It's not a conscious decision, it's just not, but it does become obvious. I get on
with everybody in my department, I want to stress that, but there are people
that you socialise with and there are people that you don't. People more open
to socialising than others, [and] people that have more time than others. This
year I've been trying to finish a book so any time I can spend at home I do. So
that's cut down the conversations amazingly, really by a lot and I notice it, I
really notice it. (Grace)
In the above quote, Grace referred to socialising with colleagues. This idea was
explored in section 6.2.4, where academics described being friends with some of
their colleagues. She suggested that the combination of spending all her available
117
time either researching at home or teaching students, contributed to a lack of
opportunity for conversation.
The days I'm in, Thursdays and Wednesdays, are so busy with my classes that
those coffees just don't happen. So you fall back on the odd departmental
meeting or that kind of thing, or very sporadic contact. (Grace)
Time spent engaged in face-to-face teaching prevented informal conversation because
academics or their colleagues were delivering lectures when they could otherwise have
engaged in an informal conversation.
... with the teaching timetables these days, teaching can start at 8 o'clock in the
morning and finish at 6 o'clock at night and people literally are not here.
They're not around to be talking because they're actually teaching. (Margaret)
One academic explained that the pressure to publish and perform administrative duties,
and again, actual teaching, left little time for academics to develop or consider
developing their teaching.
I'm in my first three years of an academic career and the pressure is just
unbelievable to go and get publications and getting out these new courses and
writing 24 new lectures, I mean it's just energy sapping. So then you've got
your administrative duties on top of that. So there's just very little sort of time
left in which you can think, „gosh I've got to make sure I remember, I've really
got to develop my skills you know. I've got to seek outside help from [the
central academic development unit], I've got to be aware of what's out there to
help me grow and develop as a teacher‟. (Joshua).
Other academics described similar pressures, to disseminate research and manage
administrative responsibilities from their workloads and workplace cultures.
... there is a great deal of pressure on colleagues, at [Australian academic]
level B & C [lecturer and senior lecturer appointments] to publish, to do their
service, to do administrative jobs so [that] they can be promoted, and that I
think has become to some extent, and I‟m not pointing, it‟s not an individual,
it‟s part of the corporate culture. (Patrick)
118
I think it's the culture of the place as well. ... I think it's partly workload, it's
partly people – sometimes it's a self-imposed workload, it's sort of an ethos of
working extremely hard in [this discipline]. (Margaret)
6.4.2 Timing
There was a sense for some academics that informal conversation about teaching
happened more at key points during semester, when academics were focused on
thinking about their teaching, for example, before or after delivering their first lecture,
or as issues arose that required discussion.
… the best times that we all talk about teaching is when we prepare a course
syllabus for the semester. (Jon)
I do have a couple of colleagues and we do talk before class or after class,
especially at the start of semester when you're about to start again and you
kind of chat about teaching again. (Meghan)
For me, it also depends, on what time of the year we're at, because most of my
teaching falls in one particular semester, which happens to be in semester two,
so I try and use a lot of semester one as a time for doing other things like my
research. I deliberately delay working on, intensively, (I often think about it
but I delay working on) my teaching aspects until around June. That's when I
start moving from a research-focus to a teaching-focus and that's when I start
talking to people. (Margaret)
6.4.3 Office proximity
The layout of offices and common spaces was suggested as influencing conversation.
Academics who worked in close proximity to their colleagues, for example in
neighbouring or nearby offices, described this as encouraging informal conversation
about teaching.
I think it also has a lot to do with your geographical co-location, so for
example, one of my PhD students has a desk just outside. ... we've had a
number of informal discussions ... Whereas if [she] wasn't literally at the door
I would have to organise something a little more formal or I would ring her up.
(Margaret)
119
We used to have the offices next door to each other I guess when I first started,
so that was always handy and now she's just up the corridor. So yeah, they
[conversations] tend to be just casual but interesting. (Marie)
… every few days one of my colleagues – like the person in the next office or
people in a couple of offices down that way – just drop by if they've seen
something interesting on the internet or to ask how stuff is going. That's like
five minutes, or two minutes even – chatting. (Lilly)
Not having immediate access to colleagues was described by academics as a
barrier to informal conversation, and improving their access to each other was
thought to encourage conversation.
I think access to one another [matters]; we're like a lot of faculties, we're sort
of spread over two or three buildings. (Margaret)
The position of desks and offices may work because it is designed to build on existing
commonalities, for example a shared teaching ideology (see section 6.2.3). The floor
plan of Marie‟s faculty had recently been redesigned in order to arrange the offices of
academics in clusters based on their sub-disciplines.
I've noticed much more contact of staff around the place [since it has been
redesigned]. ... Everything, at this point anyway has a fairly logical position ...
So that lends itself to like-minded people and people who are teaching on
similar courses being co-located and that helps a lot. (Marie)
Space was not limited to providing easy access to colleagues, it also contributed to a
change in how academics felt about working in their department, which motivated
them to work, including on their teaching.
... now we've got a very nice office. … one staff [member] told us actually she
[used to] feel ashamed to work in this building. … now it looks much better. I
think our Dean try [sic] to spend some money to also build up our morale and
self-esteem. So [that they could] give us a very comfortable, nice, working
environment. I think it helps. (Maxine)
120
6.4.4 The ‘water-cooler’ effect of corridors and coffee
Academics described seeing a colleague as a trigger for having an informal
conversation. A chance meeting was described as making it possible to have a quick,
informal conversation about teaching „then and there‟ in a corridor or at a coffee
machine. This may be linked to the perception that teaching is a personal interest, and
the idea that it is appropriate to raise teaching-related topics during informal
conversation.
As far as informal chats go, it's really, if you do see someone in the corridor
and there's something that you've been wanting to talk to them about, you
might grab them at the time. ... You see a person, someone that you've been
meaning to talk to and that triggers the memory of, „oh, I need to talk to X, I
need to talk to that person‟. They're in the corridor, you grab them, you have
your quick five minute chat and that might be all that's needed, or it might
actually be, „okay so we need to talk about this more, let's have a meeting‟ or
„let's get together and we'll talk about it in more detail‟. ... these things come
up sort of serendipitously in the corridor. (Margaret)
Literally corridor conversations occur. Very ad hoc of course but that's often
the case … the business of how teaching runs in the school might just happen
when somebody bumps into somebody in the corridor and remembers, „oh yes
I meant to ask such and such about blah‟. So often those are brief
conversations but occasionally they will turn into a yarn [Australian
colloquialism for story or long conversation] if people have got something on
their mind about what they're teaching. (Michael)
A building design and layout that featured long narrow corridors, and the absence of a
departmental common room being made available for staff, meant that for Liam, the
time spent making coffee became important in facilitating his informal conversation
about teaching.
... the structure of this building is such that you've got very narrow corridors,
and no real space to sort of congregate ... the only time that we talk about
teaching informally is if we happen to bump into people when making a coffee
just at the little coffee station there. People, when you see them, the rest of the
121
time, people are going somewhere, they're walking down these corridors,
[and] there's no common room for staff conversations. (Liam)
6.5 Formal management of communication
The preceding section outlined how the availability and accessibility of colleagues was
essential for an academic to have conversation. The following sub-categories of formal
management describe the communication and development strategies academics
experienced as influencing their informal conversation about teaching. Combined, they
provide a snapshot of why strategies were perceived to be effective, for example,
because they sent the message that teaching was important enough to communicate
about, and created an environment where colleagues were available, and in some cases,
facilitated connections between colleagues.
6.5.1 Role of leaders in facilitating communication
The effect of leaders establishing structures, such as formal meetings about teaching,
helped academics to determine whether teaching and research were perceived as
equally important. These meetings also provided a space and time for discussion about
teaching, which led to informal conversation. Current leadership was often contrasted
with previous leadership; for example, one academic had experienced leaders who had
not prioritised teaching, but was hopeful that a recently appointed leader would have
different priorities, including teaching.
I don't think I'm in a particular setting where the teaching leadership has come
from the top traditionally ... We have somebody who has recently arrived who
openly says that he likes teaching and I think probably more up to this point
the more obvious generalisation is that in my immediate leadership teaching is
not the priority. (Adam)
Another academic had found a former leader to be more supportive of teaching
than his current Head of Discipline.
... it‟s all about building a culture that encourages certain behaviour. The
previous leader, it was clear by the way he structured [meetings]. First of all,
we had formal meetings, which is a huge thing. Second of all, he divided the
meetings – we had one main one [with] the whole discipline. Then we had [a]
122
Teaching and Learning Committee and [a] Research Committee. So from a
structur[al] perspective at least they seem[ed] to be equal. The perception is
as important as reality here ... The new leader came and that [meeting] was
taken off [the calendar], so there is no forum [for teaching]... There‟s a
distinct difference when the leaders change, of anything, countries or firms or
disciplines in this case. [The culture,] it really depends on the objective of the
discipline head. Basically, they have the power to hold teaching meetings.
(Raj)
6.5.2 Formal meetings
The relationship between formal committee meetings and informal conversation was
described in several different ways by the academics interviewed. A meeting about
teaching and learning potentially worked to encourage informal conversation by
allowing a space and time to talk about teaching in a broad sense, before, during and
after the meetings. Academics attributed their reduced opportunities for
communication, formal and informal, to the absence of these meetings.
[For six months] we have not had one formal meeting around teaching, …
[and having those meetings] is often the catalyst for informal discussions
around teaching. ... at the moment people are even more in their silos when it
comes to teaching because that opportunity to gather formally has not been
there. Therefore, we have to actually seek each other out and that's not really
happening at the moment. (Margaret)
... we seem to have given up on having department discipline meetings so
there's very little formal contact in the department that then allows the time for
informal conversation afterwards ... the benefit of having these formalised
meetings, these regular meetings was it did allow us the informal time before
and after. (Liam)
So when we had the regular discipline meetings, I had to formally talk about
some of the teaching and learning issues that were discussed in the committee
and what that meant in the [departmental] context. Informally, rarely, then
once those regular discipline meetings stopped, there was not much formal or
informal discussion of teaching. (Raj)
123
Meetings with a set formal agenda were also described as triggering ideas about
teaching beyond the set agenda and identifying connections between colleagues.
During the course of some formal meetings, time was sometimes allocated to informal
or incidental conversation to provide the opportunity for academics to deal with current
teaching issues and receive constructive criticism from colleagues.
Certainly, I would argue that just about every meeting that I've been to is good
in that it can allow for that spontaneous discussion point when somebody is
agonising over particular teaching methods or a particular approach, that you
do all of a sudden have a range of people right with you, that can be a bit
difficult to arrange otherwise. So for my part, while I may be unhappy to do
administration, I see it as a necessary evil and if you can deal with those issues
in those formal meetings and deal with it quickly, it does give you a chance to
raise some of the things that are nagging at you. (Adam)
… we've got some set processes ... they are more formal processes, but it's
really just parking [reserving] a space, with criteria, and a process, so people
can come together and then the conversations in there tend to be very organic,
embryonic, anybody can put anything on the table in terms of constructive
criticism, being critical friends to each other. Decisions are made with the
[subject] coordinator, not for the coordinator, and that's a very important part
of the process, that it is collaborative and inclusive. (Liz)
The role of leadership in communication was one of the grounded theory concepts
developed (see section 3.4.3) through an interview with an academic in an appointed
leadership role. The academic who was interviewed, described their system of formal
structures as rendering informal conversation about teaching unnecessary. She said that
this was because teaching-related issues could be addressed during meetings.
... there have been lots of conversations and I have had them myself, just
passing colleagues in the corridor and saying, „hang on, did you think about
this? What do you think about – we need to do this, or X, Y, Z‟. So that
certainly does happen, but I guess the weight of that in terms of the changes
that we've made and what actually happens to our teaching, I think has been
less important than the actual formal processes that we've had. ... Because of
the way that we've operated here, it [informal conversation] has had a lesser
124
role, because it hasn't been necessary, given the opportunities for more formal
interaction, or interaction within a formally organised structure. (Ingrid)
She acknowledged that informal conversation happened, but thought it was less
important for teaching practice and change than the formal structures. This introduces
the idea that the differing natures of informal and formal communication means they
could serve complementary roles in improving teaching. It may be that different
content may be appropriate for each type of communication, or different academics
may use formal and informal communication in different ways.
Quotes from other academics also confirmed the idea that formal and informal
communication about teaching were different, and that formal meetings may not
always support informal conversation. There may be multiple reasons why formal
meetings may not enable discussion of teaching in a way that would be useful to
individual academics dealing with specific issues.
… maybe what happens in formal meetings is that because they are very
structured, sometimes unexpected things that come up don't have an
opportunity to be aired. It's when you see someone incidentally that things
come up. It's a different environment, you're on a different mind track, I think
there all sorts of reasons for why these things come up in that way. (Margaret)
… the idea of those meetings is to be efficient … that meeting was rather, let's
say, efficiently run so it wasn't really a, „sit around and let's have a good old
yarn about teaching‟. It was more, „what issues do we need to cover that are
relevant to what's actually going on this semester? and let's all get on the same
page about how we're approaching our teaching‟. If there's any information to
be given out by the year level co-ordinator that's relevant to everybody, that
will be relayed. I think that's a fairly sort of formalised and efficient process,
but not something that really perhaps informs teaching on a more qualitative
level. (Michael)
Academics described the potential for a focus on discussing what they thought was
important for teaching as limited by the agendas of the academics who attended
meetings and the approaches to how meetings were conducted (e.g. in the references to
meetings as “efficient” and “structured” in the accounts above).
125
I think department meetings are not really a useful dialogue for teaching.
Usually they're focused on administrative and political debates, … there's [sic]
a lot of people who are members of the department who … don‟t necessarily
share a passion for teaching. Let's just say they have other motivations for why
certain courses should be created or destroyed or changed, or whatever.
Department meetings tend to focus on those issues in my experience. (Lilly)
Different agendas, and different philosophies. … So people have their own
agendas, and philosophies, and beliefs around their niche, which is why
they're here. When you try to merge them together into a curriculum, it can be
very competitive. I'm sure it's no different to anywhere else. (Chris)
One academic, Benjamin, described the combination of all academics having an
opinion about teaching and the emotional responses of passionate and dedicated
teachers as leading to “things not going well” during committee meetings. Particularly
aggravating for him were the discussions of irrelevant aspects of teaching, and even an
inability to reach a consensus to make changes.
… the discussion tends to be not driven by empiricists. … I find [that] a little
bit frustrating. I think teaching is a fairly emotive topic and even the people
that are not necessarily the most enthusiastic teachers still seem to be very
enthusiastic when it comes to having an opinion about teaching. … the people
that are really enthusiastic about teaching and have a strong teaching record
and teaching awards and have done the grad dip [formal degree program in
university teaching] and various other things, often still their ideas still get
blocked by other people. [Those are the people] that you know are not overly
enthusiastic about teaching, or for example, haven‟t taught first year [in this
discipline] maybe ever, or in the last 10 years. That‟s kind of aggravating.
… many of the people that are very enthusiastic teachers, because they‟re so
emotional about it, often are quite ineffective in those meetings. So they‟ll
appeal to things that aren‟t particularly relevant … being emotional about it
doesn‟t make them as effective in persuading other people about it. They‟re not
that effective because they‟re not very good at working out which battles are
winnable and which battles aren‟t. By continuing to harp on about the battles
126
which we can‟t win, we basically lose a lot of political capital for the things
that can be changed.
… there‟s a lot of stuff like that, I think we have pretty poor communication
about a lot of that stuff, which also I think contributes to things not going well
in the [Teaching and Learning Committee] meeting. (Benjamin)
6.5.3 Semi-formal meetings
Academics reported that informal conversation happened over coffee, lunch or at
another time when the conversation initiator knew the individual they sought would be
available. Daily morning tea for a department or similar unit or group within a faculty
is an example of a semi-formalised process which led to informal conversation in
general, including that about teaching-related topics. Morning teas were described as
effective for similar reasons to formal meetings, particularly in creating a place for
conversation and making colleagues available.
A lot of ex-union people [would] ... making [sic] sure they had a tea break at
the same time every day. 10.30 would be tea ... You [would] get an email and
you'd get the door knocked if you weren't down there ... It worked in giving us
an opportunity to talk about research, to talk about admin, maybe just „sound
off‟ about teaching. (Liam)
I think [it‟s] something that the school values as a means of interaction
between people. Because I think [that] the idea of people coming together in a
busy environment has gone out the window in lots of places. This school sort of
persisted with it ... I would go perhaps more mornings than not personally and
have tea there ... Teaching often comes up. If you've got some business or
something that you need to discuss about teaching, sometimes it's a way of
getting someone's attention for 10 minutes, which might otherwise be difficult
to do. (Luke)
Luke (above) acknowledged the importance of colleagues‟ availability and
accessibility in facilitating informal conversation. Margaret (below) had a similar
experience; as informal conversation about teaching was generated during the
prearranged lunches she had with colleagues.
127
I have a couple of, two or three, colleagues here, where we do try – it probably
works out about every couple of months rather than every month – every
couple of months we'll go and have lunch together. But that's not to be able to
talk about learning and teaching, it's just to give ourselves „time out‟ and „to
shoot the breeze‟ and have a bit of a whinge about things. But it's also often
when important little bits of information come up, or useful bits of information,
and if you hadn't made the time to formally go out for lunch, then those
conversations wouldn't have been had. The incidental conversations in the
formal situation wouldn't have occurred. (Margaret)
Scheduled morning teas, a history of previously having morning teas and unsuccessful
efforts at establishing morning teas were mentioned by several academics interviewed.
Generally, the idea of a morning tea was popular and when it was successful, enjoyable
and useful, but the time required for academics to attend and participate could not
necessarily be justified. Time was given as a factor that could limit informal
conversation even when space was available (see section 6.3.3 for more detail on the
role of space).
... that is probably something that is missing … there is no culture of meeting
for coffee. I can't expect to find a group of academics having coffee somewhere
... There's no place where I can just sit down and join in. We have the
facilities; we just don't have the academics attending those facilities. (Adam)
... we used to use the common room frequently … people got too busy ... no one
uses it, except for booked meetings and lunches, but not on an everyday,
regular basis. It's just like too many people have a claim on it for a group of
10, 15 people regularly to use it. (Grace)
... you have to be outstanding in teaching and research and also contribute to
service and administration, and you can‟t do it all ... it's very collegial ...
everybody says it would be lovely to do morning teas and things like this, [but]
it's never successful because everybody's too busy. ... there are too many
demands put on academics. ... there used to be a space where staff gathered ...
the space still exists, we have a common room but ... there‟s just not time for
people to get together for morning tea and things like that. ... That is a shame
but people are too busy. (Patrick)
128
Patrick‟s final comment, that there was not time for morning teas, was reflected in
interviews with other academics, who described previously having scheduled or
impromptu morning teas.
We have less and less time for, even [to] be able to sit down and have morning
tea together, or lunch together. ... we're eating lunch at our desks, [be]cause
we're working ... That sort of ad hoc, or even if it's a scheduled time out
together, [to] have morning tea or lunch, it often doesn't happen. I think it's a
shame. I think it was probably more common in the past but because we have
less and less time these days, because we're more time-poor, those things have
gone, slipped by the wayside. I think it might also be the culture of a faculty.
(Margaret)
I think that's the sadness of, just the pressures that are on academics now, to
get things done. There used to be much more opportunity, I think, for general
morning teas and stuff like that. Even then, if they happen, they don't happen
on the basis that they used to whereby everyday you'd be bringing things up
and thrashing them out. It just doesn't really happen anymore. As I say,
because there's not a staff morning tea, you might go and grab a coffee; [but]
you go with one person or two not the group. (Grace)
Despite the academics interviewed lamenting the absence of morning teas, and the
ways this deficiency then limited the transfer of ideas, there was not widespread
enthusiasm about reintroducing morning teas.
Not that I want to bring back, necessarily, staff morning teas, I just notice it as
a difference and it is an impediment to, as I say, this cross-fertilisation of ideas
and stuff like that. Even with people that you personally quite like. (Grace)
Another academic argued that the participation of staff determined the success of
initiatives such as morning teas, and without enforcing compulsory attendance; the
likely minimal participation of academics would lead to unsuccessful morning teas or
lunches.
The culture is the sum of its members and even if you have something [which]
could be imposed from above, [then] it's certainly worth trying, but whether or
not it succeeds will be determined by the level of uptake by people. What could
129
be done? … you can't make people „down tools‟, that's what you'd have to do
here. You'd have to haul people out of their offices and say, „you are required
to come and have morning tea‟, or „sit here for 15, 20 minutes and eat your
lunch‟ or something. (Margaret)
Within the category of semi-formal meetings, informal conversation occurred between
academics who worked together, including co-teachers, quality advisors, and
curriculum designers.
That's usually done on a sort of one on one basis. The majority of those
conversations happen with colleagues you're working closely with. (Chris)
Usually I will talk to other colleagues who work with me in the same unit of
study. (Maxine)
These conversations were focused on planning and preparation, curriculum content and
the kind of information-sharing necessary to ensure a unit of study was managed and
taught effectively (see Chapters 4, on topics and 5, on usefulness for more detail).
Marie described meeting informally with those who were teaching on a unit of study
she was coordinating, and revealed that their connection was established when they had
worked together previously on a similar unit. This may reflect part of the process of
how relationships and friendships develop between colleagues (see section 6.2.4).
... there's a new unit of study that I'll be coordinating next semester. So today
we had a meeting of three of us who might be teaching on that unit. So it's
pretty informal in this office. I'd done a bit of thinking about it, so I gave them
my thoughts on paper. But they are two people who have taught [with me on] a
similar unit in the past and one of them was the coordinator previously. So
we've had an ongoing connection I guess, and the way we've operated in the
past has been fairly informal and we just meet in one office or another. Then
catch up in the corridors if there was anything in between. (Marie)
6.5.4 Semi-formal academic development strategies
This study aimed to investigate the nature of informal conversation and also how
academics learn about teaching through informal conversation. One of the more
traditional ways for academics to learn about teaching is by attending formal academic
130
development programs, such as courses and workshops. The connection between
informal conversation and one example of formal academic development, an
introductory program on university teaching, is analysed in the next chapter, Chapter 7.
The connections between informal conversation and several semi-formal academic
development strategies: workshops, peer observation and mentoring, are summarised
below.
6.5.4.1 Workshops
Workshops are a type of academic development initiative where academics learn from
facilitators and fellow participants in a semi-structured setting, usually in person at a
set time and place. Academics were generous in describing the workshops about
teaching that they had attended and providing suggestions for future workshops; this
included what they thought worked well and did not work as well. One of the aspects
most frequently described as useful was having time dedicated to teaching and thinking
about teaching. Academics‟ perception of being time-pressured has been summarised
in section 6.4.1 and the role of formal communication about teaching in encouraging
informal conversation was described in section 6.5.2 (on formal meetings). Workshops,
like formal meetings, were described as leading to informal conversation before, during
and after they had occurred, a feature of formal academic development previously
identified by Knight et al. (2006).
So you might be walking over to – [for example,] I fell in with a colleague of
mine, walking over to hear a paper in a seminar, and he asks me to take him
over [the ideas he has for] this course and „how's it going?‟. I say, „well, it
looks to be going fine. What books do you use?‟ „I'm using this book.‟ „Oh
right. I like that one, but I like this one better.‟ „Yes, I don‟t like that one for
these reasons.‟ – these sorts of things (Allan)
The other thing that's really good within the faculty is they have teaching
forums, so they run little workshops ... it's the people who are interested in
teaching who go, but it allows what we're doing to be disseminated amongst
people. ... if I've given a workshop, people [who] have come to the workshop
and have gone away and a while later [they] will send me an email and say „I
started using what you were doing in class‟. So from that point of view, they're
131
really good for disseminating different approaches to assessment and different
approaches to teaching. (Meghan)
6.5.4.2 Peer observation
Academics‟ participation in a program to observe colleagues‟ teaching and have
colleagues observe their teaching was described as leading to formal, structured
conversations as well as informal conversations about teaching.
Sometimes, and I think this is really interesting, we come to each other's
classes, to a guest lecture, and ideally the old original lecturer is still there. So
we can see what's going on in another class and it's also very good to see how
the others do it. Sometimes maybe after class you say, „yeah, [it] went well, it's
what we expected‟. So then there's not much to talk about. Sometimes you get a
new idea … but it's not formalised. (Jon).
The experience of team teaching and peer observation sometimes led academics to
question their colleagues‟ approaches to teaching, and this would lead to conversation
about why and how they would make changes to their teaching. In the example below,
because Maxine‟s plan hadn‟t worked in the way that she thought that it would for one
group of students, she changed her teaching to better meet the learning needs of
students in the next class.
I‟ve worked here for four years, [and] I'm using different styles every year.
People [will] ask me, „actually, it's not your first time to teach this unit, so how
come you're still busy?‟ ... Even [for] different classes [in the same subject] I
[would] use different ways to teach. We use team teaching, so another
[academic] staff [member] will listen to my part, then when I finish, it's her
turn. Sometimes she will say, „the way you teach is different from this
morning‟. I say, „yes, because this morning I taught this way and I realised
that something goes wrong, students don‟t understand‟ so I change my
PowerPoint, I change the style, immediately, ask staff to help me, give me
something, to make sure the second group knows what I'm doing. I told my
colleagues, „I never stick with the same strategy for each class, because each
class has different needs‟. (Maxine)
132
The role of the academic in determining the aims for and volunteering to
participate in peer observation or informal conversation may help to ensure its
effectiveness. This contrasts with informal conversation and peer observation
initiated by someone other than the academic, for example, a manager who reacts
to negative responses on student evaluations. The excerpts from interviews that
appear below illustrate that when pressured or advised to improve, the academics
endeavoured merely to achieve competency or make minimal improvements, rather
than aspire to excellent teaching.
We're in a situation where we get evaluated and if our evaluations are low,
well you're called into the office. So you're always trying to „keep your nose
above water‟ and that's what academics who are under high pressure are
doing. (Sarah)
I've had some staff who have come and sat in my classes to see what I do, to
see if they can improve their teaching, which is positive, but they're only
looking at improving it to the bare minimum level ... they had bad evaluations
and they were told they [that] had to improve. They were told that one of the
ways they could improve them was to go and see what someone else was doing
in the classroom. ... I tell people, „if you really want the students to learn,
[then] you have to do formative feedback‟. ... Some of the people I was talking
to would say, „that takes too much time, it's too hard to keep doing that‟.
(Meghan)
6.5.4.3 Mentoring
One reason given for having an informal conversation with a particular colleague about
teaching was that a mentoring relationship had been established (see section 6.2.4)
where it was acceptable to discuss teaching and seek advice on issues related to
teaching, and having this relationship fostered useful communication. In the next
excerpt, the mentor‟s knowledge, experience, and their approach to teaching, were seen
as useful qualities in an informal conversation about teaching.
... in terms of our relationship, it‟s a bit more like a mentor[ing relationship,
where] she's my mentor, [and] I'm her mentee ... I really see her as someone
with extensive knowledge and experience in teaching, which I don‟t have and
133
that I can take her advice, but she's very good at stepping back ... she's very
good at that, those kinds of discussions, and I find that very useful. (Ellen)
Academics suggested that mentoring occurred during „handover‟ of a course, when
the responsibility for teaching a course was reallocated from one staff member to
another. Academics described the conversation that happened during the handover
process as being focused on course delivery and issues.
... the mentoring side of things. That you get lecturers giving material for the
first time, … Usually it will be picked up by somebody else who's given the
course before. Depending on people's time, willingness or whatever, they'll
either just go with those notes or that material or they'll revamp it. But there's
always going to be discussion at that point about what the person who's giving
over that course, what issues they've found and these sorts of things. (Joshua)
I think we‟ve been pretty lucky on the mentoring front in a sense that there are
some great people in the department that aren‟t necessarily the best
implementers of good teaching practice but seem to like thinking about this
stuff a lot. So we often found ourselves in a situation where particular
academics say never return their assignments until after the end of semester.
But in terms of thinking about teaching ideas and whatever else, they‟re really
good at throwing up [ideas, for example,] „well if you try this, then this is what
might happen‟ and things like that. (Benjamin)
Certain individual academics were seen as mentors, but also as experts, for example,
I do talk to my former PhD supervisor, but that's more about content than
teaching methods. But I have had a lot of discussions with him about lecturing
... about lecturing techniques, what works and what doesn‟t work. In fact,
that's been quite a regular discussion since I've been here. (Joshua)
In one case, the conversation which resulted from a semi-formal mentoring system,
was referred to by Patrick as “friendly”, an important attribute in informal teaching
conversation – as described previously in section 6.2.4.
... there is a loose mentoring system. We all have somebody to whom we are
expected to talk, ... usually a senior colleague ... I don‟t know if he works this
134
way for everybody, he and I get along famously, so that [talk] takes place in a
very sort of friendly atmosphere always. (Patrick)
There were cases where the established structures or systems of a department or the
university were portrayed as limiting academics‟ opportunities for conversation; one
example was a change in policy regarding the requirements for a mentor. The
implications of this policy change meant that a previously eligible and active mentor
was ineligible (for a mentor role), and the potential mentoring-related conversations
and relationship building ceased.
... strangely this time around they've changed the criteria. Up until now anyone
could be a mentor or a mentee, this time around they've done it by levels so
you have to be a professor or an associate professor [senior academic
appointments in Australian universities] to be a mentor and level C, B or A
[mid-level and junior academic appointments in Australian universities] to be
a mentee. I was a mentor in the program for the last three years and now I
can't be and it's something I really miss because that was fantastic in terms of
being able to talk about teaching. (Meghan)
This former mentor also noted that corridors and coffee-making facilities had the
„water-cooler effect‟ of triggering conversation (as outlined in section 6.4.4).
I know that's not informal in the sense that that's what you're looking for but in
one sense it became informal because the three mentors that I've had, when I
meet them in the corridor or in the coffee shop or on campus, [then] we'll stop
and chat. Most of the time I'll ask them how their teaching is going and what
they're doing in class now. Occasionally one of them will send me an email
about something that they're doing or something that they're trialling, so it
leads to informal conversations in a sense and that was really good. (Meghan)
Although the focus of this study was on department level communication, those
academics who were interested in developing their teaching would approach
someone outside their department if they were the person with the relevant
expertise. Luke found the role of his external mentor crucial to implementing a
new teaching initiative.
135
... we don‟t have anybody [here] like that to be our mentor. I just said to him,
the year before last, when I was talking to him about it, „will you be the
mentor? If I have got any questions, can I just email you?‟ He said, „yes‟ … I
couldn‟t have done this ... without knowing that I could turn [to] him. (Luke)
6.6 Summary
The academics interviewed in this study described four areas of their context:
Colleagues with whom they work, Processes for reward and recognition, Time and
place, and Formal management of communication, as influencing their informal
conversations on teaching. Academics described seeking out colleagues whom they
perceived as helpful and who had expertise in a relevant area. They also sought out
those who shared their approach to teaching and those with whom they had a personal
connection, such as a friendship.
Academics explained that employment in academia was not related to teaching
achievements but instead, linked to demonstrating their abilities as researchers. They
indicated that they felt under pressure to achieve promotion and recognition through
research publications. Department leaders and colleagues offered variable support for
teaching. The advice of more senior, more experienced academics did not always
encourage academics to expend effort on teaching; sometimes they counselled
colleagues not to waste their time on teaching and embodied their own advice by
relieving themselves of teaching duties with research grants.
Being time-poor and having a significant amount of pressure to perform may mean that
academics think that there is limited time to dedicate to their teaching, and this may be
reinforced because it is not recognised or rewarded in the same ways as research. A
basic requirement for a conversation to occur is that an academic colleague is available
and accessible. Informal conversations were triggered by academics serendipitously
meeting in corridors or near coffee-making facilities and limited by academics not
being present, for example, if they were working from their homes.
In addition to participating in conversations themselves, leaders were also able to
encourage informal communication about teaching by organising formal meetings
about teaching and formal opportunities to learn about teaching. Strategies for
facilitating communication about teaching worked to trigger informal conversation,
136
partly by establishing a time and place for conversation and partly by fostering the
perception that teaching-related activities were a worthwhile use of academics‟ time.
The ways formal management strategies, such as a semi-formal mentoring program,
can be used to encourage informal conversation, are discussed in section 8.3.
Within this context, there is a central focus on formal academic development as support
for teaching, and the connection between this focus, department-based strategies and
informal conversation has not been investigated. The relationship between informal
conversation and one form of academic development, an introductory program for
novice university teachers, is explored in the next chapter, Chapter 7.
137
Chapter 7. Relations between a
formal academic development
program and informal conversation
about teaching
The initial set of interviews suggested that informal conversation was a valued means
of teaching development for mid-level academics (see Chapter 5). Academics also
described how informal conversation was influenced by formal communication about
teaching (for examples, see section 6.5). Within the context of this University, there
has traditionally been a focus on formal modes of communicating about teaching, such
as those typically found in formal academic development programs and committee
meetings. Consistent with the grounded theory principle of emergent ideas being used
to inform the collection of new data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; see section 3.4.3), a
question arose about the connections between formal and informal conversational
forms of learning about teaching. Building on the academics‟ reported experience of
conversation as useful, and the existing focus on formal academic development at this
University, the question that emerged was, „how does informal conversation
complement formal teaching development activities?‟ An additional reason why this is
important is because if these are not connected, and instead are disconnected, “creating
an undesirable split” (Dewey, 1916, p. 9) between formal learning and informal
learning, it will impact academics‟ development.
Even within one University context, there are many formal teaching development
activities available and it would be difficult to explore the relationships between all of
these and informal conversation. Thus, one formal program was chosen as an example
that represents a common approach to formal academic development. The example
selected was an introductory program for novice university teachers.
To examine the relationship between the academics‟ learning from the identified
formal academic development program and their informal conversation about teaching,
the formal program needed to be investigated from the perspective of the academic
participants. Drawing on the nature of informal conversation described in earlier
interviews (and presented as conversation topics and usefulness in Chapters 4 and 5),
138
six academics who had completed the formal program were interviewed, and the
formal program outline and participant evaluations were analysed. This chapter is
based on the analysis of those documents and interview transcripts.
7.1 An example of a formal academic development program
The example of a formal academic development program selected from those available
at the university where this study was set was a two-day introduction to university
teaching. The program is similar to programs facilitated by many other Australian
universities to prepare novice academics for university teaching. (For a review of the
teaching development available to university teachers, see section 2.1; Dearn et al.,
2002; Hicks, Smigiel, Wilson & Luzeckyj, 2010.) Academics who are new to teaching
and/or new to the university (who do not possess a degree in education or tertiary
teaching) are required to attend the central program as a condition of their appointment.
As this is the only teaching and learning development initiative which is compulsory
for incoming academics from all faculties, it is one of the few opportunities some
academics will have to learn about teaching and it has the potential to impact teaching
across the university. At the university studied, the formal program (Principles and
Practice of University Teaching and Learning) is offered three or four times each year,
and the current version reflects its development over approximately fifteen years.
The first step in investigating how the program complemented or conflicted with
informal conversation was to acquire an understanding of the content of the formal
program. The program aims and session topics are detailed further in section 7.3;
generally the program is designed to provide an introduction to the key aspects of
teaching and learning at university. This introduction should enable participants to
think about their own experiences of teaching and learning in relation to current
research into how students learn effectively, and to help them consider how approaches
to teaching may influence learning (Institute for Teaching and Learning, 2011).
Although its main purpose is to introduce new teachers to higher education teaching
and learning principles, the program is also intended to provide experienced teachers
with the opportunity to further develop their knowledge and skills.
139
7.2 Relations between the Principles and Practice of University
Teaching and Learning program and informal conversation
about teaching
This chapter is focused on whether and how academics experienced relations between
two different forms of learning about teaching. These two forms were informal
conversation about teaching within university departments and a formal academic
development program, the Principles and Practice of University Teaching and Learning
(Principles and Practice) program. Academics‟ descriptions of the relationship between
the ideas from these discrete experiences fell into two main categories. The relationship
was described by participants as Conflicting and disconnected or Complementary and
mutually reinforcing. A more detailed description of the relationship between the ideas
from the Principles and Practice program and informal conversation is provided below.
7.2.1 Informal and formal learning as conflicting and disconnected
One of the reasons for investigating the relationship between the learning from
conversation and the „Principles and Practice‟ program, is because a formal central
academic development program is very different from informal conversation between
departmental colleagues. As the nature of informal conversation has already been
outlined in previous chapters, this chapter will focus on the nature of the formal
program, in relation to the informal conversation. The relationship is considered from
the perspective of six academics who were interviewed after they had completed the
formal program and then returned to teaching (and communication about teaching) in
their department contexts. One of the interviewees, George, described the formal
program as having topics that were not applicable to teaching in his discipline (unlike
how informal conversation was described by academics in Chapter 4). He identified his
main teaching issue as engaging students and he reported occasionally talking to
disciplinary colleagues about how they managed this issue.
I occasionally talk to my colleagues here in the department. The main issue is
mainly how to motivate students, how to keep them engaged, how to attract
their attention. This is maybe one of the areas that needs special attention
because it's quite difficult when you teach [my discipline] that [it] can be
sometimes quite boring. I occasionally discuss with my colleagues how they
cope with [that]. (George)
140
Although the Principles and Practice program outline explicitly referred to student
engagement (see Table 7.1) and other participants have found it to be useful for
learning how to engage students (see section 7.4), for some academics, disciplinary
content expertise was more important in understanding the issues in their teaching.
George was one of those academics and explains why he saw the teaching done by
himself and his disciplinary colleagues as different to the teaching done by
“professionals” (i.e. academic developers) on the formal program.
Well the [Principles and Practice program] workshop was intended for all
disciplines. It was not specifically intended for [my discipline]. Some of the
topics were not really applicable to teaching [my discipline] students. This is
one difference, and the lecturers at the workshops were professionals ... we are
also teachers but not really with formal teaching education, this is also one of
the differences ... whereas the [disciplinary] colleagues have expertise [that is]
more related to the teaching areas. (George)
George perceived that the program facilitators were qualified teachers and therefore
unlike him. This difference, combined with the program being designed for academics
from all disciplines, was what George suggested made some aspects of the program
less relevant for his teaching context. This reinforces the idea that emerged previously;
that some teaching-related issues may be best understood and resolved by those who
have commonalities (see section 8.2.3). Like George, other academics considered
colleagues with disciplinary backgrounds and teaching ideologies similar to their own
(see section 6.2.3) to provide advice that was more relevant or appropriate for their
context.
The idea of commonality between colleagues encouraging communication about
teaching had a separate but related idea where a lack of commonality (or the absence of
the commonality that mattered) between colleagues made communication about
teaching difficult. One of these differences (or lack of commonality) was between
disciplinary colleagues who have and those who have not, attended the formal
program. The ideas that are part of the content of the formal program can lead
academics who have attended a formal program to change their conceptions of and
approaches to teaching (e.g., Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Hanbury et al., 2008). This change
may mean that program participants have different approaches to teaching to those
141
academics who have not attended such a program. This difference makes it difficult to
communicate and find common ground across these groups. In this university context,
not all academics who teach at the university have completed the formal program, and
not all those who participate have an interest in teaching or improving teaching. This
means that program participants will likely come into contact with colleagues in their
disciplines and department who do not share their ideas about teaching. Lisa was one
of these program participants who found communicating with her disciplinary
colleagues to be challenging. When speaking with departmental colleagues after
attending the Principles and Practice program, Lisa discovered that her enthusiasm was
unwelcome and that ideas and questions based on her learning during the program were
perceived to be irrelevant to how other academics taught. Even more unfortunately,
these differences may lead to disagreements between colleagues and make it
challenging to develop mutually supportive relationships. Lisa clarifies how the
response of her colleagues was such that she started to doubt the relevance of the
program ideas to her teaching.
… I tried to raise those questions around assessment, around marking ... The
response I've gotten is either no response or just a sense that I'm being really
overly earnestly earnest and eager and that it's really not necessary for the
purposes of the course [we are teaching]. ... I kind of felt that, in raising those
issues, I was looking a bit too earnest or [being] a bit of a troublemaker. Then
I began to question whether what I was asking was even relevant or whether it
was more just about being too earnest about wanting to apply the kind of
things that we learnt [on the Principles and Practice program].
... it's difficult to go on to talk about what we learnt ... you're unsettling the
way that things have been done for a while and that‟s creating extra work for
other people. (Lisa)
Lisa‟s uncertainty about the relevance of the ideas from the formal program to the
teaching approach of her departmental colleagues was not the only challenge to
improving teaching through conversation. Lisa also observed that the curriculum itself
might not be able to accommodate what she had learnt during the program and that this
made it difficult to speak to her colleagues.
142
I think [that] there's a bit of a disconnect between what we learnt and not just
how individual teachers approach teaching or see and understand the kind of
abstract concepts we learnt about and the relevance of them. … [but] on a
faculty level as well, the way that the course might be approached might not
allow for application of the kind of stuff [that] we learnt.
… people outside who haven't done the course, at the same time, I find that I
can't relate to them or [I] feel self-conscious or pretentious just talking about it
[with them]. ... there's this divide between the people who have done it [the
formal program] and the people who haven't. There's not a sense that, once
you learn this, then you can relate it to all of your colleagues on this level or
talk to your colleagues. (Lisa)
The experience of having her ideas from the program being seen as inappropriate for or
incompatible with teaching in her faculty, could be linked to Lisa trying to think about
and evolve teaching practice when other academics were focused on managing their
teaching responsibilities (see Chapter 5). The experiences of Lisa and George reinforce
the importance of establishing common ground with colleagues to generate
conversation (an idea explored further in section 8.2.3). This is apparent in the
distinction made between conversations Lisa has had with a disciplinary colleague who
had completed a formal program at the same time she did (see quote below) and
conversations she has had with other colleagues in the discipline (as presented in above
quotes). In this case, a shared experience of attending the Principles and Practice
program and valuing student needs were important common ground, and have
contributed to Lisa and one colleague developing a collegial relationship.
... there's one [PhD] student from ...[the] program as well who‟s in [my
discipline]. I found that I have [an] ongoing kind of a relationship with her
now, where we can stay in touch and we do talk [because] we can talk about
teaching on this level, but kind of put in this kind of [disciplinary] context,
which is great.
... [It‟s] mainly about getting student feedback or issues around assessment
and how to respond to particular students who are struggling or how to make
the course (the subject) more relevant to the students. ... we're not actually
specifically identifying a particular concept [from the formal program] like
143
constructive alignment ... but we are reflecting on it [my subject] in a way
that's more linked to the course [the formal program].
… [I think it‟s because] a teacher who has done the course, [is] probably more
respectful or interested in the needs of students. When you talk to other
teachers, it's more about the students as the problem. [With them,] it's more
about your needs as a teacher and a researcher. ... When I talk to this other
teacher [who has completed the program], it's about the students and their
needs. (Lisa)
Lisa and George referred to the differences between the ideas that appeared in their
conversation with colleagues and those of the formal program. They did not necessarily
find the experiences to be connected, but they had attended the program and conversed
with colleagues about teaching, albeit occasionally in George‟s case. A greater
challenge to academics attempting to connect with colleagues and apply the learning of
the formal program to departmental conversation occurs in departments where there is
marginal, negligible or non-existent communication about teaching. This lack of
communication was cited as a reason why some academics found it difficult to talk
about teaching with academics in their department after attending the formal academic
development program, despite a desire to discuss the Principles and Practice program.
… most of the people [who] I work with in the discipline ... they're either doing
a lot of research and they're not as involved when it comes to teaching.
Although I get to talk about my teaching at team meetings, ... that is ... the only
genuine venue where I can discuss teaching and learning issues or teaching
and learning concerns ... on a casual basis I don't really have that opportunity
as much … it would be good to have opportunities to talk about the P&P
[Principles and Practice program]. (Edward)
… there wasn't much happening after the course to sort of link back to the
course. So one of the lecturers [in my discipline] sent me some [material] I
can use ... I'm hoping to talk to him about it. I've sent a couple of emails but
nobody has replied. We haven't had that discussion yet. (Andrew)
144
7.2.2 Informal and formal learning as complementary and mutually
reinforcing
The previous section 7.2.1 illustrated the impact of having academics attend a formal
development program that was disconnected from their departmental communication
about teaching. If conversation were recognised as a strategy for professional
development that could effectively complement formal programs, it would enhance
academics‟ learning about teaching. Thus, the question must be asked whether and how
conversation can support existing formal professional development. For example, what
can academics learn through informal conversation that is not traditionally offered in
existing formal programs?
The differences apparent between formal and informal forms of learning suggest that
formal programs can develop some aspects of academics‟ teaching and informal
conversation can develop others and each can complement or reinforce the learning of
the other. One of the interviewees, Natasha reported having this complementary
experience. Natasha found that the formal program provided useful strategies for
presenting curriculum content and that talking informally with colleagues was a useful
way to design curriculum content. Firstly, her account of the formal program:
… because P&P [the Principles and Practice program] is broad. It's
university wide. It's [designed for] people of so many different disciplines ... So
it was more about, „forget about what your actual content is. This is some
ideas for how to teach, how to present the content, in a way that's more likely
to get people where they're interacting, instead of just sitting there passively
and writing stuff down‟. (Natasha)
There was a difference experienced by Natasha between these forms of learning on
whether there was a focus on the „how‟ (i.e. delivery, see above quote) as in the formal
program, or the „what‟ (i.e. content) of curriculum as in conversation, described below.
[I talk with colleagues] ... in fairly general terms ... around trying to be
engaging and interactive ... [but] we tend to talk more about the content in
terms of the syllabus and what we want the students to take away from it ...
[more about] „what‟s in there‟ rather than the „how to deliver it‟. (Natasha)
145
Natasha‟s experience demonstrates that the formal program and informal conversation
can be complementary and develop ideas about separate but related teaching practices.
An even more effective experience would be if the formal and informal strategies were
able to reinforce the learning within the other form of development.
Completing a formal academic development program is intended to be useful for
novice university teachers, so ideally, while they are attending the program, academics
should be able to see how the program content is relevant for their teaching. An
unintended outcome of academics engaging in informal conversation in departments
after attending is program participants using these conversations to introduce other
academics to the content of the formal program. This could help novice academics who
attended the program to build on the ideas from the program, and adapt and apply them
in their own teaching context, as well as provide a language for teaching excellence
within departments. There are two opportunities for reinforcement to occur. Firstly,
during the program, Melissa was prompted to reflect on aspects of her teaching and this
led to her seeking conversation with colleagues. Secondly, and importantly, following
completion of the program, Melissa‟s return to her department and to teaching and
communicating about teaching, were able to trigger memories about the program ideas.
[During the program,] I kept writing little notes about what I wanted to tell my
colleagues. For example, „oh gosh, we are doing this really well‟ or „let's have
another look at the way we do that‟. So all through my notes, I've got these
little reminders to [my]self to talk to colleagues about this and that. I honestly
did get some big „ah-ha‟ moments. I sent a text message to this colleague of
mine, saying, „wow, I really want to chat to you about blah-blah‟. ... as we've
both been marking this last assessment item, we've both been engaging in those
discussions. (Melissa)
The first part of the mutually reinforcing usefulness of the two different types of
communication may have been facilitated by Melissa being interested in teaching and
attending the formal program at a time when it was relevant for her. The second part of
the reinforcement was likely the results of her colleagues‟ positive reception to her, and
her ideas from the program, within the faculty upon her return. Conversation with
interested colleagues was able to enable Melissa to apply the learning she had gained
during the Principles and Practice program.
146
[After the program,] I spoke to my colleagues about the way we – our
transparency around learning outcomes and objectives ... [and how to]
develop an assessment grid ... I'll come across something [in my teaching] and
it will trigger a memory from the [program]. I'll say, „oh look, by the way, I've
been thinking about this‟. (Melissa)
In her department, Melissa used the ideas of the program to start a discussion about
assessment which happened to generate further communication about teaching. She
described her colleagues initiating further conversation about the relevant aspects of
what she had learnt during the program, and the beginning of an ongoing informal
dialogue about teaching in their department.
… even though it's me [sic] that went to the [formal program] sessions, my
colleague was saying, „oh yeah, look this reminds me of something you said,
blah-blah-blah‟, and we talk about it. (Melissa)
The reinforcing, complementary experiences of these academics contrast with the
disconnected, conflicting experiences of the academics quoted previously in section
7.2.1. Furthermore, the experiences of these academics demonstrate how the
relationship between the two forms of development influences the potential for
learning within each. The reinforcing, complementary experiences of Natasha and
Melissa might represent an example of the effectiveness of the integrated academic
development approach suggested by Kreber and Castleden (2009).
The academics who found that informal conversation was disconnected from the
formal program and the academics who experienced it as a complement to formal
academic development described similar topics, assessment and engaging students, as
presenting issues in their teaching. Thus, the next step of exploring the relationship
between these two forms of learning was to map the topics raised in each, and to note
the extent of overlap.
7.3 Mapping the Principles and Practice program topics to
informal conversation topics
Based on the quotes in 7.2, it would be expected that for some academics, informal
conversation could serve the function of adding depth and discipline specificity to the
147
content covered in formal development programs. This function may be achieved
through connections between the topics and usefulness of the two forms of
development. Previously, Chapters 4 and 5 provided the topics and usefulness of
conversation, so the focus here is on the content of the formal program, firstly topics
and then usefulness. Mapping the broad categories of conversation topics to the
Principles and Practice program outline shows where informal conversation may build
on the program and where there is no connection. The learning outcomes for the
program state that after completing the program, participants will be able to,
1. Apply their understanding of how students learn, to their teaching, unit of study
design and assessment;
2. Engage with current research on student learning and university teaching;
3. Evaluate teaching to further improve their students‟ learning; and
4. Identify key University policies that impact on teaching and learning practice
(Institute for Teaching and Learning, 2011).
These learning outcomes appear to relate closely to the topics discussed in informal
conversation about teaching, as shown in Table 7.1. This mapping was done by
comparing the content of the formal program sessions to the accounts of their
conversation provided by earlier interviewees. The eight session titles of the formal
program appear in the first column. Four key topic areas formed the core of what was
discussed during informal conversation about teaching; Students, Curriculum content
and implementation, Assessment and Evaluation (as presented in Chapter 4) and these
are shown in the second column, with any topics that are less explicitly relevant
appearing in brackets.
Table 7.1 Mapping informal conversation topics to formal program sessions
Principles and Practice program session titles Relevant informal
conversation topics
Student perceptions of and approaches to learning (Students)
Learning outcomes and constructive alignment Assessment
Teaching for student engagement Curriculum: implementation
Students
Student engagement in different settings: Breakout
groups on lectures, tutorials, eLearning, and research
supervision
Curriculum: implementation
(Students)
148
Although there appears to be significant overlap (seen in Table 7.1) between the topics
of the Principles and Practice sessions and the topics of informal conversation, the
differences between these forms of learning make it likely that the ways that these
topics are presented or discussed in each differs. This difference is illustrated by
considering the emphasis within each on one topic area, students. In informal
conversation about teaching, when student issues were raised as a topic, the focus was
mainly on the management of those issues or on reassurance about dealing with them
(see Chapter 5). In the formal academic development program, the focus of student-
related content was on thinking about how to facilitate student learning, and would be
more in the realms of improving or evolving. For example, within informal
conversation, academics described talking about the issue of academic honesty to help
them „deal with‟ isolated cases of potential plagiarism by individual students. The
corresponding sessions in the formal program, Assessment for student learning and
Inclusive teaching were focused on principles for teaching effectively and how
assessment practice might support the learning of all students, for example by revising
assessment design to encourage academic honesty.
The mapping process also revealed a second significant observation. This observation
was in the area of curriculum content, which is absent in the formal program and is a
strong focus in informal conversation. Given the generic nature of the Principles and
Practice program and the discipline focus of informal conversation, this difference was
to be expected. As reported by Natasha, the difference also represents one of the
opportunities for the formal program and informal conversation to serve
complementary roles in academic development.
The focus of this chapter is the relationship between two forms of learning from the
perspective of the academics participating in both. Although the similarities of topics
Assessment for student learning Assessment
(Students)
Inclusive teaching (Students)
Curriculum: implementation
Evaluating the student experience; Recognising and
rewarding teaching
Evaluation
(Students)
Scholarly teaching Curriculum- implementation
149
revealed by the mapping process are interesting, the formal program content does not
necessarily represent the learning experience of academics attending the program. The
next step in exploring the relationship was to expand on the intended learning
outcomes and session outlines to determine what program participants reported
learning from attending the formal program.
7.4 Comparing the perceived usefulness of the Principles and
Practice development program and informal conversation
The perceived usefulness of the formal program in relation to informal conversation
will be considered using two sources of data. The first source of data is the responses
(quantitative and qualitative) on the formal written evaluation completed by
participants at the conclusion of the formal program. The second source of data is the
interviews that were conducted with academics specifically to investigate the links
between informal and formal learning about teaching in this university context.
As outlined in section 7.3, the Principles and Practice program aims to prepare novice
university teachers for university teaching. To monitor the effectiveness of the formal
program in achieving this aim, participants complete formal written evaluations of their
learning and experience at the conclusion of their program. As would be expected for a
program that is designed to meet the professional learning needs of its participants, the
evaluation responses are generally positive about the relevance of the program content.
In these formal evaluations, consistently over the past five years, the majority of
Principles and Practice program participants describe the formal program as being
useful and directly relevant to their work for the university (demonstrated by 80% or
greater agreement, < 10% disagreement on a five point Likert scale) (G. Hendry,
personal communication, February 28, 2012). The open responses on program
evaluations reflect the diversity of academics‟ learning needs related to teaching (G.
Hendry, personal communication, February 28, 2012).
Building on the evidence in formal evaluations that the formal program was considered
useful by its academic participants, the six interviews conducted for this part of the
study asked academics how the program had been useful. The interviews confirmed the
results of the formal evaluations, that the formal program facilitates a variety of
learning outcomes amongst its participants. Although different participants reported
150
different outcomes, there are some that are shared across participants, and the more
common of those outcomes are presented in illustrative quotes below. The usefulness
of the program was reported by academics as leading to an increase in confidence,
learning practical tips about teaching and hearing different approaches to a challenging
issue from colleagues teaching in various disciplines.
I learnt, I guess, lots of little practical tips for ways to actually implement
things in class and just engage with students ... it has changed some of the
ways that I do things in class. (Natasha)
... [It] formalised the whole process ... learning from what other people have to
say in different disciplines, I think, was what made it more rewarding and
more meaningful for me ...[It was] more or less like a self-validation as well
that it's either you're doing the right thing, or [you‟re] doing the wrong thing,
or maybe you need to improve. (Edward)
[I learnt about] social inclusion, which is something that I was particularly
interested in and also about different ways to run a class, so different ways to
try and engage students. ... as a teacher, I'm still confronted with the problem
of not knowing how to change the course material, [or] change the way it's
taught to accommodate individuals on that level. It was interesting. But then I
still don't know [how] I can really do that within the subjects themselves. So
it's kind of made it more complex for me. (Lisa)
One of the participants, Melissa (for whom conversation had reinforced her learning
from the formal program, see section 7.2.2) described two of her learning outcomes
from the formal program, and the implications of these for her teaching and
communication about teaching. For Melissa, attending the program helped her to begin
to think about and justify existing teaching approaches to herself, colleagues and
students. This justification process was partly the result of the formal program being
validating as well as the ideas of the program leading her to speak with colleagues and
question why they were using one assessment activity.
Sometimes I learnt that people are doing incredibly different things to meet
different needs. That‟s great. That's diversity. But there were also some
151
common threads that were quite – not rewarding to hear, but reinforcing.
(Melissa)
They also led us to talk about why we're doing things this way already. ...
really pulling it apart and saying, „why are we using a group assessment
activity here? What do we hope to gain from it? What do we hope the students
will gain from it?‟ Really analysing it, instead of just saying, „okay, let's do a
bit of group assessment‟. (Melissa)
Melissa‟s reinforcing experiences of attending the formal program and engaging in
conversation with colleagues provided her with a rationale for existing practice, and for
proposing changes. In her discussions with students, Melissa was able to use this
rationale, see quote below, for explaining why she used group work and group
assessment.
... it gave me some further evidence to actually talk to the students, to use in
student dialogue about learning ... I mentioned that I'd been to [the program]
and that it was really exciting. [I told the students that], „we're going to be
making some changes. But we also are currently doing X, Y, Z for these
reasons‟. So [the program] gave me that sort of theoretical reassurance, if you
like, that what we're doing is actually okay ... So what I was able to do was to
explain [to students] why we've chosen to use group work and group
assessment. (Melissa)
The learning outcomes of participants described in interviews reflect not only the
diversity of learning needs, but also the range of ways that a central academic
development program for novice university teachers can be useful. The quotes suggest
that the program provides reassurance for academics, and advice on how to manage,
improve and think about teaching, which is similar to how the initial set of
interviewees described the usefulness of informal conversation (Chapter 5).
The interviews and the quantitative data from the formal evaluation indicated that the
formal program was useful for academics to learn about teaching. The purpose of this
part of the study is to investigate the connection between this program and informal
conversation, so further analysis was needed to link the usefulness of the formal
program and informal conversation. A more in-depth analysis of the written evaluation
152
comments from one cohort of Principles and Practice participants (G. Hendry, personal
communication, February 28, 2012) was conducted to uncover that cohort‟s perception
of the usefulness of the program. The qualitative comments were coded using the
subcategories of usefulness arising out of the initial set of interviews on informal
conversation (see Chapter 5). Several quotes are provided below as examples of each
of four of the five sub-categories of usefulness. The sorts of comments which
illustrated „to Evolve their teaching, thinking and practice‟, were “to unpack how to
understand the students‟ perspective and support them”, “rethink my approach to
teaching” and “great framework of teaching/learning”. The sorts of comments which
illustrated „Improve their teaching and student learning‟, were “Useful ideas that I can
try to use” and “ideas regarding teaching strategies/engagement, assessment”. The sorts
of comments which illustrated „Manage their teaching context‟, were “Good tips with
dealing with students”, “what things are good to do and what to avoid” and “necessary
aspects of teaching and learning at university”. The sorts of comments which illustrated
„Reassure themselves about their teaching practice‟, were “Teach in a more confident
manner”, “reinforced what constitutes good teaching” and “supportive environment”.
In addition to the questions about the usefulness of the program, the formal written
evaluation of the program includes questions about how the program could be
improved. Participants‟ suggestions for how the program could be improved were
analysed to explore whether there was a particular category of usefulness (i.e. a need)
which was not being met sufficiently by the program. The majority of comments
reflected a desire for advice on how to manage teaching, such as suggestions for “More
practical examples of lecturing”, opportunities to “discuss the problems we meet” and a
focus on “dealing with, facilitating and communicating with students”. A few
comments from participants suggested that there could be additional program content.
This suggested content was in the area of the Chapter 5 sub-categories of reassurance
about, and improvement and evolution of teaching. Both informal conversation within
departments and centrally-facilitated formal development programs can and do
incorporate aspects of improving and evolving teaching for academics. A couple of
participants criticised program facilitators for allowing participants who were “too
outspoken” to “monopolise sessions”. This may mean that the program is not the
appropriate venue for individuals to „vent about teaching-related issues‟ (Chapter 5),
and confirms why this sub-category is the only one of the five which did not appear in
153
participants‟ descriptions of the useful aspects of the formal program (summarised in
the previous paragraph).
This brief analysis suggests that one way in which informal conversation about
teaching may potentially complement formal academic development is to focus on the
area of greatest need for novice academics – managing their teaching. Another way
informal conversation can be useful is as a place for individuals to vent about their
teaching (preferable to having them do so in formal academic development programs).
7.4.1 Informal conversation during a formal academic development
program
In addition to demonstrating how different forms of learning can be complementary,
this part of the data analysis revealed areas of overlap. One area of overlap between
learning from informal conversation and from a formal development program is in the
opportunities for informal conversations about teaching during the formal program,
such as within sessions, or during lunch, morning or afternoon tea. Interviews with the
six Principles and Practice participants indicated that when taking these opportunities,
some preferred to find colleagues with similar disciplinary backgrounds to their own;
others enjoyed listening to academics with different perspectives.
I think hearing other people's experiences was interesting, although somewhat
irrelevant a lot of the time ... But then you ended up finding other [academics
from your own discipline] during the breaks and talking to them. So there was
[sic] enough people there that you can hear everyone's experiences and find it
interesting and then you can talk to someone that's got [sic] similar experience
to you. (Andrew)
Program facilitators did not explicitly support informal conversations during the breaks
between sessions of the program (although refreshments were provided) and it might
be expected that participants would not necessarily focus on the program content when
they could choose any topic. However, engaging in informal conversation during the
program was reportedly able to help participants to learn from peers to fortify their
understanding of the program content. In this way, informal conversation
complemented and extended participants‟ learning from the lectures and resources
provided by program facilitators, and:
154
... you're also learning from your peers ... you're hearing comments, ...
feedback or just experiences from other academics in other disciplines ...
you're absorbing so much information for two days, it became more easy [sic]
to remember because of the practical input from other academics. I think that
really helped a lot. (Edward)
One of the interview questions asked academics what aspects of the program had been
useful for their learning. In addition to experiencing conversation as reinforcing the
formal content (see previous quote), one academic identified informal conversations
with fellow participants as a particularly useful approach to learning. It was during
these conversations that Edward found out about the practical experiences of
colleagues who were implementing strategies that were relevant to the content of the
formal program, and to the range of approaches to teaching in different disciplines.
... one approach that worked best for me, as I've said, was more the peer
learning experience where you hear from the experiences of other academics
about what they're already doing or [how they‟re] practicing those strategies
[that had been described during the program] so that work[ed] very well for
me. The casual talks I think outside of the lectures or outside of the talks was
[sic] also pretty much helpful, even having a chat. I'd met several of them from
[various disciplines], and then just asking [them], „what's happening in their
faculty‟, as far as approaches are concerned. (Edward)
Within the context of a formal program, time and space for informal conversation
facilitated academics‟ learning from colleagues, and this built on the content of the
formal sessions. The quotes presented in the section support the results described in
section 6.5, where it was suggested that formal academic development initiatives could
develop connections between colleagues and facilitate learning through informal
conversation. This would provide academics with opportunities to reinforce and build
on the formal program content and to develop networks across disciplines and
departments. Such an approach to maximise learning during a formal program may be
especially beneficial for academics who will return to work in departments where there
are limited opportunities to communicate about teaching, as noted in the conflicting
and disconnected section (7.2.1) and also in section 6.5.
155
7.5 Summary
The results presented in this chapter support those presented in the previous chapters
(Chapter 4 on topics and 5 on usefulness) regarding how informal conversation can
help academics to learn about teaching. They also show that while the topics and
usefulness of informal conversation and the Principles and Practice formal academic
development program are similar, there are significant differences; such as the
emphasis within conversation on managing teaching issues, and during the formal
program, on thinking about teaching. These differences suggest that informal
conversation and formal programs represent complementary means through which
teaching is developed. For some academics, the program and conversation were
complementary, or mutually reinforcing forms of learning about teaching, others found
these to be disconnected and conflicting experiences. The academics who found these
different forms of learning to be conflicting described this as hindering their learning.
The experience of these academics contrasts with that of the academics who found
each form of learning to be complementary to and reinforce the ideas from the other.
Although the interview sample is small, the experiences of the academics interviewed
indicate that connecting the ideas of a formal program to informal conversation within
departments may be an effective strategy for academics to continue to learn and
develop their teaching after completing a formal program. For some academics and
departments, this link between formal and informal learning may not be self-evident, or
informal conversation about teaching may not be encouraged. Thus, generating
conversation and connections between the learning from different forms of
development may be a challenge for academic developers. Some ideas for how the
connections between discrete forms of learning and communicating about teaching
could be improved are provided in section 8.3.
156
Chapter 8. Strategies for stimulating
informal conversation about teaching
This study investigated academics‟ experience of informal conversation about teaching
within their departments. Thirty academic staff working in different departments at an
Australian research-intensive university were interviewed and the transcripts were
analysed using grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This analysis contributes to
our understanding of the potential of informal conversation to support academics to
learn about teaching. The four areas of focus were:
Chapter 4 Topics discussed during informal conversation about teaching
Chapter 5 The usefulness of informal conversation about teaching
Chapter 6 How context influences informal conversation about teaching
Chapter 7 Relations between a formal academic development program and
informal conversation about teaching
The results of Chapters 4, 5 and 6 are represented in Figure 8.1. This figure provides a
summary of the nature of informal conversation in terms of its topics and usefulness,
and the context which influences its occurrence.
The topics of informal conversation related to the teaching areas of greatest
significance for academics – those areas which appear in the relevant literature and
policy at this university, for which individuals are responsible, and are the most likely
to create challenges. Broadly, these topic areas, shown in the centre of Figure 8.1 were
students, curriculum, assessment and evaluation.
Informal conversation was seen to be useful in at least five different ways, shown in
Figure 8.1 (in the second ring). This included helping academics to manage issues
related to teaching in their discipline, and encouraging them to think about improving
and even strategically evolving their teaching. Conversation allowed academics to vent
and served to reassure them, as they were able to draw on the empathy and support
offered by colleagues after they had faced a difficult experience.
Informal conversation was examined from a socio-cultural perspective within
departmental contexts, because discourse contributes to and is a product of its context.
Collectively, the four areas presented in the outer ring of Figure 8.1, colleagues,
processes for reward and recognition, time and place, and formal management of
157
communication, triggered, encouraged or hindered informal conversation about
teaching. Informal conversation was affected by whether teaching was perceived by
academics to be a worthwhile use of their time, and the availability and accessibility of
colleagues. The research-intensive environment in which academics worked offered
variable support for teaching, and this was likely to be one of the reasons why
academics drew on commonality with colleagues to ensure their conversation was
useful (see section 8.2.3 for the development of this idea).
Figure 8.1 The nature of academics‟ informal conversation about teaching
Conversation about teaching contrasts with the existing forms of development
supported by the university in which this study was located – it is informal (not
formal), situated in departments (not centrally facilitated), and participation and content
are the responsibility of individual academics (and not mandated by institutional policy
or leadership). These differences provide an opportunity for informal conversation
within departments to serve a role that is complementary to formal academic
158
development programs. Achieving such complementarity may require academic
developers to build explicit connections (and minimise incompatibility) between
different forms of learning about teaching wherever possible.
The results presented in Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7 are summarised and discussed in this
chapter. This discussion is used as the basis for an exploration of what informal
conversation could mean for the field of academic development and for three groups of
university staff with an interest in academic development: academic developers,
department leaders and the individual academics themselves (see section 8.3).
8.1 Discussion
This section comprises a discussion of the results presented in each of the four chapters
(4, 5, 6 and 7) in their chronological order, beginning with the topics of conversation.
Each chapter is then summarised, which leads into what this thesis contributes to
existing literature, particularly in the area of academic development.
Informal conversation about teaching is one of the ways academics can learn how to
teach. Four key topic areas of conversation were identified in this study: academics
have informal conversations about students, their curriculum content and
implementation, assessment, and evaluation.
There were a variety of ways these four topic areas were discussed by academics
during informal conversation about teaching. When speaking about students,
academics discussed the student experience generally, and how students were finding
their units of study and set tasks, the level of student engagement in classes, the quality
of the students and what could be done about achieving greater student involvement
and improving students‟ skills. Curriculum is one of the more salient aspects of
teaching and the informal conversation described included content and implementation
of courses. Delivery aspects such as tasks and activities usually became a topic for
discussion after the design and planning of content was completed. Conversation about
assessment included topics such as appropriate weighting for tasks and marking advice.
Informal conversation was also used by academics to uncover expectations and
maintain standards so that practice was consistent amongst students, assessment tasks
and units of study within a department. Conversation about teaching evaluation focused
on considering which aspects of practice should be retained and revised for subsequent
159
iterations of units of study. Although these „evaluation‟ conversations were described
as largely being prompted by the university system for responding to student feedback
from quantitative surveys, they included some critique of the relevance and
appropriateness of surveys, and for some academics, their more individualised, less
formal evaluation practices also generated discussion. Peer observation as a form of
evaluation was also seen as contributing to informal conversation about teaching, and
its usefulness for academic development is further elaborated in section 8.3.
The topics which appeared in informal conversation mirror those topics which are seen
to be important in teaching more generally, as reflected in classic textbooks on
university teaching. For example, Ramsden (1992; 2003), provides sections on learning
and adopting a student perspective, followed by chapters on course structure (8),
teaching strategies (9), assessment (10), and evaluation (11). The text by Light and Cox
(2001) has sections on curriculum (content and delivery), assessment and evaluation,
and McKeachie‟s Teaching Tips (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006) provide strategies for
various teaching activities, including small group discussion, lecturing and assessment,
and much of the text is presented with the intention of facilitating student learning and
understanding students.
These topics also reflect the view of teaching presented in university policy (at this
university), specifically in The Management and Evaluation of Coursework Teaching
policy, where the aim of teaching is seen as facilitating student learning and it is
defined as -
Teaching includes the development and evaluation of courses and units of
study; selection, development and application of suitable teaching-learning
strategies; assessment and examination; supervision and mentoring;
evaluation; consultation with students and other stakeholders; and staff
development to support quality teaching. (University of Sydney, 2001, p. 3)
The nature of informal conversation enables academics to deal with topics linked to
challenging issues with some degree of confidentiality. An issue may be challenging
because it is important in the discipline context (such as delivering a concept of
curriculum that is key to student understanding) or contentious (such as those related to
individual students or which have the potential to affect the success of promotion
applications). These issues would be confronting to address, and even raise, in public
160
or formal settings such as teaching and learning committees or formal academic
development courses, and such issues do not necessarily belong in these settings. The
subcategories of Students and Assessment were reported as the most common topics in
informal conversation, suggesting that these could be the most challenging areas for
academics. Having an informal „chat‟ over coffee may increase the personal nature of
the conversation; ensuring colleagues are discrete with any information received during
the conversation. This is consistent with other research, such as that of Waring and
Bishop (2010), who found that more sensitive, controversial or emotional issues are
discussed at the backstage – some topics are private. Complex and challenging issues
have also featured in clinicians‟ corridor conversation (Idema et al., 2010).
The broad topics and the variety of ways in which they were raised illustrated the
potential of informal conversation about teaching to address the teaching-related
concerns of academics. Informal conversation with colleagues could be used if
academics wished to gossip, rant, share information or resources, seek permission or
advice, and exchange or debate ideas about teaching.
Data from interviews indicated that all academics were having informal conversations
about teaching with disciplinary and departmental colleagues and collectively, these
conversations were perceived to be useful in at least five different ways. Academics
reported using informal conversation to Vent about teaching-related issues; to Reassure
themselves about their teaching practice; to Manage their teaching context; to Improve
their teaching and student learning; and to Evolve their teaching, thinking and practice.
The five subcategories, to Vent, Reassure, Manage, Improve and Evolve, represent the
ways academics were drawing on colleagues‟ expertise to address teaching-related
issues. Three of the concepts seemed to be connected to certain aspects of teaching
practice and development (Manage, Improve and Evolve) and the others, to Vent and
Reassure academics about their teaching, tended to be supportive rather than
developmentally focused.
Whether and how academics were learning from informal conversation about topics
that related to teaching was the key to determining the relations between informal
conversation about teaching and formal academic development. The ways that
academics find informal conversations useful, especially Manage, Improve and Evolve,
indicated that academics were learning about teaching from colleagues. The
161
subcategories indicated that conversations may reflect different learning needs of
academics, and that for them, this was mostly about Management of their teaching
context and sometimes Improvement of teaching and student learning or Evolution of
teaching, thinking and practice.
The subcategories, to Vent about issues and to Reassure academics about their teaching
represented a different way that conversations are able to encourage learning to the
other three subcategories. Informal conversations enable academics to share
frustrations with their colleagues which may not be appropriate to share in more formal
or public settings. The significance with which academics described having
conversations intended to reassure signals the importance of colleagues‟ support in
teaching, including teaching development. This potentially reflects the value of social
learning in developing self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), and may explain why Venting
and Reassurance appear to occur in conjunction with the other (practice-focused, less
support-based) subcategories.
This study shows that mid-level academics seek reassurance and support from
colleagues about their teaching. This extends previous work which had shown that
building confidence is essential for novice academics or those teaching in new contexts
(for example, Boice, 1992; Eraut, Steadman, Furner, Maillardet, Miller & Blackman,
2004). The current study also demonstrates that conversation can be useful in different
ways at the same time, and that this might depend on the individual academic. The
subcategories do not necessarily show change or development over time, but reflect the
current experience of academics. Conversation usefulness does not follow a
progression through managing the teaching context to evolution to a higher level of
teaching excellence. The academics who described having conversations about
improving were also having conversations where they sought reassurance. Again, the
results of the current study build on previous work which showed that emotional
support and relational learning with other teachers was central to the informal learning
of new schoolteachers (McNally et al., 2009). It is possible that the type of reassurance
may differ between novice teachers and experienced academics, but as experienced
academics make changes to their practice to improve their teaching and student
learning and evolve their teaching, thinking and practice, their self-efficacy may
temporarily decrease. This may be one factor that leads academics to instigate informal
conversations: to reassure themselves about their teaching.
162
Informal conversation allows academics to learn how to manage and enhance their
teaching context through the exchange of resources and ideas. An informal
conversation can be used to solve a current and pressing problem, or determine how to
manage a „difficult‟ student. Informal conversation may be especially effective when
academics are faced with a challenge and seek a response that is appropriate,
achievable and likely to lead to a desired outcome within their context, and for which
there may be little time to prepare. Irrespective of the topic discussed, the purpose of
informal conversation was often described as finding out what a colleague would do in
a given situation, or what a colleague had done previously in a similar situation,
because there was no other obvious place to acquire that information. This builds on
Trowler and Knight‟s (2000) findings about recently appointed academics, who learnt
about challenging and complex embedded understandings and practices through
participation in departmental discourses. In this study, academics found that informal
conversation was important for addressing practical issues, and this is reflected in their
use of phrases such as „how to‟, „deal with‟ and „the right way‟ when describing the
nature of conversation. In some cases, informal conversation was used not simply to
determine how to „deal with‟ issues, but to consider how to improve aspects of
teaching. Over time, a series of informal conversations can contribute to academics
developing a strategy for resolving an issue; examples seen in this study were
redesigning assessment to include a task that required students to develop a poster for a
class symposium, and changing an approach to teaching based on revised aims for a
unit of study.
Conversation that related to the subcategories of Improve or Evolve was not described
by all academics, and those that did describe it said that it occurred less frequently than
conversation to Reassure or Manage. Three academics indicated that they could have
had conversations at this level about Improving teaching and student learning or
Evolving teaching, thinking and practice, but they did not have time. Sharing ideas can
help academics think about teaching, but for many academics, it is important that ideas
have practical and relevant implications for them. This may be why conversations
intended to help academics manage whatever issues they were currently facing in their
teaching context were described as occurring more frequently than those that involved
thinking about teaching. Further research might be done to explore why academics find
informal conversations especially useful for seeking reassurance or management
163
advice, and if Management and Reassurance are more important to academics than
Improvement or Evolution. Such research may explore the connections between the
range of the usefulness of conversation for learning and individual academics‟
conceptions of development. For example, Åkerlind found that academics‟
understandings of teaching development included improving the teacher‟s comfort or
practice, or student learning (Åkerlind, 2003), and improving individual productivity,
personal learning, or making a contribution to the discipline (Åkerlind, 2005).
These five usefulness subcategories are similar to Clark‟s (2001) summary of the
outcomes of group conversation amongst schoolteachers, for example, his “Developing
specific techniques and solutions to problems” parallels these academics‟ conversations
about Managing their teaching context and Improving teaching and student learning.
To Reassure academics about their teaching is similar to Clark‟s “Reviving hope” and
“Reaffirmation of ideals and commitments”. The results of this study suggest that
academic development has similarities to school teacher development, as informal and
emotional support are seen to be important for those learning how to teach. The results
regarding the usefulness of conversation about teaching also demonstrate the
importance of informal communication in professional learning, and the role of
department or discipline initiatives in fostering development, supporting previous work
(for example, Blackwell & Blackmore, 2003; Boud, 1999; Hanno, 1999).
The results of the current study parallel the findings of Waring and Bishop (2010), who
examined informal learning – reassurance and management advice or „dealing with‟
problems can be sought through informal conversation with colleagues. Waring and
Bishop (2010) looked at the importance of informal learning in „common‟ spaces in
clinical settings (referred to as „water-cooler‟ learning, although the spaces were a staff
lounge, theatre corridor and storeroom). Informal learning was seen as useful for
dealing with a change in context, problem-solving, and reinforcing expectations, norms
and values, and emotional support (Waring & Bishop, 2010, p. 335), not unlike the
perceived usefulness of the informal conversation in this study. Their summary of how
this informal learning was useful also included critical reflection, collective sense-
making and follow-up. Perhaps the aspects found by Waring and Bishop (2010) not
found in this study would be encouraged in contexts which are more supportive of
teaching and informal conversation about teaching.
164
It may be suggested that conversations focused on reassuring academics and helping
them to manage their teaching, will not lead to improving teaching or challenging
academics‟ thinking about teaching. Reflecting on and exchanging ideas about teaching
helps to enhance a community (Hanno, 1999). Management of teaching and ideas for
the development of teaching can and should be encouraged; and with support, this can
be achieved through conversation (Byrne, et al., 2010; Schuck et al., 2008). Academics
will likely need encouragement to have more conversation, and guidance to have more
conversation focused on improving and evolving teaching. Some ideas drawn from the
results of this study on how to facilitate informal conversation and how to enhance its
effectiveness are outlined in section 8.3.
Given that managing the teaching context was a significant way that conversation was
useful to academics, exploring the relationship between context and informal
conversation was of interest. The institutional and departmental contexts in which
academics teach influence their ways of working, including how they communicate
about teaching. To be able to determine how to facilitate conversation, it was important
to understand the contexts in which academics teach and identify those factors that
trigger, encourage or hinder informal conversation about teaching. Four categories of
contextual influence were identified: Colleagues with whom academics work;
Processes for reward and recognition; Time and place; and Formal management of
communication.
The four contextual influence categories will be discussed separately in subsequent
paragraphs, but it is their collective influence that is of most relevance to informal
conversation, and firstly, it should be noted how this reflects the existing literature
which has looked at the role of contexts and cultures in influencing communication.
In this study, formal management, reward, and recognition were important, but other
influences were time, space, and collegial relationships. This supports previous
research into management, which suggests it is important to encourage and not force or
mandate academics‟ behaviour. The influences of formal management and reward and
recognition, and the role of leadership and colleagues found in this study are similar to
another study examining the effect of school contexts on teachers‟ „everyday learning‟
in their workplaces (Jurasaite-Harbison, 2009). The importance attributed to leadership
and professional relationships in Jurasaite-Harbison‟s (2009) research led her to
165
suggest that professional learning could be improved by establishing workplaces that
maintain and create opportunities for development. The importance of a workplace
context encouraging but not necessarily directing learning was supported in another
study of new schoolteachers. Those who worked in contexts which offered spontaneous
(rather than structured) collaboration found it to be enjoyable and supportive of their
development, and reactive learning occurred (Williams, 2003). Case studies of
departments that were recognised as excellent in teaching identified them as having
features of collegial and entrepreneurial cultures more often than bureaucratic or
corporate cultures. This suggests that these are the cultures associated with excellent
teaching (Gibbs et al., 2009).
The first category of influence on informal conversation is the colleagues with whom
academics work. The academics most likely to be sought for an informal conversation
were those considered to be friends as well as colleagues, who had demonstrated
expertise in a relevant area, a similar interest in or approach to teaching, and a history
of co-teaching on subjects or courses.
The importance of seeking out colleagues with expertise and with whom academics
shared a teaching philosophy and had previously co-taught may have been anticipated,
however what was less foreseeable, was that the academics in this study described how
important their „friends‟ were in informal learning through conversation. The results of
this study reinforce the literature on the importance of critical friends (e.g., Costa &
Kallick, 1993; Handal, 1999; MacBeath & Jardine, 1998; Schuck et al., 2008), and
highlight the role „friends‟ can play in supporting learning, particularly in contexts
which may be less supportive. Examining friendship in the literature, White (1990)
described the relationship as having the potential for mutual benefit, and being
characterised by an investment in others‟ well-being. The usefulness of a friend as a
resource is based on their ability to consider all factors because of their understanding
of the specific situation, and their advice being reliable and without hidden agenda
(White, 1990). Other literature has explored the roles of „friendship‟ (Farrell, 2001),
and collegiality amongst academics, particularly whether they are useful or desirable
qualities (Hellawell & Hancock, 2001; Hull, 2006; Macfarlane, 2005; Mathias, 2005).
This study reinforces this literature and builds on work demonstrating the importance
of collaborative relationships between colleagues for learning (Eraut et al., 2004;
Ferman, 2002; Rallis & Rossman, 2000).
166
Reward and recognition processes can shape staff perceptions of the value of activities,
and these represent the second category of contextual influences. Whether academics
perceived informal conversation about teaching to be worthwhile was linked to
whether their context promoted teaching as worthwhile. In interviews, academics
described the institutional and departmental reward and recognition systems as more
supportive of research than teaching and argued that this contributed to how they
decided to allocate their work time. Variable support for teaching was also reflected in
the advice of leaders and colleagues. Some were supportive of teaching, and considered
it to be important, others advised against investing effort into teaching and actively
sought release from teaching themselves. In a context where teaching and research
compete for academics‟ time and disciplinary and departmental colleagues have
incompatible teaching philosophies, it may be challenging for individual academics to
determine whether and with whom to have an informal conversation about teaching.
This is consistent with the idea that a negatively perceived climate reduces people‟s
willingness to communicate, share ideas and information, and take action (Gibbs et al.,
2009; Ramsden, 1998a, p. 78; 1998b, p. 363).
The third category of contextual influences on informal conversation is that of
proximity – temporal and physical. The academics interviewed for this study described
the role of common spaces and corridors in encouraging conversation. Informal
conversations were triggered by academics having serendipitous meetings in corridors
and hindered by academics working at off-campus locations. To have an informal
conversation, an academic requires that their colleagues be available and accessible.
For example, when academics work from home, or even while they are lecturing
students, they do not have opportunities to participate in informal corridor
conversations with their colleagues. This supports existing literature on workplace
learning. Eraut (1994, p. 13) describes time and a combination of learning settings as
two of five factors which can affect professional learning. Spatial design and temporal
opportunity have been found to be significant in influencing informal interactions (e.g.,
Idema et al., 2010; Waring & Bishop, 2010), and as described in the previous
paragraph, these work to encourage conversation when combined with features of
collegial relationships, such as trust and understanding.
Although informal conversation occurs at the discretion of academics, it is affected by
formal management communication strategies, which is the fourth (and final) category
167
of contextual influences that emerged in this study. Academics enthusiastically shared
their perceptions of formal management of communication, particularly their
departmental leaders‟ strategies for promoting collegiality. Departmental leaders were
able to encourage informal conversation about teaching by having formal meetings
about teaching and initiating development strategies, such as a formal mentoring
program. These partly worked to facilitate communication by establishing spaces for
discussing teaching and partly by creating connections between colleagues. Assuming
voluntary participation, those participating in such an initiative can be reasonably sure
their fellow participants have a similar level of interest in the topic set for that session.
The likelihood of conversing with an academic colleague based on common ground
may also contribute to the role of formal management strategies in facilitating informal
conversation. This extends the existing literature that describes the influence of
leadership structures and departmental cultures on communication, including
discourses about teaching (e.g., Bryman, 2007; Gibbs et al., 2009; Kahn, 2009; Quinn,
2012; Trowler & Cooper, 2002).
A pattern was found in this study between formal meetings and informal conversation
for the academics, where some academics were making links between different forms
of communication about teaching and others were not. Academics experienced formal
meetings in three quite different ways: as not being an appropriate site to discuss
teaching (in contrast to informal conversations), as rendering informal conversation
unnecessary, or as encouraging informal conversation (e.g. before or after a meeting).
This suggests that there are also departmental and individual differences in how formal
and informal communication may work together and that it might be worth further
investigating the existing links between these, and how these links might be
strengthened.
The grounded theory concept of encouraging researchers to build on interesting themes
that arise meant that this study could begin to explore the connections between the
various forms of communicating and learning about teaching available to academics.
To do this, additional data was required, and the first step was to choose how to focus
the data collection so that the connections could be examined.
Many forms of academic development are available to university staff; formal and
semi-formal academic development strategies and relevant committee meetings
168
represent structured settings for dialogue and learning about teaching. The example of
formal academic development chosen for this part of the study was a two-day
introduction to university teaching. The supplementary data gathered to explore links
between formal and informal communication about teaching were the program outline,
interviews with program participants and participants‟ formal written evaluation of the
program.
The interviews showed that while some academics found the formal and informal
conversational forms of learning about teaching to be complementary, or mutually
reinforcing, other academics saw them as disconnected or conflicting. They described
this disconnection as impeding effective learning about teaching from the program and
from conversation. Formal evaluations completed by the academic development
program participants indicated that these academics, who were new to teaching or new
to the university, still needed support after attending this formal program. For example,
they would have liked more advice on how to manage their teaching context. Given the
ways that informal conversations about teaching are used by more experienced
teachers, fostering informal conversation may be a way to provide this support. In
addition to building on the content of a formal program, informal conversation can
support academics‟ learning about teaching as needed, for novice and non-novice
teachers.
There is a role for academic developers to create connections (and possibly minimise
conflict) between the different ways academics learn how to teach, and parts of section
8.3 address how department leaders and academic developers could attempt to connect
informal conversation to other forms of communicating about teaching.
The significance of developers and leaders may be greatest in contexts which provide
variable support for teaching (as described in Chapter 6 and discussed in the previous
paragraphs in this section). The experienced academics in the first set of interviews
emphasised that their colleagues played a key role in their learning through informal
conversation. Academics, especially those who are new to teaching or new to the
university may not have colleagues with whom they can talk or they may not know
who to approach, or even know how to initiate conversation about teaching.
Furthermore, despite the altruism described in section 6.2.2, colleagues will not
necessarily seek out less experienced academics to provide them with advice and
169
support about teaching (Boice, 1992). Trowler and Knight (2000, p. 31) also suggest
that novice or experienced academics may struggle to realise the limitations of their
departmental knowledge, and that communication is essential to understand this and
subsequently, to develop their knowledge. The challenge for academic developers and
department leaders is to discover how they can facilitate informal conversation about
teaching and support individual academics to have effective informal conversation.
Some suggestions are presented in section 8.3, based on what triggered, encouraged or
hindered informal conversation amongst the initial group of mid-level academics
interviewed.
The aim of a grounded theory study is to develop a theory which can account for the
data, to explain (and predict) much of the relevant behaviour (e.g., informal
conversation about teaching) within a context. When considering the nature of informal
conversation in this study, having access to colleagues, the compatibility, and
approachability of colleagues were what contributed to academics initiating informal
conversation. Examining the data further revealed the idea that informal conversation is
a consequence of commonality. The prediction associated with this is that as
commonality between colleagues increases, so will the quality and quantity of their
informal conversation about teaching. That a theory emerged from this study
demonstrates that grounded theory was, overall, an effective methodology for this
research. The idea of commonality is discussed in section 8.2.3. Before this discussion,
sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 contain more detail on the process and limitations of using
grounded theory for this study.
8.2 Methodology: Process, critique and outcome
In his review of empirical research, Ashwin (2011) found that there was limited critical
discussion of the approaches and models used in higher education, and that the research
process was rarely used to develop theory. He suggested several ways to separate the
outcomes of data analysis from the ways „research objects‟ are perceived and make the
development of theory more common in higher education journal articles. Although not
explicitly suggested by Ashwin, another approach to developing theory in higher
education may be through utilising research processes (such as methodologies) which
are designed to lead to the development of theory. Grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss,
1967) is a methodology used in educational research that attempts to set itself apart
170
from research which falls into the trap identified by Ashwin (2011) and suggested by
Tight (2004) of analysing data in such a way as to reinforce whichever theory, model
or framework the researcher has chosen to use. Rather, grounded theory claims to
develop theory based on the data, and through this, potentially challenge existing
models, frameworks or theories.
8.2.1 Process of using grounded theory
Advice on how to conduct grounded theory research ranged from a guiding principle,
for example, understanding that almost anything can be redone, revised or reversed
(Martin & Turner, 1986), to a reminder that theoretical saturation is not just about
sampling but also analysis (Piantanida et al., 2004). There were also forewarnings, such
as that which suggested that novices might find allowing categories to emerge using
line by line coding a tedious, time-consuming and awkward process (Kelle, 2005, para.
6). Advice was also based on mistakes which had been made by other researchers;
Wilson and Hutchinson (1996) summarised common issues in research claiming to be
grounded theory. A common (albeit not necessarily completely valid) critique of
qualitative research, including grounded theory, is that the data analysis process is
unclear, not systematic and unable to be replicated. In addition to helping me be
rigorous and true to grounded theory, examples of grounded theory aided my attempt to
be clear and concise when describing my process.
As mentioned in section 3.3, „listening‟ to the advice of Glaser (1998) and looking at
example grounded theory projects were helpful when completing this research. For
example, Glaser provides a timeline of 12-18 months to give novice researchers a
guide, and explains that “you should not expect to „get, grasp and assimilate‟ the
methodology quickly” (Glaser, 1998, p. 14). The thesis proposal and subsequently,
ethics applications, were completed and submitted as quickly as possible, to enable
maximum time (within candidature) to complete the data collection and analysis
processes. My experience generally reflected the recommendation of Glaser and
Strauss (1967) that the stages of analysis would overlap and that the hypotheses and
theory would emerge naturally. For example, the usefulness of informal conversation
was a focus early on during analysis, so while other categories were at the comparison
stage, the „usefulness‟ categories were becoming integrated.
171
Wilson and Hutchinson (1996) identified “importing concepts” (p. 122) – reading other
research and using that as a lens to look at the data, rather than allowing the data to
speak for itself, as one of the most common mistakes in research purporting to be
grounded theory. Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (1998) encouraged researchers
to be „theoretically sensitive‟ so that they would not set out to support one model, but
potentially use ideas from different models to explore data; the intention was to have
researchers who were aware, not inflexible. I adopted a Glaserian approach to
reviewing the literature and found this to be an effective way to „protect‟ the data from
contamination by existing theories and frameworks. To identify a thesis topic, I read
literature in several broad areas of interest (for example, higher education, academic
development, and the scholarship of teaching and learning), then as concepts emerged
in the data, and I knew what was relevant, went back to the literature, including areas
not examined previously. I looked into common ground in conversation after having
observed commonality in my own data on academics‟ conversation partners (see 8.2.3
for a discussion of commonality). As appropriate for a PhD project, I also frequently
examined recent publications. This led to a thesis that was generally informed by
literature in the areas of academic development, workplace learning, informal learning
and conversation.
Kelle (2005, para. 44) suggested that researchers should use heuristic concepts and
perspectives, provided they are relevant and do not limit the data and encouraged
novices to use „grand theories‟ to describe phenomena under study. Kelle (2005, para.
30) also described the importance of the process of integrating literature and theories
with new discoveries, where explanations for surprising incidents revealed by the data
relate to the researcher‟s previous knowledge, which is a slightly different stance to
Glaser (1998). The idea of a surprising incident resonated strongly with me, and it
could be argued, those dutiful grounded theory researchers who are unfamiliar with
literature in an area may be more likely to be surprised by their data. An example of
something which was surprising in this study, was the frequent references to friends
being important for informal conversation about teaching. I then thought more about
the context, part of Glaser‟s “the six „C‟s” coding family (1978, p. 74), and informal
conversation and teaching and pored over the transcripts. Later it became apparent that
the characteristics of friends were significant in informal conversation about teaching,
because they can be useful for the emotional and practical advice appropriate in
172
conversation. Even if I had taken Kelle‟s (2005, para. 44) advice, I would not have
thought to explore the notion of friends until it emerged in the data.
One common mistake made in grounded theory research is the presentation of
participants‟ quotes (in vivo codes) as the final grounded theory (Wilson & Hutchinson,
1996). This happens when concepts are not used to develop theory and leads to a final
outcome that is descriptive, and not grounded theory. Although in vivo codes evoke
„instant grab‟ (Glaser, 1998, p. 145; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), as noted by Harry et al.
(2005), they may be rarely repeated within the data and do not fully represent a
category or code which may later subsume them. For example, in this study, an
academic referred to colleagues‟ intentions for non-research work as, “you do what you
can get away with” (Meghan), the aim being to achieve the bare minimum required and
no more than that. This quote has instant „grab‟ but later became part of a broader
category that was about academics‟ experience of recognition, reward and support for
teaching and research. Other in vivo codes such as those referring to academics having
conversations with “colleagues who were also friends” (Grace) about “how to deal
with” teaching-related issues (Sarah) became part of lower level categories related to
whom conversations were with, and what topics appeared in informal conversation.
These were later to become further integrated into higher-level categories about the
nature of informal conversation.
Preliminary hypotheses that were suggested in the early stages of this study were that
academics have informal conversation with their friends, and generally, research is
more of a priority than teaching. The truly emergent integrating framework includes as
many categories and properties as possible, and can incorporate new categories or
properties (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 41). Continuing the example hypotheses from
this study, in a context which offers variable support for teaching (which is not
equivalent to the support provided for research), the purpose and usefulness of informal
conversation about teaching was linked to who conversations are with. Friends who are
colleagues are sought after for informal conversation because they are able to
understand teaching-related issues and offer appropriate emotional support and
practical resources. During the course of this research into informal conversation
amongst academics, their „main concern‟ (Glaser, 1998) was identified. Academics are
required to teach, often without necessarily knowing how, in a context which offers
variable support for teaching. Informal conversation with departmental colleagues is
173
their way to manage that „main concern‟. The patterns of academics‟ experience of
informal conversation, such as the diversity in its usefulness, reflect the importance of
having informal conversation about teaching in such a context.
Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggest that grounded theory interviews differ to those
which use other methodologies. For example, they described the preliminary interviews
in grounded theory research as likely to be very open-ended, and loosely structured,
and the subsequent interviews as more likely to be structured, and focused on aspects
which have already emerged from earlier interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 75).
The grounded theory principle of interviews informing subsequent interviews meant
that in this study, interviews were conducted with academics in addition to those
originally intended. The first sample list had removed new academic appointments,
those in appointed leadership roles and those who were likely to be exemplary or
innovative teachers. This may have been a limitation of the original design, and so the
supplementary interviews (see section 3.4.3) that were designed to build on emergent
concepts as part of the grounded theory methodology rectified this.
Some of the later interviewees that were part of the original sample provided answers
which reinforced the comments from previous interviews, but did not develop them,
despite prompts and follow-up questions. This is evidence that saturation was achieved
with the categories, signalling a successful grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.
61; 111). A minor disadvantage is that owing to the iterative nature of data collection
and analysis there were a couple of interviews that were required when the
appointment was scheduled, but by the time the booking was imminent, they were
rendered redundant because of interviews completed in the interim. Although they may
have been considered a misuse of time (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 73), it is difficult,
particularly as a novice researcher, to be sure, and in consultation with my supervisors,
I decided that I would conduct the interviews as intended. This was because I knew that
the worst outcome would be interviews which confirmed concepts revealed in previous
interviews, and this was preferable to the opposite outcome of insufficient data. It was
also important to maintain professional courtesy, and retracting an invitation to
participate in research may have offended the academics who had offered to
participate.
174
8.2.2 Limitations of method
The design of this research necessitated the participation of academic staff from across
the university as part of grounded theory‟s process of theoretical sampling (see section
3.4; Glaser & Strauss, 1967, Ch. 3). It was anticipated that there might have been
difficulties recruiting interviewees from some faculties and departments or even within
departments, recruiting individual academics. It was thought that individual academics,
especially those who are less interested in teaching or perceive themselves to be less
capable teachers, might be unwilling to be interviewed. To ensure that sufficient data
was collected, flexibility was adopted in the selection of participating faculties and
academics. Although the sample size was sufficient (20+4+6) and the rate of positive
responses leading to an interview was approximately 30 per cent, it is possible that the
sample may include a subset of academics. For example, the academics who were
interviewed may have been mainly those teachers who were interested in teaching or
communicating about teaching, and those who thought that informal conversation was
a worthwhile area of research.
There was an additional concern that if some academics agreed to be interviewed, they
may not be forthcoming with information, may commandeer the interview or may find
the interview a negative experience. A couple of the academics interviewed appeared
to have an agenda of their own that differed from the aims of the interview, and this
was managed by guiding the interviewees back to the research questions, and allowing
each interviewee time to provide general comments.
Although the interview techniques employed were effective with most of the sample,
one of the academics appeared to be less enthusiastic than the other interviewees about
offering relevant information during her interview. She acknowledged that while her
colleagues did speak informally about teaching, there was no need for additional
informal communication within her department, because they had sufficient
opportunities for formal communication. This sounded like „Properline‟ data; data that
the interviewee thinks the researchers should hear (Glaser, 1998, p. 8). This may have
been linked to me being from the academic development unit or more generally, the
tendency for self-report measures to lead to participants under or over reporting the
occurrence or significance of events under investigation (Paulhus, 1991). This is often
based on participants‟ beliefs about the purpose of the research, the potential impact it
could have or what they think the researcher would like to hear. Although there is no
175
guarantee of participants‟ honesty or completeness of response in any interviews, the
interview questions and prompts were designed in this study to focus on drawing out
real examples, and I attempted to ensure that participants understood there were no
correct or ideal responses. This did appear to be generally successful, as most
participants were very generous in sharing vivid experiences and offering insights
which reflected a range of experiences. The range of positive and not so positive
comments and descriptions suggests that participants were genuinely describing their
good and bad experiences – the best description they can give, or baseline data, rather
than an imagined ideal, desirable data or vague comments (Glaser, 1998, p. 8).
Despite all interviewees being academics who were familiar with and understood
standard confidentiality and anonymity practices, my position as a fellow staff
member, and one who works for the central academic development unit, presented
challenges. It may have raised concerns that the interviewee could be identified if the
content of interviews were reported back to their departmental colleagues, the
academic development unit or even senior university staff. Another concern might have
been that the data could be used to present an individual or department as an example
of, „what not to do‟. This potential issue was addressed by reminding the interviewees
that no identifying data would be included in the final report, that all collected
information would be carefully secured at all times, and that I was the only person who
would have access to the raw data. Several of the academics asked that their quotes not
be identified as from a particular discipline or department, because their small
department size combined with their non-standard perspective for their discipline
would enable colleagues to recognise them from their responses.
In studies relying on interviews and qualitative analysis, there is often the potential for
the researcher‟s own thinking, assumptions and perspectives to contribute to how data
is sourced and collated. Building on the pilot or practice interviews, the first few
sample interviews were used to explore the most effective approaches for questioning
academics about the ways they discuss teaching. I tried to be aware of my own
perspectives, and attempted to minimise the influence of personal bias, so it did not
impact upon the data. For example, I used neutral responses rather than those which
can send positive signals. I asked open questions, and when asking prompt or follow-
up questions, used the words of interviewees. Being aware of how the interviewer‟s
actions were perceived was important. For example, notes were made during the
176
interviews, and after one participant mentioned something and did not think it had been
noted, he responded – “You've heard that before, you're not even writing it down”
(Adam). This demonstrated that even minor changes in my behaviour (from taking
notes to pausing in note taking) could send unintended signals to the interviewees. It is
possible that more subtle changes in my behaviour affected the content of the
interviews in ways not possible to identify.
The concept building that is part of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) meant
that additional data that was not part of the original design of the study were collected.
The initial set of interviews was conducted with mid-level academics who had been
teaching for at least two semesters, and who had worked for the university for two or
more years (for details about the sample, see section 3.4.2). Other interviewees were
selected from a list of academics who had recently attended the formal two-day
academic development program on university teaching. The second group were likely
to be different to the academics initially interviewed because a condition of
appointment for academics who are new to teaching and/or new to the university is
attendance at the formal development program selected for investigation in this study.
There is no similar requirement placed on mid-level academics, and they may not be
participating in any formal academic development. As expected, the second group were
different; they were less experienced as university teachers, had spent less time as
university employees, were appointed at academic levels lower than Level C-Senior
Lecturer (mid-level academic appointment) and some were hired as casual or sessional
tutors (for details, see section 3.4.3).
Little is known about informal discourse on teaching, and it is possible that
appointment levels and teaching experience would have influenced the nature of
academics‟ conversation, leading to differences between the conversations had by the
two groups of interviewees. Thus, it was important to find out about the conversation
of the second group of academics. While the nature, usefulness and influences of
conversation could not be verified using six interviews, verification is not the purpose
of grounded theory (Glaser, 1992). The interviews provided an indication of whether
the conversation of novice academics was similar to or substantially different to that of
the academics interviewed previously. Comments made by these six academics
reflected what the prior interviewees had said regarding conversation usefulness and
topics. The focus of conversation was on current issues with their teaching, or
177
„Managing their teaching context‟ (see section 5.3 for more detail). For the six
academics interviewed, the current challenges included those related to student issues,
incorporating practical examples, and assessment.
... if I did a particular lecture last year and someone else was doing it this
year, then we talked about how that went and which demos to use and what
problems the students had. (Andrew)
... before starting teaching here, I discussed with the colleagues how they
incorporate[d] laboratory practices into the whole unit of study and how to
develop new laboratory practices ... [and] how to cope with issues ... [and
how] to give the students more practical examples. (George)
I started to talk to my colleagues about the components of our own assessment
scheme that are great and working really well. But what else we'll need to do
to make sure we keep up-to-date and we meet the policy requirements.
(Melissa)
Although I faced minor challenges during the processes of data collection and analysis,
overall, the literature on grounded theory and conducting qualitative research provided
sufficient guidance. This meant that I was, for the most part, able to pre-empt and
prepare for likely issues, leading to a study that was designed and conducted using the
appropriate methodology, and importantly, able to answer the research questions.
8.2.3 Grounded theory outcome: Conversation as a function of
Commonality
One outcome of a grounded theory research project is a theory which accounts for
much of the relevant behaviour within the context from which the data was collected.
To explore the relevant behaviour in context it is important to select an appropriate
research question. This study addressed the question: what is it that stimulates informal
conversation about teaching and makes some academics desirable conversation
partners? A grounded theory-based analysis of the contextual influences yielded a total
of 15 factors, or subcategories, influencing informal conversation about teaching. To
organise the subcategories and understand the core of what was happening for
academics having informal conversations about teaching, the 15 subcategories were
grouped into four higher order categories of influence: Colleagues with whom
178
academics work; Processes for reward and recognition; Time and place; and Formal
management of communication.
Exploring the relationship between these four areas of influence and between these and
informal conversation led to the emergence of the core grounded theory category:
commonality. In a context which provides variable structural and collegial reward,
recognition and support for teaching, the degree of commonality between academics
influences their potential for an informal conversation about teaching.
To have useful, supportive and efficient conversation about teaching, academics seek
out colleagues with whom they share a common basis. Colleagues‟ degree of
professional commonality (such as a teaching philosophy), personal commonality (a
relationship, e.g. a friendship) and physical commonality (shared space and time) can
affect their informal conversation. In this study, academics described the importance of
having a common basis from which to start a conversation without spending time
explaining unnecessary detail, and gave the example of those colleagues with whom
they were working, or had worked previously as embodying this. Academics who have
worked together and co-taught on a course may have a relationship which features
aspects of each of the three areas of commonality: professional, personal and physical.
One academic summarised her teaching conversation thus: “I would say that the truth
of talking generally is you only talk to people that you consider a friend or you have
something in common with or who you are working with.” (Sarah)
The first area of commonality which worked to facilitate conversation is that of
professional attributes, and this might include sharing a teaching philosophy or valuing
student learning. The academics interviewed suggested that informal conversations
happened less with colleagues with whom they had little in common, and when it did
happen, it was less useful, as was demonstrated when academics were asked to learn
from those who had incompatible teaching philosophies. For example, several
academics were instructed to observe a lecture from an award-winning teacher and
discuss it with her to learn how to improve their teaching based on her approach. When
she explained the amount of preparation involved, the academics decided that her
approach was too time-consuming for them to adopt. They had only wanted to improve
their teaching to a level where their practice would not be seen as incompetent. The
colleague who they had observed and had spoken to believed that teaching was an
179
important part of being an academic and dedicating time to teaching was worthwhile;
the academics who had been sent to her did not. Despite sharing a disciplinary
background and working in the same academic department, the common ground that
mattered (a perception that teaching is worthwhile and a willingness to invest
substantial common time in improving teaching) was lacking.
The roles of connection and commonality between colleagues may be linked to the
intentions of informal conversation. To encourage academics to seek reassurance or
advice, the aim may be for their informal exchanges to be “mutually very beneficial as
well as supportive” (Patrick). Given that their context offers variable support for
teaching, academics may struggle to agree on a collective purpose with some
colleagues and choose their conversation partners based on their intended aim for a
particular aspect of their teaching. Academics described choosing to talk to certain
departmental colleagues and not others because it was pointless, as their purposes were
essentially incompatible. The colleague most capable of providing beneficial and
supportive assistance may be the person who has had experience with and best
understands the context, the individual academic and the sort of response that would be
appropriate. Thus, seeking out academics with whom they share a common context and
purpose is one of the ways that academics try to ensure their conversations are useful.
The informal conversation explored in this study occurred between departmental
colleagues, those who had an understanding of the contexts in which the teaching-
related issues arose. The advantages of the informal conversation about teaching
described by academics are that it can be succinct and focused (unlike some more
formal communication, such as committee meetings). Not every informal conversation
can involve a lengthy description of various teaching contexts, intended outcomes for
an activity, and unsuccessful past trials. A shared or at least understood context and
history may better equip certain colleagues to be able to not just give a useful, but also
a quick response after a brief explanation.
The second area that was relevant to conversation was personal commonality.
Although the topic of the conversation contributed to determining which colleagues
had relevant expertise, what is apparent from the results is that informal conversation
about teaching happens more with colleagues who shared not just professional but also
personal attributes, such as experiences, and interests. These academics were described
180
as “colleagues who are also friends” (Grace). In a context which provides inconsistent
support for teaching, in the absence of expectations and guidelines for open and non-
judgmental communication, such as those suggested by Palmer (1993), academics have
devised a way to attempt to ensure their conversations about teaching are supportive –
by speaking with their friends. Friendship is characterised by “mutual well-wishing and
well-doing” (White, 1990, p. 86) and these are important features in informal
conversation, from which academics seek reassurance and advice on how to manage
their teaching context.
The third aspect of commonality that triggered conversation was temporal and physical
proximity. A desire for conversation was linked to professional and personal
commonality, but academics described serendipity as often being the catalyst for an
informal conversation to actually occur. The most frequently mentioned example was
the informal conversation that was initiated when academics were in a common space,
such as a corridor or meeting room at the same time. There were a variety of reasons
why academics were physically near their colleagues, and events such as a
departmental morning tea, were able to create this access to colleagues. The nature of
informal conversation, particularly the emphasis on „how to deal with issues‟, may
mean that it is desirable to have colleagues available. An informal conversation in a
corridor can enable academics to manage their teaching collaboratively, rather than
independently, and may mean that issues are resolved quickly and appropriately
without academics having to wait until formal opportunities to approach colleagues
present themselves.
The grounded theory methodology (Glaser, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of this study
meant that after the unifying core category of „commonality‟ emerged from the data, it
was important to investigate the theoretical and empirical literature to find out how
ideas related to „commonality‟ had been considered previously. The concept of
„common ground‟ appears in studies of language such as semantics and pragmatics and
is understood to represent the total assumed shared knowledge between conversation
partners (Clark, 1996). It may include language, culture and the environment, and
reflects personal experiences (personal common ground) and community membership
(communal common ground) (Clark, 1996).
181
The type of conversation explored in this study was that between disciplinary
colleagues working in the same university department, which means that potentially
they had high levels of communal and personal common ground (Clark, 1996). The
three areas of commonality which emerged as significant in informal conversation
about teaching, are similar to the pragmatics concept of common ground. Thus, further
investigation of pragmatics and conversation principles were warranted to see what
these could offer to help to explain the nature of informal conversation about teaching.
As examined in this study, conversation requires the contributions of at least two
individuals, and a relevant principle is that people generally attempt to establish
collective purposes in conversation (Grice, 1975). The aim is for those having a
conversation to be invested in agreeing with and understanding each other so that they
can communicate effectively. In conversation, participants try to minimise their
collaborative effort – the work that both do from the initiation of each contribution
(such as a statement) to its mutual acceptance (Clark & Brennan, 1991; Clark &
Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986). Thus, conversation partners provide sufficient information to
each other to facilitate joint understanding with minimal exertion. As a principle for
successful conversation, common ground refers to the process of designing
conversation around using and increasing existing assumed shared information (Clark,
1996; Stalnaker, 1978, p. 84). Thus, commonality between academics may not only
foster conversation that is beneficial and supportive, but also efficient, commonality
allows academics to focus on the relevant issues without wasting their own or their
colleagues‟ time and effort.
Academics use commonality, or common ground, to initiate efficient and effective
conversation. As academics engage in conversation, they will accrue shared
knowledge, and improve the efficiency of their communication. Ongoing interaction is
likely to build common ground, and as relationships develop (linking back to the
connection between collegial friendship and informal conversation), and „common
ground‟ accumulates, the effectiveness of communication is improved (Berger, 2003;
Clark & Schober, 1992). In a workplace environment, those who spoke more
frequently have been shown to have shorter conversations and fewer formalities within
conversations (Whittaker, Frohlich & Daly-Jones, 1994) and „common ground‟ has
been suggested as a principle for encouraging efficient and effective workplace
communication (Coiera, 2000). Given that academics consider themselves time-poor
182
(Gillespie, Walsh, Winefield, Dua & Stough, 2001), and arguments and efforts have
been made to meet the needs of „time-poor‟ academics (Ferman, 2002; McDonald, et
al., 2002), it is likely that efficient informal conversation would be preferred and
sought after by academics. This may also help to explain why academics describe some
colleagues as friends – their conversation is less formal, shorter, and over time, they
have developed personal common ground.
In this study, those who had worked together for more than five years and had an
ongoing relationship with certain colleagues described their own and their colleagues‟
ideas around teaching as a „compromised‟ set of ideas which had been influenced by
their interaction. These might represent examples of how, when there was initially
sufficient common ground for an academic to connect with a colleague and initiate a
conversation, (and the conversation was useful, supportive and efficient), ongoing
interaction increased commonality over time, facilitating more conversation and a
relationship. This parallels findings in the work of Piller (2002), who has examined
conversations in bilingual couples. The private conversations of those couples revealed
conversational styles and content that emphasised similarities and minimised
differences (such as those that might be associated with diverse cultural and language
backgrounds), as part of constructing their relationship (Piller, 2002, p. 275).
Another principle which may be relevant when considering the implications of this
study is the homophily principle. The principle of homophily asserts that those who are
similar find it easier to communicate and so are more likely to interact, and to interact
more frequently (McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook, 2001). Lazarsfeld and Merton
(1954) suggested two types of homophily – status homophily (linked to demographic
characteristics), and value homophily (centred on attitudes and beliefs). The principle
of homophily has implications for the quality and quantity of interactions (McPherson
et al., 2001), and the relevance for this study might be that if academics are only having
conversation with those with whom they are most similar, that they may only develop
their teaching incrementally and within an accepted range of practices. This may be
one reason why academics described more conversations about managing teaching and
less about improving or evolving teaching. This reinforces the idea that academics may
need support to improve the quality and quantity of their informal conversation about
teaching, and also, that formal academic development can provide academics with
transformative ideas about teaching and opportunities for cross-disciplinary
183
communication in ways that informal departmental conversation can not (see section
8.3).
The results of this study are reflected in some literature supporting conversation and
commonality as being important for learning and development. For example,
Brookfield notes the importance of university teachers being provided with a
contextually-appropriate suggestion, “Talking to a colleagues about problems we have
in common and gaining their perspectives on these increases our chances of stumbling
across an interpretation that fits what is happening in a particular situation”
(Brookfield, 1995, p. 36). Examining informal learning, Waring and Bishop (2010)
refer to the role of shared experiences in resolving issues, “knowledge sharing is
framed by mutuality and inter-dependence ... to share collective experiences and find
common ways of addressing mutual problems” (Waring & Bishop, 2010, p. 338).
Grindstaff and Richmond (2008) suggest that sufficient similarity of problems and
processes can improve students‟ learning from discussion with peers. How this study
can contribute to academic development by building on existing ideas of how
academics learn to teach will be outlined in section 8.3.3.
The results of this study, supported by the pragmatics literature, show that
„commonality‟ may represent a strategy for academics to generate efficient and
effective informal conversation about teaching in a research-intensive context.
Academic developers and departmental leaders intending to use conversation to
support academics to learn about teaching could foster professional, personal and
physical commonality between academic colleagues, and some ways they could
achieve this are introduced in section 8.3.2.
This study adopted grounded theory methodology to investigate informal conversation
about teaching in university departments. In addition to considering the process,
limitations and outcomes of this grounded theory study, the credibility of the study
must be determined. Whether this grounded theory project was successful and credible
was determined by criteria, previously outlined by Glaser (1998) and summarised in
section 3.2.3. The four criteria were validity, workability, relevance and modifiability.
The criteria of validity and workability are met if the theory fits the context adequately
and can be used to interpret behaviour. The idea of commonality can be used to
interpret and even modify behaviour, indicating these criteria were met. This is also
184
linked to the third criterion of relevance, met by the applicability of the outcomes of the
thesis to professional development in universities (explored in section 8.3). The fourth
criterion, that the theory is modifiable, is an ongoing process, and has already been
partially met by the appearance and contribution of relevant ideas in existing literature.
The relevant ideas were used to develop the idea of commonality and conversation
which emerged in this study and also to inform strategies for supporting professional
development and informal learning.
8.3 Implications
8.3.1 Rethinking approaches to academic development
Traditionally, the development of university teachers has focused on formal programs
of academic development. Formal academic development can be problematic as it is
often centrally supported and taught, offering structured, generic content and group-
based learning, and encouraging or requiring attendance at a set time and place, with
little continuing support (Knight, 1998, p. 250). This contrasts with the characteristics
of informal conversation about teaching amongst academics: ongoing opportunities for
discipline-based and self-directed learning as particular individual requirements arise.
Informal conversation enables academics to set the agenda, so they can learn about
content and topics in which they have a need or an interest. It has been argued that the
content of academic development programs should not be determined by developers,
but rather, by individual academics, based on what is relevant in their workplace
contexts (McLean & McManus, 2009). Traditionally, to varying degrees, this has not
been the case – department leaders and academic developers manage formal academic
development. Although academics can choose how they participate in or engage with
an academic development session, their attendance at programs may be mandatory and
the content of those programs determined by the session facilitator, whether that is a
leader or developer. Autonomy has been linked to motivation and student learning
(Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & Ryan, 1991; Richardson, Abraham & Bond, 2012), and
academics have also expressed resistance to learning (Quinn, 2012) when their goals
are not self-determined (Ewing et al., 2008) or do not align with their own or their
departments‟ interests or values (Kahn, 2009; Knight & Trowler, 1999).
185
The usefulness of informal conversation that was identified in this study suggests two
possible routes for academic development. Formal academic development programs
could be redesigned to be more like informal conversation. This presents myriad
challenges, such as the potential workload for developers that would result from
providing tailored sessions for individuals on an as-needed basis. A more pragmatic
approach would be to determine how to facilitate connections between formal and
informal forms of learning about teaching, and how to generate informal conversation.
A broad aim would be to think about academic development holistically to improve the
relationships between various forms of learning about teaching and potentially, even
combine formal and informal forms of development. The example of a formal program
used in this study and informal conversation were seen as complementary forms of
learning by some academics, suggesting that it may be possible to connect the learning
of different teaching development activities.
The first focus for this section will be the more challenging aspect of considering how
formal academic development can be informed by this study‟s results about informal
conversation. The next focus will be reflecting on the complementarity of informal and
formal opportunities for learning about teaching in university contexts.
Informal conversation is useful for individual academics seeking reassurance and
management advice about specific teaching issues. It occurs largely at the discretion of
the academics involved. The conversation initiator is able to choose whom to talk to,
determine the topics of conversation, and often, the location, timing and duration of an
informal conversation. It may be this level of autonomy (not always present in
academic development), which contributes to informal conversation being perceived as
an effective and efficient way for academics to learn about teaching. If academics are
allowed to be autonomous in choosing when, where and in what ways they learn about
and develop their teaching, it is likely that they will seek out opportunities they deem
relevant and necessary, and this will likely foster a perception that any opportunities
attended were useful. A similar outcome was found by Byrne et al. (2010) who found
that when participation in and goals for a peer development program were self-
determined, academics deemed it to be worthwhile. This is consistent with the
perception that a successful development initiative is one which is seen as being
embedded in the essentials of academic work (Boud, 1999; Knight, 1998), and also that
186
enabling academics to negotiate their learning is an effective way for them to learn
during an academic development program (Stefani & Elton, 2002).
In addition to a personal connection, what emerged as a key ingredient in this study
was common ground between colleagues. Colleagues who are teaching in the same
department understand and have experience with each other‟s context, so the advice
they provide will be more likely to suit their departmental agenda, their expectations
and their needs than the advice of those who do not work in that context. These results
support Boud‟s (1999) position that an informal exchange of ideas within departments
was more significant for learning than formal development initiatives, and Blackwell
and Blackmore‟s (2003) suggestion that situated academic development was more
likely to affect practice. Kwakman (2003) argues that academic development is,
appropriately, increasingly being situated in the workplace, but that is only the first
step: it needs to be accompanied by the autonomy that is part of informal conversation.
Central academic development programs may work to build a language around
teaching and learning, creating a common vocabulary for participants to talk about
teaching without using discipline-specific terms. This may help academics to discuss
teaching strategies with those from disciplines other than their own and this in turn
assists with the cross-fertilisation of teaching development ideas – what is common in
Department A may be innovative in Department B. One of the ways that this was
demonstrated in this study, was by an interviewed participant from the formal program
using informal conversation with other program participants to make sense of the
formal program content. This reflects work done with new schoolteachers, where
communicating with other new teachers during a formal course was seen to be helpful
while the formal course was not (Williams, 2003). For new teachers, informal
conversation to share experiences of teaching can be the most useful aspect of
preparation for teaching programs (Williams, Prestage & Bedward, 2001). In their
review of the literature, Niewolny and Wilson (2009) advocate for adult education to
incorporate aspects of „social learning‟ and not just focus on the individual. Findings
from a survey demonstrated that tutors and academics would have liked more
opportunities for social learning (Knight et al., 2006). The nature of informal
conversation means that it is inherently social – and so it could represent one way of
accommodating Niewolny and Wilson‟s (2009) suggestion.
187
The results of this study suggest that personal attributes of academics are related to
their professional aspects of teaching, for example, in terms of seeking reassurance
from colleagues about teaching and using personal connections to initiate conversation.
These results echo notions in the literature that personal and professional
characteristics are connected and that professional development programs should
accommodate individual needs and feature more of a personal approach (Schuck et al.,
2008). One of the challenges for those seeking to apply the outcomes of this study to
academic development, is that aspects significant to the academics interviewed; such as
friendships, connections and commonality, are difficult to generate and problematic to
measure. Clegg and Rowland (2010) described „kindness‟ in academia as presenting a
similar issue, as it „cannot be regulated and prescribed‟ (p. 733). They used quotes
from students to demonstrate that tutors‟ interaction, rapport, and respect and concern
for student well-being were important for supporting learning (Clegg & Rowland,
2010). These attributes are similar to those described in this study as important for a
collegial friend, and may link to Blackie, Case and Jawitz‟s (2010) suggestion to
improve the experience and impact of academic development by focusing on
supporting the learning of the whole person. Blackie et al. (2010) refer to Carl Rogers‟
(1961, p. 282) legacy of congruence, unconditional positive regard and empathy.
Hoekstra and Korthagen (2011) found that teachers‟ professional actions were linked to
their personal lives and argued for professional and personal to be integrated in the
professional development of teachers. In her review of the literature around teacher
educators, Grossman (1992), reminds us that we need to consider how we prepare and
support teachers to be ethical, critical and innovative, to create teachers who can
challenge (rather than reproduce) existing practices and models.
Building on the preceding ideas for how formal programs can be informed by informal
conversation, the subsequent paragraphs in the current section will outline how
informal conversation and formal academic development programs are complementary
forms of learning about teaching. Following this, from section 8.3.2 onwards, specific
strategies are provided for those working in universities who seek to create useful
informal conversation and enrich the connections between the academics‟ experience
of and ideas from informal conversation and formal academic development.
Interviewees in this study described knocking on a colleagues‟ door, or a serendipitous
meeting as being different to a structured academic development initiative, or central or
188
departmental meeting. This difference could mean that informal conversations have the
potential to complement academic development workshops and formal communication
in several ways. For example, academics like Adam (an interviewee, see sections 5.6
and 6.5.2) may experience informal conversations as important for exploring
philosophies of teaching, and formal meetings as the place to develop strategic plans or
critique initiatives. Facilitating connections between these otherwise separate
interactions may extend the learning within each and lead to alignments between
departmental plans and individual philosophies, or individual philosophies informing
strategic initiatives. Several academics described seeking advice from their discipline
colleagues because their colleagues had experience or knew „what worked‟. This is not
something that is usually addressed at discipline level in formal academic development.
For those academics, and potentially, others, an empirical rationale suggested by a
disciplinary colleague may be preferable to a theory-based approach provided in a
formal course by an academic developer (who teaches in academic development, and
not the academic‟s discipline). The complementary nature of informal conversation and
formal academic development has not been previously explored sufficiently. One idea
that could connect informal conversation about teaching and formal academic
development might be the integrated approach proposed by Kreber and Castelden
(2009), where they advised academics to attend generic academic development
initiatives in disciplinary groups. In this case, the time needed for the informal
conversation would need to be built into the formal program, and supported within
departments after the program had been completed.
The topics addressed by academics during informal conversation and the formal
program about teaching were similar, and reflect the nature of university teaching,
where assessment and students create issues and these issues trigger communication.
However, the way they were described differs between these forms of teaching
development. A formal program might be perceived as about theory or principles, and
informal conversation as about practical strategies – each serves a different function
and they can be complementary. In this study, each form of learning was shown to be
useful in diverse ways, but they may be more effective in some areas than others. For
example, individual management and reassurance of teachers can be provided by
colleagues in context, such as in a discipline or department. In a generic, central
189
program, improvement and evolution of teaching could be a more appropriate focus for
academic developers.
Formal academic development may not be able to fully incorporate individual learning
needs in the same way as an informal conversation. It may be easier to achieve a
personal development approach in an informal conversation between two individuals
than in a formal meeting or formal academic development course. Academics‟
descriptions of conversations as being useful for reassurance and venting highlight the
importance of the role of empathy and support of the person in academic development.
Academics‟ preference for conversation partners who are “friends as well as
colleagues” (Patrick) may also reflect their desire for learning which includes
unconditional positive regard. Clegg and Rowland (2010) note a desire to explore how
organisations increase the possibility of kindness occurring. A similar approach to this
was taken in this study, where the emphasis was not on determining how to force
friendships and informal conversation between academics, but investigating how
departmental and university contexts are able to encourage, trigger or hinder informal
conversation and connections between colleagues. Participating in mentoring or peer
observation initiatives may present opportunities to create personal experiences and
connections between colleagues, but an element of autonomy must be maintained.
One argument against the usefulness of informal learning is that it may not provide
sufficient awareness for teachers to change their approaches to teaching (Hoekstra &
Korthagen, 2011, p. 89). Minor changes to aspects of practice that are based on the
advice or experience of a colleague shared during informal conversation may be easy
to achieve and not require the level of awareness that has been suggested. Importantly,
however, informal conversation can be a step towards awareness. A minor change in
practice may lead to increased confidence in teaching, an interest in teaching, or a
critical reflection on approaches to teaching. Recognising this interest and having
formal or semi-formal academic strategies which co-exist with and connect to, informal
conversation, may help to encourage the level of awareness Hoekstra and Korthagen
(2011) suggested was desirable to change teachers‟ approaches to teaching.
If academic development is to support aspects of informal learning such as informal
conversation about teaching, it may be helpful to build on existing understandings of
learning in the literature on workplace and professional learning. Experiential learning
190
is one model which could provide such insight. While observing the experiential
learning of students in three different university settings, Hickcox (2002) described
several benefits of the resulting „more personal‟ approach. These were allowing room
for student reactions, such as emotions and anxiety around learning, student-teacher
interaction, a change in role from teaching to teaching-for-learning, and an emphasis on
individual student needs (Hickcox, 2002). These benefits are similar to the usefulness
of informal conversation with colleagues described by academics in this study in terms
of it being relevant, individual and including practical advice with reassurance.
Experiential learning may be one idea from which to consider why informal
conversation between colleagues is an effective way for individual academics to learn
about and develop their teaching. The nature of informal conversation reflects the
processes of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) – academics have a concrete teaching
experience and then, through conversation with colleagues, are able to reflect on and
understand the experience. The final stage occurs when having had an informal
conversation, the academic‟s learning can be applied in a subsequent teaching activity.
The emphasis on learning and non-formal opportunities inherent in experiential
learning also appears in continuing professional development, another perspective
which could inform academic development (Clegg, 2003a).
For the academics interviewed, informal conversation about teaching was useful
because it allows them to be autonomous in their learning; this means it has the
advantage of enabling them to focus on individual needs in terms of content and
timing. This leads to academics drawing on colleagues‟ expertise to seek support and
advice to resolve teaching-related issues in contextually-appropriate ways.
This section was designed to focus on a reconsideration of what is understood by the
term „academic development‟, with a view to including more opportunities for learning
that incorporate the advantages proffered by informal conversation. This leads into
ideas for strategies that can be used to support the development of academics, which
are outlined in the subsequent sections 8.3.3, 8.3.4 and 8.3.5. These sections will be
most useful for those working in universities with an interest in embedding aspects of
informal learning into formal programs for academic development.
191
8.3.2 Introduction to this study’s implications for three groups
The results chapters (4, 5, 6 and 7) focused on the nature of informal conversation and
the ways context influences informal conversation. The four categories of influence:
Colleagues with whom academics work; Processes for reward and recognition; Time
and place; and Formal management of communication, and their 15 subcategories were
found to trigger, encourage or hinder informal conversation about teaching within this
context. The following sections explore how these 15 subcategories and the idea of
commonality could be used to stimulate informal conversation about teaching, as a
complement to formal academic development.
The academics interviewed described having lots of „reassuring‟ and „managing‟
conversations but some did not have time for deeper „evolve‟ level conversations.
Encouraging academics to focus on their teaching, and creating the perception that this
is a worthwhile thing to do, may encourage more conversation. It may also lead to
more conversation that focuses on improving and evolving teaching, not just
conversation intended to reassure academics about teaching and to help them manage
their teaching.
The following suggestions directly relate to facilitating informal conversation about
teaching or increasing the effectiveness of informal conversation for learning about
teaching. Some advice relates to recognising teaching or promoting quality teaching
and through this, encouraging conversation. Other literature has looked at enhancing
the quality of university teaching (e.g., Biggs & Tang, 2007; Chalmers, 2007; 2011;
Gibbs, 1995; Ramsden & Martin, 1996; Roxå et al., 2008) and so this will not be
covered in detail here. The focus in the following sections is on practical, achievable
strategies that build on existing systems and processes. The ideas will not be applicable
in all contexts and they will likely already be in place in some departments. The advice
is described from the perspectives of each of three groups in universities who have a
special interest in academic development: academic developers, department leaders and
individual academics.
8.3.3 Academic developers
Academic developers are university staff whose work is based on supporting the
professional development of academics. In Australia, this is focused on development in
teaching and learning, and more broadly, scholarly teaching, and research into
192
teaching. Academic developers often conduct research into higher education and the
scholarship of teaching and learning. They may have previous employment experience
as faculty-based academics or be appointed jointly to a faculty and a central unit, or
discipline-specific teaching and learning unit. In addition to supporting the learning of
individuals and groups of academics, they work through committees and contribute to
developing university policy (see section 2.1; Ling & CADAD, 2009). Ideas that
demonstrate how academic developers can design and support academic development
strategies that enable commonality to be identified and useful conversation to occur are
provided below.
1) Promote and support informal conversation during and following formal academic
development programs to build on program content:
Introduce participants to the potential of informal conversation, for example, by
using this study‟s results to outline how mid-level academics have found it to be
useful in at least five ways to discuss a variety of teaching-related topics. Assist
academics to recognise the importance of informal, reactive and collaborative
learning as identified in the literature (e.g., Williams, 2003), because having
academics understand that “the quality of communication and relationships in
daily practice is more significant than centrally determined induction
arrangements” facilitates the exchange of departmental knowledge and practice
(Trowler & Knight, 2000, p. 37).
Create cross-disciplinary connections by establishing common ideas and
language around teaching. Outline some of the similarities in teaching across
disciplines; one of the advantages of informal conversation with departmental
colleagues is having a shared understanding based on commonality of teaching
ideology and departmental context. Develop a common vocabulary amongst
participants to bridge the barriers to communicating across disciplines (e.g.
from having different epistemologies, Neumann et al., 2002), and reduce
misunderstanding during cross-disciplinary group work.
Help participants to build relationships with other academics based on their
shared experiences as novice teachers or encourage them to find non-academic
shared interests with other participants. This may be more important for some
participants than others, and academic developers should prepare novice
193
academics for the possibility that in some faculties, their colleagues and even
the curriculum framework may not support the language or ideas acquired
during the formal program and thus, they may find it difficult to communicate
with disciplinary colleagues about teaching.
Identify exemplars of departments and leaders that communicate well and invite
leaders or representatives from these departments to be part of formal courses.
Staff working for central academic development units may be aware of
academics who have received awards or grants for teaching, or academics who
have previously attended formal academic development programs in university
teaching. Participants can meet leaders, and if they find commonalities, talk
with them about teaching. This can connect staff new to the university, with
expert or experienced colleagues who may not necessarily self-nominate as
leaders or seek out novices to mentor. A less direct approach, using the idea of
commonality, may mean leading those academics seeking advice to colleagues
in the same or similar discipline or department or those who share their cohorts
of students.
2) Design and support creative, inclusive and flexible (i.e. semi-formal) academic
development programs that complement informal conversation and formal
academic development:
Provide support for semi-formal initiatives situated within departments,
including through contributions to the design and implementation of peer
observation and mentoring initiatives, and the development of tailored
workshops to meet departmental aims regarding teaching. Programs should
include resources and examples of what works, that academics can access „as-
needed‟, such as websites designed for unit coordinators (Roberts, Butcher &
Brooker, 2011), as this study showed that academics found informal
conversation to be useful for sharing what works. These resources should
include supportive aspects, such as insights from experienced colleagues with
acknowledgement that they still seek reassurance regarding their teaching.
Support mid-level academics to identify their own teaching-related issues and
seek advice from the appropriate discipline-based colleagues. Offer flexible
academic development programs where academics have the option to select and
194
attend several sessions from a list based on those areas they identify as relevant
for their teaching development. This may be a way to achieve the autonomy
identified as a significant aspect of learning from informal conversation. This
may be facilitated by adapting features from academic development programs
that allow academics to determine their content, methods and assessment and
support experiential, problem-based, and research-based learning (for an
example program, see Stefani & Elton, 2002).
8.3.4 Department leaders
Department leaders are academics who have been appointed to managerial and
leadership roles. They might be referred to as a Dean or a Head of Department,
Discipline or School. They are usually responsible for managing academic staff and
overseeing the direction of their units. Leaders also include senior academics, who
have worked in the department for an extended period of time, have a reputation for
excellence, and whose advice is sought after in their areas of expertise. Their
credibility may have been established through significant career achievements. Rowley
(1997) provides the following achievements as examples: journal publications,
conference presentations and the development of others. Increasingly, leaders are also
seen to be coming from all sectors of the hierarchy – for example, junior academics
with teaching grants. Some of the ways for department leaders to foster useful informal
conversation are:
1) Allocate offices and design spaces to build on existing commonalities and create
new connections amongst academics:
Maximise the proximity of offices of those who are like-minded, who work
together and who are likely to share student cohorts.
Allocate new or inexperienced academics to offices near those of expert or
experienced colleagues to increase the likelihood they serendipitously meet and
converse.
Allow for a coffee-making space or similar common room to help to trigger
conversation about teaching – academics found it useful to chat over morning
tea or lunch.
195
Inform the design of new spaces or refurbishment of existing spaces with
research and reviews of „learning spaces‟ (JISC, 2006; Thomas, 2010). Just as
learning hubs provide spaces for social and informal learning amongst
university students (Ellis, 2011), similar opportunities can be created for
academic staff. Learning spaces have been conceived of as a “change agent”
(Oblinger, 2006, p. 1.1). Kornberger and Clegg (2003) introduced Foucault‟s
(1986) concept of „heterotopias‟ to encourage organisations to provide spaces
which challenge existing and create new ideas and discourses and even
identities. Funded projects such as the Learning Spaces Project (Souter, Riddle,
Sellers & Keppell, 2011) offer advice for the design and implementation of
spaces that facilitate student learning; and it is likely that these models could be
usefully applied to spaces for staff, to facilitate opportunities for learning
through informal conversation. Furthermore, design spaces do not necessarily
need to allocate separate spaces for staff and student purposes because flexibly
designed, social and communal spaces can be used by staff and students (JISC,
2006).
2) Model and encourage behaviour that fosters a climate that is supportive of quality
teaching:
Volunteer to have your teaching observed by peers, share your frustrating and
inspiring moments as a teacher, and embody principles such as valuing good
teaching and enhancing teamwork (Ramsden, 1998a). Develop a teaching
philosophy and encourage others to develop and share theirs, but be careful of
creating a perception that there exists a „correct‟ philosophy and that „incorrect‟
philosophies will not be supported.
Be present and available, and adopt an open door policy, which may also
stimulate others to do so. Encourage all academics within your discipline or
department group to be present in their office on campus for at least one
common day each week, and reward academics who make the effort to be
available. When academics desire a conversation about teaching, they will then
have access to their colleagues.
Monitor informal exchanges and counter negative comments about teaching.
Understand that comments made by leaders carry additional significance and
ensure that you do not say or support negative statements such as, “if you‟re a
196
good teacher, that is the way to ruin your academic career” (Joshua). Waring
and Bishop (2010) advocate for leaders to participate in „backstage talk‟, and
not regulate conversation or instruct people to communicate. In some
departments, it may be more appropriate for leaders to not even participate in
talk, but to encourage conversation in other ways and let academics‟ autonomy
take over in actual conversations. Forcing academics to engage in informal
conversation is unlikely to be as useful as conversation they seek themselves
and having leaders participate in informal conversation may reduce some
academics‟ willingness to raise their issues.
Promote excellent and effective teachers and examples of teaching through
emails or at formal or semi-formal meetings, for example, publicly congratulate
recipients of teaching awards. This will encourage academics to recognise and
value quality teaching, and could contribute to establishing a climate which
supports teaching, and is more conducive to informal conversation.
3) Focus on what can be done to create commonality and connections between
department colleagues so they will be more inclined to discuss teaching informally:
Invite and expect regular communication (which might include informal
conversation) around teaching, and supply guidelines to ensure the conversation
is open and non-judgemental (Palmer, 1993). Support a mentoring program, to
create the sorts of relationships or communities of practice (Lave & Wenger,
1991; Wenger, 2000) that would facilitate the informal conversations described
as useful by the academics in this study. Build on existing guidelines, such as
the good practice guide for building communities of practice (Rodger & Aplin,
2011) from a funded project (Rodger, 2011). Draw on examples of guidelines
and policies from other universities, such as Griffith University‟s Community
of Practice guidelines (Griffith University, 2006) and Promotion of Academic
Staff Policy (Griffith University, 2011), and Queensland University of
Technology‟s foci on key groups of project managers (Queensland University
of Technology, 2010) and lecturers teaching in first year units (Quinn, Smith,
Duncan, Clarke & Nelson, 2009).
Allow time and provide guidelines and support for, handover of courses and
teaching activities between those who are currently teaching on a unit of study
197
and those who have previously taught on the same or similar units of study, as
these will likely trigger conversation and encourage the development of
collegial relationships. Support processes for work shadowing or mentoring, as
these can be effective “forms of induction and socialisation” for those who
work in different roles or academics who are new to the department (Trowler &
Knight, 2000, p. 39).
Establish and manage formal meetings about teaching and dedicate time within
meetings to informal conversation. Formal workshops or development
programs are likely to serve a purpose beyond their allotted time and agenda.
They can show academics that teaching is worthwhile, and that it can benefit
from ongoing development. If these workshops and meetings are initiated or
supported by department leaders, this serves to strengthen the idea that
dedicating time to communicating about teaching is useful. Having time within
formal meetings for informal conversation can encourage academics to raise
teaching-related concerns as needed.
Trial semi-formal meeting times or a common lunch, morning or afternoon tea
or even breakfast if that is the only common time available – these could be
used for conversation about teaching if desired. The frequency and style of such
events should reflect the culture of the discipline, department size, and available
space and budget. Recruit someone to encourage attendance via email, a
meeting request or door knocking and provide sufficient notice of the event and
choose times when most staff are available. Allocate budget to purchase coffee,
tea and biscuits, or nominate an individual to be responsible for establishing a
user funding system. Gathering colleagues together puts less responsibility on
individuals to seek out other academics and may mean that issues related to
teaching are addressed quickly in the semi-formal meeting, based on collective
experience, rather than not at all or in invisible, secret exchanges.
8.3.5 Individual academics
Academics work in university departments and faculties as researchers and teachers.
Although they are sometimes experienced and expert teachers, the advice below
regarding how to generate conversation may be especially useful for those who are
novice teachers, recently appointed to a new role or teaching in an unfamiliar context.
198
Informal conversation is of use to individual academics because it can be self-directed,
context specific, tailored to individual needs, and occur just in time. The following
section is designed to offer advice to individuals to improve the quality and quantity of
their informal conversation.
1) Make your availability known, and then be available to participate in events and
activities:
Communicate your office hours so other academics know when you are likely
to be on campus, and in your office, and try to find out when colleagues will be
present and available, for example by sharing calendars electronically.
„Grab‟ a colleague when you see them in a corridor and ask then for advice
rather than wait for a formal designated time. Formal meetings may not occur,
or may not be appropriate places to raise some teaching-related issues. Making
the most of proximity and serendipity in informal conversations about teaching
is important because an interest in teaching may be perceived by colleagues as a
„personal‟ and not a professional interest (and consequently, worthy merely of
the time appropriate for any personal interest).
Attend departmental events, including those which may appear social rather
than informative, such as morning teas or staff birthday celebrations. This will
help to identify those colleagues who have relevant expertise or interests in
teaching and those who are approachable (useful for determining who would be
a desirable conversation partner).
Attend formal meetings, as these can trigger informal conversation before,
during and after their assigned time and on topics beyond the set agenda. Where
possible, allow enough time between meetings for opportunities to arrive early
or stay after the meeting, or on the return journey to the office, to participate in
or initiate informal conversation. Ask one or two colleagues to meet you 10
minutes before the meeting or to walk back afterwards together in order to
discuss a specific topic.
2) Make the most of formal academic development initiatives:
Determine your participation in formal initiatives involving other staff, such as
development programs, not solely in terms of the program content, but for their
199
role in potentially creating connections between yourself and colleagues, and in
assisting you to dedicate time to developing and improving your teaching
(Byrne et al., 2010).
Build on guidelines available in peer observation programs or other
development initiatives to make the learning from the program more relevant
for your own practice (for example, Ewing et al., 2008). Although these
initiatives will likely be facilitated by your departmental leaders, you can take
responsibility for setting your own goals, organising times to meet mentors or
colleagues, or even attempting to select colleagues to work with based on those
with whom you have much in common.
3) Seek commonality with colleagues as soon as possible to make informal
conversation effective:
Tap into existing friendships, networks or communities of practice (Lave &
Wenger, 1991) and find colleagues with similar personalities and interests to
your own, to establish rapport. Develop mutually beneficial relationships by
helping others, so that when you desire advice, colleagues are indebted to you.
Be aware of your own strengths and weaknesses, for example, as a novice
academic, you could serve a reassuring role before contributing to
conversations about managing or improving teaching.
Seek conversations with those with whom you have the most in common. It is
important to select an appropriate colleague for subsequent informal
conversation about teaching to be useful, and this may not always be those
closest to you in terms of discipline content, but those with whom you share a
teaching philosophy. To identify those with similar teaching philosophies, it
may be necessary to consider your own, by reflecting on why you adopt certain
teaching practices and not others, or why you prefer some teaching activities to
others.
Frame a problem and summarise or prioritise issues before approaching a
colleague, to minimise misunderstanding and the need for clarification. A
succinct explanation will mean that more time is available for targeted advice
that will contribute to ensuring that the conversation is useful. Framing the
200
problem will also help to identify which colleagues will have the relevant
expertise, or determine who will be able to direct you to that relevant colleague.
Identify yourself as new to teaching, or new to a subject, to inspire experienced
colleagues to share their expertise. Start an informal conversation with why you
have sought your colleague‟s advice, such as „because others recognised that
they were an excellent teacher‟, to trigger their altruism.
These three groups: academic developers, department leaders and individual
academics, are those who are most able to trigger, encourage or hinder informal
conversation. Implementing some or all of the suggested strategies is likely to enhance
the amount of informal learning through conversation and lead to more conversation
that focuses on enhancing teaching, not just managing teaching. Improving the quality
and quantity of informal conversation will serve to strengthen its role as a complement
to existing opportunities for academics to learn about teaching, such as formal
communication and formal academic development.
201
Chapter 9. Conclusion
9.1 Summary
This study investigated academics‟ experience of informal conversation about teaching
with their departmental colleagues. Thirty academic staff working in different
departments at an Australian research-intensive university were interviewed and the
transcripts were analysed using grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This
analysis contributes to our understanding of the potential of informal conversation to
support academics in learning about teaching.
The original area of focus was on the nature of informal conversation about teaching,
specifically the topics discussed (Chapter 4) and the usefulness (Chapter 5) of informal
conversation about teaching. Subsequent foci were the role of context in influencing
informal conversation (Chapter 6) and the relations between an example of a formal
academic development program and informal conversation about teaching (Chapter 7).
Data from the interviews suggested that there were various forms of learning
happening during informal conversation that are likely to enhance both teaching and
learning. Academics described conversing about student issues and quality; assessment
design and marking; curriculum delivery and content; and ways of evaluating teaching.
Informal conversation with departmental colleagues appeared to be particularly useful
for topics that raised potentially confidential or discipline specific issues. Within the
broad category of usefulness, five subcategories were identified; academics have
informal conversations to Vent about teaching-related issues, to Reassure themselves
about their teaching, to Manage their teaching context, to Improve their teaching and
student learning and to Evolve their teaching, thinking and practice.
The majority of informal conversation focused on issues resulting from learning how to
manage teaching. This was most commonly phrased as „how to‟, for example, how to
deliver content, and how to deal with difficult students. In addition to illustrating the
most pressing challenges faced by academics at the time, informal conversation also
likely reflects what academics can change about their teaching practice, and the areas
in which the input of colleagues could be utilised. There were two distinct approaches,
which might be described as either solving or preventing teaching-related issues.
202
The academics that were interviewed described four areas of their context: Colleagues
with whom they work; Processes for reward and recognition; Time and place; and
Formal management of communication, as influencing their informal conversation
about teaching. In a context where teaching and research compete for academics‟ time
and colleagues have incompatible teaching philosophies, it may be challenging to
determine whether, and with whom, to have an informal conversation about teaching.
As it is likely that academics intend to use informal conversation to achieve their
purpose efficiently and effectively, and not waste their own or their colleagues‟ time,
how they chose conversation partners was of interest. The degree of commonality
between academics was discovered to affect the potential for an informal conversation
about teaching, where the greater the commonality, the greater the quantity and quality
of informal conversation about teaching.
One reason for academics to seek informal conversation with like colleagues is because
conversation is more useful if conversation partners are able to provide appropriate
responses to issues raised during the conversation. An appropriate response is likely to
be reassurance about an issue and/or an idea or strategy that an academic can and
would implement, and preferably, has been implemented previously. Essentially, an
informal conversation is a useful way to learn about teaching because academics can
discover what works and what their colleagues would do, within their research-
intensive context, which may not offer consistent support for teaching.
The relationship between informal conversation and one form of academic
development (an introductory program for novice university teachers), was explored,
and described in Chapter 7. The disconnect between these that was experienced by
some academics presents academic developers with the challenge of creating links
between different forms of development. Some suggestions for how to connect discrete
forms of learning were provided in section 8.3. Informal conversation could be used to
build on the academic development curriculum content provided by universities or
departments (which might include unit of study outlines and learning outcomes) and by
helping academics to find out how to deal with issues, evaluate their teaching, and
uncover the standard practices of colleagues.
203
9.2 Further research
One of the key features of grounded theory is that explanatory variables must emerge
from the data and cannot become part of a theory simply because a researcher believes
that they should be included (Glaser, 1978; 1992). Variables which may have been
included if a different methodology had been used in this study are academics‟
discipline, department, age, career stage and gender. There has been substantial
research investigating the impact of gender and age on communication broadly, and on
the differences and similarities across academic disciplines. Although the design of this
study did not allow for cross-department or disciplinary comparisons, the sample of
academics represented a variety of disciplines and it was thought they may have
referred to their discipline background in reference to teaching and conversation about
teaching. Further research could explore whether in disciplines where there is an
emphasis on discussion in their curriculum content or delivery, academics are more
likely to find informal conversation a useful way of learning, and whether strategies to
foster informal conversation can work in disciplines where discussion is less of a
feature in their teaching.
For example, the next quote that for this academic, his discipline and approach to
teaching encourage conversation inside the classroom (with students) and in corridors
(with colleagues).
We teach humanities kinds of things, ethics … So we have, in our classes but
also with the colleagues in [our discipline] outside, pretty much a constant
conversation about what‟s going on – that's maybe the easy part of teaching.
We are about conversations, we are about discussion. I would find it very hard
to teach in [a pure hard discipline], for example, since after all what your
opinions are about [that discipline] don't really matter, it is the way it is. I
wouldn't know how to teach it. So our position definitely brings with it a very
specific approach which encourages us to talk about teaching and experiences
within the process [of teaching]. (Jon)
It may also be interesting to explore whether gender and age influence patterns of
informal conversation within departments. Using a different methodology, like
ethnography, may mean the inclusion of another method, such as observations, which
could provide more detail on individual teachers and would rely less on the self-report
204
measure of interviews used here. This could contribute to our understanding of the
nature of informal conversation and possible departmental variety or specificity.
Based on this study, institutions could enhance academic development by supporting
semi-formal, structured activities but also allowing academics some control over their
own learning within the activities. Further investigation into informal conversation and
its usefulness for learning, could examine whether there could be greater inclusion of
peer review or benchmarking type processes in informal settings, perhaps across
contexts identified as excellent (Gibbs et al., 2009) or supportive (Roxå & Mårtensson,
2009).
Much of the literature associated with academic development has focused broadly on
the learning of new teachers, and how the learning of novices differs to the learning of
experts. This study is unusual in that it focused on mid-level academics and was able to
demonstrate that those who are experienced teachers still require support to learn how
to teach, and not just in terms of managing and improving, but also reassurance about
their teaching. This may explain why some mid-level academics resist development
initiatives which aim to improve their teaching and evolve their thinking – they may
prefer opportunities for development which begin with or at least include aspects of
reassurance. There could be more of a focus in future research on those who are
considered mid-level and expert academics, specifically on how they learn how to
teach and the sorts of development opportunities they would find useful.
In this study, the interview questions did not directly address email or other computer
or technology-assisted communication, and so it appears only where participants
described it, unprompted. In addition to email, many other modes of communication
were not covered in this study, such as social network sites, which provide informal,
synchronous options for learning through a mode which shares some of the advantages
of informal conversation. Features of these sites that might be utilised for informal
learning are „instant notifications‟ that inform academics that their colleagues have
communicated with them or provided them with a useful resource, and „updates‟ that
indicate when their colleagues are online and available for communication (Bledsoe &
Pilgrim, 2011; Shiu, Fong & Lam, 2010). These represent potential learning
opportunities and further research could look into how these complement existing
formal and informal face-to-face communication about teaching.
205
9.3 Contribution
In an institutional or departmental context, there are multiple opportunities for
communicating about teaching, and this study examined one type of communication –
informal conversation. The study begins to help us understand the nature of informal
conversation about teaching between academic colleagues. Academics who initiate
conversation are able to choose with whom to speak, determine the topics of
conversation, and often the location and time of a conversation. This leads to
academics learning how to manage teaching-related issues on as-needed basis, in a
personal, practical, disciplinary and department-specific way through informal
conversation.
Informal conversation is different to formal communication and formal academic
development, and therefore a useful complement to existing opportunities for
academics to learn about teaching. This thesis did not seek to critique existing formal
academic development, nor suggest informal conversation could replace formal
communication, such as committee meetings. However, academics are able to learn
about teaching through informal conversation, and for some issues, and even
individuals, it may be a more appropriate means for learning about teaching than
formal academic development. Thus, we might reconsider what is encompassed by the
term, „academic development‟, to include more informal learning opportunities, such
as corridor conversation between departmental colleagues.
The results of this study demonstrate that informal conversation is useful (and by its
nature, neither resource nor time intensive), so generating greater informal
conversation could become part of a strategy for efficiently maintaining and improving
the standard of teaching in a way that academics find useful. To facilitate informal
conversation about teaching, departmental leaders and academic developers should
work to provide a context where informal conversation is encouraged and contribute to
the development of mutually supportive and beneficial relationships between
academics that reinforce existing connections and create new commonalities.
206
Reference List
Åkerlind, G. S. (2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher – Variation in
meaning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 375-390. doi:
10.1080/0307507032000122242
Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Academic growth and development: How do university
academics experience it? Higher Education, 50(1), 1-32. doi: 10.1007/s10734-
004-6345-1
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ashwin, P. (2011). How often are theories developed through empirical research into
higher education? Studies in Higher Education, iFirst article. doi:
10.1080/03075079.2011.557426
Austin, J. E. (1996). Institutional and departmental cultures: The relationship between
teaching and research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 90, 57-66.
doi: 10.1002/ir.37019969009
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bath, D., & Smith, C. (2004). Academic developers: An academic tribe claiming their
territory in higher education. International Journal for Academic Development,
9(1), 9-27. doi: 10.1080/1360144042000296035
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the
cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, UK: University Press.
Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2008). The benefits of peer observation of teaching for
tutor development. Higher Education, 55(6), 735-752. doi: 10.1007/s10734-
007-9093-1
Berger, C. R. (2003). Message production skill in social interaction. In J. O. Greene &
B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills
(pp. 257-290). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.).
Maidenhead, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203. doi: 10.1037/h0034701
207
Birnbaum, R. (1989). The cybernetic institution: Toward an integration of governance
theories. Higher Education, 18(2), 239-253. doi: 10.1007/BF00139183
Blackie, M. A. L., Case, J. M., & Jawitz, J. (2010). Student-centredness: The link
between transforming students and transforming ourselves. Teaching in Higher
Education, 15(6), 637-646. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2010.491910
Blackmore, P., & Blackwell, R. (2006). Strategic leadership in academic development.
Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 373-387. doi:
10.1080/03075070600680893
Blackmore, P., Chalmers, D., Dearn, J., Frielick, S., Hofgaard, K. L., & O‟Connor, K.
M. (2004). Academic development: What purpose and whose purpose? In L.
Elvidge (Ed.), Exploring academic development in higher education: Issues of
engagement. Cambridge: Jill Rogers Associates Ltd.
Blackwell, R., & Blackmore, P. (Eds.). (2003). Towards strategic staff development in
higher education. Maidenhead, UK: The Society for Research into Higher
Education and Open University Press.
Bledsoe, C., & Pilgrim, J. (2011). Learning through Facebook: A potential tool for
educators. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin: International Journal for
Professional Educators, 78(1), 38-42. Retrieved from
http://www.dkg.org/atf/cf/%7B70E631E4-44B9-4D36-AE7D-
D12E4520FAB3%7D/Fall%202011_Lifelong%20Learning.pdf
Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member: Supporting and fostering professional
development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Boud, D. (1989). Some competing traditions in experiential learning. In S. W. Weil &
I. McGill (Eds.), Making sense of experiential learning: Diversity in theory and
practice (pp. 38-49). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher
Education and Open University Press.
Boud, D. (1999). Situating academic development in professional work: Using peer
learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 4(1), 3-10. doi:
10.1080/1360144990040102
Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999). Understanding learning at work. London: Routledge.
Boud, D., & Middleton, H. (2003). Learning from others at work: communities of
practice and informal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(5), 194-202.
doi: 10.1108/13665620310483895
208
Boud, D., & Miller, N. (1996). Working with experience: Animating learning. London:
Routledge.
Brew, A. (2006). Research and teaching: Beyond the divide. Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bruce, C. S., & Stooley, I. D. (2011). Experiencing higher degree research supervision
as teaching. Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.576338
Bryant, A. (2002a). Re-grounding grounded theory. The Journal of Information
Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), 25-42. Retrieved from
http://aisel.aisnet.org/jitta/vol4/iss1/7/
Bryant, A. (2002b). Bryant responds: Urquhart offers credence to positivism. The
Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(3), 55-57.
Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/jitta/vol4/iss3/6/
Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review.
Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693-710. doi:
10.1080/03075070701685114
Byrne, J., Brown, H., & Challen, D. (2010). Peer development as an alternative to peer
observation: A tool to enhance professional development. International Journal
for Academic Development, 15(3), 215-228. doi:
10.1080/1360144X.2010.497685
Calloway, L. J., & Knapp, C. A. (1995). Using grounded theory to interpret interviews.
Paper presented at the AIS Americas' 1st Conference on Information Systems,
Pittsburgh, PA. http://csis.pace.edu/~knapp/AIS95.htm
Chalmers, D. (2011). Progress and challenges to the recognition and reward of the
Scholarship of Teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research &
Development, 30(1), 25-38. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2011.536970
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
Clark, C. (Ed.). (2001). Talking shop: Authentic conversation and teacher learning.
New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
209
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick,
J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition
(pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Clark, H. H., & Schober, M. F. (1992). Asking questions and influencing answers. In J.
M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of
surveys (pp. 15-48). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process.
Cognition, 22(1), 1-39. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7
Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clegg, S. (2003a). Problematising ourselves: Continuing professional development in
higher education. International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1-2), 37-
50. doi: 10.1080/1360144042000277928
Clegg, S. (2003b). Learning and teaching policies in higher education: Mediations and
contradictions of practice. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 803-
819. doi: 10.1080/0141192032000137312
Clegg, S. (2009). Forms of knowing and academic development practice. Studies in
Higher Education, 34(4), 403-416. doi: 10.1080/03075070902771937
Clegg, S., & Rowland, S. (2010). Kindness in pedagogical practice and academic life.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(6), 719-735. doi:
10.1080/01425692.2010.515102
Coiera, E. (2000). When conversation is better than computation. Journal of the
American Medical Informatics Association, 7(3), 277-286. doi:
10.1136/jamia.2000.0070277
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational
Leadership, 51(2), 49-51.
Crisp, G., Sadler, R., Krause, K.-L., Buckridge, M., Wills, S., Brown, C., . . .
Brougham, B. (2009). Peer review of teaching for promotion purposes: A
project to develop and implement a pilot program of external peer review of
teaching at four Australian universities. Sydney: Australian Learning and
Teaching Council Ltd Retrieved from
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/clpd/peerreview.
Crowley, C., Harre, R., & Tagg, C. (2002). Qualitative research and computing:
Methodological issues and practices in using QSR NVivo and NUD*IST.
210
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5(3), 193-197. doi:
10.1080/13645570210146258
Dearn, J., Fraser, K., & Ryan, Y. (2002). Investigation into the provision of
professional development for university teaching in Australia: A discussion
paper. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and
education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist,
26(3&4), 325-346. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137
Devlin, M. (2006). Challenging accepted wisdom about the place of conceptions of
teaching in university teaching improvement. International Journal of Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 112-119. Retrieved from
http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of
education (1966 ed.). New York: Free Press.
Ehrich, C., Hansford, B., & Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in
education and other professions: A review of the literature. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 518-540. doi: 10.1177/0013161X04267118
Ellis, R. (2011). Educational planning, provision, management and evaluation of
University learning and teaching space (pp. 65): The University of Sydney.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London:
Falmer Press.
Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education,
26(2), 247-273. doi: 10.1080/158037042000225245
Eraut, M., Steadman, S., Furner, J., Maillardet, F., Miller, C., Ali, A., & Blackman, C.
(2004). Learning in the professional workplace: Relationships between
learning factors and contextual factors. Paper presented at the AERA, San
Diego. Division I Paper Session retrieved from
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/education/1-4-34-4.html (broken). Accessed 11 April
2012 http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/227/1/Blackman%2C_C_-
_San_Diego_Conference_%282004%29.pdf
Ewing, R., Freeman, M., Barrie, S., Bell, A., O‟Connor, D., Waugh, F. & Sykes, C.
(2008). Building community in academic settings: The importance of flexibility
in a structured mentoring system. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 16(3), 294-310. doi: 10.1080/13611260802231690
211
Fanghanel, J. (2007). Teaching excellence in context: Drawing from a socio-cultural
approach. In A. Skelton (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching
excellence in higher education – Improving knowledge and practice. New
York: Routledge.
Farrell, T. (2001). Critical friendships: Colleagues helping each other develop. ELT
Journal, 55(4), 368-374. doi: 10.1093/elt/55.4.368
Fayard, A.-L., & Weeks, J. (2007). Photocopiers and water-coolers: The affordances of
informal interaction. Organization Studies, 28(5), 605-634. doi:
10.1177/0170840606068310
Ferman, T. (2002). Academic professional development practice: What lecturers find
valuable. International Journal for Academic Development, 7(2), 146-158. doi:
10.1080/1360144032000071305
Foucault, M. (1986 [1984]). Of other spaces. [Translation from the French, 'Des
espaces autres', by Jay Miskowiec]. Diacritics, 16(1), 22-27.
Gargiulo, T. L. (2005). The strategic use of stories in organizational communication
and learning. New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.
Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult
Education Quarterly, 48(18), 18-33. doi: 10.1177/074171369704800103
Gibb, J. (1961). Defensive communication. The Journal of Communication, 11(3), 141-
148. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1961.tb00344.x
Gibbs, G. (1995). The relationship between quality in research and quality in teaching.
Quality in Higher Education, 1(2), 147-157. doi: 10.1080/1353832950010205
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training university teachers on their
teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their
students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87-100. doi:
10.1177/1469787404040463
Gibbs, G., Knapper, C., & Piccinin, S. (2009). Departmental leadership of teaching in
research-intensive environments. Research and Development Series (pp. 58).
London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education and The Higher
Education Academy.
Gillespie, N., Walsh, M., Winefield, A., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupational
stress in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and
moderators of stress. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health
& Organisations, 15(1), 53-72. doi: 10.1080/02678370117944
212
Giske, T., & Artinian, B. (2007). A personal experience of working with classical
grounded theory: From beginner to experienced grounded theorist.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(4), 67-80.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded
theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1995). Grounded theory 1984-1994 (Vol. 1). Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1999). The future of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research,
9(6), 836-845. doi: 10.1177/104973299129122199
Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. A. (2007). The grounded theory seminar reader. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday
Anchor.
Gola, G. (2009). Informal learning of social workers: A method of narrative inquiry.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(4), 334-346. doi:
10.1108/13665620910954229
Gosling, D. (2008). Educational development in the United Kingdom. London: Heads
of Educational Development Group Retrieved from
http://www.hedg.ac.uk/documents/HEDG_Report_final.pdf.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morga (Eds.), Syntax
and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Griffith University. (2006). Guidelines for establishing Communities of Practice:
2006/0007012.
Griffith University. (2011). Promotion of academic staff policy and procedures:
2011/0008760.
Grindstaff, K., & Richmond, G. (2008). Learners‟ perceptions of the role of peers in a
research experience: Implications for the apprenticeship process, scientific
213
inquiry, and collaborative work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
45(2), 251-271. doi: 10.1002/tea.20196
Grossman, P. L. (1992). Why models matter: An alternate view on professional growth
in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 171-179. doi:
10.3102/00346543062002171
Gweon, G., Rosé, C., Wittwer, J., & Nueckles, M. (2005, September 12-16).
Supporting efficient and reliable content analysis using automatic text
processing technology. Paper presented at the Human-Computer Interaction
INTERACT, IFIP TC13 International Conference, Rome, Italy.
Hager, P. (1998). Recognition of informal learning: Challenges and issues. Journal of
Vocational Education & Training, 50(4), 521-535. doi:
10.1080/13636829800200064
Haigh, N. (2005). Everyday conversation as a context for professional learning and
development. International Journal for Academic Development, 10(1), 3-16.
doi: 10.1080/13601440500099969
Hall, K. M., Draper, R. J., Smith, L. K., & Bullough, R. V. (2008). More than a place
to teach: Exploring the perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of mentor
teachers. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(3), 328-345. doi:
10.1080/13611260802231708
Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2004). Evaluating our peers: is peer
observation a meaningful process? Studies in Higher Education, 29(4), 489-
503. doi: 10.1080/0307507042000236380
Hanbury, A., Prosser, M., & Rickinson, M. (2008). The differential impact of UK
accredited teaching development programmes in academics‟ approaches to
teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 469-483. doi:
10.1080/03075070802211844
Handal, G. (1999). Consultation using critical friends. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 79, 59-70. doi: 10.1002/tl.7907
Hanno, D. M. (1999). Educators‟ forum – energizing your teaching: Developing a
community of learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 14(2), 323-335. doi:
10.2308/iace.1999.14.2.323
Harris, K., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin, M., & James, R. (2008). Peer review of
teaching in Australian higher education: a handbook to support institutions in
developing and embedding effective policies and practices. Sydney: Australian
214
Learning and Teaching Council Ltd Retrieved from
http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/people/farrell_docs/PeerReviewHandbook_eV
ersion.pdf.
Harry, B., Sturges, K. M., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar
of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher,
34(2), 3-13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X034002003
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507-542. doi:
10.3102/00346543066004507
Healey, M. (2000). Developing the Scholarship of Teaching in higher education: A
discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2),
169-189. doi: 10.1080/072943600445637
Healey, M. (2003). The Scholarship of Teaching: Issues around an evolving concept.
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14(1/2), 5-26.
Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: Exploring disciplinary spaces and
the role of inquiry-based learning. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university:
New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 67-78):
McGraw Hill and Open University Press.
Hellawell, D., & Hancock, N. (2001). A case study of the changing role of the
academic middle manager in higher education: Between hierarchical control
and collegiality? Research Papers in Education, 16(2), 183-197. doi:
10.1080/02671520110037438
Hendry, G. D., & Oliver, G. (2012). Seeing is believing: The benefits of peer
observation. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(1).
Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol9/iss1/7
Hickcox, L. K. (2002). Personalizing teaching through experiential learning. College
Teaching, 50(4), 123-128. doi: 10.1080/87567550209595892
Hicks, O. (1999). Integration of central and departmental development – Reflections
from Australian universities. International Journal for Academic Development,
4(1), 43-51. doi: 10.1080/1360144990040107
Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to
improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff
development programme. Higher Education, 43(2), 143-169. doi:
10.1023/A:1017546216800
215
Ho, A. S. P. (2000). A conceptual change approach to staff development: A model for
programme design. International Journal for Academic Development, 5(1), 30-
41. doi: 10.1080/136014400410088
Hoekstra, A., & Korthagen, F. (2011). Teacher learning in a context of educational
change: Informal learning versus systematically supported learning. Journal of
Teacher Education, 62(1), 76-92. doi: 10.1177/0022487110382917
Huber, M. T. (2006). Disciplines, pedagogy, and inquiry-based learning about
teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 107, 69-77. doi:
10.1002/tl.246
Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (2002). Situating the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning: A cross-disciplinary conversation. In M. T. Huber & S. P. Morreale
(Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning:
Exploring common ground. Washington: The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching & The American Association for Higher Education.
Hull, R. (2006). Workload allocation models and "collegiality" in academic
departments. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(1), 38-53.
doi: 10.1108/09534810610643677
Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching: New
elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 10-15. doi:
10.1080/00091389909604218
Iedema, R. A., Long, D., & Carroll, K. E. (2010). Corridor communication, spatial
design and patient safety: Enacting and managing complexities. In A. van
Marrewijk & D. Yanow (Eds.), Organizational spaces (pp. 41-57).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Institute for Teaching and Learning. (2011). Program Outline. Principles and Practice
of University Teaching and Learning November. Retrieved 6 January, 2012,
from http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/programs/P&P/outline.htm
Jenkins, A. (1996). Discipline-based educational development. International Journal
for Academic Development, 1(1), 50-62. doi: 10.1080/1360144960010106
JISC. (2006). Designing spaces for effective learning: A guide to 21st century learning
space design (pp. 32). Bristol, UK: Higher Education Funding Council for
England on behalf of Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC).
216
Jurasaite-Harbison, E. (2009). Teachers‟ workplace learning within informal contexts
of school cultures in the United States and Lithuania. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 21(4), 299-321. doi: 10.1108/13665620910954201
Kahn, P. (2009). Contexts for teaching and the exercise of agency in early-career
academics: Perspectives from realist social theory. International Journal for
Academic Development, 14(3), 197-207. doi: 10.1080/13601440903106510
Kandlbinder, P., & Peseta, T. (2009). Key concepts in postgraduate certificates in
higher education teaching and learning in Australasia and the United Kingdom.
International Journal for Academic Development, 14(1), 19-31. doi:
10.1080/13601440802659247
Kelle, U. (2005). "Emergence" vs. "forcing" of empirical data? A crucial problem of
"grounded theory" reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 27.
Kember, D., & Kwan, K.-P. (2000). Lecturers' approaches to teaching and their
relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5), 469-
490. doi: 10.1023/A:1026569608656
Kirchhoff, A., & Lawrenz, F. (2011). The use of grounded theory to investigate the role
of teacher education on STEM teachers' career paths in high-need schools.
Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 246-259. doi:
10.1177/0022487110397840
Knight, P. (1998). Professional obsolescence and continuing professional development
in higher education. Innovations in Education & Training International, 35(3),
248-256. doi: 10.1080/1355800980350309
Knight, P., Tait, J., & Yorke, M. (2006). The professional learning of teachers in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 319-339. doi:
10.1080/03075070600680786
Knight, P., & Trowler, P. (1999). It takes a village to raise a child: Mentoring and the
socialisation of new entrants to the academic professions. Journal of Mentoring
and Tutoring, 7(1), 23-34. doi: 10.1080/0968465990070102
Knight, P. T., & Trowler, P. R. (2000). Department-level cultures and the improvement
of learning and teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 69-83. doi:
10.1080/030750700116028
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New
York: Association Press.
217
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education. From pedagogy to
andragogy (2nd ed.). New York: Association Press and Cambridge Book
Publishers.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kornberger, M., & Clegg, S. (2003). The architecture of complexity. Culture and
Organization, 9(2), 75-91. doi: 10.1080/14759550302804
Kreber, C. (2009). The university and its disciplines – Teaching and learning within
and beyond disciplinary boundaries. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Kreber, C., & Castleden, H. (2009). Reflection on teaching and epistemological
structure: Reflective and critically reflective processes in „pure/soft‟ and
„pure/hard‟ fields. Higher Education, 57(4), 509-531. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-
9158-9
Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers' participation in professional learning
activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 149-170. doi:
10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00101-4
Laurillard, D. (1987). Computers and the emancipation of students: Giving control to
the learner. Instructional Science, 16(3), 3-18. doi: 10.1007/BF00120002
Laurillard, D. (1995). Multimedia and the changing experience of the learner. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 179-189. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8535.1995.tb00340.x
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.
Lee, A., Manathunga, C., & Kandlbinder, P. (2010). Shaping a culture: Oral histories
of academic development in Australian universities. Higher Education
Research & Development, 29(3), 307-318. doi: 10.1080/07294360903252128
Light, G., & Cox, R. (2001). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective
professional. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches
to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher
Education, 31(3), 285-298. doi: 10.1080/03075070600680539
Ling, P., & Council of Australian Directors of Academic Development. (2009).
Development of academics and higher education futures. Sydney: Australian
Learning and Teaching Council.
218
MacBeath, J., & Jardine, S. (1998). I didn't know he was ill – The role and value of the
critical friend. Improving Schools, 1(1), 41-47. doi:
10.1177/136548029803010118
Macfarlane, B. (2005). The disengaged academic: The retreat from citizenship. Higher
Education Quarterly, 59(4), 296-312. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2005.00299.x
Macfarlane, B. (2011). The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of
the para-academic. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(1), 59-73. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2273.2010.00467.x
Macfarlane, B., & Hughes, G. (2009). Turning teachers into academics? The role of
educational development in fostering synergy between teaching and research.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 5-14. doi:
10.1080/14703290802646214
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and
teaching effectiveness – Complementary, antagonistic, or independent
constructs? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603-641. doi:
10.1353/jhe.2002.0047
Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141-157. doi:
10.1177/002188638602200207
Mathias, H. (2005). Mentoring on a programme for new university teachers: A
partnership in revitalizing and empowering collegiality. International Journal
for Academic Development, 10(2), 95-106. doi: 10.1080/13601440500281724
McArthur, J. (2009). Diverse student voices within disciplinary discourses. In C.
Kreber (Ed.), The university and its disciplines – Teaching and learning within
and beyond disciplinary boundaries (pp. 119-128). New York: Routledge,
Taylor & Francis.
McCallin, A., Scott, H., & Johnston, T. (2009, December). What is grounded theory?
Grounded Theory Online Retrieved 23 August 2012, from
http://www.groundedtheoryonline.com/
McCann, T., & Clark, E. (2003). Grounded theory in nursing research: Methodology,
critique and application. Nurse Researcher, 11(2), 7-39.
McDonald, T., Herlihy, B., Kulisa, J., Legget, B., Lummis, G., & Woods, J. (2002).
The persistent push for publications: Success stories from time-poor academics.
219
Paper presented at the HERDSA 25th Annual Conference, 'Research and
Development in Higher Education: Quality Conversations', Perth, Australia.
McDrury, J., & Alterio, M. (2003). Learning through storytelling in higher education:
Using reflection and experience to improve learning. London: The Dumore
Press Limited.
McGregor , D. (1960). The human side of enterprise: McGraw Hill.
McGuire, G. M., & Reger, J. (2003). Feminist Co-Mentoring: A Model for Academic
Professional Development. National Women's Studies Association Journal,
15(1), 54-72. doi: 10.1353/nwsa.2003.0036
McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie's teaching tips (12th ed.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
McLean, J., & McManus, J. (2009). Using workplace learning as a lens to reframe
academic development. Paper presented at the 6th International Researching
Work and Learning Conference, Roskilde University, Denmark.
McLean, M. (2006). Pedagogy and the university; critical theory and practice.
London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
McNally, J., Blake, A., & Reid, A. (2009). The informal learning of new teachers in
school. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(4), 322-333. doi:
10.1108/13665620910954210
McNaught, C., & Lam, P. (2010). Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool. The
Qualitative Report, 15(3), 630-643. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/mcnaught.pdf
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily
in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. doi:
10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult – Core concepts of transformation
theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation:
Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-33). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Middlehurst, R., & Elton, L. (1992). Leadership and management in higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 17(3), 251-264. doi:
10.1080/03075079212331382527
220
Moles, R., Roberts, A. S., Diamandis, S., Bell, S. J., & Nichols, C. (2007). Young
pharmacists as mentors to pharmacy students: Partnerships for the future of the
profession. Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research, 37(4), 266-270.
Morris, D., & Ecclesfield, N. (2011). A new computer-aided technique for qualitative
document analysis. International Journal of Research and Method in
Education, 34(3), 241-254. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2011.609547
Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (Eds.).
(2009). Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek,
CA: Left Coast Press.
Neumann, R. (1992). Perceptions of the teaching-research nexus: A framework for
analysis. Higher Education, 23(2), 159-171. doi: 10.1007/BF00143643
Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their
disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education,
27(4), 405-417. doi: 10.1080/0307507022000011525
Niewolny, K. L., & Wilson, A. L. (2009). "Social learning" for/in adult education? A
discursive review of what it means for learning to be “social”. Paper presented
at the 50th Annual Adult Education Research Conference, Chicago, IL,
National Louis University.
Norton, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005).
Teachers' beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education.
Higher Education, 50(4), 537-571. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6363-z
Oblinger, D. (2006). Space as a change agent. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces:
Educause. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102.pdf.
Palmer, P. J. (1993). Good talk about good teaching – Improving teaching through
conversation and community. Change, 25(6), 8-13. doi:
10.1080/00091383.1993.9938466
Parry, K. W. (1998). Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for
leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 85-105. doi: 10.1016/S1048-
9843(98)90043-1
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P.
R. Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personaliy and social
psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press
Inc.
221
Piantanida, M., Tananis, C. A., & Grubs, R. E. (2004). Generating grounded theory
of/for educational practice: The journey of three epistemorphs. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(3), 325-346. doi:
10.1080/0951839042000204661
Piller, I. (2002). Bilingual couples talk: The discursive construction of hybridity.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Prebble, T., Hargraves, H., Leach, L., Naidoo, K., Suddaby, G., & Zepke, N. (2004).
Impact of student support services and academic development programmes on
student outcomes in undergraduate tertiary study: A synthesis of the research.
Wellington: Ministry of Education Retrieved from
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/tertiary_education/5519.
Prime, N., Obadia, C., & Vida, I. (2009). Psychic distance in exporter-importer
relationships: A grounded theory approach. International Business Review,
18(2), 184-198. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.02.011
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1997). Using phenomenography in the design of programs
for teachers in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development,
16(1), 41-54. doi: 10.1080/0729436970160104
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The
experience in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking
have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1),
4-15. doi: 10.3102/0013189X029001004
Queensland University of Technology. (2010, 22 February). The QUT Project
Managers' Community of Practice wiki. Retrieved 8 August 2012, from
https://wiki.qut.edu.au/display/pmcop/The+QUT+Project+Managers%27+Com
munity+of+Practice+Wiki
Quinn, C., Smith, J. E., Duncan, M., Clarke, J. A., & Nelson, K. J. (2009). The
evolution of a community of practice at the Queensland University of
Technology for lecturers involved in large first year units. Paper presented at
the 12th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference: 'Preparing for
tomorrow today: the first year experience as foundation', Townsville, Australia.
Quinn, L. (2012). Understanding resistance: an analysis of discourses in academic staff
development. Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 69-83. doi:
10.1080/03075079.2010.497837
222
Rallis, S. F., & Rossman, G. B. (2000). Dialogue for learning: Evaluator as critical
friend. In R. K. Hopson (Ed.), How and why language matters in evaluation
(Vol. 86, pp. 81-92). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. New York: Routledge.
Ramsden, P. (1998a). Learning to lead in higher education. London: Routledge.
Ramsden, P. (1998b). Managing the Effective University. Higher Education Research
& Development, 17(3), 347-370. doi: 10.1080/0729436980170307
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Ramsden, P., & Martin, E. (1996). Recognition of good university teaching: Policies
from an Australian study. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 299-315. doi:
10.1080/03075079612331381231
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of
university students‟ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353-387. doi: 10.1037/a0026838
Roberts, S., Butcher, L., & Brooker, M. (2011). Clarifying, developing and valuing the
role of unit coordinators as informal leaders of learning in higher education.
Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd. Retrieved from
http://www.olt.gov.au/system/files/resources/LE8-
824%20Murodch%20Roberts%20Final%20Report%202011.pdf
Rodger, S. (2011). Building capacity among emerging occupational therapy academic
leaders in curriculum renewal and evaluation at UQ and nationally. Sydney:
Australian Learning and Teaching Council Retrieved from
http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-building-capacity-among-emerging-
occupational-therapy-academic-leaders-curriculum-renewal-a.
Rodger, S., & Aplin, T. (2011). Good practice guide 5: Developing a Community of
Practice (COP) to support curriculum reform. In S. Rodger (Ed.), Building
capacity among emerging occupational therapy academic leaders in
curriculum renewal and evaluation at UQ and nationally. (pp. 21-24). Sydney:
Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. London: Constable & Company Ltd.
Rowley, J. (1997). Academic leaders: Made or born? Industrial and Commercial
Training, 29(3), 78-84. doi: 10.1108/00197859710165065
223
Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks
– Exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education,
34(5), 547-559. doi: 10.1080/03075070802597200
Roxå, T., Olsson, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2008). Appropriate use of theory in the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as a strategy for institutional
development. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 7(3), 276-294. doi:
10.1177/1474022208094412
Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., & Buchanan, J. (2008). Enhancing teacher education practice
through professional learning conversations. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 31(2), 215-227. doi: 10.1080/02619760802000297
Senge, P. (2006) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation.
London: Random House.
Senior, R. (1999). The good language class: Teacher perceptions. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Community Services, Education and Social
Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Australia.
Shiu, H., Fong, J., & Lam, J. (2010). Facebook – Education with social networking
websites for teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Third International
Conference on Hybrid Learning (ICHL), Beijing, China.
Smeby, J.-C. (1996). Disciplinary differences in university teaching. Studies in Higher
Education, 21(1), 69-79. doi: 10.1080/03075079612331381467
Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the
future of faculty development, learning from the past, understanding the
present. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
Souter, K., Riddle, M., Sellers, W., & Keppell, M. (2011). Spaces for Knowledge
Generation. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd. Retrieved
from http://documents.skgproject.com/skg-final-report.pdf
Stalnaker, R. C. (1978). Assertion. In R. C. Stalnaker (Ed.), Context and Content:
Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought (1999 ed., pp. 78-95). Oxford:
Oxford University Press. (Reprinted from: Syntax and semantics: Pragmatics
Vol. 9, pp. 315-332).
Stefani, L., & Elton, L. (2002). Continuing professional development of academic
teachers through self-initiated learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 27(2), 117-129. doi: 10.1080/02602930220128706
224
Stern, P. N. (1994). Eroding grounded theory. In J. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in
qualitative research methods (pp. 212-223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory . London: SAGE Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: SAGE
Publications.
Tan, J. (2010). Grounded theory in practice: issues and discussion for new qualitative
researchers. Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 93-112. doi:
10.1108/00220411011016380
Thomas, G., & James, D. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: Some questions about
theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6),
767-795. doi: 10.1080/01411920600989412
Thomas, H. (2010). Learning spaces, learning environments and the dis„placement‟ of
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 502-511. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00974.x
Tight, M. (2004). Research into higher education: An a-theoretical community of
practice? Higher Education Research and Development, 23(4), 395-411. doi:
10.1080/0729436042000276431
Trigwell, K., Caballero-Rodriguez, K., & Han, F. (2012). Assessing the impact of a
university teaching development programme. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 37(4), 499-511. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2010.547929
Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning: A model. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2),
155-168. doi: 10.1080/072943600445628
Trowler, P. (2001). Captured by the discourse? The socially constitutive power of new
higher education discourse in the UK. Organization, 8(2), 183-201. doi:
10.1177/1350508401082005
Trowler, P., & Cooper, A. (2002). Teaching and Learning Regimes: Implicit theories
and recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through
225
educational development programmes. Higher Education Research &
Development, 21(3), 221-240. doi: 10.1080/0729436022000020742
Trowler, P., Fanghanel, J., & Wareham, T. (2005). Freeing the chi of change: The
Higher Education Academy and enhancing teaching and learning in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(4), 427-444. doi:
10.1080/03075070500160111
Trowler, P., & Knight, P. T. (2000). Coming to know in higher education: Theorising
faculty entry to new work contexts. Higher Education Research &
Development, 19(1), 27-42. doi: 10.1080/07294360050020453
Trowler, P., Saunders, M. & Bamber, V. (Eds.) (2012). Tribes and Territories in the
21st Century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education.
New York: Routledge.
Turner, B. A. (1983). The use of grounded theory for the qualitative analysis of
organizational behaviour. Journal of Management Studies, 20(3), 333-348. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6486.1983.tb00211.x
University of Sydney. (2001). Academic Board resolutions: The management and
evaluation of coursework teaching.
Urquhart, C. (2002). Regrounding grounded theory – Or reinforcing old prejudices? A
brief reply to Bryant. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and
Application, 4(3), 43-54. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/jitta/vol4/iss3/5/
Vella, J. (1994). Learning to listen, learning to teach: The power of dialogue in
educating adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Walker, D., & Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded theory: An exploration of process and
procedure. Qualitative Health Research, 16(4), 547-559. doi:
10.1177/1049732305285972
Waring, J. J., & Bishop, S. (2010). "Water cooler" learning: Knowledge sharing at the
clinical "backstage" and its contribution to patient safety. Journal of Health
Organization and Management, 24(4), 325-342. doi:
10.1108/14777261011064968
Weil, S. W., & McGill, I. (1989). Making sense of experiential learning: Diversity in
theory and practice. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher
Education and Open University Press.
Welsh, E. (2002). Dealing with data: Using NVivo in the qualitative data analysis
process. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social
226
Research, 3(2). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-
fqs0202260
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and social learning systems.
Organization, 7(2), 225-246. doi: 10.1177/135050840072002
Werquin, P. (2010). Recognising non-formal and informal learning: Outcomes,
policies and practices: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD).
White, P. (1990). Friendship and education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 24(1),
81-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.1990.tb00225.x
Whittaker, S., Frohlich, D., & Daly-Jones, O. (1994, April 24-28). Informal workplace
communication: What is it like and how might we support it? Paper presented at
the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems: Celebrating
interdependence, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Williams, A. (2003). Informal learning in the workplace: A case study of new teachers.
Educational Studies, 29(2-3), 207-219. doi: 10.1080/03055690303273
Williams, A., Prestage, S., & Bedward, J. (2001). Individualism to collaboration: The
significance of teacher culture to the induction of newly qualified teachers.
Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy,
27(3), 253-267. doi: 10.1080/02607470120091588
Wilson, H. S., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1996). Methodologic mistakes in grounded theory.
Nursing Research, 45(2), 122-124. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199603000-00012
Zukas, M., & Malcolm, J. (2007). Teaching, discipline, net-work. In A. Skelton (Ed.),
International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education –
Improving knowledge and practice. New York: Routledge.
227
Appendices
228
Appendix 1: Interview guide 1
Below are examples of the sorts of questions and prompts that were used in the
interviews.
RANGE OF CONTEXTS
1. Can you tell me about the times you talk about teaching, perhaps the range
of contexts?
General Triggers
2. When did you talk about teaching this week?
a. What was that like? Enjoyable? Frustrating?
3. What were the three most recent times you discussed teaching?
a. Who participated in these discussions?
b. Can you recall a recent conversation about teaching? Describe it.
4. So you were talking about a time when you discussed [X],
a. How long ago was the conversation? Can you think of the sorts of
things said?
Prompt: Can you tell me more about ....?
DEPARTMENT CLIMATE
5. Is there anything about your department that supports/limits you to talk
about teaching?
General Triggers
6. What might prompt a conversation about teaching in your department?
a. For example, a meeting, tea-room conversation, when developing a
promotion application, student issues, grades/extensions
7. Are there some teaching-related topics that are often discussed in your
department?
a. Which topics are most frequently talked about?
b. Why do you think these topics are talked about?
229
USEFULNESS OF CONVERSATION
8. So we’ve talked about the conversations that you have about teaching-how
useful do you find these conversations?
a. What are the outcomes of these conversations?
i. Do you change your teaching practice as a result?
Triggers (If previous questions are not generating responses)
9. How do you develop your curriculum? Can you tell me about that process?
How do you decide how your unit fits in with the rest of the course
10. The university considers assessment as part of teaching. Can you tell me about
your assessment? Is that something you develop on your own? Are you a
member of an exam board?
11. Do you evaluate your unit? How do you do that-do you seek student feedback?
Have you discussed that with anyone?
230
Appendix 2: Interview guide 2
Below are examples of the sorts of questions and prompts that were used in the
interviews.
1. What did you learn during „Principles and Practice of University Teaching‟
(P&P)?
a. Do you plan to change anything about your teaching?
2. In what ways has attending „P&P‟ contributed to your teaching development?
3. Since completing the program in February, have you talked about your
teaching?
a. Can you tell me about those conversations?
4. In what ways has talking to your discipline/faculty colleagues about teaching
contributed to your teaching development?
5. Since attending „P&P‟, have you changed the way you talk about teaching?
6. Since attending „P&P‟, have you changed your teaching practice?
7. Are your conversations about teaching are different to your experience of
„P&P‟?
a. How?
b. How are they similar?
8. What might encourage you to develop your teaching?
231
Appendix 3: Variation in departments
Size Classification by
Becher (1989)
Accreditation Campus Sample
Large Applied soft Accredited Main 5
Large Pure soft Non-accredited Main 4
Large Applied hard Accredited Satellite 2
Small Applied soft Accredited Main 1
Small Applied hard Accredited Main 5.5*
Small Applied hard Accredited Satellite 4.5*
Small Applied hard Accredited and
non-accredited
Main 2.5*
Small Applied hard Non-accredited Main 1
Small Pure hard Non-accredited Main 4.5*
Total 30
*indicates joint appointments between two schools. Two academic staff members were
interviewed as a member of one school, but they also discussed experiences in the
other school
232
Appendix 4: Variation in individuals
Pseudonym of Interviewee Date Duration
Planned interviews
1. Liam 15 March 2010 27.26
2. Patrick 29 March 2010 43.02
3. Marie 30 March 2010 47.21
4. Meghan 31 March 2010 46.24
5. Jon 8 April 2010 50.41
6. Lilly 12 April 2010 35.21
7. Allan 14 April 2010 34.14
8. Anthony 15 April 2010 38.23
9. Sarah 15 April 2010 33.34
10. Margaret 19 April 2010 45.44
11. Joshua 23 April 2010 35.14
12. Grace 28 April 2010 31.43
13. Michael 4 May 2010 39.48
14. Benjamin 10 May 2010 56.12
15. Raj 12 May 2010 42.00
16. Maxine 19 May 2010 53.02
17. Kasia 24 May 2010 51.09
18. Chris 2 June 2010 50.08
19. Adam 8 June 2010 43.22
20. Suren 14 July 10 31.48
Supplementary interviews
21. Ellen (new) 29 March 2010 31.36
22. Liz (Quality advisor) 13 April 2010 41.10
23. Ingrid (Leader) 13 April 2010 34.40
24. Luke (Exemplar) 6 May 2010 1.00.40
25. Andrew (April P&P) 13 April 2011 37.26
26. George (April P&P) 18 April 2011 25.21
27. Edward (April P&P) 19 April 2011 53.48
28. Melissa (June P&P) 13 July 2011 27.33
29. Natasha (June P&P) 27 July 2011 16.58
30. Lisa (June P&P) 15 August 2011 30.08
Total 19 h 32 m 14 s
Average Approx. 38 minutes
233
Appendix 5: Coding extract
This is an extract of the coding process used to develop the results presented in Chapter
6. It demonstrates the basic techniques that were useful to me in the earlier stages of
the analysis process, for example highlighting sections of relevant text and writing
notations in the margin.
234
Appendix 6: Poster presentation
The poster below was presented at a conference in October 2010. It represents the
usefulness of informal conversation at that stage in the analysis. It was not until later
that the fifth subcategory of usefulness, „Vent‟ (see Chapter 5), appeared as a
subcategory separate to „Reassure‟.
235
Appendix 7: Poster presentation
The poster below was presented at a conference in July 2011. It represents the
contextual influences on informal conversation at that stage in the analysis, and Figure
1 represents an earlier version of Table 6.1.
Human Research Ethics Committee
Web: http://www.usyd.edu.au/ethics/
ABN 15 211 513 464
Marietta Coutinho Deputy Manager Human Research Ethics Administration
Telephone: +61 2 8627 8176 Facsimile: +61 2 8627 8177
Email: [email protected]
Mailing Address: Level 6
Jane Foss Russell Building – G02 The University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA
Ref: IM/PR 15 February 2010 Prof Keith Trigwell Institute for Teaching and Learning Level 3, Carslaw Building – F07 The University of Sydney Email: [email protected]
Dear Professor Trigwell I am pleased to inform you that the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) at its meeting held on 2 February 2010 approved your protocol entitled “The nature of informal academic discourse on university teaching”. Details of the approval are as follows: Ref No.: 02-2010/12521 Approval Period: February 2010 to February 2011 Authorised Personnel: Prof Keith Trigwell Ms Kate Thomson Assoc Prof Simon Barrie The HREC is a fully constituted Ethics Committee in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans-March 2007 under Section 5.1.29. The approval of this project is conditional upon your continuing compliance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. We draw to your attention the requirement that a report on this research must be submitted every 12 months from the date of the approval or on completion of the project, whichever occurs first. Failure to submit reports will result in withdrawal of consent for the project to proceed. Chief Investigator / Supervisor’s responsibilities to ensure that: (1) All serious and unexpected adverse events should be reported to the
HREC as soon as possible.
(2) All unforeseen events that might affect continued ethical acceptability of
the project should be reported to the HREC as soon as possible. (3) The HREC must be notified as soon as possible of any changes to the
protocol. All changes must be approved by the HREC before continuation of the research project. These include:-
If any of the investigators change or leave the University.
Any changes to the Participant Information Statement and/or Consent Form.
(4) All research participants are to be provided with a Participant Information
Statement and Consent Form, unless otherwise agreed by the Committee. The Participant Information Statement and Consent Form are to be on University of Sydney letterhead and include the full title of the research project and telephone contacts for the researchers, unless otherwise agreed by the Committee and the following statement must appear on the bottom of the Participant Information Statement. Any person with concerns or complaints about the conduct of a research study can contact the Deputy Manager, University of Sydney, on +612 8627 8176 (Telephone); +612 8627 8177 (Facsimile) or [email protected] (Email).
(5) Copies of all signed Consent Forms must be retained and made available
to the HREC on request. (6) It is your responsibility to provide a copy of this letter to any
internal/external granting agencies if requested. (7) The HREC approval is valid for four (4) years from the Approval Period
stated in this letter. Investigators are requested to submit a progress report annually.
(8) A report and a copy of any published material should be provided at the
completion of the Project. Yours sincerely,
Associate Professor Ian Maxwell Chair Human Research Ethics Committee cc: Kate Thomson, email: [email protected] Encl. Approved Participant Information Statement Approved Participant Consent Form Approved Interview Schedule Approved Invitation Letter
RESEARCH INTEGRITY Human Research Ethics Committee
Web: http://sydney.edu.au/ethics/ Email: [email protected]
Address for all correspondence:
Level 6, Jane Foss Russell Building - G02 The University of Sydney NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA
Manager Human Ethics Dr Margaret Faedo T: +61 2 8627 8176 E: margaret.faedo @sydney.edu.au
Human Ethics Secretariat: Ms Karen Greer T: +61 2 8627 8171 E: [email protected] Ms Patricia Engelmann T: +61 2 8627 8172 E: [email protected] Ms Kala Retnam T: +61 2 8627 8173 E: [email protected]
ABN 15 211 513 464 CRICOS 00026A
Ref: IM/PE 2 March 2011 Ms Kate Thomson Institute for Teaching and Learning Carslaw Building – F07 The University of Sydney Email:[email protected] Dear Ms Thomson I am pleased to inform you that the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approved your protocol entitled “What are the relations between informal conversations about teaching and formal teacher education of university staff?” at its meeting held on 1 March 2011. Details of the approval are as follows: Protocol No.: 13549 Approval Period: March 2011 to March 2012 Authorised Personnel: Ms Kate Thomson Professor Keith Trigwell Documents Approved: Participant Information Statement Version 1 Participant Consent Form Version 1 Interview Guide The HREC is a fully constituted Ethics Committee in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans-March 2007 under Section 5.1.29. The approval of this project is conditional upon your continuing compliance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. A report on this research must be submitted every 12 months from the date of the approval or on completion of the project, whichever occurs first. Failure to submit reports will result in withdrawal of consent for the project to proceed. Your report is due by 31 March 2012. Chief Investigator / Supervisor’s responsibilities to ensure that:
1. All serious and unexpected adverse events should be reported to the HREC within 72 hours for clinical trials/interventional research.
2. All unforeseen events that might affect continued ethical acceptability of the project should be
reported to the HREC as soon as possible.
3. Any changes to the protocol must be approved by the HREC before the research project can proceed.
4. All research participants are to be provided with a Participant Information Statement and
Consent Form, unless otherwise agreed by the Committee. The following statement must appear on the bottom of the Participant Information Statement: Any person with concerns or complaints about the conduct of a research study can contact the Manager, Human Ethics, University of Sydney on +61 2 8627 8176 (Telephone); + 61 2 8627 8177 (Facsimile) or [email protected] (Email).
5. You must retain copies of all signed Consent Forms and provide these to the HREC on
request.
6. It is your responsibility to provide a copy of this letter to any internal/external granting agencies if requested.
7. The HREC approval is valid for four (4) years from the Approval Period stated in this letter.
Investigators are requested to submit a progress report annually.
8. A report and a copy of any published material should be provided at the completion of the Project.
Please do not hesitate to contact Research Integrity (Human Ethics) should you require further information or clarification. Yours sincerely
Associate Professor Ian Maxwell Chair Human Research Ethics Committee
