Overcoming Pedagogical Solitude: The Transformative Power of Discipline Specific Faculty Learning Communities

Methodology

Our study of the three year long FLC program used structured interviews of past participants to assess the impact of participation in one or more FLCs on teaching and learning in the Faculty of Law. Three FLCs (Table 1) were selected for the purpose of this study: “Rethinking Your Course,” the “Clinical Legal Education Working Group” (CLEWG), and “Advancing Teaching and Research Together.” The structural differences of these varied FLCs, along with their distinct origins and the opportunity they afforded to analyze the evolution of an FLC over an extended period of time, were the basis for selection for our study.

The first FLC, “Rethinking Your Course,” was offered three separate times over three years, with different participants each year (four to six) discussing a variety of topics that fell under the general theme of course design and evaluation. The second, on Clinical Legal Education, grouped together a larger number of people (11 unique participants) and ran for three years with the majority of the members participating for all three years. The third, “Advancing Teaching and Research Together,” had four participants who met over the course of a single year. This FLC had perhaps the most visible link to SoTL, given that participants aimed to explore the link between teaching and research (Richlin & Cox, 2004; Slapcoff & Harris, 2014).

In addition to structural differences between these particular FLCs, the manner in which they originated was also distinct. The three iterations of “Rethinking Your Course” evidenced the most typical organization of the Law FLCs as the overall theme was proposed by TLS. Participants elected to join and then suggested their own particular areas of exploration within the broad topic. The Clinical Legal Education Working Group (CLEWG) began as an ad hoc working group and evolved into a FLC by virtue of the participants’ own preferences, contributions, and continued involvement beyond the initial scope of the mandate. “Advancing Teaching and Research Together,” on the other hand, was an FLC proposed by the four participants themselves. In terms of the number of participants, goals, duration, and method of formation, these three FLCs represent a variety of approaches and possibilities.

Of these three FLCs, 12 of 26 unique participants were selected and invited to participate in a structured interview. The number of selected participants was based on the size of the FLC in order to achieve a proportional sample. Two participants were selected from the smaller FLCs of four to six participants, and four from the CLEWG, the largest of the FLCs with approximately eight participants per year and a total of 11 unique participants over three years. Past participants who had left the University since their participation in an FLC, or who were on sabbatical during the 2013–2014 academic year, were excluded from the selection pool. Where there were more than two potential participants, we attempted to select those representing a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives (such as nonteaching staff members or visiting professors). Many participants were involved in more than one FLC. However, for the purpose of the interview, each selected participant was asked to focus on one specific FLC, although they could refer to their experiences in the other FLCs if they wished.

The 12 invited participants all agreed to be interviewed in person by a faculty member (second author) with past experience participating in an FLC, to facilitate the sharing of candid responses regarding their positive and negative experiences. The interviews were not audio recorded for the same reason. Instead, detailed notes with quotations were taken by a graduate student assistant (fourth author) from TLS, who had previous experience providing support for FLCs in the Faculty. From the interviews, we were able to learn not only about the participants’ experiences discussing and learning about teaching from their colleagues, but also about the effectiveness and perceived impact of the facilitation and support from TLS.

The individual interviews, which lasted for approximately 30 minutes each, were conducted using a three part questionnaire (see Appendix) that was shared with interviewees beforehand. We designed the questionnaire around three broad categories: (a) the FLC experience, (b) organization and process, and (c) impact on teaching and learning. Each of the three categories served to gather information on participants’ perceptions of their experience participating in an FLC, the structure and management of the FLC, and the impact they felt their participation had on their teaching and their students’ learning, respectively. Key interview results have been synthesized and are shared in the Results section.

Data Analysis

The data collected by the graduate student during the interviews were anonymized and organized by question. The authors conducted a thematic content analysis of the data and developed broad categories of key points for each question. These key points were summarized in a table by question along with direct quotes from the interview data to illustrate the responses gathered from participants. The results were then reviewed by the interviewer to ensure accuracy and anonymity of the quotations.

The FLC Experience

The first set of questions focused on the FLC experience itself and asked participants to identify their motivation for joining an FLC. Participants were also asked to reflect on those aspects of the experience that were the most positive or helpful, as well as on those that were the least positive or helpful.

The major reasons identified by the participants as to their motivation to join an FLC included the desire to build community and harness synergies from colleagues’ experiences and ideas, accomplish change, and improve their own teaching as well as the institution as a whole, and gain personal enrichment. In the words of one interviewee, the decision to join an FLC was motivated by a desire to “break pedagogical solitude.” It was reassuring to learn that the motivations of the participants we interviewed were consistent with the intended outcomes of FLCs according to the literature.

The feedback regarding the actual experience was overwhelmingly positive. Eleven of the 12 participants interviewed felt that the FLC experience had succeeded in validating their feelings, breaking isolation, building community, forging strong relationships with colleagues or providing a safe space to discuss issues, brainstorm, and think freely. Moreover, participants noted that their involvement in an FLC proved to be a “catalyst for change.”

Many of the interviewees had some constructive feedback which could be used to improve the experience of FLCs in the Faculty for the future. Some noted the overuse of educational jargon. Others expressed that the varied composition of the groups led to different expectations and confidence levels among group members. Sometimes, there was a lack of focus as a result of too many ideas being proposed. Moreover, despite enthusiastic and voluntary enrolment, the reality of busy academic lives often caused FLC participation to be a low priority. One participant even expressed guilt at investing so much energy in teaching!

Organization and Process

The second set of questions was designed to assess the organizational and process oriented aspects of the FLCs. In terms of the frequency and length of meetings, most participants felt that meeting for 1.5 hours approximately once per month during the academic year was appropriate, thereby underscoring the recommendations in the literature. Likewise, most participants were pleased with, or neutral about, the size of their group which typically ranged from 4 to 6 participants (with one FLC being larger at 8–11 participants). Not surprisingly, scheduling meetings was mentioned as the greatest organizational challenge. In the first year the FLCs were offered, faculty members served as “conveners” and were responsible for scheduling their FLC’s meetings. We were operating under the assumption that faculty colleagues would be familiar with internal scheduling logistics. This actually proved to be a logistical barrier and meetings were not scheduled as frequently as they might have been. Facilitators subsequently offered to manage scheduling, which was well received. Tools such as teaching schedules, Doodle polls, and follow up e mails proved effective. While this helped to approach scheduling challenges, participants nonetheless noted that busy schedules and multiple commitments meant that attending the FLCs remained a challenge in some cases.

The questions in this section also sought to evaluate how the participants felt about the external facilitation provided by TLS staff. Ten of the 12 participants interviewed found this external facilitation to be key, not only because the facilitators provided invaluable resources and expertise, but also because having such external facilitation symbolized the importance of the FLC project, provided a set of external eyes and, in the words of one interviewee, helped “disturb habitual patterns” by offering faculty members different perspectives and ways of thinking.

One of the ways in which the Law FLCs departed from the directives of the literature was in their discipline specificity. It was therefore important to assess how the participants felt about this aspect of the project. The reaction of the interviewees was overwhelmingly supportive, with 10 of the 12 participants interviewed being in favor of retaining discipline specificity. They thought it promoted intimacy and brought people together who speak the same language and share the same concerns. Some expressed the fear that the dynamics might change if the groups were to be interdisciplinary; in the words of one interviewee, “we haven’t yet reached the limits of our colleagues.” While most preferred to keep the FLCs discipline specific, four participants added that they would be in favor of having colleagues from other disciplines attend as guest participants when their presence would be appropriate for the intended discussion. Although two participants noted that they would have preferred to have an interdisciplinary FLC experience, others added that, to some extent, the external facilitators provided some interdisciplinary flavor to the experience.

Group composition was also a question we wanted to examine in more detail because FLCs are traditionally open to faculty, staff, and even students. The FLCs in the Faculty of Law were composed mainly of professors with some groups including visiting professors, doctoral students, and nonteaching colleagues. Here the responses were interesting and evidenced a fairly consistent desire to keep the FLC as a space just for academic teaching staff. Most interviewees felt that visiting professors should be welcome to join FLCs, and one noted that “Including visiting professors is a good way to bring them into the culture.” Participants were less keen on inviting post doctoral fellows’ and doctoral students’ participation unless they had actual teaching duties. As for undergraduate students, the interviewees were almost unanimous in feeling that they should not be present. Most felt that it would change the dynamics of the FLC and cause it to lose its characteristic of a “safe space.” It would also, as many expressed, induce self censorship and even self conscious behavior. The answers related to the participation of nonteaching staff, such as those involved in student affairs, faculty governance, and IT, were the most varied. Only 3 of the 12 participants interviewed would unequivocally welcome nonteaching staff. Others responded that the participation of nonteaching staff would depend on the particular context of the FLC and whether an administrative perspective would be useful.

Impact on Teaching and Learning

As emphasized in the literature (e.g., Goto, Marshall, & Gaule, 2010; Hubball, Clarke, & Beach, 2004; Miller, Sweet, Blythe, Kopacz, & Phillips, 2012), it is crucial to assess the impact participation in FLCs has on teaching and learning. The third set of questions, therefore, asked participants to identify the impact of the FLC experience on their teaching generally, and more particularly in terms of tangible changes they made, as well as their perceptions of the changes’ impact on their students’ learning.

In terms of general impact on teaching, the participants interviewed felt that their participation in the FLCs promoted confidence in the classroom, thereby encouraging experimentation with different teaching methods. Their participation also promoted enthusiasm regarding teaching and made them more conscious about the importance of syllabi and linking teaching to explicit course objectives. In addition to giving them new ideas, perhaps most importantly, it decreased feelings of being alone. The realization that “everyone is struggling” proved to be very reassuring. While the FLCs in the Faculty of Law were not designed in such a way as to require participants to make tangible changes (i.e., create “artifacts”), there were in fact many concrete changes that instructors adopted as a direct result of FLC participation. These changes were felt at the macro (Faculty) level as well as at the micro (course) level. They even went so far as to affect assessment and professorial research.

For example, the Clinical Legal Education FLC had some notable impacts. At the Faculty level, improvements were made to the Faculty website and to communication to students regarding clinical legal education opportunities. Furthermore, an entirely new course was created, and has proven to be very successful and popular. This course, “Critical Engagements with Human Rights,” integrates students’ internship experiences and has resulted in student published papers. The catalyst for this course was the FLC on Clinical Legal Education.

Many participants made changes within existing courses, some going so far as to reorganize their course strategies entirely. By way of example, one professor reorganized his course so that the students, rather than the instructor, produced the class notes and case comments. Another professor changed the course to be project based and still another adopted a “flipped classroom” approach. Many noted improvements they had made to their course syllabi and one participant interviewed stressed that even small changes, such as the one he made in adopting a wireless remote that enabled him to move freely about the classroom, could lead to large pedagogical changes and benefits to teaching and learning.

Changes were also made to assessments and evaluation. One professor integrated an entirely new form of evaluation, namely an Op Ed assignment followed by peer comments that took the form of a letter to the editor. This particular assignment was broadly disseminated within the university community, both within and beyond the Faculty, and has even been adopted by a law professor at another university. Other professors created group assignments, while still others changed the percentage of the overall mark in the course they attributed to pass/fail assignments. Many learned about the importance of developing rubrics for evaluating existing forms of assessment. And finally, although the FLCs were centered on teaching and did not focus explicitly on research, in one FLC, the participants sought to develop writing support strategies for each other through the organization of a writing retreat, which they called “Misery Loves Company,” and to which they attribute an improvement in their research output.

It is, of course, much more challenging to document the impact of professorial participation in an FLC on students’ actual learning. This was all the more difficult in the case of the FLCs in the Faculty of Law because there were no explicit questionnaires students were asked to answer, or evaluations they were asked to complete, assessing the impact of the changes professors made to their teaching on their learning due specifically to FLC participation. However, as a result of positive comments in student course evaluations, informal student feedback in person and via e mail, improved student work, and a sense of a better classroom experience, many interviewees felt that the positive impact FLC participation had on their teaching followed through in their students’ learning.

For example, two professors interviewed felt that as a result of pedagogical changes they had made, students obtained a better understanding of knowledge production, as they were now in a position of producing knowledge and not merely passively receiving it in the classroom. Several professors noted an improvement in student skill development as a result of changes made to forms of assessment, as the new forms of assessment required skills that went beyond studying for a written examination. One professor noted that the class projects initiated as a result of FLC participation extended beyond the classroom to the greater community, in that students invited outside participants to attend their presentations, and disseminated their projects via international blogs, Twitter, and presentations to other educational institutions. As these examples suggest, while the precise impact on students’ learning was difficult to pinpoint, the majority of participants interviewed perceived there to be a positive impact.

Overall, the participants we interviewed found their participation in the FLC to be an overwhelmingly positive experience, one that 10 of the 12 interviewees would repeat. One participant even suggested that because the FLCs that focused on teaching and learning were so successful, the Faculty ought to think about creating FLCs to discuss and improve research.

Lessons Learned

Reflecting on our experience facilitating and participating in these FLCs, we have identified three key factors that we perceive as having a major role in the FLCs’ success, as well as the success of the larger Law Teaching Network. They are: (a) flexibility and responsiveness to the faculty context, (b) a collaborative approach, and (c) appropriate, embedded support structures. These factors are related to the concept of readiness, or conditions conducive to change, as discussed by Lee, Hyman, and Luginbuhl (2007). Although we recognize that these key factors are interrelated, we discuss each separately, below.

Conclusion

Our participants’ responses suggest that discipline specific FLCs can succeed in building a sense of community that fosters conversations about teaching and learning. We recognize that discipline specificity represents a departure from the recommendations in the FLC literature but we suggest, based on our experience and results shared here, that this can be a valuable approach. Moreover, we propose that keeping a spirit of responsiveness in terms of specific Faculty contexts may result in other justified departures from some of the more prescriptive elements of the FLC literature, such as requiring members to produce tangible artifacts.

The academy is often characterized by pedagogical solitude, which our data indicates can be mitigated by FLCs. Moreover, FLCs can be a catalyst for tangible change in participants’ teaching by improving confidence levels, encouraging experimentation, and providing new ideas to try out in the classroom. These changes in teaching have the potential to impact students’ learning in a beneficial manner.