Cooking up community

Research context 

• Concerns about the socio-emotional wellbeing of practitioners during a very challenging period of time (Covid-19 pandemic 2020-21). 
• Concerns about isolated trainers working in silos to support teachers during multiple lockdowns. 
• Desire to develop a model of online informal professional learning that would constitute both effective CPD and essential networking with fellow teachers and trainers, which if successful could then be utilised elsewhere. 

What could we do as an organisation to build a sense of belonging alongside peers, in our organisation, externally and within the FE sector?  

Aims and objectives 

1. Discover ways in which to “dissolve the screen” (Lemov, 2020, p37) in online spaces in order to...  
2. Develop a joyful and supportive online community of practice that... 
3. Creates meaningful and authentic interactions via…  
4. Devising a series of effective informal online CPD strategies. 

Methodology 

Shopping for ingredients 

I attended a variety of online CPD sessions; from didactic to holistic. I developed an online-training specific framework around which to base my post-session reflections. Some specific approaches helped to develop a sense of belonging within the community spaces I was in, and (I believe) this encouraged us to be more productive. These included: 

• Clear set up and introduction to the space 
• Wellbeing check-in: How are you? Given opportunity to speak within first 15 minutes 
• Thinking Environment (Kline 2008) rounds to offer participants a respectful and non-hierarchical space to contribute 
• Digital ‘sandpits’ (McLay and Chua Reyes 2019) to try something out in a safe space with colleagues 
• No pressure to contribute 
• Zoom logistics: Gallery view, cameras on, no spotlighting 
• Clear instructions 
• Minimal slides (including no slide upon arrival) 
• Personable, friendly and authentic facilitators 

Three ‘kitchens’, one ‘recipe’? 

I facilitated three different online professional learning community spaces all with the aims of networking, keeping up to date and learning more about their collective and individual practice. The three cohorts represented three very different teacher groups, with their own professional learning needs: 

Kitchen 1: ESOL teachers  

a monthly get together by PDNorth on behalf of NATECLA (National Association for Teaching English and other Community Languages to Adults) 

Kitchen 2: teacher trainers and mentors  

as part of the Shaping Success programme on behalf of the Education and Training Foundation (ETF) 

Kitchen 3: screen industry trainers  

as part of the train-the-trainer programme on behalf of ScreenSkills 

I leaned into a culinary metaphor when sharing findings from the project as it allowed me to establish connections between the real and the theoretical, experiencing one thing in terms of another (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, p. 98). Therefore, this project uses the terminology: ‘kitchens’, ‘ingredients’, ‘recipes’ and ‘chefs’ to articulate the experiences of practitioners engaging in the research, as well as the research sites. 

Through trials of activities based on pedagogical and paragogical (Herie 2013) approaches, I explored the development of a peer-to-peer community focussed space which encouraged practitioners to try out new ideas amongst likeminded people, all the while nurturing a feeling of belonging within the group.  

Trials were carried out over two terms. Each term was punctuated by an intervention of conversation stimulus. The answers informed the activities I trialled in that particular group thereafter. Over the term I carried out, reflected and changed or adapted to find the most effective recipe for each kitchen.

Professional Learning: improvement in retention and engagement 

Throughout the course of the research (two terms), there has been sustained positive attendance and retention (See Appendix 3). For example, in Kitchen 2: The space is completely optional yet attendance was averaged at 12/17 trainers and the retention rate was 188% (as more trainers attended as the sessions progressed). There were at least 2 people who were mostly unable to attend the sessions, who watched the recordings afterwards. One practitioner said that having this option “helped create an ‘in the moment’ and ‘on demand’ community of practice” (See appendix 5). Additionally, there were many trainers who couldn’t attend the whole meeting but still made the effort to drop in when they could. This all demonstrates the value the practitioners got out of the space that they were so committed to attend (or catch up later). 

Having an awareness that most of the practitioners were working in an isolated manner (coupled with the nature of being freelance for kitchen 2 and 3) with the added challenge of having to take all their teaching, training and support online (which many of them were not comfortable with) during lockdown 2020, I was committed to providing a space for them to think about themselves so they were fit to help others (Travis and Ryan 2004). Nancy Kline (2020, p47) says that having the space to express your feelings can help us"...heal and to allow the mind to work less impeded. Unexpressed emotion, on the other hand, seems to block both thought and health." The wellbeing check-ins were a big part of this. It was a time and space for the practitioners to be asked genuinely (possibly for the first time that week): "How are you?" and with the generative and sustained attention from their peers that I hoped would “turn [them] towards each other” (Kline, 2020, p10) and give them a sense of belonging in the group. Practitioners’ fed back (See Appendix 5) saying the kitchens helped them feel part of a team, helped them feel heard and was something they looked forward to every fortnight/ month. For example, one practitioner said: 

"It's also been really good for feeling like I've been part of a real community, especially through the lockdown. I've loved being part of the team and coming together every couple of weeks to, you know, catch up and share ideas."  – Kitchen 2 practitioner 

Since project-end, it has had a profound impact on the way we facilitate informal online spaces and nurture sector communities including the development of some new ‘kitchens’: #FEreadingCircle, #FEresearchCircle, OTLA Creative Writing Circle, ATS Staffroom.  

“They have been particularly useful as a space to ‘sandpit’ and try things out, while supported by colleagues who are eager to share what they’ve learnt so we don’t go tripping up over the same things.” - Kitchen 2 practitioner 

However, in the first term we struggled with keeping true to the Thinking Environment rules and components (specifically no interruptions, keeping to time and following the correct order) and it had ramifications for the rest of the session. I attended more thinking environment spaces hosted by others and did a lot of my own research and training to further my understanding of the approach; namely the importance of the 10 components and the need to feel comfortable ‘interrupting the interrupter’. As such, in the second term the thinking environments were far more effective as I was able to confidently lead a disciplined yet free and comfortable space, where the attendees worked together as a team to ensure everyone was given the opportunity to speak.  

The other most successful approach used was digital sandpits; modelling a digital tool or task in authentic use with time and space in small groups to try it out themselves and reflect on its use. Additionally, in Kitchen 2 I invited other practitioners to present a tool and facilitate their own sandpit. The sandpits were an incredibly effective approach towards developing the digital resilience of practitioners in a safe and secure space amongst peers: 

“I like that we get to actually use, for example, a website/app ourselves as 'students' and interact with tech things as a would-be learner. It gives me confidence to start exploring and experimenting further.” - Kitchen 1 practitioner 

Termly reflections: 

• Term 1 reflections accessible via Wakelet  
• Term 2 reflections accessible via Wakelet 

Project findings and recommendations 

I found that:  

• Practitioners appreciated the time and space to connect and learn from one another. 

• Experiencing digital pedagogies in an authentic manner with peers and being given time to use these tools in a safe place (or Sandpit), improved their digital competence and confidence.  
• Trainers felt an increased sense of belonging and camaraderie with their peers with regular staffrooms that had a familiar structure they could expect and rely on.  
• Practitioners appreciated being asked, “How are you?”, being given time to answer genuinely and, perhaps most importantly, being listened to by their peers.  
• The Thinking Environment (Kline, 2008) can provide a respectful and non-hierarchical space which enables an effective wellbeing check-in for practitioners. When used effectively, it can help both release and park feelings, leading to more productive sessions.  
• Practitioners from all three kitchens felt isolated in their working environments (online and working from home) and the online informal professional learning spaces had a positive impact on their wellbeing.  

• Some groups were not as different as they may at first have appeared, which meant that some of the same strategies could be used no matter the cohort. I originally started with three very different approaches, but one recipe has formed (with a few optional ingredients or substitutes!). 

What next: 

• I utilised individual Thinking Environment activities here rather than 100% Thinking Environment spaces (start to finish). I would like to explore this further in conjunction with sandpits to see if such a playful ad-hoc activity can be utilised effectively within the constraints of a Thinking Environment space.  
• I would like to add a few new ingredients to the mix including graphic facilitation techniques. 

Professional reading 

Bayne, S., Evans, P. and Ewins, R. et al (2020). The Manifesto for Teaching Online. Massachusettes: The MIT Press.  

Blaschke, L.M. and Hase, S. (2016). ‘Heutagogy: A holistic framework for creating twenty-first-century self-determined learners.’ In Gros, B. and Maina, M. (Eds.), The future of ubiquitous learning: Learning designs for emerging pedagogies (pp. 25–40). Berlin: Springer. 

Corneli, J. and Danoff, C,J. (2011). Paragogy. [Online] Available at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-739/ [Accessed 10 August 2021].  

Davis, L. (2018). Heutagogy Explained: Self-Determined Learning in Education. [Online]. Available at: https://www.schoology.com/blog/heutagogy-explained-self-determined-learning-education#:~:text=Heutagogy%2C%20otherwise%20known%20as%20self,autonomy%2C%20capacity%2C%20and%20capability [Accessed 10 August 2021].  

Gregson, M. and Duncan, S. (2015). Reflective Teaching in further, adult and vocational education (5th edition.). London: Bloomsbury Academic.  

Gregson, M., Nixon, L., Pollard, A., et al (2015). Readings for Reflective Teaching. London: Bloomsbury Academic.  

Herie, M. (2013). ‘Andragogy 2.0? Teaching and Learning in the Global Classroom: Heutagogy and Paragogy.’ Global Citizen Digest, 2(2): 8-14. 

Heick,T. (no date). The Difference Between Pedagogy, Andragogy, And Heutagogy. [Online]. Available from: https://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/a-primer-in-heutagogy-and-self-directed-learning/ [Accessed 10 August 2021].  

Kline, N. (2008). Time to Think: Listening to Ignite the Human Mind. USA: Castell. 

Kline, N. (2020). The Promise That Changes Everything: I Won't Interupt You. UK: Penguin Life. 

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we Live By. London: The University of Chicago Press.  

Lemov, D. et al (2020). Teaching in the Online Classroom: Surviving and Thriving in the New Normal. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass. 

Lindsay, C. (2020). Moles and horses in an online classroom: what, why and how? [online] https://pdnorth.org.uk/2020/09/10/moleshorses/. Accessed 21st January 2021.  

McLay, K. and Chua Reyes, V. (2019). ‘Identity and digital equity: Reflections on a university educational technology course.’ Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 15–29. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5552.  Public Knowledge Project. 

Mycroft, L. and Sidebottom, K. (2020). AP Guide: Creating Spaces to Think in Further Education and Training (Thinking Environment). [Online]. Available from: https://www.excellencegateway.org.uk/content/etf2872 [Accessed 24 December 2020]. London: The Education and Training Foundation. 

Mycroft, L. and Sidebottom, K. (2018). ‘Constellations of Practice’. In: Bennett, P. and Smith, R. (Editors). Identity + Resistance in Further Education (1st edition). London: Routledge, pp. 170-178. 

Kline, N. (2020). The Promise that Changes everything: I won't interrupt you. [No place]: Penguin Life 

Price, D. (2020). The Power of Us. London: Thread.  

Scales, P. ‘The end of Sheep-dip CPD’. CPD Matters (IfL). [Online] 2(Spring), [no pagination]. [Accessed 24 December 2020].  

Taylerson, L. and Tremayne, D. (2018) ‘"Un-hijacking" teachers’ professional learning: thoughts from a dialogue among practitioners: Report from the Professional Learning for Educators Working Group.’ At BCU C-SPACE Reimagine FE Conference. Journal of Studies in Practice and Culture in Education 2(1), [no pagination]. [Accessed 24 December 2020].  

Travis, J. W., & Ryan, R. S. (2004). Wellness Workbook: How to Achieve Enduring Health and Vitality. New York: Random House LLC.  

Virmanti, S. (2020). CPD isn’t just good business sense, it’s crucial to staff wellbeing. [Online]. Available at: https://www.jisc.ac.uk/membership/stories/cpd-isnt-just-good-business-sense-19-oct-2020 [Accessed 24 December 2020]. Bristol: Jisc. 

Content from ATS Academic Poster - Viva preparation – Chloë Hynes - 2022 

Find out more about the Advanced Teacher Status (ATS) programme.