This document discusses developing cohort identities among early career teachers through interdisciplinary communities of practice. It presents two case studies of modules at Queen Mary University of London that aim to develop cohort identity: a long-term core module and an intensive summer school module. Both case studies utilized interdisciplinary group work and assessment. Feedback indicated that participants found value in interacting with different disciplines, though some preferred subject-specific interactions. Research at QMUL found that participants in longer programs engaged more and felt part of a cohort or community of practice. Participants reported increased teaching confidence and connection to other teachers. The discussion considers how to better emphasize and sustain communities of practice.

1. DEVELOPING
INTERDISCIPLINARY COHORT
IDENTITIES AMONG
EARLY CAREER TEACHERS
Dr Emma Kennedy
Dr Claire Loffman
Educational Development
Queen Mary University of
London

2. GOALS FOR THE SESSION
1. Compare and contrast your approaches to developing cohort
identity in early career teachers (ECTs) to QMUL’s approach.
2. Share new ideas for enhancing your approach to developing cohort
and interdisciplinary communities of practice.

3. WHY COHORT IDENTITY?
1. Evidence from Glasgow (MacKenzie et al, 2010) showed: increased
staff confidence, tangible SoTL outputs, empowerment as teachers
from learning community
2. CoPs in healthcare helped staff improve their everyday activity
according to systematic review of 24 studies (Abigail, 2016)
3. Changes to school culture, staff improvements and some
improvements in student achievement from a mixed-discipline
Professional Learning Community (Vescio et al, 2007)
4. Participating in institutional taught CPD programme has positive
effects: increases confidence, engagement with scholarship &
reflective practice (Botham, 2017)

4. CASE STUDY 1: ADP7101 A LONG
AND THIN CORE MODULE
1. Pre-module induction to the programme including lunch:
participants can mingle and meet staff/subject mentors/each other
2. Mandatory peer to peer observation of teaching including debrief –
part of final assessment
3. Fortnightly 1 hour seminars in consistent groups: sessions
emphasise small group work
4. QMPlus Hub (Mahara) used for assessment
5. QMPlus (Moodle) forums available for discussion
6. Assessment criteria on ADP7101 and ADP7112 reward learning
from others and discussion with colleagues: credit given for
interdisciplinary discussion

5. CASE STUDY 1: ADP7101 A LONG
AND THIN CORE MODULE
Comments on the module
“…good to have a 'group' which mostly had the
same people in each session meaning you got to
know each other which encourages discussion etc”
“The opportunities to give and receive feedback
from staff outside your discipline was excellent”
“Learning with peers outside of my particular
discipline”
“[I] find the amount of time dedicated to discussion
in class too much. […]the time would have been
better utilised by the lecturer giving us information”
“I would love to have more interaction with teachers
in my own discipline. My classes were
predominantly filled by medical staff.”
“The opportunity to see how other departments
teach should perhaps be formalised”

6. CASE STUDY 1: ADP7101 A LONG
AND THIN CORE MODULE
 Length of time to get to know one another was positive in helping
build informal networks
 Interdisciplinary groups provided benefits particular to taught
programme
 Consistent groups were important, despite staff demand for
flexibility
 Discussion seen by some as ‘waste’: need to be explicit about CoP
benefits?
 Important to have good mix of disciplines: medics can dominate
among our cohort
 Explicitly interdisciplinary focus would help the above and make
formalised opportunity to hear about teaching in other departments.

7. CASE STUDY 2: AN INTENSIVE 1-
WEEK SUMMER SCHOOL
1. VLE forum in which participants and staff introduce themselves
and can chat before arriving
2. Day 1 of summer school: participants collaboratively produce (a)
their own group learning goals for the programme and (b) their
own end of module evaluation form
3. Summer school afternoon tea – 45 minutes for mingling with tea
and cake
4. 4 days of 9-5 workshops and seminars in mixed-discipline cohort
of 24 with an emphasis on group and pair work
5. Assessed group presentations – convenor has put participants into
interdisciplinary groups of 6 in advance. Each group works
together for 90-120 mins per day for 5 days to co-produce a
group-assessed presentation for 40% of the module mark

8. CASE STUDY 2: AN INTENSIVE 1-
WEEK SUMMER SCHOOL
Comments on the module
‘[Most useful:] group presentations, interaction
with different disciplines and nationalities’
‘Interacting with other people and learning from
[my] own experiences’
‘far better than I expected and more enjoyable
than the hourly sessions every 2 weeks’
‘Emma & Claire are engaging & provide useful
feedback’
‘[Didn’t like] the extent of the group work’’
Would have been better to have the
Internationalisation session on the first day to orient
participants to the overall theme
Conflicting desires around timings: some wanted
shorter days, some wanted longer breaks
Include talks from current QMUL international
students

9. CASE STUDY 2: AN INTENSIVE 1-WEEK
SUMMER SCHOOL
Key conclusions:
1. Interdisciplinary group work raised participants’ awareness of the benefits
of group work and learning from peers.
2. Participants were more inclined to add more peer-to-peer learning
opportunities in their own teaching after the summer school.
3. Active participation in a CoP boosted engagement, energy and enjoyment of
the module as a whole.
4. All the participants engaged, participated and were assessed as part of a
group even though some were initially resistant to the idea of group
assessment

10. OVER TO YOU…
How are communities of practice
developed currently in taught
programmes and other routes to HEA
Fellowship at your institution?
(5 minutes in pairs)

11. YOUR FEEDBACK…
Interdisciplinary approach – but is this purposefully interdisciplinary? Timetabling and time
commitments can hinder CoP. PGCert online with assessed groupwork – different dynamics
of CoP online? Small groups (10) in face to face teaching help as contained; bigger groups
can be a challenge.
Online PGCert can feel slightly fragmented: Summer School a good antidote, potentially?
Smaller CoPs within big course mean firmer connections and relationships.
Difficult to keep CoPs alive and well. 1 out of 3 ain’t bad….? Who drives the CoP – the
participants, or do they need (gentle) outside help?
Keeping CoP going after the end of a course. We see academics early in their career; what
happens later on? Interdisciplinarity should be productive. Near-disciplines a good
compromise (variety but relevance)
Some people want subject-specific stuff – same people who prefer transmission model?
Some of the best innovation happens in cross-discipline relationships – valuable challenge
to assumptions/mindset.

12. WHAT OUR RESEARCH SHOWED…
 Survey of 277 people: 58% CILT (1 year), 42% PGCert (2 years).
Difference in response rates: CILT 5%; PGCert 18%; longer
programme -> more engaged in evaluation?
Participants tended think of themselves as part of ‘community of
practice’ in those terms and other answers showed many identified
with constituent elements of (what we consider) CoP.
 Need for question in formal module evaluations measuring CoP
issue: can we break this down by module? (Plan for better quality
data)

13. 1…2
10%
3
35%
4
45%
5
7% Mean = 3.4
Mode = 4
To what extent did you feel part of a cohort and/or
community of practice on your programme?
1 = Not at all
5 = Very much

14. WHAT OUR RESEARCH SHOWED…
PARTICIPANTS FELT…
More confident in trying out new teaching methods - 79.3%
Able to see how the theories covered worked in a range of different teaching
contexts - 65.5%
Connected to a community of teachers at QMUL – 48.3%
Less isolated in my worries about teaching - 44.8%
Supported and valued in my
development as a teacher
(37.9%)
A sense of belonging at the
university (37.9%)
Other (3.4%) – “Gave me the confidence to pursue a
community of practice within my own discipline.”

15. WHAT OUR RESEARCH SHOWED…

16. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Staff on the longer programme (PGCAP) were much more engaged:
correlation or cause?
2. Mean 3.4, mode 4 for CoP question: positive but do we signpost it
enough in teaching?
3. Staff report higher confidence in trying new teaching methods: is
this measurably demonstrated in practice?
4. Staff report significant connections to teaching colleagues. How to
encourage enduring support after the programme ends?
5. Formality and structure of programme vs. growing demands on
academics’ time. Staking out a space vs. allowing flexibility?

17. OVER TO YOU…
1 thing you’re doing currently/have done that’s
helped engender a CoP? (2 mins)
Subject specific mentors (who created a CoP
amongst themselves)
Using Senior Fellows to observe teaching on
PGCert
Cross-faculty conferences across the country to
share practice
VLE site for educational developers
OU’s group tuition policy to engender CoP
within faculties

18. MEASURING IMPACT
Please each write down one change you’ll make in the light of this
workshop on your postcard.
Please also write your preferred name and postal address.
We’ll post you your postcard in 4 weeks time to remind you of the
plan you made today

19. REFERENCES
Abigail, L. K. M. (2016). Do communities of practice enhance faculty
development?. Health Professions Education, 2(2), 61-74.
Botham, K. A. (2017). The perceived impact on academics’ teaching
practice of engaging with a higher education institution’s CPD
scheme. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1-12.
MacKenzie, J., Bell, S., Bohan, J., Brown, A., Burke, J., Cogdell, B.,
Jamieson, S., McAdam, J., McKerlie, R., Morrow, L., Paschke, B., Rea, P.
& Tierney, A. (2010) From anxiety to empowerment: a learning
community of university teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 15
(3). pp. 273-284.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the
impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and
student learning. Teaching and teacher education, 24(1), 80-91.