This blog post by Ms Dara Richard is the second instalment of the two-part series on special interest groups in the CELC community.
Focused Collaboration: Setting up and Facilitating a Special Interest Group
By Dara Richard
What motivated you to initiate this SIG?
I was originally motivated because I feel small groups of practitioners working collaboratively is effective professional development. I proposed in 2016 that the Staff Development Committee (SDC) supports a culture of scholarly teaching by nurturing significant networks into communities of practice. Significant networks are small groups characterized by a high degree of trust and privacy. They are “gatekeepers for development and change” because the conversations within these networks can change conceptualizations of teaching (Roxa & Martensson 2009a, p. 557). However, there may be no noticeable change in practice (Roxa and Martensson 2009b). Roxa & Martensson (2013) argue that transforming significant networks into Wenger’s (1999) communities of practice is imperative to have sustained change like a culture of scholarly teaching. Both significant networks and communities of practice have a shared enterprise and negotiation. The key difference is that significant networks tend to lack reification or putting the results of the negotiation into the public sphere. Small, regular informal gatherings would be an opportunity for teachers to grow their significant networks and provide them with a space to bring private conversations into a semi-public sphere. Special Interest Groups (SIGs) are an example of small, regular informal gatherings.
The first SIG I facilitated in 2018, the Special Needs SIG, was part of my work in the SDC. The chair of the SDC had observed an increasing number of students with disabilities or “special needs” in CELC modules. She felt that the Centre needed an SOP to guide tutors when they encounter these students in their classrooms and that a short-term SIG would be ideal to develop it. Given my interest, I volunteered to organize the SIG.
How did you keep the SIG going?
I use Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) as a guide to set up the three SIGs I have facilitated because they have an easily customized structure that has been successfully implemented at higher-education institutions around the world since the 1990s. FLCs are small peer-led groups that collaboratively work on a common teaching and learning objective for six to twelve months. In other words, FLCs prioritize community, but are task-based (Cox, 2004). The objective could be topic-based, e.g. conceptualizing curriculum, or cohort-based, e.g. junior faculty or low-proficiency students. The members of the FLC can work on a common project or have individual projects related to the FLC topic/cohort. The projects address complex problems holistically with the ultimate aim of benefiting students, and they are defined with concrete objectives and a timely schedule. Unlike a community of practice, FLCs have a set task and deadline. Unlike a project group, FLCs prioritize community by operating by consensus and emphasizing collaboration. The FLC facilitator plays a supportive role, such as offering resources, feedback, organization skills and logistics. More about FLCs can be found in the themed issue of New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 2004, number 97 or the Learning Communities Journal (http://celt.miamioh.edu/lcj/).
Based on the FLC structure, I have defined 7 stages for setting up a SIG.
- Select a topic or cohort aligned to a recognized need
- Set an objective that would address the need or lead to increased understanding of the need
- Set a timeframe for the SIG, e.g. 1 semester or a year
- Set a tentative schedule to guide progress towards the objective within the timeframe
- Write an announcement for general dissemination
- Approach individuals who have a known interest in topic/cohort about joining the SIG
- Arrange the first meeting
The seven stages for the Special Needs SIG are below as an example.
| 1 | Topic or cohort | Students with disabilities. Tutors may not be sure of how to respond to their needs or the processes required by NUS. |
| 2 | Objective | Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to guide tutors |
| 3 | Timeframe | February to May (1 semester) |
| 4 | Tentative schedule |
|
| 5 | Announcement | Dear colleagues,
Many of us have encountered students in our classes with special needs, such as autism, anxiety or physical challenges, who require us to modify our course materials, assessment or learning environment. We may not be sure of how to respond to their needs, or the processes required by NUS. Because of this, the Staff Development Committee (SDC) has perceived a need for a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to guide us. The SDC invites all interested staff to participate in a Special Needs SIG to develop an SOP on adapting learning materials, environments and assessments in CELC modules so that special needs students can meet the course learning objectives. The SOP will be sent to SDC and then management for review. The SIG will have 5 sessions from February to May 2018. A proposed plan for the sessions is below. [Insert schedule from step 4.] If you have questions, please contact Dara at dara.richard@nus.edu.sg. We aim to have our first meeting the first week of February, so please email Dara by 26 January if you are interested in joining the Special Needs SIG. |
| 6 | Approach individuals | Email a brief version of the announcement with a personalized invitation, e.g. “We would like to invite you to join us because ___. Your ___ will help ____.” |
| 7 | Arrange the first meeting | Send Doodle poll link to find a common date and time. Arrange food and drink for a convivial atmosphere. |
In order to sustain the SIG, the facilitator needs to encourage the members to contribute work according to the schedule so that the objective is met within the timeframe. However, the SIG is a community. The community is more important than the schedule, which is why the proposed schedule uses community-fostering language such as “participants agree on” or “participants determine” to indicate that the SIG is a group of peers collaborating, rather than a team being directed by a leader. As can be seen in the following table, the minuted outcomes differ from the proposed schedule in that
- the scope of the SOP was broadened to inclusive education in session 2,
- the SOP was drafted at an earlier point (session 3),
- a multi-modal SOP was developed, and
- an interactive session with two experts was added (session 4).
| Session | Proposed session in announcement | Actual outcome |
| 2 | SIG participants describe the types of special needs that could be included. The needs are categorized to determine the number of SOP(s) needed. The participants determine reading topics for each member. The template for summarizing readings and the minutes are uploaded. | SIG participants determine that the deliverable will be an SOP, but the scope will be inclusive education for a diverse student body rather than just students with special needs. The approach will be Universal Design for Learning. Participants agree to draft an SOP with a flowchart. |
| 3 | SIG participants summarize their articles and determine the teaching modifications most suitable for CELC courses. The participants assign roles to draft the SOP(s). The minutes and template for the SOP are uploaded. | Participants discuss revisions to the draft SOP. A meeting is arranged for 2 experts to give feedback on the draft. |
| 4 | (Virtual meeting) The draft SOP(s) are shared using a platform like Google docs. The participants give feedback on the draft SOP(s). The SOP(s) are revised. The revised SOP(s) are shown to CELC teaching and administrative staff who are not in the SIG for feedback. | Participants hear a presentation from an educational psychologist and receive feedback on the draft SOP from the psychologist and an officer from the NUS Disability Support Office. |
| 5 | The participants share the feedback. The group determines the final revisions. The final version of the SOP(s) is formatted and uploaded. Participants determine if the SIG should continue with a new project, e.g. a blog post or SoTL paper. | Participants discuss revisions to the draft based on the feedback. They decide to close the Special Needs SIG and start a Universal Design for Learning SIG in the next academic year. |
These additions occurred because of the contributions and talents of the SIG members. Three members used their personal network to arrange the meeting with the experts, an educational psychologist and the NUS Disability Support officer. Another with prior knowledge of the field introduced us to inclusive education. Two members with talent in information visualization created a flowchart to visually represent the process. Thus, the SIG’s work was accomplished through the contributions of the members in an open collaborative environment.
What does it take to be a member of an SIG?
The key criteria is commitment and contribution. With the FLC model, members know in advance the proposed outcome of the SIG and the time commitment. If you join a SIG, you need to be prepared to make time for the meetings and contribute to the objective. It is the responsibility of the facilitator to set an objective and timeframe that are focused, but allow flexibility. The Special Needs SIG had a more specific objective, an SOP, and a short four-month timeframe. Most SIGs have a year-long timeframe, which allows for more flexibility. For the year-long CELC Inclusive Education SIG, the topic was implementing Universal Design for Learning (Rose and Meyer, 1984). Each member conducted an action research project that used Universal Design for Learning to make their classrooms more inclusive. The group gave feedback and support to each member at several points over the year. At the end of the year, each member reported on the outcome of his/her project. In general, SIG members are expected to contribute to meetings, contribute to others’ individual projects (e.g. feedback) or the SIG’s common project, manage individual projects/tasks, and present project results.
References and Resources
Cox, M.D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 2004(97), 5-23.
Learning Communities Journal http://celt.miamioh.edu/lcj/
Rose, D.H. & Myer, A. (Eds.). (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Roxa, T. & Martensson, K. (2009a). Significant conversations and significant networks – exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 547-559.
Roxa, T. & Martensson, K. (2009b). Teaching and learning regimes from within: Significant networks as a locus for the social construction of teaching and learning.” In C. Kreber (Ed.), The university and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries, (pp. 209-218). London: Routledge.
Roxa, T. & Martensson, K. (2013). How effects from teacher-training of academic teachers propagate into the meso level and beyond. In E. Simon & G. Pleschova (Eds.), Teacher Development in Higher Education: Existing programs, Program impact and Future trends (pp. 213-232). New York: Routledge
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, A.L., Verwoord, R., Beery, T.A., Dalton, H., McKinnon, J., Strickland, K., Pace, J., & Poole, G. (2013). The power of social networks: A model for weaving the scholarship of teaching and learning into institutional culture. Teaching and Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(2), 49-62.