WMCETT: Teacher Education Initiative Project
Final Report.
City College
50, Swanswell Street
Coventry CV1 5DG
July 2009.
Project team
Matthew Alton (I.T. staff development officer)
Colin Bowles (member of TE team, particular responsibility for PTLLS courses)
Jessica Eastman (member of TE team – with particular responsibility for CTLLS courses)
Heather Gill (Advanced Practitioner and member of TE team - particular responsibility for
DTLLS courses and essential skills’ development)
Andrew Holdcroft (Head of School and member of the TE team – until December 2008)
Howard Roberts (Project Manager, Programme Area Manager for teachers’ training and
member of TE team)
h.roberts@staff.covcollege.ac.uk
Project title:
Creating a virtual community of practice linking the TE team, mentors at City College and the
mentors of trainees who attend courses at City college but work for other colleges and training
providers.
Introduction: The context
City College is a general FE college with over 11,000 student enrolments and an annual turnover of
£23 million. The college was formed from the merger in 2002 of Tile Hill College and Coventry
Technical College. Initially, the college had three main sites; the Tile Hill Centre, the Butts Centre and
the Maxwell Centre (originally for construction students but from 2007-2009, it housed performing
arts and art and design students). However, in September 2007 the first phase of a new campus was
opened and the second phase was opened in January 2009 – finally uniting all staff and students in
one location. The new college is situated in the most deprived ward of the city, where levels of poor
adult literacy and numeracy are broadly twice the average for the city as a whole, and ethnic
diversity is at its highest.
(See Annex 1 A Review of the Capital Programme in Further Education by Sir Andrew Foster,
March 2009 http://www.dius.gov.uk/~/media/publications/L/LSC_Capital_Review_acc)
As regards teachers’ training courses, City College had a longstanding association with
Warwick University (though until 2002, Coventry Technical College had links with
Wolverhampton University). Until 2007, City College had been involved in teaching and
developing various Warwick University qualifications, including the Foundation Degree in
PCET and the Certificate for Practitioners in 14-19, the Certificate of Education (F.E.) and the
Certificate in Post Compulsory Education and Training. However, as from September 2007,
we like all other teachers’ training teams, had to get to acquaint ourselves with new
qualifications - PTLLS, CTLLS and DTLLS. The new Diploma in Teaching in the Lifelong
learning Sector (DTLLS) introduced a number of curriculum changes including greater
emphasis being placed on:
The trainees’ subject-specialist teaching,
The trainees’ personal skills in Numeracy, Literacy and ICT
Ensuring that trainees had opportunities to develop the breadth of their experience
e.g. observing/supporting/teaching across a wider range of curriculum levels/types)
It was apparent that the responsibility of developing our trainees was no longer the excusive
preserve of the T.E. team. Now, it was a shared responsibility with subject-specialist
mentors. Clearly, it would be naïve not to recognise that subject-specialist mentors have
supported new teaching colleagues since the Mechanics’ Institute movement of the 19 th
century, but the degree of support depended largely on happenstance - the lucky or unlucky
coincidence of being a trainee in a college or curriculum area where individual members of
staff made personal decisions about how they would help new teachers. Now, in a postDTLLS environment, subject-specialist mentors had an “official” role and a high degree of
responsibility for the development of trainees and their journey towards QTLS.
For the TE team, the crucial issues were identifying the subject-specialist mentors, getting to
know them as professional colleagues and ensuring that we all understood our
responsibilities and how working together would enhance the quality of the learning
experience for our trainees. Obviously, many of the students who attend our DTLLS courses
are fellow employees of City College and in our college we have designated “APs”
(Advanced Practitioners) who observe and support all staff in their professional
development – including those attending ITT courses. Such “APs” were both known to the
TE team and, in some instances, already working closely with the TE team. Clearly, they
were automatically seen as ideal potential subject-specialist mentors. However, traditionally
a significant number of our students attending ITT courses are teachers from other colleges
or training providers. Thus on our DTLLS courses in 2008/9 we had students who taught in
the following colleges:
Employer
City College
Coventry Adult Education Service
Coventry City Community Education Service
Coventry University
Henley College
Hereward College
North Warwickshire and Hinckley College
Stratford-upon-Avon College
Warwickshire Adult and Community
Education Service
Number of trainees
38
14
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
Note: We also regularly get ITT students from such other organisations as Rathbone, the
Prison Service and CWT.
In terms of curriculum areas in which the trainees teach, the distribution of students on
DTLLS courses in 2008/9 was as follows:
Curriculum areas
Art & Design
Business Studies (including Travel and
Tourism )
Construction
Early Years
Engineering
Essential Skills
ESOL
Fashion
Hair and Beauty
Health and Social Care
Holistic therapies
Information Technology
Languages
Media and Popular Music
Performing Arts (including dance)
SLDD
Number of trainees
3
4
6
9
2
7
4
1
3
7
1
5
1
3
3
4
The process
We decided that the subject-specialist mentoring initiative was the most important
challenge facing the TE team at City College, particularly as only two of the team had regular
contact with colleagues at City College who would be performing a mentoring role and only
one of the TE team had an extensive network of contacts in those other organisations which
send trainees on our courses.
In 2008, the TE team had hosted a briefing session outlining the role of the subject specialist
mentor. This was attended by 24 potential mentors –all of whom were employed by City
College. Most of those in attendance were already performing a mentoring function for
trainees on ITT courses, as part of their wider advanced practioner roles. The main focus of
attention during this session was observing lessons and the documentation required by the
university.
The failure to attract any non-City College subject-specialist mentors to our briefing session
made us realise that a different method of communication needed to be deployed.
Accordingly, it was decided to make use of ICT and create a “virtual community of practice”.
At this stage it was envisaged that this “community” would consist of three “stakeholders” –
the TE team , the internal mentors and the external mentors – perceived as three concentric
circles (see Fig. 1)
Fig. 1
TE Team
Internal subject-specialist mentors
External subject-specialist mentors
At a theoretical level, the TE team had been influenced by the work of Jean Lave and
Etienne Wenger on situated learning. In Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral
Participation (1991) Lave and Wenger put forward a model of learning which suggested that
all learning is contextual, “situated” in a social and physical environment. Lave and Wenger
had conducted research in different “real” learning situations e.g. groups of midwives,
tailors, navy quartermasters, meat cutters and alcoholics. In all groups, the acquisition of
knowledge and skills was gradual, as novices learned from “old hands” in the context of
everyday activities. The authors stressed that social interaction and collaboration is critical
as learners become involved in a “community of practice” which requires certain beliefs,
knowledge and attitudes to be acquired. Newcomers move from the periphery of the
community to the centre as they become more active and engaged until they assume the
role of expert. This emphasis on situated learning (and the psychological movement, social
cognition) can also be linked to a number of other interesting perspectives e.g. Vygotsky’s
“activity theory”, Lucy Schuman’s “social activity theory”, Giuseppe Mantovani’s “social
context theory” and James Gibson’s “ecological validity” approach to psychology i.e. studies
should take place in real situations not the laboratory.
Thus the TE team were convinced that we needed to establish a process for real, natural
and practical professional conversations between trainees and experienced mentors.
Accordingly, this idea was the basis of the application to WMCETT for funding for our
Teacher Education Initiative project as this virtual community of practice was seen, at the
time, as the way forward if we were going to create a process to enhance professional
dialogue between the teacher educator team, mentors and trainees. The potential
advantages were perceived as follows:
1. Trainees would feel that the role of the mentor was an integral part of the DTLLS
course.
2. Mentors would rightly regard themselves as part of the teacher-training team.
3. Mentors would be able to gain support in this role from other mentors.
4. The teacher-training team would gain greater knowledge of the culture, of other
curriculum areas and other colleges/training providers. Their role would be
improved by a greater awareness of the problems, practices and challenges faced by
their trainees.
5. To provide the TE team with a contact with whom they could liaise if they had any
issues or problems to discuss that required specialist knowledge of areas of teaching
outside their current experience.
The first tentative step in creating a virtual community of practice involved a meeting
between an IT specialist, the project manager and his Head of School (who was also part of
the TE team). This preliminary discussion raised issues as to whether the appropriate vehicle
for this initiative should be the college’s V.E. system (Moodle) or some alternative platform.
The meeting was informed that Microsoft SharePoint could be used to host web sites that
access shared workspaces, information stores and documents, as well as host defined
applications such as wikis and blogs. Initially, it seemed as if there were strong arguments in
favour of Microsoft SharePoint as it was felt that this would give easier access to the
external mentors – who would not then be inconvenienced by our normal requirement that
Moodle is only accessible by City College staff and enrolled students.
As one might expect, Bill Gates extols the virtues of SharePoint
"My favorite Office thing today is how SharePoint is being used for collaboration." — Bill Gates, Office
System Developer Conference, February 2005
However, we “googled” SharePoint +criticisms and discovered some alternative viewpoints e.g. Five things
wrong with SharePoint by Mike Drips (2005) http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=391848
Although, most of the team were in no position to evaluate the competing perspectives on
SharePoint, we did decide to abandon this possible platform and use Moodle. This decision
was partly based on ignorance and partly rationalised by the fact that we already had a
significant amount of relevant material deposited on Moodle. As rewards the crucial factor
of access to Moodle by external mentors, we decided we could simply see it as a “pilot”
provision and we would trial it by allowing them to “sign in “as guests for a limited timeconstrained period.
In October 2008, Dr Tony Nasta (Institute of Education, London University and a director of
LONCETT) was involved in a three day project working with the TE team at City College.
During his visit, Dr Nasta lead a seminar, attended by the TE team and mentors from all of
the curriculum areas at City College, on developing observation practice observations on ITT
courses. He also shared the work/research he and his team had been undertaking on the
difficult transition from being an expert practitioner in industry to an expert teacher.
Clearly, the role of the mentor is crucial in this process and during the seminar he engaged
in a significant amount of professional discourse with our subject-specialist mentors and
encouraged us to continue with the plans for their increased involvement in ITT courses.
Dr. Nasta’s report stressed that trainees’ needs would be met by “greater synergy between
the activities of the ITT team and the subject specialist mentors” and by improving the
communication to mentors of any development targets for improvement arising out of
observed teaching practice. (Consultancy Report on Teachers’ Training at City College,
October 2008).
In December 2008, the TE team were convinced that we had to create a “community of
practice” and that it had to be “virtual”. This view was reinforced by an article read by the
project manager in which Bierema and Merriam stated that “successful mentoring involves
frequent and regular interaction” but “all sorts of barriers such as time, work
responsibilities, geographical distance and lack of trust often reduce if not halt interaction.”
[Bierema, L.L. and Meriam, S.B. (2002) E-Mentoring: Using Computer Mediated
Communication to Enhance the Mentoring Process, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 26,
No. 3 pp. 211-227]
At this stage, our idea was seen by some colleagues as an ambitious but worthwhile project.
What we had not factored into our project were two major problems which beset us in
2009.
In January 2009 the TE team moved to a new campus. Furthermore, in the same month, our
Head of School, who was also a member of our team left City College to work for Warwick
University. This unexpected reduction in the membership of the team was in addition to the
loss, in the Summer, of a long-standing member of the team who had been working with us
on teachers’ training courses for over 10 years. These personnel problems were, however,
offset in part by the willingness of an experienced advanced practitioner, who had played a
crucial but peripheral role in terms of ITT, courses agreeing to become a “major player” in
the TE team.
These twin problems had an adverse effect on the project. We had grossly underestimated
the impact of moving to a new campus and that it would take some time before all of the
team had such essentials as space, desks and computers. Living out of packing cases and
undertaking additional teaching duties did not sit well with our idea of creating a “virtual
community of practice”.
Outcomes
Despite the delays and ultimate failure to complete the project as originally envisaged there
were some positive outcomes.
1. We did set up a Moodle site which contained much useful information (e.g.
observation materials, assignment briefs, reading materials) which a small number of
subject-specialist mentors accessed and found useful.
2. Partly as a consequence of the project we did hold two successful “conferences” in
which the TE team were able to engage with a wide range of subject-specialist
mentors and other interested parties.
3. The project did create a culture in which there was much greater liaison and, at
least, the start of some notion of professional discourse between the TE team and
mentors within City College.
4. The failure to engage external mentors in our virtual community did result in an
increased number of visits to other colleges (e.g. Hereward) and other training
providers (e.g. the Adult Education Service). Previously, it would probably have been
correct to say that only one member of the TE team had a significant number of
contacts in other institutions. As a result of this initiative all members of the team
are beginning to feel that they are part of a wider community of practice. There is
still, however, a long way to go in relation to this aspect of the project.
5. Working with IT specialists has had unplanned benefits in relation to general aspects
of our ITT courses. Establishing a rapport with the IT specialists has improved our
skills and made it easier to persuade them to contribute directly to our programmes.
One of our team began experimenting with wikis and blogs with her students to
share good practice on equality and diversity.
Final thoughts
1. Creating a virtual community of practice may be a good idea and the solution to
some of the subject-specialist mentor problems encountered at City College and
elsewhere. Clearly, our idea was far from unique and there are a number of far
more sophisticated and successful e-mentoring schemes being run in various parts of
the country. A good example of this is the project run by Warren Kidd and Martin
Belgrove from the University of East London. This initiative involves the creation of
an electronic mentoring provision linked to that university’s ITT programme for the
lifelong learning sector. Interestingly, it involves setting up wiki/site space for
mentors to support each other with planned features including a portal for key
materials and information, regular video podcasts 'of mentors, by mentors for
mentors' and finally a wiki and other discussion board techniques able to support
mentors in their reflective practice. This action research project establishes a
community of practice (virtual and actual) and seeks to transform reflection and
practice within the community to enable mentors to gain a better understanding of
their role in order to support trainees more effectively.
[Belgrove M. & Kidd W. (2009) E-mentoring support to build capacity and achieve
sustainability. London Centre for Excellence in Teacher Training annual conference.
http://www.loncett.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=1050]
2. Our unintended success in creating a more effective “real” community through visits
and conversations with mentors has raised the issue of whether a community of
practice can ever be truly “virtual”.
Christopher Leug has argued that communities of practice are rooted in the “lived- in
world” and moving them to the virtual world raises the question of where the key
elements “learning and doing” are to happen in the virtual world. *Leug, C. (2000)
Where is the Action in Virtual Communities of Practice? http://wwwstaff.it.uts.edu.au/~lueg/papers/commdcscw00.pdf ]
Kimble and Hildreth have argued that “there seems to be an often unquestioned
assumption that CoPs will seamlessly translate from the co-located physical world to
the geographically distributed virtual world” and that “the difficulty of building and
maintaining the strong social ties needed to build a sense of community in a virtual
environment should not be underestimated”.
[Kimble, C. and Hildreth, P. (2004) Communities of practice: Going one step too far?
http://www.chris-kimble.com/Publications/Documents/Kimble_2004.pdf]
Some of the arguments raised in the academic literature on the “virtual v real”
dichotomy resonate with our experience. We only achieved a very limited success in
getting subject-specialist mentors to engage with our Moodle site. This could be
explained by our failure to develop it fully and communicate effectively or because
busy practitioners need something real in a their increasingly virtual world.