Building a Teacher Education Community:

Combining Electronic Mail with Face-to-Face Interactions

Rena Upitis and Tom Russell

Faculty of Education, Queen’s University

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Paper presented at the International Conference,

Self-Study in Teacher Education: Empowering our Future,

Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, England August 5-8, 1996

 

---

 

Building a Teacher Education Community:

Combining Electronic Mail with Face-to-Face Interactions

[Note: We regret that italic and bold typefaces used in the original document could not be reproduced in this presentation of the paper.]

Introduction

When the news of Rena’s appointment as Dean of the Faculty of Education at Queen’s University was announced early in March of 1995, the announcement was received with mixed reviews. There were many who supported the appointment, both in the academic community and in wider community circles. There were others, however, who had grave concerns about her potential as a leader for our Faculty and/or about the process by which she was appointed. Also, there were many complex divisions among faculty, some of which had been festering for nearly two decades, that threatened to drive our fragile faculty apart at the very time that we needed most to come together as a community.

 

It was clear to Rena that her first and most important task would be to help rebuild the community that had once existed -- a community that included tenured and tenure-stream faculty, adjunct instructors, secondees, staff members, and our student body, made up of beginning teachers, inservice teachers, and graduate students. In this paper we describe, from two different points of view, how community building took place. We present a number of electronic messages we sent to one another and that were sent to the Faculty as a whole. Our commentaries are woven amongst the various messages as we describe, from our different perspectives, the immediate and delayed impact of the selected texts.

 

From her view, first as dean-in-waiting (from March) and then as dean (from September), Rena describes how she made changes to structures to facilitate community building. These included providing every member of staff and faculty with access to the list-serve as a way of communicating with each other, centralising administrative functions that had served to enforce the divisions described earlier, conducting open meetings at strategic times on difficult issues (beginning with the controversy surrounding her appointment), delivering carefully worded and passionate messages in large assemblies of faculty, staff, and student groups, and numerous face-to-face encounters with individuals. Rena also relates the turmoil that some of the incidents caused, and how, in working through such turmoil, she came to better understand her colleagues and herself as our community began to change.

 

From his point of view as a "longstanding" faculty member who had some initial reservations about how her appointment was made, Tom discusses how the changes Rena instigated and the messages she sent (both electronically and face-to-face) were received by him and by some of his colleagues.

 

Themes and data

Our goal in this self-study is to understand how electronic mail, as a supplement to the usual face-to-face interactions, can influence community building. Our data are electronic mail messages over the period March 1995-March 1996. Rena has sifted through the messages stored on her office computer to construct 37 themes that illustrate the wide range of electronic conversations within our Faculty of Education and between herself and Tom as two members of that community. She added comments about how each message now appears to her, in terms of the community or our relationship, and Tom then added comments about how each message appears to him, again in hindsight. Four of the 37 themes are reported here.

 

Our conclusions are almost self-evident, after going through this process of selection and annotation to each other. Extensive use of electronic mail has enabled Rena, as a new dean, to communicate not just important information (which tended not to be available at all, under previous deans) but also to convey an image of herself as dean, of the community we are becoming. The data show that Rena and Tom have developed a relationship that is far more positive and productive than they could have hoped to develop in 12 months without electronic mail. In Tom’s view, this self-study process of reviewing their messages and exchanging comments about them plays a central role in further developing their relationship, which had already come a long way through electronic mail and committee work.

 

From March, 1995 to March, 1996, (one calendar year from the announcement of Rena’s appointment), Rena initiated to EDNEWS-L a total of 186 messages that included announcements, issues, requests for help (of all kinds), philosophical tidbits, and "general views and feelings." In addition, Rena and Tom exchanged 171 messages, 12 of which were initiated by Rena. Rena describes Tom as a "medium heavy to heavy" but welcome e-mail user. Most people send fewer, from 0 to 2 or 3 messages a month. Tom sends about 11 messages a month to Rena.

 

1. First email interactions between Tom and Rena

__________________________________________________________________

Date: 7 March 1995, 20:12:58 EST

From: RUSSELLT@QUCDN.Queen’sU.CA

To: UPITISR@educ.Queen’sU.CA

Subject: Dean search

Hi Rena! Just heard the news that you have been offered the deanship. That fits well with your comments in the corridor about liking what you see of Bill Leggett [Principal of Queen’s University]. Rumours abound, I’m told, but in time the dust will settle. I’m also told that there is a rumour that Bob and I went to Leggett last week "to stab you in the back." Well, it was just a little different than that, and I have no more control over rumours than you do. But when you get a moment, let me know, so that I can give you my "take" on that meeting. I’d like to keep the slate as clean as possible and let you know how I saw that meeting. __________________________________________________________________

Rena: This was difficult for me, but as I swallowed hard, I also realised this was an opportunity to practice what I preach -- listen, pay attention, respond honestly, follow through, be courageous, trust ... and then hope like hell! In his office, Tom also shared a fax he’d sent to Bill Leggett; this really hurt. And I didn’t mind my hurt showing. A tough but important conversation. The most difficult part was listening to Tom’s feelings about who I should not consult as dean. I made an important reply, I think, which was that I would listen to those individuals as well as everyone else. It was, in my view, as wrong to listen to only two or three particular voices as to exclude two or three particular voices.

 

Tom: I was pedalling fast as I sent that note to Rena. E-mail got us talking, face-to-face in my office, far faster than we would have by waiting for an appointment. I was wondering if I had managed to poison my relationships with my dean and the university principal for the next five years! If I suggested Rena should not consult certain individuals, then I expect it emerged from my sense that certain individuals had extensive "influence" in Rena’s appointment. Because there are some of us who have never been appointed to Dean’s Review or Search Committees and others who have been appointed several times, I was adjusting to the close of yet another chapter in which Queen’s central administration makes some voices much more equal than others. There can be no doubt that one of Rena’s key community-building strategies involves listening to everyone and to drawing people into engagement with issues we must address as a community. __________________________________________________________________

Date: Wed, 8 Mar 95 16:23:51 EST

From: RUSSELLT@QUCDN.Queen’sU.CA

To: upitisr@educ.Queen’sU.CA

Thanks for responding so quickly, stopping in so quickly, and listening with care... Finally found your memo and look forward to hearing your presentation on Friday. __________________________________________________________________

 

2. Responses to first open meeting for faculty and staff

In the week after her appointment was announced, Rena scheduled two presentations of a version of her presentation to the Search Committee, so that everyone in the Faculty of Education could begin to learn her vision for the future. Tom attended the presentation scheduled from 12:30 to 2:00 on March 10, and shortly afterward [Fri, 10 Mar 95 14:39:19 EST] sent a long e-mail message to Rena, to which she replied later that afternoon. We present her reply, which contains Tom’s message in the sections that appear in italics.

__________________________________________________________________

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 95 16:40:19 EST

From: upitisr@educ.Queen’su.ca (Rena Upitis)

To: RUSSELLT@QUCDN.Queen’sU.CA

Subject: Re: Your talk

Sorry I was late to your talk--a class ran until 1:00... "You and some others" are going off to Western and U of T to see what they are doing. Another nice junket with money we don’t have?? It will look that way unless we all receive soon after a copy of a substantial report--not just to the committee but to everyone... I’d worry less about who doesn’t have e-mail and do more about getting good stuff to those of us who do. Then those who don’t will want to get on e-mail??

 

A good point; I am a great fan of e-mail, as you can see, and I plan to use e-mail to communicate with as many people as I possibly can, both one-on-one as we’re doing now, and to the group that receives e- mail...As to the trip to Western/U of T [Toronto]; it is critical that we understand what other faculties are doing. I volunteered to go on that road trip (don’t worry, it will be cheap -- my truck is good on gas!) because I need to meet those folks anyway. You can bet I’ll be reporting, in great detail, what we find out.

 

I had a dreadful thought as you were recounting the many challenges ahead of us--program coherence, relations with schools, etc. Weren’t [previous deans] hired to help put this place on the research map? Help fix our relations with schools? What can we learn from the past by asking such questions? They had the best of intentions and the "power of the office" but we still seem to have the problems. What water are you going to walk on so that we can see some change? Better still, how will we know when we have changed??

 

And I guess I’ve been appointed to do it all. Well, I’m going to try. I’ll start by talking with colleagues, and by finding out what worked and what didn’t work for [other deans]. I must say, that I think I have two advantages (1) people expect change now and I’m going to harness all the goodwill I can muster to move our energy in good directions, and (2) I have a ton of energy and lots of credibility (at least outside the building, and some inside), and those two things can only help. Oh yes -- one more thing -- I believe research and field stuff are important; that’s what I’ve been doing myself for the past 14 years!

 

Energy and credibility certainly help, but they still don’t make change easy, even if people expect it... Passion for teaching... that was obvious on Friday... yet I would defy you to convince me that "learning to teach" is part of our institutional fabric. It’s hard enough for curriculum people to focus on it...

 

No need to "defy" me on this one. If it is part of our institutional fabric, it probably isn’t one of the biggest squares in the patchwork quilt. I, myself, have a great deal of difficulty focussing on the "learning to teach" aspects of the math curriculum course, even though I want to -- partly because I have students who say, "We didn’t mean that we wanted you to teach us how to teach long division. We wanted you to teach us how to DO long division." Arrrggh.

 

I too spent a long time not calling what I was doing action research. I’ve never assumed we did not have a lot of common ground--I simply didn’t have any evidence either way. That’s the state most of us are in with respect of most of our colleagues, because the front office has never been used as a resource for getting us together. It’s going to take years, Rena, not months, to begin to change that reality here. The doubts and mistrusts are very deep-seated. Count yourself lucky if you can see significant change in four years, not one.

 

I know it’s going to take more than a year to do all of this (thank goodness it’s a five-year term). I think we’ve made a small start with respect to sharing research...but we’re talking about changing a culture, and this is long work (and not solo work).

 

I’ve gone on far too long but do appreciate knowing that someone is listening, and I hope you are getting lots from lots of sources, and that you will give us ALL (e-mail etc) your updates on our institutional fabric as you come to know it better and better.

 

Thanks Tom -- I am getting LOTS of views from LOTS of sources, and not only will I share what I find out, but I’m asking others to share as well. Stay tuned to your favourite internet channel!!! __________________________________________________________________

Rena: I’m glad Tom is sending lots of e-mail, and willing to speak openly about his angst. This is good. This is the kind of chance I need to SHOW that I’m serious about reporting to the community. But it is hard. I phrase my replies carefully -- with strength and humour, I hope. We start here what will be a long-term pattern: talking about research and teaching in the middle of all of the other issues at hand. I was disturbed by Tom’s comment that I would be lucky to see change in four years, not one. I wonder, to myself, if he is right. I still believe, though, that in six months it will be possible to turn this place into a community. And I tell myself that if I can’t do it in six months, it can’t be done. Four years is too long. We don’t have that kind of time.

 

Tom: What an awful set of messages to send to a new dean! What a jaded view of reality I had acquired from her predecessors. This message is a treasure for the discomfort it creates. It’s certainly not my job to tell her what she should be doing. I certainly was not in a community-building mood, and in some ways I suppose I was feeling excluded from any sense of community. In hindsight, a year later, I feel completely differently. I can’t help but notice the combination of confidence and openness in this exchange with Rena, who clearly knows herself and knows her base of support. And she is obviously not one to duck critical comments. Her positive and constructive tone are like nothing I’ve ever seen at Queen’s. Her implication that something will change when she does "assume the position" masks the reality that she became the dean as soon as her appointment was announced. She did not have the official responsibility, but she took on all the actions of a dean, actions that I had been waiting to see for 18 years, and had come to assume would never happen. An interesting thought occurs as I look back over the evidence of what we said to each other. In a university community, it is easy to identify "the new and the vulnerable" in the form of those who are working for tenure. Often these people are young, but this is not necessarily the case. Having been awarded tenure after six years some 13 years ago, I have to accept the fact that I am not new here. Yet I remember those early years very clearly, and felt "new here" far longer than most people seemed to credit me with being new. We who are "older" are easily painted with a single brush, when in fact we vary enormously in our relationships to whatever community exists around us. We who are "older" are not a homogeneous community in any sense beyond mere "been around a long time." Although much has changed in Rena’s first year on the job, we are still a community with disparate views about the relevance of research in a Faculty of Education that, some say, should first and foremost be known for good teaching. We have still not resolved the "common sense notion" that doing research means neglecting one’s teaching.

 

13. Just plain praise! -- more Tom-Rena interactions __________________________________________________________________

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 12:23:50 EDT

To: upitisr

From: RUSSELLT Subject: Service

WELL DONE, Rena! It’s about time someone had the courage to say that we don’t need more people earning tenure through exemplary service... There may be many takes on what you sent, but I think you got the sense of "balance" perfectly! __________________________________________________________________

Rena: This was one of the first, if not the first message from Tom that started to appear in my mailbox at regular intervals. What a surprise -- and shock! I wasn’t sure what to expect, with the heading "service", and realised, only after reading the message, that I had been bracing myself. I chuckled to myself after reading this one, remembering the earlier prediction that it would take YEARS for anything to change! Small victories...

 

Tom: Here’s where this shared paper with Rena starts to become uncomfortable. Of course she would be aware that I could "go either way" in my reactions to her early efforts, given the "welcome to your new appointment" that I had given her. But I still see myself as "new around here," just because most people have been here longer than I have. I can’t have it both ways--but I am very glad that I was "open to the evidence"--Rena is a very compelling personality, as well as a very powerful one. I’ve always known that "charisma" is a significant element in leadership, but knowing and working with Rena gives new meaning to charisma. Perhaps most amazing of all has been Rena’s ability to move beyond the close friendships she had within the faculty before becoming dean, to showing everyone that she values his or her presence in the community.

 

21. Making inroads at the university level __________________________________________________________________

Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 09:23 EDT

To: facstaf

From: upitisr

Subject: emergency meeting of senate

Hi. I’ve just returned from a 7:30 a.m. Senate meeting, called by the Principal, to brief us on the impending budget cuts. You’ll be able to get more details in the Senate minutes in the Gazette. The bottom line: cuts are coming, they’re coming soon, they will be severe, we need to "restructure." The good news: the Principal held up the Faculty of Education as an example of "willingness to move proactively to other models." Something’s working. __________________________________________________________________

Rena: This was an exciting morning for me -- it felt as if the Principal was paying attention to the Faculty of Education. It was important to share this, and to encourage whatever was happening to make it so. Also, I felt the need to warn people of the imminent budget crisis.

 

Tom: One of the many appealing features of Rena’s style involves her quick and clear communication of the details of meetings that we have not been told about in the past. Rena seems to sense intuitively that information shared freely and clearly is a major step in making her work as dean easier.

 

Making sense of the data

This collection of e-mail messages shows at work a Dean of Education in her first year in office, clearly using e-mail as a way to create an "electronic trail" (fairly easily converted to a paper trail) of her efforts to communicate with an organization (of more than 50). By inviting Tom to join in the analysis, Rena has highlighted one fairly "bold and outspoken" member of the organization, one who tends to send e-mail and only later wonder if it was really such a good idea.

 

Rena and Tom seem to differ on the issue of the timeline for change to occur. In hindsight, Tom can see where Rena would have found it very difficult to accept that change would take years. Her energy, insight, and creativity naturally require a shorter timeline. Tom would be the first to conclude that she has shifted our organizational culture forward much faster and more positively than he ever imagined possible. She took office at exactly the right time, in terms of changes at the university level. The long-term changes that Tom has in mind include programmatic changes, and by definition, those are long-term. It will be June 1998 before the first group of almost 700 completes the new program structure that we approved on December 13, 1995. But the pilot group of about 60 in 1996-97 will be studied inside and out, in part thanks to Rena’s enthusiasm for and total commitment to the new structure and to involving everyone in our community in the process of change. Still, it will be two more years before we can begin to make a comprehensive, evidence-based judgement of the changes we have made and their effects on beginning teachers. From Rena’s perspective, she has achieved what she had hoped to achieve in building a community. She agrees that it will still be a few years before program changes are part of the new culture.

 

To sum up, it appears to both of us that Rena has moved the Faculty of Education forward as a community in remarkable ways in her first 12 months as dean-designate and then dean. Along the way, she has extended her own relationships with virtually every individual within that community, as the examples of her electronic dialogues with Tom indicate. Finally, change is happening, on many fronts, from an open and transparent budget to a new program design for preservice teacher education. Electronic mail was an essential medium in Rena’s first year in office, but we have to note that it was just the medium that made it possible to share information quickly and widely. The messages between us and within our community still had to have the content and tone that indicated openness and trust.