Factors influencing discipline-specific facilitators’ roles in a multi-tiered professional learning programme in higher education

ABSTRACT This study investigated the roles of eleven discipline-specific facilitators in a multi-tiered professional learning programme implemented in a higher education context. The study also examined the factors supporting and hindering their emerging roles, as they facilitated professional learning opportunities to other faculty in their colleges, while also being supported by programme coordinators. Using a phenomenological approach, data were generated from multiple qualitative sources, mainly portfolio entries and interviews conducted with the eleven facilitators at the end of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the programme. Data analysis revealed the emerging facilitation roles, as well as the intricacies of the factors that were either supports or constraints to the different facilitators. Implications for the role that facilitation played in transforming teaching and learning in a centralised context are discussed. Specifically, this study delineated the need for both bottom-up approaches supported by top-down structures, which can enhance teaching and learning pedagogies and practices. This mix of bottom-up agency and top-down authority was shown to better support discipline-specific facilitators and faculty participants alike.


Introduction
As the Higher Education (HE) context becomes more complex, the need for improving quality teaching and learning has never been more compelling or challenging (Saroyan and Trigwell 2015). Professional learning plays a key role in the development and improvement of teaching and learning practices in HE (Chaaban et al. 2023). Typically, faculty members at various universities are discipline-specific experts in their respective fields, yet are not necessarily prepared for their teaching roles and do not necessarily implement diverse pedagogical practices. Most HE contexts do not require formal teaching qualifications, and mostly support faculty through the provision of generic professional learning opportunities which are often housed in university teaching and learning centres (Chaaban et al. 2023).
Despite the importance of these centres for faculty professional learning, there is a need for further opportunities for learning, particularly those based on social constructivist theories of adult learning (Ince 2017;Margalef and Pareja-Roblin 2016). These models offer more than explicit exposure to pedagogical innovations through their emphasis on creating a support system for faculty (Maher and Schuck 2020). An important aspect of this support system is the availability of facilitation processes infused within the model of professional learning. Despite variations among these models, facilitation processes are often used to describe the roles and actions of individuals who lead, plan and deliver professional activities (Perry and Booth 2021). Whether internal or external to the university site, facilitators are individuals who may take on multiple roles and perform various actions. They may coordinate faculty teamwork, create a suitable environment to support learning, and strengthen the ability of the team to generate knowledge about their own teaching practices (Margalef and Pareja-Roblin 2016).
These facilitation processes were embedded within a multi-tiered programme at Qatar University. The university has witnessed a proliferation of professional learning opportunities aimed at improving teaching and learning, improving student learning outcomes, and catering to students' diverse needs. One such initiative was a long-term, multi-tiered programme that supported faculty as change agents. The programme was designed on social constructivist theories of adult learning and encouraged the co-creation of knowledge through interaction, collaboration, reflection, and authentic tasks. Most importantly, the programme infused two levels of facilitation. The first type of facilitation, carried out by the programme coordinators, who are also the authors of this paper, performed the role of pedagogical experts. The second level of facilitation constituted faculty taking on the role of discipline-specific facilitators, primarily becoming responsible for supporting two participants from the same college. As a distinctive feature of this programme, these first-time discipline-specific facilitators played an important role in liaising between the pedagogical experts and the faculty participants throughout the programme.
This study is part of a research project that evaluated the implementation of the aforementioned programme at Qatar University. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of discipline-specific facilitators, and further understand the diverse factors that either supported or hindered their emerging roles. Previous evaluation studies that have documented the role of facilitators tend to refer to external pedagogical experts who 'train' faculty on ways to improve their instructional practices (Margalef and Pareja-Roblin 2016;Perry and Booth 2021). As discipline-specific facilitators, their roles and experiences may be considered emerging in nature, with few studies tapping into the lived experiences of this specialised group of faculty (Maher and Schuck 2020).
Furthermore, the programme under investigation was particular, even for the university context where it was implemented. Following a centralised model of governance, the university has adopted a similarly centralised system of professional learning for faculty. This mainly constituted the delivery of one-shot workshops, generic seminars, and how-to sessions on topics of direct relevance to classroom teaching. These activities are based on the principle of one-size-fits-all, thus reflecting the values of the university and its institutional strategy. Similar models have been documented in extant literature, with limited influence on faculty professional learning. In contrast, this study offers an alternative model characterised by its decentralised nature and emphasis of a bottom-up approach to change. Few studies have documented similarly innovative models of professional learning that are based on social constructivist theories of adult learning, and constituting an amalgam of centralised and decentralised characteristics. This study aimed to fill in this gap in the literature by first introducing a new approach to professional learning that offers university leaders, facilitators and faculty insights on the complexities of professional learning through facilitation processes in a multi-tiered programme.
In particular, this study explored the experiences of a group of eleven facilitators who took part in the programme for the duration of three academic semesters (Fall 2020-Fall 2021). Using a conceptual framework inspired by systems-thinking perspectives, the factors influencing the experiences of these facilitators' roles was conceptualised along three dimensions, namely intrapersonal, relational and contextual. These dimensions offered a useful lens for the exploration of multiple factors embedded within diverse systems of influence, and reflecting the potential for facilitators' agency to emerge within the supports and constraints of the smaller and larger systems. Accordingly, this conceptual framework served as a systematic heuristic for understanding the complexity of facilitation processes, which may further contribute to similar understandings when implemented in other professional learning contexts. The research questions we investigated were: What are the emerging roles of discipline-specific facilitators in a multi-tiered professional learning programme? What are the factors challenging or supporting facilitators in conducting their role in this programme?

Study context
At Qatar University, faculty have multiple opportunities for professional learning through the university's centre of teaching excellence. However, these opportunities follow a centralised system that consists mainly of oneshort workshops and seminars without further follow-up on implementation. Therefore, ahead of launching the professional learning programme under examination in this study, the coordinators sought senior leadership support to ensure participation from the diverse colleges. The ultimate aim of the programme was to establish a cohort of faculty who would become change agents within their respective colleges and lead further change, conceptualised as the adoption of constructivist pedagogies and practices.
During the first roll-out of the programme, all eleven colleges nominated a participant who was chosen based on previous experience with curriculum committees or personal interest in teaching and learning. These participants came together in the Fall of 2020 and took part in a series of workshops and discussions with the programme coordinators to prepare them for their facilitator roles. These learning activities focused on building knowledge and skills around potential facilitation roles, coaching techniques, constructivist learning theories, and pedagogical approaches in HE. The discussions were intentionally loosely structured, and tackled a broad range of topics needed for their facilitation roles. These discussions afforded facilitators a chance to explore their roles as facilitators in an innovative professional learning model. This initial phase was considered important to obtain buyin and generate ownership for the programme. These participants were then designated as discipline-specific facilitators.
Consequently, the multi-tiered nature of the programme was instituted through the specific roles of programme coordinators, discipline-specific facilitators and faculty participants. The programme was thus multi-tiered in that the programme coordinators were the main designers and organisers of the discussions and workshops. They worked closely with disciplinespecific facilitators and participants, though with different topics and purposes. The discipline-specific facilitators chose two participants within their colleges based on their willingness to participate and motivated by receiving a reduced workload. During the following two semesters (Spring and Fall 2021), these facilitators collaborated with faculty participants from their respective colleges, offering support and feedback on navigating change through their design and implementation of new teaching and learning approaches. The two semesters constituted Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the programme respectively.
The professional learning programme included four main elements. Throughout these activities, the discipline-specific facilitators played an important supportive role. As the programme evolved, facilitators' roles evolved with it, as they responded to participants' needs and navigated university policies and practices. The emerging nature of the facilitators' roles was considered, and required the need to remain flexible and adapt to intrapersonal, relational and contextual challenges. Learning communities -coordinators deployed learning communities within and across colleges. -participants from across colleges participated in the facilitated discussions where they shared thoughts and experiences. -facilitators led college-level learning communities that offered a place where participants could receive specialised feedback from the facilitators on their new teaching designs.
facilitators further encouraged participants to discuss the information presented in the workshops, required readings, and other readings of their own choosing in these smaller communities.
Authentic tasks -coordinators required participants to redesign their course syllabi to incorporate the main principles and approaches presented throughout the programme. -participants revamped their course syllabi, developed new assessments and implemented innovative teaching approaches. -facilitators provided feedback on course syllabi and conducted peer observations. Table 1 below shows how faculty participants engaged in these activities supported by the coordinators and the discipline-specific facilitators.

Facilitation roles and processes
Considering the complexity of administering a multi-tiered professional programme in a HE setting (Kálmán, Tynjälä, and Skaniakos 2020), how facilitators perceive of and define their roles matters. According to a study by Berta et al. (2015), facilitation is comprised of three primary elements: (1) the facilitator role and associated activities, (2) facilitation processes and essential components and (3) outcomes of facilitation. They find that facilitation 'acts and enables others to implement a practice change' (Berta et al. 2015, 6). They further hypothesised that 'facilitation is a social integration mechanism that leads to realizing (latent) absorptive capacity potential' (Berta et al. 2015, 7). Others have reported facilitators' characteristics, including prior knowledge, creating cognitive dissonance, application of the knowledge with feedback, reflection on learning, personal motivation and critical reflection (Ince 2017). Ince (2017) further suggested that facilitation was meant to help facilitators first realise their potential in transforming their own practices and then transfer their new understandings to support other faculty in furthering their understanding of innovative pedagogies and practices.
The literature on facilitation also describes how facilitators perceive of their roles. Margalef and Roblin (2016) identify four main roles of a facilitator: coordinate activities, support community building, support teacher learning, and promote leadership. The authors ultimately conclude that 'facilitators are not stable but require continuous adaptation to the pace and changing needs of the community' (167). Perry and Booth's (2021) analysis of the roles of four professional development facilitators defines their role as consisting of content (ideas, theories and pedagogies presented to participants), pedagogy (strategies used to engage participants with the content and with each other), and embodiment (social and relational interactions with participants). In sum, "facilitation is a goal-oriented, contextdependent social process for implementing new knowledge into practice or organizational routines" (Berta et al. 2015, 7). It typically involves faculty learning together and pursuing similar goals for improvement, under the auspices of supportive relationships. To perform their roles, facilitators must engage in effective communication and interactive problem solving as key processes (Berta et al. 2015).

Challenges and supports to professional learning
Based on systems-thinking perspectives, this study conceptualises the factors influencing facilitators' roles along three dimensions, namely intrapersonal, relational and contextual. Within the intrapersonal dimension, several factors may support or hinder facilitation processes, such as facilitators' beliefs about teaching and learning, their knowledge and skills, and their prior experiences. Further, the factors pertaining to the dynamics of relational capacities include collective vision, shared values and collaborative processes. Within the contextual domain, the factors supporting or hindering facilitators' roles emerge from their interactions with university administration, culture and policies (Sleegers et al. 2013). There is a complex interplay in the way that the intrapersonal, relational, and contextual domains create challenges and supports in the delivery of a professional learning intervention. These dimensions are further clarified below.
The intrapersonal domain focuses on facilitators' beliefs about teaching and learning, their motivation and confidence as facilitators, their willingness to change and transfer knowledge, the buy-in process to adapt to the new change. In this regard, critical reflection is an important aspect of the personal domain as a facilitator is presented with 'ideas and behaviours that cause them to examine critically their values, ways of acting and the assumptions by which they live' (Brookfield 1986 as citied in Ince 2017, 196). Critical reflections mean 'being able to move beyond what might be perceived as personal criticism of an individual into the principles underpinning the behaviours, views and understandings may be difficult, especially for experienced professionals' (Ince 2017, 197). Other factors also matter in the intrapersonal domain. Ince (2017) observes that 'experience in the role was useful because it enabled the facilitator with organisational and pragmatic aspects of the learning environment, managing group dynamics and subject knowledge' (204). In addition, personal motivation and observational skill also mattered, according to Ince (2017).
The relational domain focuses on observable and latent interactions of collaboration among facilitators and their colleagues or participants. According to a study by Pareja and Margalef (2013), there are two influences on interpersonal interactions in professional learning facilitation: One latent interaction conceptualises the teaching and learning process as uncertain, and the second one is social-civic, and is observed through facilitators' interactions with other stakeholders in the educational domain. Faculty professional learning occurs through various interactions based on an individualistic approach, construction of knowledge, or the creation of teamworking culture (Hinojosa-Pareja and García-Cano 2020). These areas highlight the social construction of 'dialogic learning' (Gast, Schildkamp, and Van der Veen 2017) where the facilitation process can be seen in terms of direct coaching, community of practice and teachers' evaluation (Thurlings and Brok 2017). Maher and Schuck (2020) also find that 'internal facilitators need to be both leaders and followers' (523). The relational domain of the facilitator role is insightfully described by Lyons, Pinnell, and DeFord (1993) as being the 'critical friend' (Lyons, Pinnell, and DeFord 1993). Osterman and Kottkamp further clarify that 'the facilitator is not a superior assessing performance quality but a collaborator stimulating professional growth in a way consistent with the needs of the individual' (1993 as cited in Ince 2017, 197). Faculty collaboration can generate challenges to professional learning if faculty see the new practice from a distance, but strong collaboration can 'enable the development of a genuinely investigative approach to practice' (Plauborg 2009 as citied in Maher and Schuck 2020, 523).
Finally, the contextual domain defines the institutional and environmental barriers and resources in which the professional learning programme is facilitated. This element defines the autonomy and authority of informal leaders, secures resources for professional development, models the vision and focus, and creates trust environments (Harris and Dinham 2011). Higher education tends to be 'balkanized,' where faculty, colleges and programmes often work in isolation (Hargreaves and Fullan 2012, 115). Moving towards a collective and collaborative approach through 'institutional strategy' significantly impacts the implementation of professional learning (Groves and Rönnerman 2013). The contextual domain also focuses on critical resources that make professional learning possible. More specifically, contractual, fixed time, and financial resources are critical ingredients of the success of professional learning. One study found that 'system elements, like limited contractual collaboration time, may make it challenging to find time for discussions about learning, instruction, and collaborative evaluation practices' (Antinluoma, Ilomäki, and Toom 2021, 4).

Research design
This study employed a phenomenological research approach (Creswell 2009) to examine facilitation of professional learning in higher education. Phenomenology research delves into the complexity of human experiences and described the essence of such experiences (Creswell 2009). It is a useful approach in obtaining an in-depth and multi-faceted understanding of participants' lived experiences in authentic settings. In the case of this study, this authentic setting was the professional learning programme and the lived experiences were those of discipline-specific facilitators who took an active role in facilitating the professional learning of university faculty.
Participants. This study included eleven facilitators who came from various colleges at Qatar University. They were invited to join the professional learning programme voluntarily based on several criteria, including the quality of their leadership, teaching reputation, years of experience, and engagement in various pedagogical initiatives. They were recruited based on their willingness to participate and were offered a reduced workload for encouragement. Each facilitator was responsible to follow-up with two participants at their respective colleges.
The demographic data that were collected included gender (F = 4; M = 7) and academic rank (Assistant professor = 2; Associate professor = 9). With one facilitator leaving the professional learning programme after Phase 1, eleven discipline-specific facilitators agreed to participate in this study following university ethical considerations of anonymity and consent. The study was given ethical approval from the university's IRB committee and participants signed a consent form ahead of participating in the professional learning programme and before any data collection. They were assured anonymity by using pseudonyms in the findings, and the ability to withdraw from the programme or the study at any time.
The facilitators who participated in this programme had little experience with professional learning beyond the traditional short workshops offered by the university. While they did have lengthy experience in classroom teaching, this experience included a range of pedagogical approaches, from traditional approaches to teaching to more progressive studentcentred approaches.
Data collection and analysis. The data for this study was derived from multiple qualitative sources, particularly portfolio entries and interviews with facilitators that occurred at the end of Phase 1 and 2. Adopting a phenomenology approach, the facilitators' voices were prioritised through their ability to explain their experiences in both written and spoken form. Though structured using guiding questions, the data collection tools allowed the facilitators to document their opinions and perspectives freely and without restriction. The portfolio entries were completed by the facilitators by responding to structured questions. The facilitators were prompted to complete these portfolio entries at different intervals of the programme. Sample portfolio entries included questions about educational background and experiences, pedagogical beliefs, understandings about innovative pedagogies, prospective goals and reflections on implementation.
Furthermore, the interviews were conducted by an independent research assistant. Phase 1 interviews were semi-structured and sought to gain a sense of how facilitators viewed their roles and responsibilities, their preparation for such roles, and the challenges they faced. Phase 2 interviews focused on facilitators' evaluation of their roles, their experiences with participants, personal and contextual reflections, and factors supporting or hindering their roles. Participants were encouraged to share their reflections in English or Arabic, based on their preferences. The interviews were approximately 40 and 60 minutes each.
Once the interview data were collected, they were transcribed, translated (if needed), and prepared for analysis. Using the interview transcripts and the portfolio entries, an inductive and bottom-up approach to analysis was employed searching for codes and patterns emerging from both data sets. In the initial stage, both sets of data were read and reread multiple times as we searched for codes independently and then shared our analyses for consensus. Once these codes were identified, the first author developed a table for further analysing the data sets. Sections from the portfolios and interviews were copied into this table for ease of reference. These were then grouped into themes which revealed the complexity of facilitator' roles and the factors influencing their roles. For instance, the same factor was documented as a support for one facilitator, yet as a constraint for another. The themes were then categorised according to the three levels of the systemsthinking perspective adopted in this study. Thus, the thematic analysis of the data allowed for patterns to emerge inductively.

Findings
The following section presents the findings of this study according to the two research questions. The first question pertained to the facilitator roles which emerged throughout the multi-tiered professional learning programme. The second question addressed the factors which either supported or hindered facilitation in this programme.

Facilitator roles
Thematic analysis revealed three main facilitation roles presented in this section, namely (1) scaffolding peer learning, (2) mediating among multiple stakeholders, and (3) supporting participants in overcoming challenges.
First, a main role performed by the majority of participants (N = 9) included scaffolding peer learning. Facilitators recruited participants at the beginning of the programme by persuading them to join and then supported them to incrementally acquire new skills and further the depth of their professional learning. One participant noted: Initially, I had to encourage them to join the programme . . . They did not even understand what is all this pedagogy about. So, it was a very, very grey zone for them, and the pace at which things were running was rather fast for them to deal with, so the moment we started having more discussions as often as we could, things started getting clearer (F3).
This process was also seen by some facilitators as a reciprocal process of learning, in which both the facilitators and the participants found new ways of acquiring new understandings and practices throughout the programme. One facilitator reflected, I actually have learned a lot in this programme, I know that I have some roles as a facilitator, that I had to help the participants and help to overcome the problem that they might face, but actually, I find myself lucky because I also changed many things in my own course. So, in many times, I act as a participant, not as a facilitator (F2).
Second, there was a sense among some facilitators that the programme coordinators allowed for significant autonomy in how facilitators implemented the programme. This sense of autonomy led facilitators (N = 7) to play an important role in mediating between multiple stakeholders. One facilitator took this mediation to heart and felt that making this programme successful was almost a necessity: 'I put a lot of my own personal credit and credibility and social capital on the line to suggest to my friends and colleagues to participate in this programme' (F1). Another facilitator explained, 'So I was the person who was trying to explain the programme to the administration, but also logistically trying to make it happen' (F11). The politics of mediating leadership on one hand, and providing logistical supports to participants on the other hand proved challenging but rewarding and inspired more flexibility and innovation among facilitators.
In their mediation with the participants, facilitators chose 'like-minded colleagues' and maintained 'very informal' relationships with them as they worked together to implement the programme. An informal, collegial approach to the facilitator-participant relationship allowed for 'both professional discussions as a group, and discussions that happened in the corridor' (F3). Their mediation processes led to establishing mutual trust, which involved the development of a safe environment in which all stakeholders could learn together. The facilitator's role in this perspective was to engage collective learning through trust and levelling the field, as one participant noted, 'the moment we had a sort of a trust built in between us, we were able to talk about all the problems that were currently in the college' (F11).
Third, some facilitators (N = 6) also described their role in supporting participants to overcome challenges. They described serving as the 'troubleshooting voice' to overcome communication challenges and resolve problems that participants encountered. One facilitator explained: The programme came into conflict with so many institutional hindrances. For example, having to adhere to certain rules because you're teaching a common course with other colleagues . . . it was a nice exchange of all of these barriers, but then we were able to overcome them because of a firm belief that we really need to change in our pedagogical development (F5).
Facilitators' problem-solving role allowed them to be protective and proactive in voicing participants' concerns and addressing bureaucratic complexities. They were also able to support participants in overcoming challenges in implementing their new teaching design and keep the momentum going for the programme. One way in which they accomplished this role was through practicing what they preach and modelling innovative practices in their own classrooms. According to one facilitator, participants came with insufficient pedagogical background and transforming their practices required collective reflection where facilitators were 'open to reflecting on their own practice and willing to discuss that practice with others' (F6).

Challenges and supports to professional learning
This section is organised into three subsections pertaining to the challenges and supports encountered by the eleven facilitators as pertaining to the intrapersonal, relational and contextual domains.
Intrapersonal domain. A core theme described by facilitators was the relationship between the programme's philosophy and their own belief systems. That is, the programme was perceived by some facilitators (N = 5) as being compatible with their beliefs. These facilitators were able to promote the pedagogies and practices advocated in the programme, and convince participants of their need for student learning, as one facilitator explained: I am keen to improve the learning process that would enrich the students with the upto-date information and more importantly, to link between education and industry . . . The very traditional way of teaching, which really depends on memorization is not efficient at all to prepare our students for the job market later on . . . So, of course, the goals of the programme are very much aligned with my goals (F2).
On the other hand, feeling prepared for their roles was a challenge for some facilitators (N = 4). Specifically at the beginning of Phase 1 of the programme, these facilitators felt overwhelmed and lacked self-efficacy beliefs in the ability to facilitate others, as one facilitator commented, 'that was my discomfort with the programme right from the start. I didn't want anybody thinking that I was putting myself as an expert because I have not at all' (F6). These feelings eased along the way, as the same facilitator commented, 'I felt completely unprepared for that . . . I did sort of learn on the job and I did certainly come to believe that I was far more knowledgeable than I had been' (F6). The emerging nature of the programme was behind these feelings of unpreparedness, as another participant explained, 'For me, it was just sort of we were making decisions as we went. And I guess I'm used to a system where you're following more of a script' (F11).
To overcome their intrapersonal challenges with their roles, some facilitators (N = 5) described self-reflection as critical throughout the programme. It gave them the capacity to maintain a balance between the facilitator roles and their other roles at the university, as well as understand their multiple roles and appreciate the boundaries among them. Some facilitators with administrative roles indicated that they advanced the professional learning programme by giving participants more autonomy for change. Some reflected on the need for an incremental approach to change to give participants more time to work with participants, as one facilitator explained, 'I took it very, very slow, just meeting them, exploring the way they are teaching, discussing their teaching philosophy, which helped me understand where to begin with them and move on from there' (F10).
Finally, prior experiences with student-centred learning impacted how most facilitators (N = 9) responded to the bottom-up programme design. For example, one facilitator felt ownership over the programme: 'I evaluate my role as very effective and very critical during this programme . . . it gives me a chance to communicate and share my expertise and knowledge with others' (F9). However, other facilitators (N = 2) also observed that the bottom-up approach introduced an unanticipated challenge, that is faculty teach according to how they were taught. They found it challenging to advocate for practices that they were still learning and requested more guidance from the programme coordinators, as one facilitator described: I was juggling with preparing my courses according to the programme principles, but also being a part of this programme and helping my colleagues. So, it was a bit of a juggle for me, and I will say that commitment-wise was not the maximum (F4).
Relational domain. The structure of the programme constituted a strong support system for some facilitators (N = 5), yet an 'unnecessary complexity' for others (N = 2) due to its fluid nature. On the latter note, one facilitator commented, 'I just feel that everything was negotiated and so it was too fluid for my liking' (F11). Another facilitator wanted clear role descriptions and strategies for managing power relationships which emerged as a result of their mediation roles, as explained in this comment, 'this programme did not come through vertical alignment with the line mangers very clear, most of the time, they didn't know what we were busy doing' (F3). The majority, by contrast, found the programme to offer the opportunity for building strong relational structures which supported their multiple roles. One facilitator expressed support for the lack of a rigid structuring, noting that he was able to find support whenever he requested it: The purposely gives us the feeling that all our ideas and opinions matter and are part of the collective learning process. The programme coordinators showed a high level of flexibility by providing a range of solutions and ideas to choose from (F8).
Most facilitators (N = 9) enjoyed strong relationships with their participants and were able to offer such support in a collegial manner. As the participants came from various colleges with different levels of experience with studentcentred teaching, some required more guidance and support from the facilitators. While some started their relationships with resistance and confusion, others found the collegial structure levelled the playing field. One facilitator who faced challenges explained, 'if we have someone who doesn't believe that this programme should be among the top priorities, of course, we will not find the successful experience' (F2). A constraint for another facilitator was the collegial nature of his role, as this comment revealed, Because I was dealing with my colleagues and friends, I have to really be careful about what area I am supposed to give feedback and when I should not, in which area do I start expressing my own ideas so strongly that it's not their ideas anymore. So, I have to be very, very careful, not to overstep boundaries and it was a challenging experience like that (F3).
There was also the benefit of external collaborations wherein some facilitators viewed cross-college collaboration among facilitators as an asset to enriching the dialogue, sharing experiences, and learning from others who may be grappling with similar concerns. One facilitator explained, 'seeing other people in the similar situation and discussing with them and chatting with them. . . Those things really helped me to get rid of all the misconceptions that I had about the programme itself' (F1).
Finally, there was a celebratory sense of achievement by some facilitators (N = 8) who observed change in practices among participants. These facilitators explained their contribution in the programme, specifically leading to improved faculty agency by empowering them to take initiative, to create their own syllabus, and change their classroom practices. As one facilitator described: I think the most dramatic change was in one of my participants . . . I have seen in him the most dramatic turnaround in his language, his beliefs about teaching, and his ideas about constructive alignment of learning outcomes, and pedagogy and assessment (F6).

Contextual domain.
Most facilitators (N = 9) described how university policies related to incentives, rewards, and workload impacted the success of the professional learning initiative in mostly challenging ways. One challenge described by these facilitators was the limited time and incentives given to faculty to participate in professional learning initiatives, despite acknowledging their importance in advancing their pedagogical understanding and practices. More specifically, the facilitators explained that the time to conduct professional learning is taken off the time faculty could spend with their students, which they did not see as mandatory. As one facilitator explained, 'another institutional barrier to improve pedagogical performance generally, is the lack of a requirement for faculty to have any form of teaching or pedagogical training . . . The fact is that you can be teaching undergrad or Master's or PhD level with literally zero teaching skills' (F11).
Furthermore, most facilitators (N = 8) also described how research is incentivised over teaching in their context. That is, research is rewarded and recognised, and constitutes a significant part of promotion. One facilitator concluded, 'such programmes need to be accounted for from top management. If faculty are putting their time and effort into a developmental programme that is not going to be counted for promotion, they will not see any interest in that' (F3).
Several facilitators (N = 6) also believed that implementation would have been easier if there was centralised support and policies at the middle and senior leadership level. At the middle leadership level, some facilitators (N = 7) noted the way institutional support played an important role in supporting or hindering their facilitation roles. Leadership recognition of the programme's contributions and significance to improving the quality of teaching and learning motivated facilitators in their support of the participants. As one facilitator said, The institutional support evolved, so it wasn't immediately there from the beginning . . . As we got to the end of the programme, the associate dean took a very keen interest in this, and he wanted to actually mandate that the course syllabus for all subjects for the coming semester, is changed to incorporate some of these approaches (F1). Further at the senior leadership level, these facilitators noted the significance of senior leaders' direct involvement in the programme. One facilitator noted, 'I would say more direct communications between the Vice President office and the Dean's office, because when a message comes from these offices, then it will be implemented instantaneously' (F2). In the context of facilitating a professional learning initiative focused on student-centred and project-based learning, senior leadership support becomes necessary as many of the policies which may hinder the programme are mandated from higher administration. For example, the university assessment policy was a significant barrier to implementation according to some facilitators. As one facilitator observed, 'there's a reliance on exams as the ultimate form of assessment, and particularly, even within the exams, the reliance on recall level and multiple-choice questions, we can't change these assessment policies' (F10).
Finally, most facilitators (N = 7) raised concerns about leadership awareness and buy-in (or lack thereof), as this was perceived as an obstacle to sustainable professional learning. The lack of strategic communication and dissemination of information across the various levels of leaders (dean, directors, coordinators and faculty) resulted in a lack of coordination and awareness about the professional learning programme. One facilitator observed, 'there was lack of communication happening . . . I think that was a big mistake that we end up making and it was good for us because now we learn from it and we can always push things forward in that' (F4). Another facilitator further noted, 'higher management was unaware that the programme was happening yet, and they did not know that any of the people involved in the programme will actually get a dedicated time off' (F2). The lack of awareness and buy-in by some senior leaders created confusion that adversely impacted programme implementation.

Discussion
This study was part of a comprehensive project which aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a multi-tiered professional learning programme at Qatar University. Establishing a multi-tiered process for professional learning created a discipline-specific facilitator role that established faculty as change agents in supporting faculty professional learning. This novel approach provided an opportunity for programme coordinators, discipline-specific facilitators and faculty participants to co-create the meaning of their learning. This approach to professional learning contrasts starkly with dominant approaches that tend to be linear, reductionist and process-product driven. These later approaches fall short on acknowledging the complexity of professional learning and the importance of social interactions in leading change. From the onset, a multi-faceted approach rejects notions of fidelity of implementation and requires an explicit awareness of the initial conditions, system interactions, and underlying causal structures that influence facilitation processes and their consequential effects on professional learning.
For this study, the focus was on evaluating the roles of the facilitators and further exploring the factors which either supported or hindered their facilitation roles and processes. In sum, this specialised group of facilitators were able to exercise agency and enact multiple roles within a flat approach to professional learning, and in the absence of hierarchical layers of pedagogical expertise. Amid the dynamic interplay of centralised and decentralised structures, facilitation processes may be supported or hindered with consequences on facilitators' agency to lead curriculum change, address diverse approaches to teaching and learning, and maintain professional responsibility and autonomy. Constituting this amalgam of centralised and decentralised characteristics, this study documents an innovative model of professional learning that is based on social constructivist theories of adult learning, which may provide an alternative to traditional forms of professional learning.
The findings in this study suggest that a decentralised approach to professional learning supported three main facilitation roles, which emerged from the interactions of the facilitators with colleagues from their colleges, as they collaborated on infusing innovative principles of pedagogy and practice into their classrooms. These roles included (1) scaffolding peer learning, (2) mediating among multiple stakeholders, and (3) supporting participants in overcoming challenges. Similar roles have been documented in extant literature in academic settings (Ince 2017;Margalef and Pareja-Roblin 2016), including coordinating group work, supporting community building and fostering learning. In addition to identifying similar roles, this study confirms the emerging nature of facilitators' roles and how they must adapt and change according to their intrapersonal goals, their relationships with participants, and contextual supports and hindrances.
This fluidity of the bottom-up approach to professional learning worked well for facilitators who had prior experiences and compatible beliefs with student-centred pedagogies. In contrast, other facilitators preferred more guidance and a stronger top-down approach.
The focus on open-ended discussions rather than explicit guidance was an opportunity for some facilitators to exercise internal drive and agency to determine what their colleagues needed, versus other facilitators who saw this process as confusing and expressed a desire for more structure. This finding opens the debate for the kinds of content, pedagogy and embodiment (Perry and Booth 2021) needed for facilitators who do not particularly have prior background or training in education, as was the case for the majority of facilitators participating in this study.
The contrast between factors allowing opportunities for professional learning versus factors that hindered learning illustrate the complex and fluid nature of teaching and learning in HE. This need for a structured approach was revealed in some facilitators' perceptions of the need for a script to follow. Similar findings have been reported in other studies, namely Maher and Schuck (2020) who also emphasised the importance of facilitators' style and the degree of structure versus autonomy they allow. In this regard, the conclusion that 'the facilitator sometimes leads and sometimes follows' should be emphasised in future iteration of the programme to ensure 'that the opportunity, time and encouragement to participate occur' (533).
Further on, unfamiliarity and risk-taking are vulnerable processes for faculty in a professional learning setting. The study shows that this process requires participants to build mutual trust and create a safe environment for participants to master a new approach to pedagogy. Further, creating such a safe environment required a historical trust in professional learning programmes and the presence of sustainability of previous initiatives at the university, which may have been hindered due to a leadership gap and lack of buy-in. Addressing these factors has been found to support the effectiveness and sustainability of professional learning programmes beyond their first implementation (Kálmán, Tynjälä, and Skaniakos 2020;Margalef and Pareja-Roblin 2016), which is one of the targets of this study.
Confirming the complexity of introducing a new approach to professional learning (Kálmán, Tynjälä, and Skaniakos 2020), this study revealed that creating a setting where faculty can collaborate on common goals led to a support system for all stakeholder. The professional learning programme facilitated exchange of expertise within and across colleges and created the need for multiple stakeholders to collaborate. The discipline-specific facilitators were also able to see a complex picture of the entire institution that went beyond the narrow confines of internal college politics. This was seen as an opportunity of growth by some, yet as a challenging factor for others who felt more comfortable exploring learning within their field.
Lastly, in a centralised system, all faculty, regardless of professional background, field of experience and the college culture, are given standardised workshops on how to teach effectively, how to engage students in their learning, and how to connect the process of teaching and learning to the demands of society. The evaluation of the current professional learning model alluded to the need for discipline-specific and smaller groupings. The more open approach taken in this programme showed promise in empowering faculty to exercise agency and take control of the change they wanted to see in their contexts. This study also showed the need for a mindset shift among some faculty who expressed a desire for a step-bystep script of how to implement change. Therefore, instigating a bottom-up approach supported by top-down structures will serve the purpose of enhancing teaching and learning pedagogies and practices while taking into consideration the interactions and interrelationships among multiple influencing factors. This mixture of bottom-up agency and top-down authority can support discipline-specific facilitators and faculty participants alike. In order to create sustainable outcomes in professional learning, there is a need for multiple layers of facilitation. Given the variation among facilitation processes, there is a need for facilitator preparedness through specific professional learning initiatives that further support their enactment of multiple roles, including those identified in this evaluation study.
In acknowledging the limitations of this study, it must be noted that a small scale of faculty at Qatar University were involved in the programme. Future iterations of the programme and evaluation studies should involve a larger cohort of faculty taking into consideration the lessons learnt from this study. Further, the complexity of a multi-tiered professional learning programme in a centralised environment could compromise success. Future studies may explore the perspectives of the multiple stakeholders involved in the programme and investigate the complexity of professional learning using other research designs. Despite these limitations, this study provided a nuanced investigation of a novel group of faculty, who occupied the roles of discipline-specific facilitators in a multi-tiered professional learning programme. Accordingly, it offered a new model of professional learning in HE, explored emerging roles, and identified factors supporting and constraining these facilitation roles.