Advertisement

Perceived Outcomes Associated with Engagement in and Design of Faculty Communities of Practice Focused on STEM Reform

  • Sean GehrkeEmail author
  • Adrianna Kezar
Article

Abstract

This study examines how involvement in four undergraduate faculty communities of practice is associated with faculty perceiving they improved in individual practices related to STEM reform. It is informed by the communities of practice and faculty change literature and utilizes data gathered through a survey of community members (n = 2503). The findings reveal engagement experiences and aspects of community design associated with three outcomes—learning and improving practice, developing skills for leadership and change, and networking. These findings contribute to recommendations for designing future STEM reform initiatives.

Keywords

STEM reform Faculty development Higher education Communities of practice Survey research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (NSF DUE-1226242).

References

  1. Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of learning. OD Practitioner, 32(4), 4–13.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in biology education. Washington DC: American Association for Advancement of Science. Retrieved from http://visionandchange.org/files/2013/11/aaas-VISchange-web1113.pdf.
  3. Araujo, L. (1998). Knowing and learning as networking. Management Learning, 29(3), 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin, A. E. (1994). Understanding and assessing faculty cultures and climates. In M. K. Kinnick (Ed.), Providing useful information for deans and department chairs (pp. 47–63)., New Directions for Institutional Research San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Austin, A. (2011). Promoting evidence-based change in undergraduate science education. Washington, D.C.: National Academies National Research Council.Google Scholar
  7. Beecher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Philadelphia, PA: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, C. M., & O’Meara, K. (2014). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 55, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, J. (2010). The relationships among participants’ characteristics, perceptions, nature of involvement, and outcomes in strategic community of practice programs in a large electric utility company. Doctoral Dissertation, UMI No. 3429660. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.Google Scholar
  11. Chang, J., Chang, W., & Jacobs, R. (2009). Relationship between participation in communities of practice and organizational socialization in the early careers of South Korean IT employees. Human Resource Development International, 12, 407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Dancy, M. H., & Henderson, C. (2010). Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. American Journal of Physics, 78, 1056–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (1997). Cognition, complexity, and teacher education. Harvard Education Review, 67, 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fairweather, J. (2009). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Paper for the National Academies National Research Council Board of Science Education. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/attachments/117803/public/Xc–Linking_Evidence–Fairweather.pdf.
  16. Fontaine, M. A., & Millen, D. R. (2004). Understanding the benefits of communities of practice. In P. Hildreth & C. Kimble (Eds.), Knowledge networks: Innovation through communities of practice (pp. 1–13). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Furr, M. (2011). Scale construction and psychometrics for social and personality psychology. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallucci, C. (2003). Communities of practice and the mediation of teachers’ responses to standards-based reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(35), 1–19.Google Scholar
  19. Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategic imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Gonzales, L. D. (2012). Responding to mission creep: Faculty members as cosmopolitan agents. Higher Education, 64, 337–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gonzales, L. D. (2014). Framing faculty agency inside striving universities: An application of Bourdieu’s theory of practice. The Journal of Higher Education, 85, 193–218.Google Scholar
  22. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19, 20–35.Google Scholar
  24. Hara, N. (2009). Communities of practice: Fostering peer-to-peer learning and informal knowledge sharing in the work place. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 952–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hlapanis, G., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2007). The school-teachers’ learning community: Matters of communication analysis. Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 16(2), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Pryor, J. H., Whang, H., & Tran, S. (2012). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2010–2011 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kezar, A., Gehrke, S., & Bernstein-Sierra, S. (2017). Designing for success in STEM communities of practice: Philosophy and personal interactions. The Review of Higher Education, 40, 217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kezar, A., Gehrke, S., Bernstein-Sierra, S. (2018). Communities of transformation: Creating changes to deeply entrenched issues. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(6):832-864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kezar, A., & Sam. C. (2010). Understanding the new majority: Contingent faculty in higher education (Vol. I). ASHE Higher Education Report Series. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lesser, E. L., & Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 831–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meyers, L. S., Gams, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Neumann, A. (2009). Professing to learn: Creating tenured lives and careers in the American research university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  37. O’Meara, K.A., Campbell, C. M., & Terosky, A. (2011, November). Living agency in the academy: A conceptual framework for research and action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC.Google Scholar
  38. O’Meara, K. (2015). A Career with a View: Agentic Perspectives of Women Faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 86, 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perry, N. E., Walton, C., & Calder, K. (1999). Teachers developing assessments of early literacy: A community of practice project. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf.
  43. Price, M. (2005). Assessment standards: The role of communities of practice and the scholarship of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata, volume 1: Continuous responses (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  45. Saint-Onge, H., & Wallace, D. (2003). Leveraging communities of practice for strategic advantage. London: Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
  46. Sànchez-Cardona, I., Sànchez-Lugo, J., & Vèlez-Gonzàlez, J. (2012). Exploring the potential of communities of practice for learning and collaboration in a higher education context. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1820–1825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies of Science.Google Scholar
  48. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stipek, D. J. (2002). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  50. Sunal, D. W., Sunal, C. S., Whitaker, K. W., Freeman, L. M., Odell, M., Hodges, J., et al. (2001). Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional development and barriers to change. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Viskovic, A. (2006). Becoming a tertiary teacher: Learning in communities of practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 25, 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 2–3.Google Scholar
  54. Wenger, E. (2007). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.e.com/theory/.
  55. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wilkerson, L., & Irby, D. M. (1998). Strategies for improving teaching practices: a comprehensive approach to faculty development. Academic Medicine, 73, 387–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zboralski, K., Salomo, S., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2006). Organizational benefits of communities of practice: A two-stage information processing model. Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal, 37, 533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations