On the CUSP (A Community of Usable Scholarly Practice): A Safe Space for Blended Learning and Teaching Discussion, Design and Practice
In 2017, Griffith Sciences funded a variety of blended learning and teaching initiatives to support the university’s agenda for innovation in learning and teaching and, in particular, blended learning. Noting the literature, it was realised that in order for blended learning to enhance student learning, Griffith Science academics would need a safe space to become aware of the possibilities, the affordances and the challenges of using technology within their classrooms. To support these initiatives, the Griffith Sciences Learning and Teaching team developed a community of usable scholarly practice (the CUSP) that provided the academics technical and pedagogical support (including developing learning designs that could be used by them and others), help with the collection of evaluation data, an environment to showcase their learning and teaching as well as opportunities for feedback and benchmarking with other STEM practitioners. The CUSP became a successful element of the Griffith Sciences informal learning environment. This chapter showcases the types of community meetings and the benefits of community in implementing innovation.
KeywordsCommunity of practice Blended learning Personal learning environment Informal learning Higher education Design-based research PebblePad
- Dancy, M., Henderson, C., & Turpen, C. (2016). How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of peer instruction. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.12.010110.
- Hains-Wesson, R., & Tytler, R. (2015). A perspective on supporting STEM academics with blended learning at an Australian university. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 460–479.Google Scholar
- Krockover, G., Adams, P., Eichinger, D., Nakhleh, M., & Shepardson, D. (2001). Action-based research teams: Collaborating to improve science instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(5), 313–317.Google Scholar
- Landrum, R. E., Viskupic, K., Shadle, S. E., & Bullock, D. (2017). Assessing the STEM landscape: The current instructional climate survey and the evidence-based instructional practices adoption scale. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0092-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lee, J. C.-K., Zhang, Z., & Yin, H. (2011). A multilevel analysis of the impact of a professional learning community, faculty trust in colleagues and collective efficacy on teacher commitment to students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 820–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Manduca, C. A., Iverson, E. R., Luxenberg, M., Macdonald, R. H., McConnell, D. A., Mogk, D. W., & Tewksbury, B. J. (2017). Improving undergraduate STEM education: The efficacy of discipline-based professional development. Science Advances, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sánchez-Cardona, I., Sánchez-Lugo, J., & VŽlez-González, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sunal, D. W., Hodges, J., Sunal, C. S., Whitaker, K. W., Freeman, L. M., Edwards, L., … Odell, M. (2001). Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional development and barriers to change. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 246-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18027.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar