Practice-Based Learning in Community Contexts: A Collaborative Exploration of Pedagogical Principles

  • Judith SmithEmail author
  • Natasha Shaw
  • Jennifer Tredinnick
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 10)


The primary focus of this chapter is an exploration of four pedagogical principles emerging from a practice-based learning lab. Following an overview of community engaged learning and the Lab approach, the chapter is structured around a discussion of pedagogical principles related to (1) collaboration, (2) interdisciplinarity, (3) complexity and uncertainty and (4) reflection. Through a participatory action research (PAR) framework, students, academics and community partners have worked to identify and refine what it takes to support students negotiate complexity and uncertainty inherent in problems facing communities. It also examines the pedagogical strategies employed to facilitate collaboration across disciplines and professional contexts in ways that leverage difference and challenge values and practices.


Community-engaged learning Community-based projects Participatory action research Interdisciplinarity Service learning 



The QUT Community Engaged Learning Lab outcomes are the result of collaboration between community partners, students and academics across the Queensland University of Technology. The project has been supported through funding from a QUT Engagement Innovation Grant and the QUT Learning and Teaching Unit.


  1. Australian, Government. (2012). Australia in the Asian Century- White Paper. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Medical Council Limited. (2010). Competence-based medical education: AMC Consultation paper. Accessed 23 Aug 2013.
  3. Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. (2012). Future focus: Australia’s skills and workforce development needs—A discussion paper for the 2012 National Workforce Development Strategy.Google Scholar
  4. Bain, K., & Zimmerman, J. (2009). Understanding great teaching. Peer Review, 11(2), 9–12.Google Scholar
  5. Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2008). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Bringle, R. G., Clayton, P. H., & Price, M. (2009). Partnerships in service learning and civic engagement. Partnerships: A Journal of Service-Learning and Civic Engagement, 1(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter), 32, 23–30.Google Scholar
  8. Butin, D. W. (2003). Of what use is it? Multiple conceptualizations of Service-learning in education. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1674–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butin, D. W. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of engagement in higher education. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrington, S., & Iyer, R. (2011). Service-Learning within higher education: Rhizomatic interconnections between university and the real world. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(6), 1–4.Google Scholar
  11. Carrington, S., & Selva, G. (2010). Critical social theory and transformative learning:evidence in pre-service teachers' service-learning reflection logs. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dall’Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models. Review of Educational Research Fall, 76, 383–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Design Thinking for Educators Toolkit V2. Accessed 11 Sept. 2013.
  14. Enos, S., & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a theory and practice of campus-community partnerships. In B. J. Associates (Ed.), Building partnerships for service-learning (pp. 20–41). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, L., Jones, M., & Coutts, S. (2010). Partnerships and learning communities in work integrated learning: Designing a community services student placement program. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(5), 547–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henry, S. E., & Breyfogle, M. L. (2006). Toward a new framework of “Server” and “Served”: De(and re)constructing reciprocity in service-learning pedagogy. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 27–35.Google Scholar
  17. Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The Development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IDEO and Riverdale Country School. (2012). Design Thinking for Educators Toolkit Accessed 11 Sep 2013.
  19. Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a shot-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kimbell, L. (2011). Re-thinking Design Thinking part 1. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306.Google Scholar
  21. Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter: Washington D.C: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  22. Madsen, S. R., & Turnbull, O. (2006). Academic service learning experiences of compensation and benefit coures students. Journal of Management Education, 30(5), 724–742.Google Scholar
  23. Mansilla, V. B., Miller, W. C., & Gardner, H. (2000). On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges of im- plementation. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Meyers, S. (2009). Service learning as an opportunity for personal and social transformation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(3), 370–381.Google Scholar
  25. Milne, L., Gabb, R., & Leihy, P. (2008). Good practice in service learning. Melbourne: Postcompulsory Education Centre, Victoria University.Google Scholar
  26. Mitchell, T. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Spring, 14, 50–65.Google Scholar
  27. Muis, K. R., & Duffy, M. C. (2013). Epistemic climate and epistemic change: Instruction designed to change students’ beliefs and learning strategies and improve achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murphy, M., Perrot, F., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2012). New perspectives on learning and innovation in cross-sector collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 65(12), 1700–1709.Google Scholar
  29. Norton, A. (2012). Mapping Australian Higher Education. Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Grattan Institute.Google Scholar
  30. O’Brien, C. L., & O’Brien, J. (2000). The origins of Person-Centres Planning—a community of Practice Perspective. Accessed 14 Oct 2011.
  31. O’Connor, E., Smith, J., Crane, P., Brough, D, Shaw, N., Franz, J., et al. (2013). Valuing student and community voices in the university: Action research as a framework for community service-learning. Action Learning Action Research Journal, 18(2), 123–159.
  32. Orrell, J. (2011). ALTC good practice report: Work- integrated learning. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.Google Scholar
  33. Prentice, M., & Robinson, G. (2010). Improving student learning outcomes with service learning. NJ1: American Association of Community CollegesGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosing, H., & Hofman, N. (2010). Notes from the field: Service learning and the development of multidisciplinary community-based research initiatives. Journal of Community Practice, 18(2-3), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Principles of best practice for community-based research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning(Spring), 9, 5–15.Google Scholar
  38. Strober, M. H. (2011). Communicating across the academic divide. Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(1), A23.Google Scholar
  39. Wujec, T. (2010). Build a tower, build a team TED Talks. Accessed 23 May 2013.
  40. Zack, M. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith Smith
    • 1
    Email author
  • Natasha Shaw
    • 1
  • Jennifer Tredinnick
    • 1
  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations