Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bernstein-Sierra, S., & Kezar, A. (2017). Identifying and overcoming challenges in STEM reform: A study of four National STEM reform communities of practice. Innovative Higher Education, 42(5–6), 407–420.
Boud, D., & Middleton, H. (2003). Learning from others at work: Communities of practice and informal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(5), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620310483895.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brownell, S. E., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and … tensions with professional identity? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-09-0163.
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.
Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2016). STEM reform outcomes through communities of transformation. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2016.1121084.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777.
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.
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(2), 217–244. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0002.
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.
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.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-2004-22201.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8.
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.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Allan, C.N., Green, D. (2019). On the CUSP (A Community of Usable Scholarly Practice): A Safe Space for Blended Learning and Teaching Discussion, Design and Practice. In: Allan, C., Campbell, C., Crough, J. (eds) Blended Learning Designs in STEM Higher Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6982-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6982-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6981-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6982-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)