Capturing the Differences Between Two Virtual Communities of Practice Models for Faculty Development

Katherine Nelson; Ann McKenna; Rocio Chavela Guerra; Russ Pimmel

doi:10.18260/p.26450

Capturing the differences between two virtual communities of practice models for faculty development Faculty development is a possible pathway to inform and encourage adoption of research-based education practices into engineering classrooms. We developed a model for faculty development that goes beyond existing models to focus specifically on implementation of research-based education practices. Our program, the engineering education virtual communities of practice (VCP), was a faculty development model done virtually that utilized the learning community formed to promote implementation of research-based education practices in engineering classrooms. The engineering education VCP was carried out using two different designs. The first cohort (Cycle 1) were grouped based on similar courses: electric circuits, mass and energy balance, mechanics, and thermodynamics (n = 77). The second cohort (Cycle 2) was grouped based on similar engineering disciplines: Chemical, Civil/Environmental, Computer, Mechanical, and Electrical Engineering (n = 98). The leaders for each group focused specifically on exposing the participants to research-based educational practices and associated implementation efforts of these practices in their classrooms. Each group met virtually using Adobe® ConnectTM (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA) and shared resources through Open Atrium 1.0 (Phase2 Technology, 2011), a web portal. These communication tools aided the group as they developed into a learning community. We wanted to determine if there was greater adoption of research-based educational practices depending on whether the VCP was organized around certain courses (Cycle 1) or around certain engineering disciplines (Cycle 2). Using Roger’s Model of diffusion of innovation, a self-report survey was developed and used to measure faculty member’s awareness of, attitudes toward, and adoption of research-based educational practices. Roger’s model is a step-wise process through which innovation (research-based education practices) is ultimately adopted. A two-way within-subjects repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess significant differences between each cycle related to awareness (step 1), attitudes (step 2), and adoption (step 3) of research-based educational practices. For Awareness, there was not a statistically significant main effect for Cycle (Λ = 0.87, F[2,28] = 3.66, p =0.067). However, there was a statistically significant main effect for Cycle for Attitudes (Λ = 0.61, F[2,28] = 18.30, p <0.01) and Adoption (Λ = 0.46, F[2,28] = 29.85, p <0.01). Adoption had the greatest mean in Cycle 1, whereas Attitudes had the greatest mean in Cycle 2. The VCP models used for faculty development demonstrated differences for use of research-based educational practices by faculty in their classrooms. Cycle 2, which was organized around engineering disciplines, demonstrated more positive attitudes (Step 2) for the implementation of research-based education practices. Cycle 1, which was organized around specific engineering courses, demonstrated more adoption (Step 3) of research-based education practices. Our data provides evidence to support framing faculty development models around courses because it may lead to more adoption of research-based educational practices in engineering classrooms. Additional research is needed to determine why a course-specific approach to faculty development led to more adoption of research-based education practices.

Capturing the Differences Between Two Virtual Communities of Practice Models for Faculty Development

Files and links (1)

Abstract

Details

Metrics