Sustaining Communities of Practice Focused on STEM Reform

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to describe the strategies that four undergraduate faculty science, technology, engineering, and mathematics reform communities of practice use to sustain themselves to scale up reforms in higher education. The study was informed by literature on communities of practice and analyzed data gathered through document analysis, interviews, and observations. The resulting sustainability model for these communities emphasizes the following features: (a) leadership development, distribution, and succession planning; (b) a viable financial model; (c) a professionalized staff; (d) feedback and advice mechanisms; (e) research and assessment; and (f) an articulated community strategy. Implications for future community development are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Communities of practice
• STEM
• faculty
• reform

Notes

1. It is also important to distinguish these entities from formal and informal organizations. These entities are not formal organizations as they lack the formal written policies, procedures, rules, and charter that define formal organizations (Kezar, 2013). Members have no official connection. Involvement is voluntary and fluid. There are also no designated authority figures nor is there an approach to delegating authority that is classic of formal organizations. They also lack well-defined goals and evolve over time. They could be thought of as informal organizations, but they come together around a practice and shared concern—they do not come together to serve a goal for an informal organization (Nohria & Eccles, 1992). There is no commitment among members to the organization itself, which defines informal organizations. Their commitment is to the idea or shared practice.

2. CoPs have been studied in multiple disciplines with a few studies in gender studies and anthropology that have examined non-organizationally connected communities. The majority of the empirical research has been in education and organizational studies, and these communities are inherently part of an organization. For a review of CoP studies, see Koliba and Gajda (2009).

3. The model for sustainability emerged from elements that were found to be existing to more and lesser degrees across the various CoPs. But even when a CoP had not developed a particular aspect of the sustainability model—for example, we point out CoPs lacking assessment or a fully viable financial model—they still described the need for development in this area and their work toward developing this aspect. So not all CoPs had every element of the sustainability model—instead they had many or most and aspired to or described the importance of the other elements.

4. CoPs, as they grow larger, can often take on structures that resemble organizations (Wenger et al., 2002), but they are still considered CoPs based on the work they do.

5. Because they are related phenomena, we briefly note that feedback is a process for obtaining information about the quality or work of the community and its resources, while assessment/research was formal study of the impacts and benefits of the intervention/educational approach. Although these terms may seem similar, they operated in distinctive ways. Assessment/research supported the value of the educational intervention, whereas feedback was aimed at modifying the work of the community on an ongoing basis.

6. It is important to note that not all communities want to become sustainable and may be open to moving out of existence due to having short-term goals that are more immediately met. In fact, it might be better for educational reform if communities come in and out over time. Sustainability is not necessarily a positive or desired goal. For CoP leaders and organizations that support CoPs toward sustainability, however, the model provided here presents key information for transitioning from an ephemeral community to a more sustainable community. Also, some CoP leaders pointed to the importance of sustainability because they were asking faculty to take risks with their practice under the assumption that the community will be there in the future to support them. There is an element of integrity or moral leadership in being sustained over time.

7. Yet, the importance of group dynamics, trust, and other community-oriented elements that are focused on learning communities were not as significant to the sustainability of these CoPs.