sustaining pedagogical change via faculty learning community€¦ · sustaining pedagogical change...

RESEARCH Open Access

Sustaining pedagogical change via facultylearning communityTeresa L. Tinnell1* , Patricia A. S. Ralston2, Thomas R. Tretter3 and Mary E. Mills3

Abstract

Background: The necessity of a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) literate population continues tobe a high priority worldwide. One approach to build and bolster a STEM-literate workforce is to explore approachesfor strengthening the teaching of college-level STEM courses. The use of collaborative student learning pedagogy isbroadly accepted as an effective approach to improve student learning outcomes over traditional methods, such aslecture. How to encourage and sustain the use of such evidence-based teaching practices in STEM fields is a criticaltopic. To achieve pedagogical change among college faculty, research supports a faculty learning community (FLC)structure. FLCs are a way to facilitate deeper understanding of a topic within a community of practice. Of particularinterest for this paper is whether any FLC-supported pedagogical change was sustained by the faculty after the FLCended and if so why.

Results: Engineering faculty found success in implementing paradigmatic pedagogical changes by engaging in anFLC that intentionally provided structures to promote a community of practice. This paper reports on theendurance of these pedagogical changes up to 2 years following conclusion of the FLC, with evidence summarizingreasons why many of the faculty had absorbed much of the once-new pedagogical approaches into their ongoingpractices.

Conclusions: FLC structures that faculty credit to their pedagogical change and the enduring impacts of thosechanges are described. These results offer evidence that it is possible to structure faculty support for them to makeenduring pedagogical change, rather than temporary or one-time changes as part of a particular initiative. Thefindings, discussion, and conclusions of this study are likely to be of interest to faculty developers, innovativeuniversity leadership, or faculty exploring ways of sustaining a pedagogical change.

Keywords: Sustaining pedagogy, Faculty learning community, Community of practice, Collaborative studentlearning

IntroductionHow to encourage and sustain the use of evidence-basedteaching practices among science, technology, engineer-ing, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a critical topic.Professional development in teaching for university facultyis often scattered and not supported in a coordinated wayby STEM Department administrators (Borrego, Froyd, &Hall, 2010; Fairweather, 2008). For several decades Profes-sional Learning Communities (PLCs) have been a com-mon practice in the K-12 teaching community, and theyprovide means for teachers to learn, share, and encourage

each other to develop and test new pedagogies (Stoll,Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006). More re-cently, practitioners of higher education have adopted asimilar community professional development model toassist university teaching development and encouragepedagogical changes, referred to as a faculty learning com-munity (FLC) (Cox, 2001). PLCs and FLCs are both exam-ples of communities that share a common interest andpractice, known as communities of practice (Lave &Wenger, 1991). This study takes a retrospective view ofthe enduring pedagogical changes initiated via faculty par-ticipation in an FLC and provides evidence that supportssustainable pedagogical practice acquired through thecommunity of practice experience.

© The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link tothe Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

* Correspondence: [email protected] and Secondary Department, College of Education and HumanDevelopment, University of Louisville, Louisville, USAFull list of author information is available at the end of the article

International Journal ofSTEM Education

Tinnell et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:26 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0180-5

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1186/s40594-019-0180-5&domain=pdf

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2768-919X

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

mailto:[email protected]

This research was conducted within the context of anengineering school at a large urban university. The admin-istration of the engineering school, with support of its fac-ulty, created a center dedicated to promoting educationalexcellence in the teaching of engineering. That center pro-motes professional development opportunities for faculty,with a mission to foster outstanding teaching and learningamong engineering faculty. One specific goal is to advancethe use of evidence-based teaching strategies. The facultyand the administration were aware of the challenge byPrince (2004) for engineering faculty to promote collabor-ation in their classes. Additionally, the accrediting agencyfor engineering programs (ABET, 2018) specifically linkscollaboration to the engineering curriculum via two of the7 required student outcomes (ABET, 2018). The two out-comes directly related to a student’s ability to collaboraterefer to “an ability to function effectively on a team” and“an ability to communicate effectively.” Also, employersdesire graduates who can collaborate on teams but havereported that engineering students are not well preparedto do so (Jaschik, 2015). To encourage the faculty to usecollaborative learning techniques, the dean of the schoolof engineering specifically redesigned one learning spacefor active and collaborative learning. As a result, he askedthat the engineering education center provide professionaldevelopment for faculty to make proper use of the newspace. This led to the choice of collaborative studentlearning as the specific evidence-based teaching strategyas the focus for the FLC.The engineering education center partnered with the

university’s professional development unit and a facultymember from the university’s education college to encour-age and engage faculty in the use of collaborative studentlearning techniques throughout the engineering disci-plines. Using the FLC framework, they offered two com-munity of practice cohorts focused on the implementationof collaborative student learning techniques in engineeringcourses. One cohort was conducted during a full schoolyear in 2014–2015, and another in 2015–2016.The challenge to encourage evidence-based change in

teaching is not only how to educate faculty about theparticular strategy, in this case, collaborative studentlearning techniques, but also how to support them asthey attempt to implement paradigmatic pedagogicalchanges. We (Ralston, Tretter, & Brown, 2017) describedthe approach and the initial impact on the first cohort offaculty participants, including support structures thatenabled faculty to implement collaborative learningtechniques, as well as the benefits participants experi-enced from pedagogical shifts. However, in addition tosupporting initial pedagogical change, an additionalchallenge is to understand if such change would besustainable, long-term (beyond FLC duration) and whatmay have supported any long-term changes.

Purpose of the studyThe purpose of this study was to determine if an FLCexperience focused on collaborative student learning canhave sustainable impacts 2–3 years after completion ofthe FLC. This study first identified what FLC structureswere considered critical for initial implementation, giventhat faculty perspectives may have changed since the ori-ginal implementation. Subsequently, it documented whatcollaborative learning techniques were retained, modi-fied, or discontinued within faculty teaching practices inorder to more fully characterize what might or mightnot have been sustained post-FLC. Finally, it illuminatedcharacteristics and potential follow-up activities to sup-port and sustain a community of practice focused onpedagogical change.Identifying ways faculty can sustain a long-term peda-

gogical change through an FLC experience is of highinterest (Cox, 2004; Richlin & Cox, 2004). AlthoughFLCs have been shown to be effective for initiatingchange (Furco & Moely, 2012), there is sparse evidencewhether these changes are sustained or sustainable be-yond the FLC participation. Determining what FLCstructures encourage the long-term sustainability of anyevidence-based teaching strategy within a faculty mem-ber’s teaching practice is of particular interest as univer-sities work to implement professional developmentopportunities to encourage the widespread use of effect-ive pedagogies grounded in how students learn (Borrego& Henderson, 2014). This study explored the institu-tional and community supports necessary to sustainpedagogical change.There were 14 total faculty participants from two FLC

cohorts. Of the 14 participants, two did not fully engagewith the educational goals and suggested pedagogicalchanges of the FLC during the initial FLC implementationand were therefore not invited to participate in this follow-up study since there had been no meaningful change to besustained. The remaining 12 participants were interviewed,and their comments analyzed to answer research questionsrelated to sustaining pedagogical change.

Literature review and conceptual frameworkDespite the body of evidence that should inspire engin-eering and other STEM faculty to incorporate evidence-based strategies in their courses, lasting changes inteaching practice have been slow to take place (Borrego& Henderson, 2014; Fairweather, 2008). Fairweather(2008) noted that faculty perceive that curricular changewill take valuable time away from research activities crit-ical to promotion and tenure. Other potential barriers topedagogical change for STEM faculty include situationalconstraints such as fear that time taken would preventnecessary content coverage, perceived student attitudes(including laziness and resistance), lack of ongoing

Tinnell et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2019) 6:26 of 16

professional development, unsupportive institutionalor departmental culture, and personal beliefs and ex-pectations of faculty about teaching and learning(Henderson & Dancy, 2007; Michael, 2007; Sunal etal., 2001; Walczyk, Ramsey, & Zha, 2007).Until recently, efforts to effect change in undergradu-

ate STEM education focused on individual faculty inno-vators to test, create, and disseminate reform approaches(Kezar, Gehrke, & Elrod, 2015). This method of changehas been challenged as unsuccessful (Fairweather, 2008;Kezar, 2011). Kezar et al. (2015) emphasize the need forfaculty to serve as change agents that develop explicitchange theories rather than work from implicit theoriesthat do not show reasonable proof of success. Theydescribe the need to create professional dialogues andsupport networks to implement and spread reform.Borrego and Henderson (2014) identify and categorizeeight change strategies supported in STEM literature,one of which is the faculty learning community (FLC).

Faculty as learnersThe belief that learning is most effective when per-formed in a community is not new. When faculty engagein a learning community, they essentially take on therole of a learner by participating and internalizing thecontent of inquiry. John Dewey (1910, 1913) originallyemphasized the role of shared inquiry in education, not-ing that “setting up the conditions which stimulate vis-ible and tangible ways of acting is the first step” (Dewey,1916, p. 18). The completing step, he described as “mak-ing the individual a sharer or partner in the associatedactivity so that he feels it’s success as his success, it’s fail-ure as his failure” (Dewey, 1916, p. 18). For our study,the content of inquiry for faculty’s engagement to makepedagogical changes was teaching that included collab-orative student learning. This study focuses on faculty’ssustainment of pedagogical change beyond the FLC year.A community of practice (CoP) consists of a group of

people who share a concern or passion for somethingthey do and learn how to do it as they interact regularly(Lave, 2009; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). CoPliterature suggests considerations should be made interms of CoP design and the relationship design has withidentified goals toward pedagogical change (Kezar,Gehrke, & Bernstein-Sierra, 2017). Intentional consider-ations of the natural and emergent growth of a CoP en-hances the individual faculty member’s learningexperience (MacDonald, 2008), including explicit atten-tion in the design to bring out the community’s own in-ternal direction, character, and energy (Wenger,McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). There is no single bestCoP design; the structure varies to ensure active en-gagement by community members and enable thecommunity to meet its specific goals (Cox, 2005;

Iaquinto, Ison, & Faggian, 2011). A key characteristicof a CoP is that it brings faculty together who sharea common interest in the pursuit of deeper under-standing of a topic (Wenger et al., 2002). An effectiveCoP, as described by Iaquinto et al. (2011), includesmembers that demonstrate a sense of ownership, will-ingness to participate in expertise building, continuouscommunication, and engagement with reflective prac-tices that focus on self-identified professional areas ofimprovement.A type of CoP in K-12 education, commonly referred

to as professional learning community (PLC), has beencredited for progress in K-12 educational reform (Stollet al., 2006). Necessary for CoP effectiveness using PLCstructures is strengthening teachers’ individual and col-lective capacity for school-wide learning. Capacity en-compasses a complex blending of motivation, skill,positive learning, organizational conditions, culture, andinfrastructure of support (Stoll et al., 2006). PLCs are along-standing practice used within the K-12 context as astructured way for teachers to strengthen their pedagogywithin a systematic support structure (Hipp, Huffman,Pankake, & Olivier, 2008; Hord, 1997).In the higher education context, a model like a PLC

emerged, referred to as a faculty learning community(FLC). An FLC is defined as a specifically structured,year-long academic community of practice, comprised ofinterdisciplinary faculty members engaged in an active,collaborative program designed to foster scholarly, evi-dence-based teaching and enhance student learning(Cox, 2004). Research suggests that faculty learningcommunities foster growth in pedagogical innovationand scholarly teaching (Furco & Moely, 2012; Richlin &Cox, 2004), increase faculty interest and confidence inteaching (Cox, 2004), and lead to increased studentlearning and retention, as well as higher rates of tenure(Cox, 2004). Faculty learning communities have alsobeen demonstrated to generate a knowledge base accessibleto the broader university community, thus improvingteaching more broadly (Cox, 2003, 2004; LePage, Boudreau,Maier, Robinson, & Cox, 2001). An FLC is based on theconcept of a CoP (Wenger et al., 2002), recognizing thatlearning is social and co-constructed within a situated andparticular context (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

FLC focusThis study targets faculty from two FLC cohorts to exam-ine whether the faculty members sustained the changesmade during an original FLC experience. The topic ofcommon interest embraced by both FLC cohorts was tointegrate evidence-based strategies of collaborative stu-dent learning techniques into their teaching practices. SeeRalston et al. (2017) for additional details about the FLCimplementation and initial pedagogical outcomes.


Collaborative teaching techniques have been shown tooffer tremendous benefits to student learning for severaldecades (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Prince, 2004;Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Benefits includeimprovements in student achievement, quality of inter-personal interactions, self-esteem, student attitudes, andretention. Collaborative student learning falls under anumbrella term that includes or overlaps with manyterms associated with active learning in the literature,but in this paper, we use the term as defined by Barkley,Cross, and Major (2014). They described collaborativelearning as any structured form of small group interac-tions among students (Barkley et al., 2014). This definitionwas adopted by both FLC cohorts for the implementationof collaborative student learning techniques. In additionto content learning and understanding gains, collaborativeactivities improve students’ communication and socialskills necessary for the global workplace. CoPs serve as avehicle to enhancing the likelihood that faculty will em-ploy student-centered pedagogy, such as collaborative stu-dent learning (Tomkin, Beilstein, Morphew, & Herman,2019). Of interest for this research study is whether andwhy faculty may have sustained any pedagogical changeinitiated through their FLC participation.

Conceptual frameworkThe conceptual framework that guides this study incor-porates the theoretical direction from the literature onCoPs, PLCs, FLCs, and collaborative student learningtechniques. With an original FLC cohort goal to achievethe outcome of faculty initiating pedagogical change, ourapproach was to adopt an FLC structure that incorpo-rated the CoP features that emphasized shared growth(see Ralston et al., 2017 for details about the FLC imple-mentation). The specific FLC pedagogical target of en-couraging faculty implementation of collaborative studentlearning was the selected evidence-based practice which

afforded faculty flexibility in implementation. With thisparticular FLC focus as a common target, having estab-lished and implemented a year-long FLC and established acommunity of practice with these faculty, our conceptualframework guides this paper’s exploration if, and why, thisparticular community of practice may have been helpfulfor faculty to sustain pedagogical change beyond the FLCsupport year. Fig. 1 is a pictorial representation of thisstudy’s conceptual framework.(Ralston et al., 2017) selected the FLC approach as a

structure to effect change among a multidisciplinarygroup of engineering faculty. The results from that ap-proach included three elements supporting success infaculty initial implementation of collaborative studentlearning techniques: (1) faculty member’s philosophicalposition in relation to the value of collaborative studentlearning for a particular course, (2) aligning appropriatecollaborative techniques with course objectives, and (3) afully developed pedagogy (i.e., structured follow throughand integration with the course) (Ralston et al., 2017).Among the faculty participants of the FLC, almost allwere successful in initial implementation of collaborativestudent learning techniques. What remains uncertain,both for this FLC and within the body of FLC literature, isif and for what reasons faculty successfully sustainlong-term pedagogical changes beyond the initial FLC.

Research questionsThe first FLC cohort we studied concluded at the end ofthe 2014–2015 academic school year, with results fromthat FLC reported in Ralston et al. (2017). A secondFLC cohort with similar results was conducted duringthe 2015–2016 school year. This study explored thesustainability of these FLC efforts, given that over twoacademic school years had elapsed since the conclu-sion of the FLC support. This research will answerthe following questions:

Fig. 1 Conceptual framework


1) What, if any, positive long-term (2–3 years, post-FLC) outcomes from the FLC are still evident infaculty teaching practices?

2) What FLC structures enabled any of the long-termimpacts?

3) What supports are necessary to sustain acommunity of practice focused on facultyembracing evidence-based pedagogy?

MethodsA professional development initiative at an urban, researchuniversity between a university faculty developer, an engin-eering faculty member, and a science education facultymember emerged to create necessary support structures(see Ralston et al., 2017) for engineering faculty wishing toexplore integration of collaborative student learning peda-gogical strategies into their engineering courses. The engin-eering faculty member was the director of an engineeringlearning center whose mission was to foster outstandingteaching and learning at the engineering school, and theeducation faculty member was director of an educationcenter that targeted research in science/engineering/math-ematics K-16 teaching. These two individuals along withthe professional developer from the university’s center forteaching and learning unit were the three instigators andfacilitators of the initial FLC (Ralston et al., 2017).From an initial charge from the Dean of the School of

Engineering to encourage faculty to embrace collaborativestudent learning strategies, the facilitators of this FLC useda variety of training methods within the FLC framework.They included providing a common book to create sharedunderstanding of collaborative student learning and howspecific strategies might be incorporated, conductingworkshops prior to and following participants’ implemen-tation of collaborative student learning activities and co-ordinating whole-group sharing and reflection on theexperience, including lessons learned through experience.A study of the FLCs identified two main barriers or chal-

lenges: (1) the concern that collaborative activities would re-duce time for content coverage and (2) the fact that facultyneeded support in pedagogical change and a community ofpeers to share concerns and frustrations with as they madepedagogical changes. These challenges were overcome, fac-ulty participants reported strong satisfaction with our FLCstructure, and they were still able to achieve appropriatecoverage of content while making class time for students’collaborative activities (Ralston et al., 2017). This study re-ports on the sustainability of that pedagogical change severalyears after the conclusion of the FLC support.

ParticipantsFLC follow-up participantsOf the 14 original FLC members from the two cohorts,as noted in the introduction, two participants did not

embrace pedagogical change in the initial FLC and weretherefore not included in this follow-up study sincethere was no change to be sustained. The remaining 12faculty participants were members of seven of the eightdepartments within the School of Engineering. Thesefaculty members had been at the university for at least 3years, had a range of experience from junior faculty todepartment chairs, and included both tenured, pre-ten-ure, and term faculty. Only one faculty memberparticipant had systematically experimented with collab-orative student learning techniques prior to joining theFLC. See Table 1 for a summary of key demographics ofthese FLC participants. More detail about the facultyand FLC context (e.g., faculty identification and recruit-ment, engineering specialties, tenure status or term sta-tus, courses taught) are provided in Ralston et al. (2017).The courses taught by FLC faculty included a spectrum

of topics (introductory to capstone), class sizes, programs(undergraduate and graduate), and types (lecture, group-project, problem-solving focus). This wide variety of ex-perience and courses afforded the opportunity for facultyto explore collaborative student learning techniques thatwere most appropriate to their course context. These dif-ferences encouraged faculty sharing and discussionaround modifying their pedagogy appropriately, based ontheir needs for the course they chose for implementation.In this way, the FLC effort and support was individualized,emphasizing the adaptability of collaborative studentlearning approaches. Differences among courses strength-ened faculty learning because they were able to observedifferent applications of collaborative student learningtechniques used by their faculty peers.

ResearchersThe four researchers for this paper included two facultyand two graduate students. The faculty researchers areboth professors at the university and are directors ofeducation research centers within their respectiveschools and were facilitators of the original FLC. Bothgraduate students are Ph.D. students in science educa-tion with experience in STEM and STEM education.

Table 1 Description of FLC cohort participants

Cohort Number ofparticipantsa

Number ofengineeringdepartments

FLC participantlevel of teachingexperience

1 6 6 1 Senior faculty3 Mid faculty2 Junior faculty

2 8 7 3 Senior faculty2 Mid faculty3 Junior faculty

Note: Senior more than 15 years of teaching experience when starting the FLC,Mid 5–15 years of teaching experience, Junior less than 5 years ofteaching experienceaTwo FLC participants did not embrace pedagogical change (see Ralston et al., 2017)


Data sourcesThe 12 faculty FLC participants were invited byemail to participate in individual interviews. The po-tential for a follow-up study was not discussed dur-ing either of the two initial FLC implementations,and the support structure provided by the FLCs wasnot continued after the completion of each FLC. Weanticipate that this lack of prior knowledge aboutany follow-up interview offered a context wherefaculty could reflect on their teaching as it naturallyevolved, rather than the faculty having a prioriexpectations of being interviewed about their teach-ing post-FLC. Overall, the participants’ lack ofexpectation for following up after the conclusion ofthe FLC provided an authentic context (as opposedto an influenced context) for exploring the sustain-ability of the FLC efforts. This is especially import-ant because if the participants were still usingcollaborative student learning in their courses, itwould be due to their own belief in the efficacy ofcollaborative student learning. Had the faculty par-ticipants known there would be follow-up they couldhave continued to use the techniques because theyfelt they needed to rather than wanted to use them.These interviews occurred 1–2 years after the com-pletion of the participant’s FLC experience andlasted for 30–60 min each.The semi-structured interviews were conducted by

graduate student researchers using a protocol devel-oped by the research team (see Appendix 1). Afterjointly conducting the first interview to strengthenthe subsequent consistency of individual interviews,each graduate student completed six interviews,which were randomly assigned. During the inter-view, both digital recordings and field notes weretaken. The interviews were then transcribed by theinterviewer.

Data analysisGuided by our research questions, we utilized the in-ductive analysis approach of consensual qualitativecoding (Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997). Wechose this method because of the assumption under-lying the consensus process entailing multiple per-spectives and levels of awareness that increases theability to describe the lived experiences of the facultyparticipants. Complex issues, like teaching and the in-fluence of the FLC experiences in our study, necessi-tate the involvement of many different perspectivesand levels of understanding. Consensual qualitativeresearch is more likely to reduce research bias sincethe common themes are informed by the iterativecoding process involving the varying perspectives ofmultiple people.

Because our research questions are about faculty sus-taining pedagogical change after an FLC, rather thaninitiating change with the support of a CoP, we did notuse a-prior codes from the CoP literature since thosecodes are documenting how a CoP effectively supportsthe process of change, not the sustenance of change.Given this different research focus and lack of a substan-tive body of literature about sustaining pedagogicalchange, we chose to use emergent coding as our coredata analytic strategy.The data analysis involved a 3-step process: (1)

clustering the data into domains, (2) condensing thedata into core ideas, and (3) cross-analyzing to extractcommon themes across all participants (Hill et al.,2005). After transcribing their six interviews, eachgraduate student individually identified potential,fruitful domains into which interview responses mightbe categorized. The domains were broad categorieswith the potential to address some aspect of our re-search questions. For example, when faculty describedspecific collaborative student learning pedagogicalstrategies they were still using or had modified overthe course of the past few years, these commentswould be grouped under a domain loosely labeledcontinued pedagogical practices. Interview responsesindicating the converse of this, sharing pedagogicalpractices they no longer used, were likewise groupedinto this same domain because it provided data aswell about the continuance (or not) of pedagogicalpractices. Sometimes a given interview response mayhave been categorized into multiple domains, for ex-ample when referencing continuing pedagogical prac-tices but also including comments about how theinitial FLC supported them in making the initialchange, or sometimes how FLC discussions withother faculty led them to modify their particular ap-proach to this pedagogical practice (domain label ofsupportive FLC structures).All four researchers met and discussed the emer-

gent domains, with the two faculty researchers servingas auditors reviewing the interview responses associ-ated with each domain to ultimately reach a consen-sus about how to initially categorize interviewresponses into broad domains. Domains for thisstudy, guided by our research questions, includedcontinued or discontinued use of collaborative studentlearning pedagogy, FLC structures faculty identified aspivotal in the sustainment of their pedagogicalchange, and any CoP features that were helpful—in-cluding in some cases the decision by some faculty toindependently continue 1:1 peer observations and dis-cussion post-FLC, for example. At this first stage ofdata analysis, the raw interview data was not inter-preted or synthesized any further than simple initial


categorization into domains, with those domain as-signments subject to revision and reconfiguration viaconsensus as described above.The second step of data analysis involved all four

researchers independently inductively coding the rawinterview data (per faculty participant) for core ideaswithin each domain. A core idea was defined as spe-cific potential interpretations that may be accordedspecific interview responses. For example, if a facultymember indicated that since the FLC, he had madewhat we judged to be small tweaks to a specificpedagogical strategy that would be classified under acore idea of continuing the same pedagogical strat-egy. If, however, an interview response described amajor change or perhaps even use of a related butdifferent pedagogical strategy (still under the broaddomain of continued pedagogical practices), thiswould fall under a different core idea within this do-main of new or adapted pedagogical practice. Coreideas were at a much finer grain size than the broaddomains.Each researcher presented their synthesis of core

ideas within each domain, per faculty participant, tothe 4-person research group. Through a second con-sensus process, the researchers were able to generatea list of core ideas directly grounded in the interviewdata. The consensus of core ideas brought the re-searchers into the final step of data analysis whichwas to cross-analyze the data and extract commonthemes across all participants. Because this final stateof data analysis was structured to be across the 12faculty cases rather than within faculty as had beenthe structure of data analysis up to this point, thespecific themes to be extracted were expected to bemultiply-influenced by different faculty responses andthus likely to not be in a one-to-one correspondencewith core ideas. Additionally, we discussed and under-stood that the extraction of common themes acrossparticipants would likely result in themes with a lar-ger grain size than the core ideas. Thus, the 3-stagedata analytic process can be thought of as follows: (a)condense the raw interview data into broad domainsfor each individual faculty participant; (b) expand de-tail within each individual faculty’s domains with rela-tively numerous, fine-grained core ideas; and (c) re-condense the fine-grain core ideas into larger themesthat tracked across faculty.To audit and check reliability during the final data

analytic stage of theme extraction, the 12 transcriptswere randomly and evenly divided between the twofaculty researchers so that each researcher coded sixinterviews—three from each graduate student re-searcher. The graduate student researchers also ex-changed transcripts and coded the other six transcripts

that they had not generated. During this process oftheme extraction across faculty participants, each re-searcher continued to evaluate whether they thoughtthe consensus-determined domains and core ideaswere correctly identified and accurately reflected thedata corpus. Suggested modifications and/or additionsto the initial domain or core idea list were identifiedfor future group resolution.After independently completing this stage of data

analysis, the team met again and discussed the domains(as needed), core ideas (as needed), and extracted com-mon themes. In particular, since each individual re-searcher had extracted common themes across anoverlapping 6 of the 12 participants, we merged andcombined our themes to represent the entire corpus ofdata. This process ultimately resulted in 4 commonthemes presented below.

ResultsThe cross-case analysis led to 4 common themes thatparticipants’ responses informed (see Appendix 2): (1)benefits for faculty, (2) benefits for students, (3) posi-tive features of FLC experience, and (4) next steps. Inreporting the results, we avoid specific numbers ofhow many faculty members mentioned each topic be-cause what faculty chose to convey in interviews var-ied quite a bit, thus, any reporting of numbers maysuggest others did not agree, which would be a falseinference. In keeping with qualitative research norms(Maxwell, 2010; Hannah & Lautsch, 2011), qualifierssuch as all, most, many, some, several, and few, willbe used to convey a more appropriate sense of theextent of specific faculty expression in agreement withthe four themes.Twelve of the 12 FLC participants reported that

they had continued integrating some aspect of collab-orative student learning techniques within theircourses. Many stated that their integration has transi-tioned from being a time- and labor-intensive practiceto common in their practice of teaching. As one fac-ulty member stated, “The FLC greatly improved onwhat I was doing…I think through my goals, why Iam doing things in certain ways or how to better fa-cilitate the activity. I now think through how I wasdoing things and see different ways I could change;it’s definitely helped.”

Benefits for facultyMany FLC participants credited their experience withinthe FLC as transformative toward either starting or em-phasizing the importance of collaborative student learn-ing within their teaching practice. Faculty described fourcategories of benefits for themselves from incorporationof collaborative student learning approaches in their


teaching: (1) the opportunity to provide real-time feed-back within the classroom, (2) enriched interactions andconnections with students, (3) better techniques forteaching teamwork, and (4) positive faculty peer collabo-rations the FLC facilitated and afforded.

Real-time feedbackMany of the faculty members explained how usingcollaborative student learning techniques allowed morereal-time feedback about their teaching and their stu-dents’ understanding of the material. One faculty mem-ber described real-time feedback as a key element ofsuccessful collaborative student learning because, “[with-out real students trying it], you won’t understand whatlive real-time feedback looks like and what students willdo in response to what you do.” Another faculty memberexplained that he “liked hearing students talking it out”and “if they are in the weeds, I can intervene.” A thirdfaculty member detailed how using formative assessmentin the form of pre-quizzes guides the focus of not onlyhis next class meeting but potentially the next two orthree classes. The pre-quizzes facilitated the way heplanned his instruction, “I can give them a pre-quiz atthe beginning of class just to make sure they’re ready togo… set them up to provide that feedback right thenand there.” His in-class feedback to students had becomemore fluid and he noticed an improvement in overallstudent understanding.

Enriched student interactionsAll faculty members expressed how their implementa-tion of collaborative student learning techniques withintheir classroom bolstered their interactions and connec-tions with students. “You get these high-quality interac-tions with students, but the facilitation is really how youstructure and run the classroom” is how one facultymember explained his implementation. Comparing histeaching experience before and after implementing col-laborative student learning techniques, his reflectionstrongly indicated the importance of communicatingwith students the reasons behind his instructional choiceto implement collaborative student learning in their clas-ses. Another faculty member came to the FLC with theintention to increase the teacher-student interactionwithin his course(s). He shared, “I’ve learned that thereneeds to be balance. I think there is a blend there whereteachers can interact with the class and combine thatwith students working collaboratively with other stu-dents and the teacher.” The faculty member describedhis first implementation of collaborative student learningas “trying too much.” Adjusting his approach, he foundan increase in student-teacher interaction through theco-creation of understanding, a process he called “col-laborative thinking.”

Most faculty members informed their students atthe beginning of the semester of the reasons for theirinstructional choices to implement collaborative stu-dent learning in their classes. While some discusswith their students in an open-forum style discussion,others shared that they reference research (i.e., Oak-ley, Felder, Brent, & Elhajj, 2004) as a way to con-vince students of collaborative student learning’seffectiveness toward their learning. One faculty mem-ber, focused on team homework assignments, includesa citation on the front of the team packet that eachstudent group is to complete for that assignment. Sheexplained that being able to present the literaturebackground is important and had it not been for theFLC she would not have the knowledge to share withstudents, nor the understanding of how to implementthe collaborative student learning techniques.A final way the use of collaborative student learning

techniques enriched interactions and connections withstudents was how it forced some faculty members torethink the importance of teaching. One faculty mem-ber discussed how she had to reorganize the way sheprepared for class. Instead of thinking of the materialin a way that it was “easy for me to present” sheneeded to “think about whether this is easy for thestudents to accept what you presented or not.” Thisshift in thinking helped her to realize that “teachingis important, because for us as [engineering] faculty,we talk about tenure and promotion all the time,” butfor her, more attention and thought needs to go intoteaching in higher education. This faculty memberalso noted that this change helped with her connec-tion to the students both in class and individually,stating “I think the students appreciate professorsspending time in the classroom and after class…Ithink that’s [an] important part.” Another facultymember said that in the past he also had not givenmuch thought to the “students’ perspectives and stu-dents’ learning” even though he knows that “whatstudents learn in my class” is the most importantthing. He explained that when preparing for lecture,there was not much time to think about it, but theFLC gave him that opportunity and dedicated time.Similarly, one faculty member explained that the ex-perience “made me think more about the practice ofteaching, I am more cognizant now of how I amdoing things.” The faculty went on to explain that theFLC had brought on a change in pedagogy that henow extends to other classes he teaches. Another fac-ulty said “[the FLC and the focus on collaborativestudent learning] gave me a brand-new chance to re-view what I had done before…I think about teachingmuch more seriously than before.” Extending thisidea, the faculty member discussed looking at


teaching from a different perspective. His view is nowfrom the student’s perspective, stating, “you’re talkingabout how students learn, not how you want topresent your material.”

Techniques for teaching teamworkMost of the faculty members described how using col-laborative student learning aided the teaching of team-work. The way in which this occurred was largely basedon what type of class the faculty member taught. Manyof the faculty members of the FLC already taughtcourses that were collaborative in nature or had largecollaborative components. For example, several facultymembers taught seminar-style courses intended forupperclassmen or classes that introduce teamwork tostudents as part of the course objectives. One of thesefaculty members who teaches a seminar-style course ex-plained “If you do want to get into the nitty-gritty orsome examples of how groups work or not this is a goodway to do it.” She shared how important teamwork is,not just in her course but in the profession of engineer-ing; an aspect that she felt more empowered to discusswith her students following her experience in the FLC asshe said “it’s backed by the literature.” She also describedhow she talks with her students throughout the semesterabout the necessity of reaching beyond their comfortzone and that in real life you do not always get to choosewho you work with, but you must get the work done.A few of the faculty members who had taught trad-

itional lecture-based courses redesigned their courses tobe much more collaborative. One faculty member noworganizes teams of students using a software programthat automatically groups students with one another.Within a specified timeframe, student teams must worktogether to solve problems and present an answer priorto other student group submissions. While the upfrontwork in setting up the software and planning each classis daunting, his excitement grew as he discussed the finalcomputer button click he makes to initiate the collab-orative teamwork portion of his class. When peer-facultyobservers are in his class, he draws their attention tothat final click by saying, “watch this” and the classerupts as students scurry to find their groups to beginworking together. His reflection also included how hemust facilitate groups at the beginning, “it doesn’t justhappen,” he says. It takes several weeks of classes beforehe feels the classes are ready for that final click intoteamwork, but when they are, he feels his course has notjust taught them the content knowledge but also allowedthem to connect with each other as they form teams andwork together to solve the problems of the day.Another faculty member completely redesigned his

course so that it “borders on doing a flipped classroom.”As the semester progressed, the students started

“developing a little bit more of a group mentality.” Ondays when they were working through problems ingroups, the students came into class prepared to group upand get working: “as long as they know that the timeframeis, ‘oh we’re doing group work today’, they just go.” Healso noted that he does “random pairing or partnering be-cause [he] want[s] them to circulate through the classes”so that they have an opportunity to work with all differentkinds of people. He said that this choice was differentfrom how most other faculty he knew paired students.

Positive faculty peer collaborationsAll faculty members expressed the benefit of positivepeer collaborations the FLC facilitated and afforded. Itprovided them with a platform for discussing theirteaching, learning about how others handled issues, andbeing able to both observe and be observed in the class-room. Most felt their FLC experience shifted their un-derstanding of teaching from an individual effort toan appreciation of collaboration among peers. “[theFLC has strengthened my] desire to collaborate withfaculty on matters other than, let’s get together totalk about how we teach our class, I’ve come to valuethat and recognize when you start to think aboutwhat it takes to get students to collaborate, there’s agive and take. It’s not trivial to do.” The FLC facili-tated partners among faculty that then conductedpeer observations. Almost all faculty mentioned (with-out interview prompt) being observed as beneficial totheir teaching and many mentioned that observingothers was just as beneficial, “every time I sat insomeone else’s class I’ve found something helpful inseeing how someone else does it.”The second element of the positive peer collabora-

tions that almost all faculty members described was theaccountability to their peers to investing the time be-fore each meeting to try collaborative student learningtechniques (or portions of the techniques) that theycould then discuss during the monthly, face-to-facemeetings. One faculty member that strongly expressedher appreciation of all the FLC participants stated, “It’sa commitment thing-that people showed up.” She wenton to discuss how the FLC offered a space where “weheld each other accountable.” Her feelings were echoedby other faculty members, as many found it difficult topinpoint one single aspect of the accountability; but allincluded the opportunity to discuss their collaborativestudent learning implementations, explore further lit-erature on collaborative student learning, and makingconnections outside of their department that theywould not otherwise have had the opportunity to make.Other faculty members mentioned how the focus on

collaboration helped in venues outside of the classroom.For example, one faculty member explained that the use


of collaborative student learning techniques improvedcollaborations in his research, “I learned a lot of thethings from the collaborative student learning ap-proach…basically, how I can collaborate with the othersas teacher and a researcher.” Another noted that “it’sjust helped me to listen more, listen carefully. And Ithink one of my strengths is listening.”

Benefits for studentsFaculty persisted due to the benefits they observed forstudent learning. The vast amount of research indicatingcollaborative student learning techniques as effective forstudent learning may have initially inspired faculty toparticipate in the FLC. However, this may not be enoughto sustain pedagogical change. Our results show that fac-ulty did sustain their pedagogical change because theywere able to identify specific benefits for student learn-ing. Their participation in the FLC enabled faculty tobuild their own beliefs and perspectives about the virtuesof collaborative student learning. The benefits facultyidentified for students included (1) improvement of atti-tudes and effort, (2) improvement of thinking and un-derstanding, and (3) improvement of teamwork skills.

Attitudes and effortAmong the greatest benefits for students due to thefaculty’s implementation of collaborative student learn-ing was their attitudes in class. One faculty member thatinstructed only through lecture prior to the FLC,expressed her students’ attitudes as, “more interested”during collaborative student learning days. She went onto describe their increased effort and attitude, “it’s notbecause they’re trying to get a grade, the credit thatthey get is just contingent on them showing up.” An-other faculty member said that the students weremore engaged as he believed the students noticed thereal-life connections; with many students looking to-ward employment with companies that value collabor-ation in the workplace.A few faculty members noticed their course evalua-

tions at the end of the semester included commentsfrom students pointing to their appreciation of the col-laborative student learning days (instead of lecture). Onefaculty member reiterated that result, “I get a lot of goodcomments from students after the semester is over thatthey liked learning that way,” and he did not recall anynegative comments in relation to his use of collaborativestudent learning techniques.

Thinking and understandingMany faculty members also highlighted improvement instudent’s thinking and understanding the course content.One faculty member’s reflection emphasized student’sdeeper understanding, “I thought they understood

concepts taught this way better than they normallywould [talking about students working together to com-pare engineering theories of practice].”A faculty member explained the students’ deeper un-

derstanding was due to being able to work in groups be-cause “if they didn’t understand the answers or how todo the problem, they could work with their [student]peers and also see two different approaches.” Alterna-tively, the faculty went on to explain student’s deeperunderstanding as due to using new “step-by-step exam-ples which can lead students to the deeper concept grad-ually.” A third faculty member explained that by havingstudents do projects that connected to real life or workin industry, they “appreciated the concepts more.”The collaborative student learning techniques bol-

stered other elements of faculty members’ courses astheir implementation allowed for more discussion inclasses among students, “based on feedback and lessonslearned, I later relied less on collaborative problem solvingand more on collaborative thinking.” In combination, al-most all faculty found benefits for students as the mostimportant characteristics of implementing collaborativestudent learning. This judgment was not only based on lit-erature which articulated benefits for students but wasmore directly evident to them through their own experi-ence of implementing the collaborative student learningtechniques and working with students to grow as learners.

Teamwork skillsWhile some faculty discussed the hesitation of students towork in groups at first, all faculty indicated students eventu-ally come around to the idea and appreciated the experi-ence. One said, “It takes effort and experience to make thegroups work well-it doesn’t just happen.” Another facultymember explained that at the beginning of the semester,most students did not like working in groups, so they wouldcomplain and get in their groups but not actually participatein the group. However, by the end of the semester, “the vastmajority of students accept it as part of the class.”Most faculty members discussed the collaborative na-

ture of engineering and that through these experienceswithin the classes students are more prepared forhigher-level courses as well as their future potential ca-reer(s). A faculty member stated, “Students need thattime, individually to orient themselves.” Another facultymember added to that idea, “there are more guidelinesfor getting everything right”; thus, teaching teamwork tostudents and providing the structure for student teamsallowed them the opportunity to experience the unex-pected difficulty of working collaboratively as a team.

Positive features of the FLC experienceHaving experienced these positive student outcomes, fac-ulty chose to sustain complex and difficult pedagogical


change. The FLC structure was critical to enable faculty tohave this transformative experience. Our results also in-clude faculty-identified features of the FLC structure thatproved to be vital for this pedagogical change to occur. Allfaculty members reflected positively on the FLC, identify-ing a number of positive features of the FLC structureincluding (1) accountability and support provided by themonthly meetings, (2) faculty peer relationships developedwithin the FLC, and (3) identification of resources forcollaborative student learning techniques.

AccountabilityAll faculty appreciated the monthly structure of meet-ings and reflected on how the face-to-face meetings heldthem accountable in executing collaborative studentlearning techniques within their classes. One facultymember stated “One of my favorite things about FLCs isjust being able to talk about the stuff. I always enjoyedour conversations.” Another echoed “when I hear andlisten to their [other faculty members’] voices, that is themost valuable part.” One faculty member stated “gettingto talk and ask questions, hearing that a lot of otherpeople had the same kinds of issues and questions, andthen hearing what other faculty were going to do wasreally good.” Most faculty indicated an integral part oftheir professional growth with collaborative studentlearning techniques was due to the FLC structure. A fac-ulty participant described her experience as transforma-tive because of the meeting, she stated “the fact that weeven had an FLC versus just an open-ended initiative…there’s some realness to that, with real supports ofpeople doing it together and meeting to share ideas wasvery helpful.” Her reflection maintained the importanceof active participation by the FLC participants; passiveparticipation, often stemming from online structures ofone-time meetings, would not yield the same long-termpositive impact that this FLC experience did.For many of the faculty, the monthly face-to-face

meetings were important because they forced them to“do what they said they would.” For another facultymember, the face-to-face meetings brought another levelof scrutiny to implementing a collaborative studentlearning technique. She stated “I had to think aboutthings differently, I’d ask myself, ‘how do I knowwhether this works or doesn’t’, as opposed to just tryingit and saying, ‘that felt better’.” For this faculty partici-pant, the FLC was an accelerant to her beginnings ofimplementing collaborative student learning within hercourses. Similarly, one faculty member said “I reallyenjoyed the monthly [FLC] meetings, and those were al-ways really helpful because of the dialogue that I had be-tween myself and other faculty members.” She alsonoted that this was the one place where she talked toother faculty about teaching: “We might talk to each

other about research in our particular fields, but very lit-tle to almost nothing on teaching in most departments.”One faculty member described the necessity of FLC’s

structure because it provided them not only with dedi-cated time but they also “had the FLC support structureas [they] went through that transition” (to using collab-orative student learning techniques in the classroom).Because of the support, one faculty member noted thatit “kept me on track” with implementation. Furthermore,it helped emphasize the need for preplanning before im-plementation. After the FLC some faculty membersnoted that they still met with individuals from the FLCand discussed their teaching or sought help.

Faculty peer relationshipsCollaborative student learning was used through theFLC structure in part by instituting faculty peer partnersand facilitating peer observations of other faculty partici-pant’s classes. Almost all faculty participants referencedthe peer observation process as not just beneficial totheir professional development within the FLC but in-strumental in their understanding toward implementingcollaborative student learning techniques within theirclassroom(s). “Sitting in on some other people’s classeswas, I think, really powerful for me” stated one facultymember. Another faculty member explained how herpeer observer confirmed students were working togetherand learning, “I never really get feedback from students,but [the peer observer], confirmed that they were notonly doing what they were supposed to, but studentswere shifting roles and working together to understand.”This confirmation from her peer observer re-affirmedthe faculty member’s choice on student group forma-tions (i.e., partner groupings versus three-person group-ings) and aided in her confidence to pursue developingher use of collaborative student learning techniques.

ResourcesSome of the faculty mentioned that they found thebook used in the FLC helpful, as one faculty memberdescribed it, “the book actually gave specifics [instruc-tions] of how to implement it, the places that I couldactually then figure out how I could combine thingsto implement for my own implementation.” Anotherfaculty member even pulled the book off her shelfand opened it up to provide an example. Others ex-plained that they still use some strategies found inthe book for things like forming better teams andhow to evaluate peers.One faculty member described how they used the FLC

as an opportunity to improve and has continued to de-velop those skills, “I continued to read up on how to cre-ate more effective groups, how to handle conflict ingroups, how to determine or how to find ways in which


you can more accurately measure the contribution ofeach team member. So, I’m continually reading up onliterature regarding those issues to try and improve thatpart of the classroom.”

Next stepsAll faculty participants indicated a desire to continuingwork within a similar FLC structure as their initial experi-ence. When asked to describe the type of support theywould like to continue their work in collaborative studentlearning technique, the overwhelming response was con-tinued community support in terms of regular meetingsand faculty members with similar goals in mind. “It’s justa part of what I do now [referring to the use of collabora-tive student learning within her classes] …the only thing Iwould really think about changing is being able to domore of it [collaborative student learning]” stated a facultyparticipant, reflecting on continuing her teaching withcollaborative student learning techniques.Many described the support from the FLC aided in their

professional development within collaborative studentlearning techniques. Through his experience, one facultymember shared this related to tenure-ship. “The need forprofessional development for faculty arises beyond in-structional training, or instructional development…profes-sional development ought to be part of research, service,and teaching [three components of tenure], and not ne-cessarily just teaching.” From his perspective, newer fac-ulty are hesitant to join professional developmentexperiences like this FLC due to the impression that itonly bolsters one (teaching) component of tenure; how-ever, he feels a commitment to teaching bolsters all threecomponents of tenure.The majority indicated a desire for continued support

and community for faculty members who are interestedin learning and improving their teaching. As one facultymember reflected on the training secondary schoolteachers receive continued training, “but there’s never,ever any training for college professors.” Many of thesefaculty members are interested but need assistance to-ward “fostering conversations or allowing people whoare interested…having a way for them to communicateon a regular or semi-regular basis.” Another echoed,“We’re all busy and I think if we’re not deliberate aboutcontinuing [FLC tasks], it tends not to happen…I knowpersonally, that’s definitely true.”Some of the faculty asked for another FLC with a new

cohort. One faculty member hoped this would drive animprovement in teaching within the engineering school,“And I think if it’s possible, this [FLC] should be thereand eventually all of the engineering school faculty willhave a turn and then gradually that will change theteaching style for the whole school, moving more to-wards a modern teaching style.”

DiscussionPositive enduring outcomesAlthough it may be relatively common for any FLC impactsto dissipate after the completion of the FLC experience,particularly in a domain as personal as teaching approaches,in our study, we found that the majority of faculty werecontinuing to implement some pedagogical strategies theyhad developed as part of the FLC. Interestingly, for quite afew of them, several of the “new” collaborative studentlearning techniques they had tried in the FLC had becometheir new normal. This sort of deep assimilation of previ-ously new and unfamiliar teaching approaches offers strongevidence that this particular FLC experience continued tohave enduring impact in subsequent semesters.One key aspect of implementing collaborative stu-

dent learning that seemed to be an impetus for thisready assimilation into their regular teaching practicewas because of the rich interactions with studentsthat the faculty experienced. Several indicated that aprimary benefit of implementing collaborative studentlearning was the ability to monitor and give feedbackto students in real time, while they were collabora-tively solving and discussing problems during class.This aspect of collaborative student learning seemedto have occurred for those faculty who were anticipat-ing this benefit of being able to interact with studentson a regular basis. Faculty commented that theyfound this to be a particularly effective benefit fortheir students and that they themselves enjoyed theopportunities to interact and get to know their stu-dents better than they would have if they had onlytaught via traditional lecture format.In addition to citing these positive benefits for self

and students, faculty also reflected that the initialFLC required a lot of time and commitment forplanning and modifying as the semester progressed.This highlighted that, in order for the enduring posi-tive impacts to become available, faculty must bewilling to invest substantial time and effort initially.That may be more palatable for faculty if theyunderstand that these new pedagogical techniqueswill not always take so much time and in fact mayeventually become just a normal part of what theydo in their teaching. Emphasizing this upfront costwith ultimate expected worthwhile returns may be afruitful buy-in strategy for others implementing aFLC focused on pedagogical strategies for collabora-tive student learning.

Key FLC StructuresSeveral key FLC structures were supportive to faculty.The face-to-face, scheduled FLC structure with estab-lished deliverables at each meeting was very widely citedas critical for each individual to have made the efforts


they did. By agreeing to participate in this FLC with fac-ulty colleagues, having assignments and homework withdeadlines and having regular face-to-face meetings, mostfaculty agreed that this accountability to peers was a ne-cessary incentive for them to undergo the hard work ofstudying, planning, and then implementing new peda-gogical strategies. Faculty found the peer-peer inter-action to be motivating and interesting, hearing whatothers were trying and challenges they were having,which offered them some new ideas to try as well ascontribute to a sense of community in this shared effort.They found this peer accountability context to be im-portant for them to commit to making the time for up-front planning and then actual implementation of theirchosen strategy(ies).Another aspect of the FLC meeting structure that

was helpful was that the scheduled times were notoverly frequent but were carefully sequenced with re-spect to expected assignments (e.g., reading theassigned text and selecting at least one strategy theywould like to try, then next time having a modifiedsyllabus and overall plan of action for implementa-tion, then having follow-up documents/resources/planfor initial daily instructional implementation). Thecombination of actionable steps such as reading aboutand selecting a collaborative student learning strategy,along with commitments for implementation reflectedin their modified syllabus and initial supporting plans,seemed to have been key FLC structures that enabledparticipating faculty to successfully and meaningfullystay engaged with this FLC.A third key FLC structure that many found helpful

to sustain interest and engagement was peer-to-peerobservation. By pairing up faculty (one who wasimplementing in the first semester with one who wasimplementing in the second semester) and askingthem to schedule peer-to-peer observations, all facultywere meaningfully engaged in the collaborative stu-dent learning FLC even when it was not their semes-ter to implement. Faculty peer observations seemedto combine benefits of accountability to each otherwith benefits of having a shared mission and focusand faculty expressed strong appreciation for the op-portunity to watch a colleague in action and then tohave discussions around that. Some of these 2-personpairings were still having occasional pedagogical con-versations with their partner even 2 years after theFLC formally ended.

Intentional supports to sustain a community of practiceFor any FLC initiative to have enduring impact, it ishelpful to explore how any such community of practicemight be sustained. As noted in the results above, anumber of the new pedagogical techniques related to

collaborative student learning appear to have been incor-porated into individual faculty teaching repertoires in anongoing manner, which is one positive aspect of sustain-ing the FLC impact. However, no matter how muchindividuals may or may not have enhanced their peda-gogical approaches, typically any such change has thegreatest opportunity for meaningful impact if there is avibrant community of practice that supports all partici-pating faculty.As noted above, some aspects of ongoing community

of practice were evident in the results, particularly thosewho still occasionally had pedagogical conversationswith their faculty peer partner even well after the struc-tured FLC was completed. Several of the participants in-dicated that they wished colleagues in their departmentswould engage in a similar FLC, acknowledging that any-one who would be forced or otherwise mandated to par-ticipate not of their own volition would likely notbenefit, given the necessary time and effort that is re-quired for meaningful participation. For themselves, par-ticipants indicated that they would find helpful, andsupportive, a sort of annual reunion where they couldshare and hear from colleagues what collaborative peda-gogical techniques they were still doing and why. Theycould also explore new ideas others may have tried andat a minimum would find it supportive to know thatothers were also continuing to try to find the most ef-fective—and efficient—approaches for teaching.If there were to be an annual follow-up for past FLC

participants, a sort of advanced level FLC for those sus-taining their collaborative student learning pedagogicalefforts, there was a unanimous request that this follow-up be in a face-to-face format rather than virtual be-cause of the stronger sense of accountability to eachother. This approach may offer a productive pathway forsupporting and encouraging ongoing communities ofpractice within those who had experienced a full-year in-tensive FLC, without requiring a large commitment oftime on their part. Simultaneously, this may also serve auseful function for recruiting and welcoming new facultyinto a growing community of practice, giving them someperspective from those who had gone before.

LimitationsOne limitation of this study was that while sustainedpedagogical change occurred, it did so with facultywho were identified as being interested in improvingteaching by making pedagogical changes. The partici-pants accepted invitations to participate in the FLCpresumably because of their interest. Additionally,the faculty participants agreed that they could nothave made the pedagogical changes without the ded-icated time, structure, and support the FLC affordedthem; not only during their implementation but also


to sustain their new techniques. Faculty also neededa means to discuss and share with others who wereengaged in the same process. Any potential futureparticipants who were not already interested in orreceptive to pedagogical change could have a verydifferent experience and may not be as likely to sus-tain pedagogical change after the conclusion of theFLC. As may be noted in our reporting of results,faculty participants did not share any negative com-ments about their experiences with the FLC beyondcommenting on challenges such as time and effortcommitment needed. This may in part be due to theself-selection of these faculty who voluntarily choseto be part of the initial FLC cohorts.A second limitation is that the faculty self-reported the

pedagogical changes rather than being directly observedby the researchers. However, because these researcherswere FLC facilitators and have maintained ongoing rela-tionships and conversations with these faculty, we areconfident in their willingness to honestly share their ac-tual practices and continued use of the pedagogy theyinitially implemented through the FLC. While relationalinfluences have the potential to positively disposefaculty’s interview responses, the long-term professionalrelationships held between the faculty participants andFLC facilitators/researchers have consistently exhibitedshared value in honest reflection practices. Further, therewas no incentive or penalty for inaccurate representa-tions or replying to the interview invitation.

ConclusionsFLCs can be meaningful tools for implementing sustain-able change under the right conditions. As discussedabove, with adequate support and the willingness to in-vest time and energy up front, many faculty members re-alized enough benefits from their incorporation ofcollaborative student learning strategies that they contin-ued to include those in subsequent iterations of theircourses. For some, this has simply become a “new nor-mal” for them, which suggests that this pedagogicalchange is likely to endure indefinitely. That suggests thatif a year-long FLC can support faculty in makingchanges they are interested in making, there may be on-going long-term changes when the faculty experienceadequate positive feedback in terms of benefits for theirstudents and for themselves.Although this FLC targeted collaborative student

learning techniques as the pedagogical change, we ex-pect these results would be independent of the specificsof the pedagogical change. These results are widely ap-plicable to others who may wish to enable structures forpedagogical change through an FLC model. From thisstudy, others may be encouraged to use the FLC modelnot only to introduce but also to sustain pedagogical

change. Engineering teaching was the context of thisstudy; however, the pedagogical changes sustained byfaculty could be just as applicable in any non-STEMdiscipline.Additionally, these results offer some guidance for

what fruitful next steps could be to systematicallysupport sustainable, long-term change beyond whatfaculty may do individually. As discussed, there maybe value by instituting an annual FLC follow-up. Thiscould be a structure for sustaining a dynamic and in-volved community of practice beyond the initial FLC,while simultaneously not being overly burdensome interms of time commitment. As noted, this may alsoserve an additional function as a recruitment tool fornew faculty to participate in new cohorts of a FLC.By having successful veteran FLC participants playkey roles in contributing to and guiding discussion inthis annual FLC follow-up, this would also be consist-ent with Wenger et al.’s (2002) recommendation thateach community of practice needs to develop its owninternal direction, character, and energy.Finally, the positive ongoing incorporation of collab-

orative student learning strategies by a number of en-gineering faculty across multiple departments offerspromise for enhancing student learning in ways con-sistent with national certification emphases (ABET,2018) on teamwork and communication skills. Add-itionally, these faculty efforts may contribute tostrengthening national priorities such as more STEMgraduates and a STEM-literate workforce. For anydisciplinary context or domains, it may be helpful forFLC organizers to consider a larger context (e.g., na-tional trends or certifications) when identifying a FLCfocus. To the extent that a specific set of pedagogicalchanges can be attached to a larger context, it wouldbe easier to convince both students and other facultythat such an effort would be worthwhile. As a resultof first achieving success in the FLC-supported peda-gogical change, we found that such change can besustainable, either through individual faculty memberpersistence or with additional follow-up support whenthe formal FLC has concluded.

Appendix 1Interview questionsGeneral questions about experiences with FLC and col-laborative student learning (CL) techniques

� Tell me about what you remember about yourexperience in the FLC.

� Describe the most helpful aspects of the FLC.� What were any challenges you had with the first

implementation of CL techniques?


Reflecting on CL implementation

� What techniques learned from the FLC are you stillusing in your courses?� If none, why?� If none, do you see yourself using CL again in the

future?� What are some things you have changed since that

first implementation?� Have you implemented any new techniques?

� What problems have you encountered inimplementing CL?

� Describe how you use CL in a typical class.� Do you see yourself continuing to use CL in this or

other courses?� How do you see your use of CL changing in the

future?

Students’ reactions

� How have students reacted to your use of CL?

Ongoing support and efforts

� Do you keep in contact with other members of theFLC to discuss your courses?� About the use of collaborative student learning in

your courses?� Have you discussed CL with other non-FLC

faculty?� Have you sought any additional support for your

courses?� Would you find additional support helpful?� What support and communication would you

like?

Impacts outside the classroom

� How has your experience impacted other areas ofyour professional life?

� Are there any additional comments you would liketo make?

Appendix 2Core themes and sub-themes extracted from interviewdataBenefits for facultyFor themselves

1. Ability to give real-time feedback2. Interaction/connection to students3. Techniques for teaching teamwork to

students…(ABET accreditation)

4. Positive peer collaborations/finding collaborators(faculty peer observations)

Benefits for studentsImprovement in…(for students, noted by faculty)

1. a. Knowledge transfer.b. Student thinking and understanding

Attitudes

2. Learning to be good team members.

Positive features

1. FLC structure2. Book3. Faculty peer relationships4. Faculty peer observations

Next steps

1. For themselves2. For others

AbbreviationsCoP: Community of Practice (CoP); FLC: Faculty learning community;PLC: Professional Learning Community; STEM: Science, Technology,Engineering, and Mathematics

AcknowledgementsNot applicable

Authors’ contributionsTLT composed the introduction, literature review, and analysis section. TLTand MM collected interview data and completed the initial coding structure.MM composed the “Methods” section. PR composed the “Introduction”section and collaborated with TLT and TRT on the “Discussion” section. TRTcomposed the “Conclusions” section. All authors collaborated on the analysisof data. TLT, PR, and TRT revised the manuscript, per reviewer suggestions.All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ informationNot applicable

FundingFunding for this project originated from graduate research assistant stipendsfrom two university departments. There is no outside funding source (i.e.,outside the university). Funding for publication will come from withinuniversity departments.

Availability of data and materialsReviewed on a case-by-case basis, interested persons may request anonymizedtranscript data by e-mailing the corresponding author ([email protected]).

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author details1Middle and Secondary Department, College of Education and HumanDevelopment, University of Louisville, Louisville, USA. 2Department ofEngineering Fundamentals, J. B. Speed School of Engineering, University ofLouisville, Louisville, USA. 3Middle and Secondary Department, College ofEducation and Human Development, University of Louisville, Louisville, USA.


mailto:[email protected]

Received: 21 February 2019 Accepted: 11 July 2019

ReferencesABET. (2018). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Retrieved from http://

www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2018-2019/

Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: Ahandbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons.

Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering educationinnovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in US engineeringdepartments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185–207.

Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence-basedteaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight changestrategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220–252.

Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of fourseminal works. Journal of Information Science, 31(6), 527–540.

Cox, M. (2001). 5: Faculty learning communities: change agents for transforminginstitutions into learning organizations. To Improve the Academy, 19(1), 69–93.

Cox, M. (2003). Fostering the scholarship of teaching and learning throughfaculty learning communities. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 14(2/3), 161–198.

Cox, M. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions forTeaching and Learning, 2004(97), 5–23.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: DC Heath.Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Houghton Mifflin.Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education, New York. Macmillan. If you see

John Dewey, tell him we did It. Educational Theory, 37(2), 145–152.Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Washington, DC:Board of Science Education, National Research Council, The National Academies.

Furco, A., & Moely, B. E. (2012). Using learning communities to build facultysupport for pedagogical innovation: A multi-campus study. The Journal ofHigher Education, 83(1), 128–153.

Hannah, D. R., & Lautsch, B. A. (2011). Counting in qualitative research: Why toconduct it, when to avoid it, and when to closet it. Journal of ManagementInquiry, 20(1), 14–22.

Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructionalstrategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. PhysicalReview Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(2), 20102.

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005).Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 52(2), 196.

Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conductingconsensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572.

Hipp, K. K., Huffman, J. B., Pankake, A. M., & Olivier, D. F. (2008). Sustainingprofessional learning communities: Case studies. Journal of EducationalChange, 9(2), 173–195.

Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuousinquiry and improvement. Austin: ERIC.

Iaquinto, B., Ison, R., & Faggian, R. (2011). Creating communities of practice:scoping purposeful design. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 4–21.

Jaschik, S. (2015). Well-prepared in their own eyes. Inside Higher Ed, 20.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in

the college classroom. ERIC.Kezar, A. (2011). What is the best way to achieve broader reach of improved

practices in higher education? Innovative Higher Education, 36(4), 235–247.Kezar, A., Gehrke, S., & Bernstein-Sierra, S. (2017). Designing for success in STEM

communities of practice: Philosophy and personal interactions. The Review ofHigher Education, 40(2), 217–244.

Kezar, A., Gehrke, S., & Elrod, S. (2015). Implicit theories of change as a barrier tochange on college campuses: an examination of STEM reform. The Review ofHigher Education, 38(4), 479–506.

Lave, J. (2009). The practice of learning. Contemporary theories of learning:Learning theorists… in Their Own Words, 200–208.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Learning in doing https://doi.org/10.2307/2804509.

LePage, P., Boudreau, S., Maier, S., Robinson, J., & Cox, H. (2001). Exploring thecomplexities of the relationship between K-12 and college faculty in anontraditional professional development program. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 17(2), 195–211.

MacDonald, J. (2008). Blended learning and online tutoring: Planning learnersupport and activity design. Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry,16(6), 475–482.

Michael, J. (2007). Faculty perceptions about barriers to active learning. CollegeTeaching, 55(2), 42–47.

Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups intoeffective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9–34.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal ofEngineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.

Richlin, L., & Cox, M. D. (2004). Developing scholarly teaching and the scholarshipof teaching and learning through faculty learning communities. NewDirections for Teaching and Learning, 2004(97), 127–135.

Ralston, P. S., Tretter, T. R., & Brown, M. K. (2017). Implementing CollaborativeLearning across the Engineering Curriculum. Journal of the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning, 17(3), 89–108.

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learningon undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: Ameta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professionallearning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of EducationalChange, 7(4), 221–258.

Sunal, D. W., Hodges, J., Sunal, C. S., Whitaker, K. W., Freeman, L. M., Edwards, L., et al.(2001). Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional developmentand barriers to change. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 246–257.

Tomkin, J. H., Beilstein, S. O., Morphew, J. W., & Herman, G. L. (2019). Evidencethat communities of practice are associated with active learning in largeSTEM lectures. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1.

Walczyk, J. J., Ramsey, L. L., & Zha, P. (2007). Obstacles to instructional innovationaccording to college science and mathematics faculty. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 44(1), 85–106.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. NewYork: Cambridge.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities ofpractice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affiliations.


http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2018-2019/



https://doi.org/10.2307/2804509

sustaining pedagogical change via faculty learning community€¦ · sustaining pedagogical change...

Documents