The aim of the present study is to explore what the communities of practice (CoPs) bring the teachers involved, as perceived by themselves. Since the perceived results determine whether or not teachers consider the CoP as useful, we found these relevant for investigation.

The study involves a qualitative explorative study of two CoPs at a Dutch university, aimed at tutors in a recently implemented problem-based curriculum (Medicine). The role of tutor was new to most of them. The study is based on observations, questionnaire data and semi-structured interviews. The study involved 11 participants. A phenomenographic methodology was used for the analysis of the interviews.

This study shows that participants perceive the CoPs as leading to learning and emotional support. However, this is not restricted to the individual level, cognitive and emotional results are also reported on the institutional level. Standards are created, new ideas are shared, feedback for the organisation was gathered and  reported to the institute. Also, the CoPs added to the feeling of being taken seriously by the institute.

We would like to focus the round table on these results on the institutional level. Literature on teacher communities suggests that results on the institutional level are hardly reached. In the round table we would like to explore what explains why they were found in this study. What conditions or factors affected the perceived cognitive and emotional results on the institutional level?

Aims

When curriculum change requires a change of teacher behaviour, the teachers involved have to acquire new skills and competences. Though it is widely recognized that teacher training and possibilities for teachers to exchange experiences, contributes to the quality of the implementation of the curriculum change (Fullan, 1991), exchange among  teachers is not common in higher education. Most HE teachers acquire the necessary skills at the workplace; by solving upcoming problems during teaching practices solely or by taking note of remarks made by students or colleagues (Van Eekelen, Boshuizen & Vermunt, 2005). This learning is unplanned and unstructured.

Literature on collaborative learning however, suggests that teachers might learn much from their colleagues, for example in communities of practice (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). They define communities of practice (CoPs) as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (p. 4). The aim of the present study is to explore the perceptions of the teachers of what the CoP brings them (the perceived results). Investigation of the perceived results is particularly relevant because these determine whether or not teachers are satisfied about the CoP. If they perceive the CoP as bringing them something useful, they will continue attending; but if they experience that the CoP doesn’t gain them anything, they will quit. In this respect, the perceived results of the CoP are considered more relevant than the actual results.

Methodology

Context

This study involves a qualitative explorative study of two communities of practice at a Dutch university, both at the faculty of Medicine. At this faculty, a problem-based curriculum was introduced (top-down). In a problem-based curriculum, a tutor has the task to help the students in having and facilitating group discussions and in presenting their knowledge to each other. Also, the tutor’s task is to assess the professional behaviour of the students. The two communities of practice investigated in this study were aimed at these tutors. This role was completely new for most of them. The communities were followed during one year. The total group of participants consisted of 30 tutors (28% of the total amount of tutors in one year), but halfway the year the constitution of the communities changed, since the tutor task lasts for only one semester. Some tutors however, continued to be tutor and stayed in the community. Averagely, the communities consisted of 8-10 participants at a time. Participation in the communities was voluntary. The communities met monthly (nine times a year).

Participants

In this study, 11 tutors are involved. Four of them had been member of the group for a year, seven of them had been member only for the second semester. Two of the participants are male, nine female.

Data sources

The study is based on observations, questionnaire data and interviews.

-         All meetings of both groups were attended. Observation records were made of every meeting. 

-         In order to get a first impression of the perceived results of the CoP, a short questionnaire was developed about what the CoP the participants has brought (as perceived by themselves).

-         Semi-structured interviews were held to explore their answers deeper. The interview schedule was developed on the basis of the answers to the questionnaire.

Procedure

Halfway the second semester, the 16 participants of that moment were asked to participate in the study. Twelve of them agreed. First the questionnaire was sent by e-mail. Eleven participants (92%) replied. Three months later the semi-structured interviews were held. The interviews lasted 45 to 60 minutes and took place at the university.

Data analysis

A phenomenographic methodology was used for the analysis of the interview data (Marton, 1990). First, the interview data were transcribed. After first reading of the material, an initial coding scheme was developed. The coding scheme was further added and adjusted during the analysis. Of every tutor, a participant summary was made, including references to the original data. A member validation of these participant summaries was part of the procedure. On the basis of the participant summaries, an interim summary of the research question was made. The next step was to go back to the original data and add codes to the original material, look for additional or negative evidence. This cycle was repeated several times, until saturation occurred.

Issue at stake to discuss

This study shows that the perceived results of communities of practice are both cognitive and emotional, both on the individual level as on the level of the institute. These dimensions are represented and summarized in Table I.

The results will be further clarified and illustrated at the round table. We would like to focus our discussion on the results found on the institutional level. Literature on teacher communities suggests that results on the institutional level are hardly reached (e.g. Tillema & Van der Westhuizen, 2006). How can we explain that they were found in this study? In the round table we would like to explore possible explanations. What conditions or factors affected the perceived cognitive and emotional results on the institutional level?

References

Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. (2^nd Ed.). London: Cassell.

Marton, F. (1990). The phenomenography of learning – a qualitative approach to educational research and some of its implications for didactics. In: Mandl, H., De CVorte, E., Bennett, S.N. and Friedrich, H.F. (eds.), Learning and Instruction: European Research in an International Context, Volume 2.1. Oxford: Pergamon Press, p. 601-616.

Tillema, H. & Van der Westhuizen, G.J. (2006). Knowledge construction in collaborative enquiry among teachers. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 12, 51-67.

Van Eekelen, I., Boshuizen, H.P.A., & Vermunt, J.D. (2005). Self-regulation in higher education teacher learning. Higher Education, 50, 447-471.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.