Case Study 2: Implementation of a Communities of Practice Model at XJTLU

The development of a Communities of Practice model for professional development of academic staff at XJTLU was chosen because I work in a centralised unit called the Academic Enhancement Centre (AEC), and organisationally this runs the risk of being seen as a ‘centralised imposer of university policy’. In AEC, our primary concern instead is to enhance the quality of learning and teaching across the university, and to stimulate and facilitate innovation. Like at Bahrain Polytechnic, I believe a distributed leadership model has the most chance to achieve that.

Thus, a communities of practice model was chosen for two main reasons: firstly to suit a highly diverse organizational structure, in which different academic departments have diverse needs and characteristics, making it difficult to apply a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model; and secondly to allow us, as Educational Developers in AEC, to tailor our learning and teaching support to such diverse needs. Furthermore, the communities of practice model was chosen as an alternative to a centrally designed workshop model, whereby academic staff attend a series of workshops on offer and their attendance is ‘ticked off’. A communities of practice model was seen as a potentially more organic and ‘bottom-up’ approach to professional development and learning, as opposed to a more centralised and ‘top-down’ approach.

The original conceptualisation of CoPs included three key concepts: identity, participation, and governance (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In terms of participation, Macpherson and Antonacopoulou (2013) argue that “the deployment of systems and structures by strategic management sets the landscape on which participation occurs” (p. 269). Since its early conceptualisation, Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002, p. 13) have further developed seven principles for fostering CoPs’ energy and internal direction: 1) designing for evolution, 2) opening dialogue between insider and outsider perspectives, 3) inviting differing levels of participation, 4) developing public and private spaces, 5) focusing on value, 6) combining familiarity with excitement, and 7) creating a rhythm for the community. From an implementation point of view, these principles have helped to keep us, as Educational Developers at XJTLU, focused on the cultivation of CoPs, and draw attention to AEC’s role of fostering CoPs, rather than directing them. The CoPs that have been established so far show this very clearly, as they are very diverse, but they are developed from the bottom up, which is a process that is fostered by AEC. Again this is important, because while our task in AEC is essentially to align teaching, learning and assessment practices across the institution with where the university wants to go, I believe this can only be achieved if there is sufficient buy-in from academic staff and if they they have some control and ownership over the process.

Thus our strategy for the implementation of CoPs was based on a desire by AEC to develop a more structural approach to supporting learning and teaching at XJTLU, and support the implementation of an XJTLU Continuing Professional Development (CPD) framework. The fundamental element of the strategy was the establishment of cluster-based Communities of Practice, which would be driven by ‘CoP Cluster Leads’ (in a similar way as the ‘PBL Champions’ at Bahrain Polytechnic), and facilitated by an AEC Educational Developer. The CoP could then function as an opportunity for the AEC, through its Educational Developers, to identify and disseminate good learning and teaching practice in a structured manner, as they will be ‘embedded’ in clusters, rather than represented in a hierarchical manner.

The strategy was designed to address three key concerns:

1. That, excluding the Certificate in Professional Studies (CPS) programme and the Postgraduate Research Skills Development (PGR) programme, educational development in general is currently too sporadic and reactive, rather than structural and proactive.
2. That there are limited opportunities for ‘bottom-up’ ownership of, and input into, learning and teaching.
3. That it is currently difficult to track progress when it comes to good practice in learning and teaching.

The suggestion was to establish a Community of Practice in each Faculty: 6 in total, plus one in the Language Centre.

To launch this strategy we were fortunate enough to be able to invite Etienne Wenger and Beverly Wenger-Trayner to deliver the keynote address and a series of workshops at XJTLU's annual Learning and Teaching Colloquium in April 2016. I played an important part in conceptualising and organising this.

It is in these Communities of Practice that dynamic discussions take place about student learning, and creative and innovative learning and teaching approaches are initially talked about and tested amongst peers.

As noted, I frequently attend (or partially attend) CoPs at XJTLU, usually upon request. The same applies to other AEC staff. In combination with the official programmes that we offer, such as the CPS programme and the Postgraduate Research Skills Development (PGR) programme, which both include a series of regularly scheduled workshops, in the latter case for Training Assistants, this gives us overall a good combination of opportunities to support our academic colleagues in the enhancement of their practice. As an example, I work closely with a number of academics who also lead the CoP in their faculty. This has in some cases led to them (or other CoP members) contributing to CPS workshops, and it has led to a number of initial joint scholarship of teaching and learning projects in development.

The Communities of Practice model is one clog in a larger suite of the way we approach educational and staff development at XJTLU, albeit a very important one. At AEC it feeds into other initiatives, such as the teaching prizes, the teaching development fund (TDF), the teaching conference fund (TCF), and the annual learning and teaching colloquium. Together with CoPs and the CPS and PGR programmes, this creates an overall environment which can be seen as a learning and teaching ‘ecology’ (Kek & Huijser, 2017). In other words, the discussions that take place in the CoPs help me (and my AEC colleagues) identify good practice, which we can then channel into other events for dissemination. In some cases, I directly collaborate with staff (e.g. Reis & Huijser, 2016), while in others I support them in more indirect ways in developing their projects and/or initiatives.

The knowledge is often disseminated both internally (through CPS workshops or through the Colloquium) and externally (through staff participation in conferences).

Since the launch of the CoPs initiative at XJTLU, there are a number of steps I have taken to evaluate its implementation and sustainability. I am currently leading a funded Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) funded project which has the evaluation of the CoPs initiative as its focus. As part of this project we conducted an institution-wide survey, and we are currently still conducting a series of interviews with colleagues who are leading the CoPs. We have also developed and published an evidence and literature-based case and rationale for its implementation in the XJTLU context (Huijser, Wilson, Johnson, & Xie, 2016).

In the meantime, Etienne and Beverly Wenger-Trayner presented a very useful seven-step evaluation model during their visit (Wenger, Trayner, & de Laat, 2011), which we are planning to use once individual faculty-based CoPs are fully functional. The main benefit of their model is that it has a very clear focus on actions and outcomes, not only for the academic staff involved in the CoPs, but also for different stakeholder groups. In toher words, there is a focus on ultimate beneficiaries of the actions trialed and discussed in CoPs, namely students. In this way, the idea is that CoPs at XJTLU will have a traceable impact on the student learning experience. My involvement in the development and facilitation of the CoPs initiative is thus ultimately expected to lead to an enhancement of the student learning experience, albeit in a roundabout way.

Huijser, H., Wilson, J., Xie, J., & Johnson, D. (2016). Implementing a communities of practice model to enhance learning and teaching at a transnational university in China. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 8 (13).

Kek, M. Y. C. A. & Huijser, H. (2017). Problem-based learning into the future: Imagining an agile PBL ecology for learning. Singapore: Springer Asia.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macpherson, A., & Antonacopoulou, E. (2013). Translating strategy into practice: the role of communities of practice. Journal of Strategy and Management, 6(3), 256-285.

Reis, C., & Huijser, H. (2016). Correcting tool or learning tool? Student perceptions of an online essay writing support tool at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University. In S. Barker, S. Dawson, A. Pardo, & C. Colvin (Eds.). Show Me the Learning: Proceedings ASCILITE 2016, pp. 529-533. Adelaide, 28-30 November.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011) Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework. (Rapport 18). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands. Retrieved 26 April 2016 from http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/publications/evaluation-framework/