Cultivating Responsive, Student-Centered Instructional Practice Through a Community of Practice-Inspired Instructional Training Program

Since Situated Learning Theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) was used to design the course structure studied, we leveraged the theory in survey design including the choice to use open-ended questions to capture the nuance of participants’ reasons behind module design and implementation decisions.

In data analysis, we realized that to capture patterns in those decisions, a different framework was needed, this led to the selection of The Academic Plan (Lattuca & Stark, 2009).

Given the instructor-student relationship between author three and the study participants, we decided to use anonymous surveys which were intended to avoid gathering survey responses that were influenced by what participants perceived as expected from the instructor.

We also removed the instructor from the analysis process until after themes were generated, mitigating the possibility of the instructor focusing on data that supported their desired outcomes.

We prioritized detailed descriptions of the data analysis process and included examples of participant quotes demonstrating the patterns whenever possible.

Our data present an example of how the teaching practices of participants in the sequence can be influenced using Situated Learning Theory throughout the sequence design. As such, our recommendations focus on how this training approach could be adapted to support other training efforts.

The study underwent review by an institutional review board to guide ethical development of the data collection and analysis process given the connection between the researchers and the course sequence studied. Relatedly, multiple elements of the study’s process (refer to Procedural Validation for examples) were informed by the effort to balance the researchers’ contributions to the study and the potential of bias in data analysis.

Every effort was made to include all necessary details to articulate how the study was performed in this manuscript. The review process associated with this publication helped clarify where details were missing and allowed us to add them.

Changing specific topics that pertain to each unique module (adding content or subtracting content- one concept to full lectures)

Improving pedagogical approaches (learning how to explain content, facilitating discussions, adapting lecture pacing, and reading the room for student reactions)

Summative (clarifying grading criteria, adjusting questions students did not perform well on, adding questions, and adding work for advanced students)

Formative (using polling and more frequent check-ins for understanding)

Incorporating more feedback mechanisms

Adding real-world, career-relevant content

Changing specific topics unique to a module (adding a slide about a topic)

Adjusting the level of “help” instructors offered (with lab techniques, when answering questions)

Adjusting the amount of preparation (figuring out the technology, timing, increasing confidence, and changing the delivery)

Improving on in-the-moment teaching (learning to incorporate material in response to conversations with students)

Improving pedagogical approaches (changing instructor energy to increase students’ energy, adding get-to-know-you activities, incorporating knowledge of students into instruction, structuring small group activities, adding technology to increase student interaction)

Adding “examples” with pictures, diagrams, physical objects, or assignments

Adding optional readings

Adding note-taking collaboration

Adding lecture slide content

Removing lecture slide content (changing content readings or videos for students to view outside of class)

Changing technology (software, devices)

Reorganizing the order of lectures or labs

Moving specific experiences to earlier in the module

Insights on what was not working (regarding student learning or informal student feedback)

Insights on what “worked well”

Course timing (duration of class periods, total number of hours available for class, number of weeks)

Course size (more or fewer students than expected)

Instructors (team-teaching dynamics and feedback)

Class advertisement (attracting a different student demographic than expected)

Resources (available classroom space, software, technology)

Educational background (age, experience)

Lack of engagement (linked to students’ motivation for taking the course)

In-course feedback (solicited via surveys)

Increasing students’ independent learning

Increasing students’ sense of community

Creating better engagement in courses (compared to those they had previously experienced)

Incorporating aspects of their teaching philosophy (e.g., incorporating learning theories, active learning, or other evidence-based approaches)

Ensuring the students met learning outcomes