IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v13y2023i4p21582440231200983.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovating Teaching Practice Through Professional Learning Communities: Determining Knowledge Sharing and Program Value

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew M. Clark
  • Monica Zhan
  • Justin T. Dellinger
  • Peggy L. Semingson

Abstract

The Professional Learning Community (PLC) model has been used to help faculty develop innovative teaching practices and diffuse effective strategies and resources throughout K-12 schools. Yet, whether and how PLCs influence research-focused higher education institutions remain unknown. Drawing on existing research on PLCs and the social network theory, this mixed-methods study investigated how participants shared what they learned during their time in the program to build greater capacity and the perceived benefits and weaknesses of the PLC model. We conducted semi-structured interviews ( n  = 8) and a survey ( n  = 77) among current PLC fellows and alumni at a large research university. The results based on social network analysis showed that PLC fellows shared knowledge and resources across departments and offices at the university, and these efforts led to additional collaborative research and grant applications. Results also indicate that PLC fellows valued the diversity of the program, developed skills that they used in their courses, gained confidence in their ability to share knowledge and resources, and appreciated the accountability the program provided. Furthermore, respondents rated the program positively and indicated that they were currently using the knowledge and skills gained to further develop innovative teaching practices as well as planning to continue to do so in the future. These findings suggest that the PLC model can be an effective way for universities to empower faculty to develop innovative teaching practices, and, by sharing what they have learned with others, to build capacity for innovative teaching and research practices across the institution.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew M. Clark & Monica Zhan & Justin T. Dellinger & Peggy L. Semingson, 2023. "Innovating Teaching Practice Through Professional Learning Communities: Determining Knowledge Sharing and Program Value," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:4:p:21582440231200983
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440231200983
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440231200983
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440231200983?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2019. "Diversification versus specialization in scientific research: Which strategy pays off?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 51-57.
    2. Diego Chavarro & Puay Tang & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues: evidence from a developing country," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 195-209.
    3. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    4. Saskia C. Hin, 2013. "Interdisciplinary research collaboration as the future of ancient history? Insights from spying on demographers," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2013-002, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    5. Andrej Kastrin & Jelena Klisara & Borut Lužar & Janez Povh, 2017. "Analysis of Slovenian research community through bibliographic networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 791-813, February.
    6. Meijun Liu & Sijie Yang & Yi Bu & Ning Zhang, 2023. "Female early-career scientists have conducted less interdisciplinary research in the past six decades: evidence from doctoral theses," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2012. "Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2206-2222, November.
    8. Zuo, Zhiya & Zhao, Kang, 2018. "The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 736-756.
    9. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    10. Alison M. J. Buchan & Eva Jurczyk & Ruth Isserlin & Gary D. Bader, 2016. "Global neuroscience and mental health research: a bibliometrics case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 515-531, October.
    11. Lina Xu & Steven Dellaportas & Zhiqiang Yang & Jin Wang, 2023. "More on the relationship between interdisciplinary accounting research and citation impact," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4779-4803, December.
    12. Pablo D’Este & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 752-763.
    13. Dellaportas, Steven & Xu, Lina & Yang, Zhiqiang, 2022. "The level of cross-disciplinarity in cross-disciplinary accounting research: analysis and suggestions for improvement," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    14. Barry Bozeman & Monica Gaughan & Jan Youtie & Catherine P. Slade & Heather Rimes, 2016. "Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 226-244.
    15. Victoria Galán-Muros & Peter Sijde & Peter Groenewegen & Thomas Baaken, 2017. "Nurture over nature: How do European universities support their collaboration with business?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 184-205, February.
    16. van Rijnsoever & Marius Meeus & Roger Donders, 2012. "The effects of economic status and recent experience on innovative behavior under environmental variability: an experimental approach," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 12-01, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Jan 2012.
    17. Jung, Jiwon & Bozeman, Barry & Gaughan, Monica, 2017. "Impact of research collaboration cosmopolitanism on job satisfaction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1863-1872.
    18. Xiancheng Li & Luca Verginer & Massimo Riccaboni & P. Panzarasa, 2022. "A network approach to expertise retrieval based on path similarity and credit allocation," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 17(2), pages 501-533, April.
    19. Ho Fai Chan & Ali Sina Önder & Benno Torgler, 2015. "Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2215-2235, December.
    20. Li, Feng & Miao, Yajun & Yang, Chenchen, 2015. "How do alumni faculty behave in research collaboration? An analysis of Chang Jiang Scholars in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 438-450.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:4:p:21582440231200983. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.