The Role of Communities of Practice in Facilitating Service Innovation in Higher Education - Assignment Example

2.3.2 The Role of Communities of Practice in Facilitating Service Innovation in Higher Education The realm of higher education is constantly experiencing changes. New programmes, courses and modules are continuously being introduced so as to meet the demands of a world that is increasingly changing and becoming globalised. It is against this backdrop that scholars in the realm of higher education are drawing on the concept communities of practice (CoPs) so as to inform educators on ways they can improve practice and meet the demands of constantly changing environment (Barton & Tusting 2005). Over the years, a considerable number of studies have explored the role that communities of practice (CoPs) play in higher education (Cremers & Valkenburg 2008; Keenan, Kumar & Hughes 2010; Jakovljevic, Buckley & Bushney 2013). Some studies suggest that CoPs provide an avenue for academic staff to develop their practice through interaction and knowledge sharing (Mittendorff et al 2006). Other studies have reported that CoPs contribute to improved teaching and learning (Bouchamma & Michaud 2011; Cremers & Valkenburg 2008). In addition to this, there is considerable evidence in literature that suggests that CoPs play a critical role in facilitating service innovation in higher education. There are three main ways in which CoPs have been found to contribute to service innovation. CoPs have been found to facilitate service innovation by providing platform that enables transfer of best practice, solving complex problems and developing creative thinking. The subsequent section of this chapter discusses the three main ways in which CoPs facilitates service innovation in higher education. 2.3.2.1 Transfer of Best Practice The organisational structure and culture of individualism in higher education institutions can sometimes contribute to a situation where academic staff are isolated and unware of the practices of their colleagues. The absence of formal structures of sharing often contributes to a lack of knowledge or awareness on teaching and learning best practices and innovations. Moreover, this leads to little recognition and acknowledgement of diverse teaching and learning practices and little support for academic staff who are need of guidance and mentoring in improving or reforming their learning and teaching practice (USQ 2012). However, the establishment of CoPs in higher education can provide a platform that can be used as an efficient tool for transferring best practice in teaching and learning. Typically, CoPs comprise of a group of people coming together for a common goal or purpose. In most cases, CoPs are formed for the purpose of sharing professional knowledge and practices (Cox 2005; Wenger 1999). CoPs provide an environment where participants interact and form professional relationships with their peers. Through these interactions educators share resources, experiences, ideas, tools, solutions and methodologies in a bid to promote best practice. Consequently, such communications contribute in the improvement of knowledge and practice of each participant in the community and further contributes to service innovation within the domain (Gannon-Leary & Fontainha 2007; Sherer, Shea & Kristensen 2003). Additionally, through CoPs useful information and innovation are swiftly transferred from colleague to colleague. Policy, research and practice documents develop more meaning as they are shared and translated into practice by members (Cashman, Linehan & Rosser 2007). 2.3.2.2 Solving Complex Problem According to Cashman, Linehan & Rosser (2007), CoPs can play a critical role in enabling educators solve complex problems. Essentially, CoPs bring together a group of people who share their experiences with a common set of problems. For instance, in the course of practice academic staff may encounter common problems such as effectively teaching a culturally diverse classroom. Through their CoPs, they can engage in a shared process of uncovering the issue, share experiences and brainstorm on suitable solutions on how to address the issues. In essence, CoPs promote a collaborative approach to problem-solving. A number of studies suggest that a collaborative approach to problem solving can contribute to enhanced innovation and creativity when it comes to problem-solving (Keenan et al 2010; Millen, Fontaine & Muller 2002). When CoP members participate in the course of problem solving, they are likely to offer a range of perspectives or solutions to the problem. They are also likely provide a broad spectrum of expertise thus developing a more robust process of addressing complex problems in their practice (Cashman, Linehan & Rosser 2007). 2.3.2.3 Developing Creative Thinking Leonard & Sensiper (1998) argue that creative thinking can be linked to knowledge and is crucial in facilitating service innovation. Creative thinking often involves exploring and integrating different ideas. In this regard, Du Plessis (2007) observes that CoP promote creative thinking by providing an avenue where different people create and share ideas and knowledge. Each member of the community brings in unique sets of ideas or perspective which can be shared. Through this practices creative thinking is fostered. Saint-Onge & Wallace (2012) further argue that CoPs provide a suitable avenue for creativity and innovation as members asks questions , engage in productive discussions, challenge each other’s assumption and provide honest feedback. Professionals learn best from one another. Thus by sharing experiences and expertise within their expertise they provide a vessel for learning and generating new ideas and innovations for improving their practice (Saint-Onge & Wallace 2012). 2.3.4 Barriers of Communities of Practice in Higher Education Although there are numerous benefits associated with CoPs in higher education, there are a wide range of barriers that inhibit their effective functioning. One of the potential barriers that CoPs are likely to encounter revolves around the discipline involved. In certain areas such as sciences, it may be difficult to represent, aggregate or represent disseminate technical or cutting edge knowledge to a large group since it requires specialised expertise (Bos et al, 2007; Olson & Olson 2000). Secondly, the structure and culture of higher education institutions can be major barrier to CoPs. In many institutions of higher education, departments or academic disciplines have a culture of individualism and a great degree of independence. This sometimes contribute to a situation where academic staff engage less with their colleagues about their practice (Ozdemir 2007; USQ 2012). Another major barrier of CoPs in higher education is lack of trust. Currently, CoPs in higher education are facilitated through online platforms that enable virtual interactions. In the virtual environment, identities may be hidden as members may adopt different personas (Tomes, 2001; Turkle 1997). CoPs facilitated through virtual platforms do not provide opportunities to academic staff to experience face-to-face interactions and consolidate their membership. As a result, some members choose to work autonomously and may fail to engage in CoPs wholeheartedly because they have not formed solid relationships with their colleagues. Gibson & Manuel (2003) argue that trust is vital in the effective functioning of CoPs and is primarily developed through face-to face interactions. The lack of one-on-one interaction inhibits members from developing trust relationships with their colleagues. This in turn inhibits open sharing, interaction, engagement and collaboration among CoP members (Gibson & Manuel 2003; Ellis et al 2004). In their article, “Why Communities of Practice Succeed and Why they Fail”, Probst & Borzillo (2008) suggest that work pressure and workload can act as a major barrier for CoPs. Pressures stemming from heavy workload can cause CoP members to be less engaged in activities such as regular participation in discussion, sharing of ideas and providing support to other members. Similarly, Bloxham & Boyd (2007) observe that professional learning and development of academic staff in CoPs are often constrained by the increasing pressures of workload. Academic staff in higher education institution often experience conflicting priorities due to heavy workload. This in turn affects their full participation in activities that facilitate service innovation in their CoPs (Bloxham & Boyd 2007). Millen et al (2002) argue that supporting physical and virtual interactions in CoPs demands both financial and technological resources which come at a hefty cost. Technological resources required for CoPs may incur costs associated with synchronous and asynchronous group messaging applications and bandwidth. On the other hand, physical interactions amongst CoP members may lead to expenses associated with travel expenses and face-to-face meetings. Additional costs may be incurred in the course of online content development, production of community newsletters and publishing of content. These resources can come at a great cost thus acting as barrier to full integration and participation of academic staff in CoPs (Millen et al 2002). 2.3.5 Use of IT as a way of Communication between CoPs Members Over time, higher education institutions have begun to embrace IT as a crucial tool for facilitating communication in CoPs. Prior to the use of IT in CoPs, academic staff used to capitalise on face-to-face meetings in order to effectively discuss issues and share information. This approach proved to be difficult due to time and resource which inhibited many members from actively and regularly engaging, sharing ideas and communicating in their CoPs. The use of technology has provided a more efficient, effective and convenient approach for CoP members to communicate and share ideas anytime anywhere. Currently, there several IT applications that are used to support CoPs, key among them include; Schoology, Skillsoft, Moodle and Blackboard among others. One of the most commonly used technologies in higher education CoPs is the Blackboard (Bb) System. The Blackboard is an online/virtual Learning Management System (LMS) that incorporates a wide range of features and tools that enable users to communicate, share information, ideas and engage in their CoPs .The Bb system is enabled through internet connection and can be accessed through personal computers, mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets (Bradford et al 2007; Chang 2008; Iskander 2008). In higher education academic staff in CoPs use the Bb system in order to enhance efficient communication, interactivity and engagement amongst members. The Bb system incorporates features such as virtual classroom, group pages, announcements, emails and discussion boards that support interactivity among CoP members (Bradford et al 2007). Other than the Bb system, there are other LMS such as Schoology, Skillsoft and Moodle that provide features that support learning and communication (Chang 2008). However, the Bb is often preferred as a suitable tool for facilitating interaction and communication among academic staff in CoPs. The Bb system is often preferred mainly because it is easy to use and suitable for generating new ideas. 2.3.5.1 Easy to Use One of the key advantage of using the Bb system is that it is user-friendly. The system has a well-designed user interface that is clear, concise and consistent thus simplifying user’s interaction with the system. Moreover, the user interface is flexible and customisable hence providing room for users to adjust the system in order to meet their specific needs. The user interface of the Bb system is also very responsive. It has a very short loading and navigating time lag from one feature to another (Balckboard Inc 2015; Bradford et al 2007; Martin 2008). The Bb system also incorporates links between webpages that allows users to easily navigate from one page to another. For instance, on the homepage of the system, there is a CoP link that enables users to navigate and access different features and contents that facilitate communication (Hernaez & Campos 2011; Martin 2008). 2.3.5.2 Generating New Ideas The Bb system also provides a suitable platform where academic staff can share and generate new ideas. Through features such as discussion boards, live chats, group pages and virtual classrooms users are able to share content, ask questions, engage in discussion, provide or receive immediate feedback. The Bb system synchronises discussions and enables CoP members to access information and ideas relevant to their area of practice (Bradford et al 2007). The system brings together groups of people with common goals and provides a platform for them to engage in a shared process of generating ideas, uncovering new issues and brainstorm on suitable ideas on how to improve their practice (Bradford et al 2007; Martin 2008). In addition to this, the Bb system incorporates a multi-media elements that enable CoP members to share and access information in text, audio, video, interactive whiteboard, graphics and animation formats. These aspects of the system tailors information to individual preferences and accommodates multiple learning styles. It allows users to generate ideas from different avenues and enables CoP members to effectively facilitate peer and professional support (Bradford et al 2007; Chang 2008; Iskander 2008; Martin 2008). References Barton, D. & Tusting, K., 2005, Beyond Communities of Practice: Language Power and Social Context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bloxham, S. & Boyd, P., 2007, Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide, Open University Press, Berkshire, England. Bouchamma, Y. & Michard, C., 2011, Communities of Practice with Teaching Supervisors: A Discussion of Community Members' Experience, Journal of Educational Change vol 12, pp. 403-420. Bradford, P., Porciello, M., Balkon, N. & Backus, D., 2007, “The Blackboard Learning System: The Be all and End All in Educational Instruction”, Journal of Educational Technology Systems vol 35, no, 3, pp. 301-314. Cashman, J., Linehan, P., & Rosser, M., 2007, Communities of Practice: A new approach to solving complex educational problems, National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Alexandria, VA. Chang, C.L., 2008, Faculty Perceptions and Utilization of a Learning Management System in Higher Education, ProQuest, Ann Arbor, MI. Cox, A., 2005, ‘What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works’, Journal of Information Science vol 31, no. 6, pp. 527-540. Cremers, P.H. & Valkenburg, M., 2008, 'Teaching and Learning about Communities of Practice in Higher Education', In C. Kimble, P. Hildreth & I. Bourdon, Communities of Practice: Creating Learning Environments for Educators, vol 1 eds, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, North Caroline. Du Plessis, M., 2007., ‘The Strategic Drivers and Objectives of Communities of Practice as Vehicles for Knowledge Management in Small and Media Enterprises’, International Journal of Information Management 28,pp. 61-67. Ellis, D., Oldridge, R. & Vasconcelos, A.,2004, ‘Community and virtual community’, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology vol 38, pp. 145–186 Gannon-Leary, P. & Fontainha, E., 2007, Communities of practice and virtual learning communities: benefits, barriers and success factors, Elearning Papers, 5. pp. 20-29. Gibson, C.B. & Manuel, J.A., 2003, ‘Building trust: effective multicultural communication processes in virtual teams’, In Gibson, C.B. & Cohen, S.G. (Eds.), Virtual Teams that Work, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA. Keenan,C., Kumar, A. & Hughes, P., 2010, ‘Forming Communities of Practice’, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, Special Edition, November 2010, pp.1-13. Iskander,M. (2008). Innovative Techniques in Instruction Technology, E-Learning, E-assessment and Education, Springer Science, New York. Jakovljevic, M., Buckley, S., & Bushney, M., 2013, ‘Forming Communities of Practices in Higher Education: A Theoretical Perspective’, Knowledge Management and Innovation, Proceedings of MakeLearn Conference, 19-21 June 2013, Zadar, Croatia. Leonard, D. & Sensiper, S., 1998, ‘The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation’, California Management Review vol 75, no, 4, pp. 110-119. Probst, G. & Borzillo, S., 2008, “Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail”, European Management Journal 26, pp. 335-347. Martin, F., 2008, ‘Blackboard as the Learning Management System of a Computer Literacy Course’, Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, vol 4, no. 2, pp. 138-145. Millen, D. R., Fontaine, M. A., & Muller, M. A., 2002, “Understanding the benefit and costs of communities of practice”. Communications of the ACM, vol 45,no. 4, pp. 69–73. Saint-Onge, H. & Wallace, D., 2012, Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage, Routledge, New York. Sherer, P.D., Shea, T.P. & Kristensen, E., 2003, ‘Online Communities of Practice: A Catalyst for Faculty Development’, Innovation Higher Education vol 27, no.3, pp. 183-194. Tomes N., 2001, Technology-supported collaborative learning, In Falchicov, N. (Ed., Learning Together – Peer Tutoring in Higher Education, Falmer, London. Turkle S., 1997, Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, Touchstone Press, New York. Mittendorff, K., Geijsel, F., Hoeve, A., de Laat, M., & Nieuwenhuis, L. 2006, ‘Communities of practice as stimulating forces for collective learning’, Journal of workplace learning, vol 18, no. 5, pp. 298-312. Wenger, E., 1999, Communities of practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Read More