Research-Oriented University Instruction: The Research Skill Development Framework and Communities of Practice

Abstract

To address higher education teaching efficacy, this chapter describes how the Research Skill Development (RSD) framework has been successfully applied to underpin professional development programs, namely through Communities of Practice (CoP) that explore research-thinking and a host of research-oriented teaching practices in two universities. These universities are, respectively, located on the Canadian prairie and in the Midwestern United States. In our professional roles, we provide professional development for university educators (UEs) across all disciplines and modalities. The RSD framework sparked interest amongst university educator participants by encouraging discourse on research thinking and by providing a common language to interrogate existing practice and to envision new teaching possibilities. The RSD framework catalysed and supported individual and group research thinking. In turn, university educators engaged with research-oriented teaching practices and publishing on teaching practice in the field of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). Our findings indicated that lasting and meaningful change to research-thinking, in research-oriented teaching practices, and in SoTL, can be enabled through CoP that are underpinned and guided by the RSD framework. This chapter positions the RSD as a valuable and strategic tool for improving teaching while mitigating changing university agendas and concomitant challenges.

1 Background

Higher education and academic sectors comprise two principal audiences, university students and those who teach them. University educators (UEs) come from a range of disciplines. Included in the student audience, within Faculties or Schools of Education, are preservice teachers (in undergraduate and master’s programs) who intend to join the workforce as Pre-K to grade 12 teachers. There are also students enrolled in master’s programs who are already school teachers (In-service teachers or ISTs). All those who teach in university degree-granting programs, including in schools and faculties of education programs, are called here UEs and they are the focus of this chapter.

Many UEs are not substantially trained in pedagogical practices, with their training focusing on research. These UEs may have limited teaching experience or limited exposure to instructional theories and practices. To overcome such gaps in experience and exposure, most universities, including the two discussed in this chapter, maintain university teaching and learning centres (TLCs) aimed at creating institutional environments that are responsive to improving UE’s teaching and students’ learning.

The professional development (PD) activities described in this chapter focus on forming and sustaining Communities of Practice (CoP) wherein UEs come together as a cohort with a facilitator or guide to explore and evolve their teaching practice over a period of time (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Taylor et al., 2021). Facilitation of the CoPs described here utilized six facets of the Research Skill Development (RSD) framework (Willison & O’Regan, 2006, 2018). The RSD framework provided an adaptable, flexible pedagogical tool that was well suited to catalyse and support responsive teaching utilizing research-oriented pedagogies. Research-oriented pedagogies have been a growing area of interest across universities in North America and internationally (Kenny, 1998; Jenkins & Healey, 2018). RSD-informed CoPs engaged participants in cooperative and interactive PD through exposure to research-oriented instructional techniques and tenets. The authors found that the RSD framework proved an effective mechanism to develop responsive teaching practices by sparking and sustaining participants’ interest and hel** TLCs identify and consolidate good teaching/learning practices. The RSD framework provided a common language for UEs to communicate across disciplines, interrogate and reflect on existing practice, and respond quickly to immediate needs of instructors and institutional environments.

1.1 University Educators and Research Thinking

TLCs PD activities usually involve workshops, training sessions or event series, expert speakers, micro-credentials, one-to-one consultations and CoP. Typically, activities help educators find and clarify evidence-based theories and teaching practices.

Figure 5.1 illustrates how TLCs target UEs as the primary audience for PD activities while being cognizant that the reason is to impact students’ learning through improved and responsive teaching. The primary audience is complemented by graduate students with teaching responsibilities or undergraduate students where they are specifically enlisted as teaching assistants or research coaches. UEs’ students then form the secondary audience and include pre-and in-service teachers with the potential to impact students in pre-K to twelfth grade schooling. Teachers may also impact, adult learners in other contexts, such as polytechnics or business training.

Fig. 5.1

University educator's professional development ties to preservice and in-service teachers involved in pre-K to 12 education systems

We apply research thinking and responsive teaching as conceptual tools in the educational development of UEs. They inform “teaching as a habit of respond[ing] dynamically to students' diverse needs and the evolving demands on their lives” (Willison, Chap. 1 of this book), including the habit of foresight and responsiveness in course-design and in implementation and assessment of student learning. Research thinking, as described by the six facets of the RSD framework, positions educators to “react… to contingencies and systematically adapt their practice through consolidation and change” over time (Willison, Chap. 1 of this book). Related to research thinking is research-oriented teaching, denoting a set of strategies that elicit student research skill development. Two vignettes, shared here, describe how research-oriented teaching skills are developed with UEs at two different universities.

2 Vignettes

Our first vignette comes from an Institute for Teaching and Learning (ITL) at a research-intensive university in Canada supporting the learning of over 30,000 students. Academic staff at the ITL is responsible for advancing responsive teaching and learning emphasizing development of instructional capacity around experiential learning (EL). Undergraduate research is a key component of EL and involves course-based research experiences along with faculty-mentored studentships and assistantships. ITL academic staff seeks to build instructional capacity across high impact practices (Kuh, 2008) by providing workshops, online learning modules, practical guides, and CoP. One aim was to respond to institutional goals for integrating experiential learning specifically increasing curricular opportunities for undergraduate research through an initiative called Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience, or CURE.

Our second vignette is from an American Midwestern polytechnic university’s Teaching and Learning Center (MTLC) supporting the learning of more than 7500 students. This vignette focuses on how the MTLC staff helped educators integrate evidence-based and high-impact (Kuh, 2008) practices into their teaching in response to the university’s mission to provide learners with discipline-specific skills and professional competencies.

Both the MTLC and the ITL employed Willison and O’Regan’s (2006, 2018) RSD-framework with communities-of-practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The activities and deliverables across the two contexts were conceived of and executed independently of one another. Surveys and interviews in both contexts were used to gauge impact on UEs’ responsive approaches to teaching and on students’ research thinking and research skill development.

2.1 Vignette 1: Finding a CURE

ITL was tasked in 2020 with expanding opportunities for students to engage in course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE), comprising research, scholarship, artistic exploration, inquiry-based learning, design and prototy**. The guidelines for quality curricular undergraduate research at the institution were informed by definitions put forward by the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR, 2021).

One mechanism for expanding opportunities was to invite UEs to participate in PD aimed to enable them to design and implement CURE in an existing course. The ITL reported that over a two-year period, 12 educators became involved in the PD and CoP. Eleven of these 12 university educators went on to offer CURE in courses they taught. Across four semesters they reached more than 1700 undergraduate students. Program evaluation captured the impact on the UEs’ participants including changes to their practice, connections across peers and colleagues, and impacts on student learning.

UEs in the CoP were provided content and resources that empowered them with a curated set of foundational resources, strategies, examples, and PD exercises. Educators were exposed to the RSD frameworks (Willison & O’Regan, 2006, 2018) in terms of how these could be used in teaching practices where undergraduate research was a pedagogical strategy. Educators explored assumptions, values and responsiveness around teaching, research, student skills, and students’ prior knowledge. They embarked and clarified research-focused learning outcomes, found and generated learning activities, and organised logistics and assessment protocols. Educators were provided with examples to critique and to inform their own designs for either online or in-person teaching contexts.

The RSD-enriched PD stressed the importance of cultivating a community of student researchers, inclusion of student collaboration, and communication of research findings on the part of students. UEs discussed critical reflection and authentic assessment as means for consolidating students’ research-oriented learning. Throughout, UEs were invited to consider and discuss topics such as subjectivity in assessment, different epistemologies, and the effects of student well-being on learning.

2.2 Vignette 2: Caching the RSD

A group of UEs across MTLC’s campus actively engaged from 2014 to 2021 in promoting undergraduate research as a best and high impact practice (Kuh, 2008). Efforts to enhance student learning resulted in a student senate resolution to incorporate undergraduate research as a signature experience; participating at a system-level in a National Science Foundation-funded series promoting undergraduate research; and a Chancellor’s directive to provide PD for UEs focusing on undergraduate research. In response to these initiatives, the MTLC’s PD focused on building expertise for UEs beginning with a common definition of research and on develo** research experiences for students. John Willison (of Willison & O’Regan, 2006) visited MTLC’s campus, conducted a multi-day workshop hel** UEs understand, and explicitly communicate, six facets of research skills to their learners. After Willison’s visit, a multi-disciplinary team of UEs and educational librarians spent an academic year in a community of practice (CoP) creating responsive teaching environments using the RSD framework in their own contexts. Participants sought out and adapted resources for their own use and employed scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) strategies to evaluate the effectiveness of employing the RSD framework in their instructional practices.

Eighteen months after Willison’s visit, UEs and an academic librarian from the MTLC-sponsored RSD CoP, helped other UEs integrate undergraduate research experiences into their own instruction using geocaching as a simile for integrating research skills into instruction. The aim of the exercise was to engage participants in the research process, problem solve as a team, communicate effectively, and participate in active learning processes that mirrored elements of the RSD framework. The caching activity culminated in UEs being asked to connect the RSD framework to the activity they had just experienced, reflect on the types of communication that occurred, and share how the RSD framework and the workshop experience might enhance student learning in their individual contexts.

2.3 Approach for RSD

In both vignettes, there was an impetus for institutional change. Key staff, including teaching and learning centre directors and academic staff working as academic developers or administrators, examined the institutional environment, considered the social infrastructure and cultures, and consciously chose the RSD framework as a foundational framework to respond to the demands of the institution while addressing the needs of instructors and students. The rest of this chapter focuses on the efficacy of PD programming across the two universities. We identify how two teaching and learning centres integrated the RSD framework into their PD and articulate the effectiveness of creating responsive teaching environments.

Experience with the RSD framework indicates that individuals need time to engage with, implement, and refine RSD-related practices in order to become confident and competent. The U-TLC in this chapter gauged their impact by collecting qualitative and quantitative feedback and surveying past participants in RSD-related PD. The results provide a glimpse of PD impacts across institutions and provide insights for other teaching and learning centres interested in responding to their own institutional environments.

The efficacy of CoP is achieved through features termed “collegial, flexible, reciprocal and generous” (Taylor et al., 2021, para 17). The qualities and internal influence of CoP as PD tools for research-oriented teaching and thinking, and based on the RSD framework, respond to additional factors affecting institutional environments including leadership, strategic plans, disciplinary epistemologies, and institutional cultures.

3 Methodology

Both qualitative and quantitative data were used to examine the effects that RSD-related CoP and other RSD-related PD initiatives have on UEs perceptions of effectiveness and student learning in the ITL and MTLC contexts. Weaving qualitative and quantitative data together across contexts allows teaching and learning centres to consider impacts through a broader, institutional environment (Taylor et al., 2021). As Willison asserted, “to enact effective change, consideration must be given to the ecology of learning, where changing one aspect of learning may have an impact on other key aspects” (Chap. 2, p. 31). While it has been established that student learning is affected vis-à-vis extended engagement in capacity building for academic educators and UEs through communities-of-practice, collating evidence relative to the student experience or institutional value happens through noting changes to language, value, and practices (Roxå et al., 2011).

4 Results and Discussion

We tie our analysis of PD and its impact on UEs and students using elements of a framework for integrated teaching & learning networks (Taylor et al., 2021; Roxå & Mårtensson, 2013; Pyörälä et al., 2015; Pataraia et al., 2015; Willison, 2012). As well, we tend to the themes of consolidation, change and connections (Willison, see Chap. 1) in the context of systemically supporting responsive institutional environments.

Qualitative data was collected at ITL by way of formal and informal debriefing sessions with individual and small groups of UEs. Data was provided by UEs who had participated in PD that emphasized the RSD framework and who had gone on to implement CURE. Respondents were invited to comment on the efficacy of the PD and provide insights on the value of the RSD framework and aspects of the support provided in relation to perceived effects on student learning. Over 30 responses came from debriefing sessions, with some UEs participating multiple times. Quantitative and qualitative data on effects on student learning is briefly summarized.

The MTLC collected quantitative data using a survey sent to 89 educators who participated in RSD-related PD between the years of 2014 and 2021. The PD included hour-long workshops, multiple-day symposia, and a year-long CoP. Twenty-five respondents identified the number and type of RSD-related sessions they participated in, the level of engagement they felt during these sessions, the number of students impacted as a result of their participating, and their comfort levels using the RSD framework in research—related class activities (teaching, assessment, and integration). UEs were also asked to identify impacts of RSD PD programming on their teaching and students’ learning.

Twenty-five UEs responses were categorized according to the self-reported number of students impacted. Twelve UEs (48%) provided answers such as “very few”, indicating an amount fewer than 10, or leaving the question blank. These UEs and their subsequent answers to other questions were assigned to a group we refer to as “Low”, as in a low number-of-students-were-impacted. Seven UEs indicated that their work with the RSD framework had impacted 10 to 99 students and were assigned to the “Medium” impact group. Six UEs indicated that their RSD-related efforts impacted 100 or more students with as many as 2000 students impacted. This group of UEs and their subsequent responses were assigned to the “High” impact group. We recognize that respondents may have engaged with the RSD framework over a longer time span than others who were introduced to the RSD framework more recently. Some UEs indicated that Covid-19 impacted their ability to engage in research activities. The number of students reported as impacted may not accurately reflect UEs level of interest or intended commitment to enhance student learning using the RSD framework.

4.1 University Educators’ Consolidation

In CoP, social interactions, self-reflection, and peer processing help build microcultures (Taylor et al., 2021) that support educators’ consolidation of new information and actionable results in the classroom. One-off presentations or workshops are used to pique interest and draw UEs into a longer-term commitment to PD and practice. An assumption made by TLCs is that if educators are more engaged in PD, they are more likely to create responsive teaching environments that positively impact their students.

In the MTLC context, university educators’ patterns for engaging in RSD-related activities from 2014 to 2021 were analysed according to number of students impacted (“Low” = 0 – 9; “Medium” = 10 – 99; “High” = 100 +). Participation rates for educators in “Low”, “Medium”, and “High” student impact groups was an average of the number of PD opportunities attended (presentations, workshops, symposia, CoP).

Educators in the “Low” group (n = 12) averaged 1.7 PD opportunities over the course of seven years. Educators in the “Medium” group (n = 7) averaged 4.9 PD opportunities, while respondents in the “High” group (n = 6) averaged 3.8 PD activities over the course of seven years (see Fig. 5.2). Participation in sharing communities and CoP represented year-long commitments so participation averages (amount of opportunities/number of participants) was reported as 1.57 and 1.50 for the “Medium” and “High” groups indicating multiple commitments exploring the RSD framework were sustained over time.

Fig. 5.2

Average UE RSD—related professional development participation by student impact

Survey comments from participants more engaged with RSD-related PD reported that the RSD framework was easy for both educators and students to understand. They appreciated the RSD-enriched PD opportunities as a way to build community and collaborate with others.

Evidence that CoP help build a positive learning environment and a microculture of responsive teaching (Taylor et al., 2021) is reflected in MTLC UEs’ self-reported comfort level ratings (0 = not at all/5 = extremely comfortable) in teaching the RSD framework, assessing students using the RSD framework, and integrating the RSD into student research (see Fig. 5.3).

Fig. 5.3

University educators’ comfort levels teaching, assessing and integrating the RSD framework

UEs in the “Medium” and “High” groups were more comfortable teaching with the RSD framework than educators in the “Low” group. Assessed comfort levels using the RSD framework and integrating RSD-related instruction into student research for the “Medium” and “High” impact groups was more than twice the level of their “Low” impact counterparts. This stands to reason as more engagement in RSD-related PD is intentionally designed to increase confidence using new teaching methodologies. Participants from the “Low” student impact group reflected minimal engagement with the RSD. Some UEs did not use, or remember using, the RSD framework with students. One UEs used the framework to locate program redundancies and observe the value of strategies being implemented. The other UEs in the “Low” impact group found the framework difficult to understand, not applicable to their situation; and a majority (9/12) remained silent on the uses or benefits of using the RSD framework.

In contrast, all participants in the “Medium” and “High” impact groups were able to reflect on ways programming impacted their teaching. Responses affirmed increased attention to clarifying expectations, matching course expectations with assessments, scaffolding assignments across courses and programs, and incorporating information literacy into research assignments. Reflecting on, and changing, practices was a repeating theme. UEs reported moving away from traditional research papers toward “more visual representation of … data” or indicated that the experience “gave me more user-friendly methods of teaching research, which was valued by my students”. Most notably, one UE tied the RSD-related PD to the university’s polytechnic mission stating that, “applied research is fundamental to my students’ careers and this framework helped me make it more career-based, field-grounded, and practical”.

In the ITL context, qualitative indicators revealed that consolidation of meaning was sometimes immediate and substantive for UEs as a result of RSD-enriched PD and CoP. At other times, effects were incremental or delayed. Sometimes, consolidation and meaning making occurred as a mechanism of guided group debriefs, a component of the ITL program evaluation of CURE. Several respondents mentioned limits to consolidation around research and teaching with one educator noting that, “…taking some elements from CURE and integrat[ing] it with... the other way we teach, I haven’t thought about this because it takes time even to conceptualize CURE, it has so many components, so many things to do, you have just three months. But, maybe intuitively, it is possible right?”. Another UE mentioned the challenge of consolidating the RSD-PD this way, “We’re always encouraged to do new things, try new stuff, integrate new processes, [but] we spend very little time reflecting on if it works”.

A UE who participated in more than one CoP, and who implemented CURE in multiple courses, reflected on how she consolidated research and teaching into her professional praxis and identity, “I would say,..., offering CUREs has been an important part of my life teaching and research practice for the past six years, so it definitely helps form…my teaching identity and my professional identity”.

Another UE spoke about how participating in the RSD-enriched PD and CoP resulted in an ability to consolidate substantial pedagogical innovation in a shorter period of time, “… it helped accelerate that process so something that may have taken me another couple of years, I was able to accomplish relatively quickly, and now I can just build upon it and continue that process in years to come”. Yet, he still wished for more time, “Even though I thought about it for a while and this was kind of meshed with ideas that I previously had, time was tight, and it would have been much, much better if I’d had more time to think about it, like if I had a half a year led in to develop this”.

Overall, UEs participating in the RSD-enriched PD and CoP felt impeded by time around implementing CURE, as well as pressures pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. Still, consolidation of PD is best supported through sustained educational development, including CoP, that can become more evident over time.

4.2 University Educators’ Change

Within two years of enhanced efforts on RSD-relevant PD, a substantial change in teaching practice was found to have shifted institutional microcultures. Twelve UEs took part in two consecutive CoP and went on to offer more than 1700 undergraduate students a course-based research experience (CURE) across four academic semesters between 2020 and 2022.

Five of six UEs in one debriefing and evaluation cycle agreed that their research thinking was impacted as a result of the PD and CoP. Specifically, UEs were asked “what was your understanding at the beginning about the goals of the CURE [PD] and did your understanding change by the end of the course [three sessions]?”. Respondents indicated that their thinking changed and opened up around emergent effects for learners and for effects regarding teaching large classes. For instance, one UE noted, “I was really open to changes into any shape that will emerge, and I think [the CURE] was quite useful in the sense that I could incorporate it from there; I don’t imagine that class without [a CURE] you know, because it was so fundamental to imagine”. Another UE summarized their changes in thinking and practice referencing the RSD framework facets in this way:

That workshop really helped me to understand the goals of CURE and also it deepened my understanding…our focus goes to the data analysis, this and that, but through the seminar what I realized [is] that, ‘okay, there is a first step so it is the question itself, and the question should come from the student’s mind’, ….and this was the most difficult part actually.

Similarly, another UE specified that, “my understanding radically changed from the first time I ran a CURE to the second time…and also a bit about just the feasibility of being able to run CURES in larger courses and yeah, I spend more time thinking about those things”. This same UE referred to a deepening understanding of his role in supporting undergraduates as researchers across the RSD facets noting that, “When you do research… our students have a certain level, so …in the [RSD-inclusive work] book she sent us; so there are different levels. How [do] you grow as a researcher? It is level one, level two. So, that was very helpful for me”. Further, this UE noted, “So this is a different type of pedagogy that now I’m learning; I’m implementing learning from the mistakes and so on, so this will surely help me grow as a teacher [,] as an instructor”.

In contrast to the experiences captured here, some UEs and staff participated in the ITL PD and CoP but did not subsequently offer a CURE. Included in this group are staff working in the co-curricular space such as with the campus sustainability unit, and UEs who did not go on to be assigned a course that fit with offering CURE. These individuals did not participate in the debrief and evaluation, so their experiences are beyond the scope of this chapter.

In contrast to the qualitative data ITL collected, MTLC used a quantitative approach to assess evidence in growth of thinking or change in practice as reported by UE. Evidence for responsive teaching was drawn from the number of courses UEs altered, posters presented, presentations made, articles published, or workshops led as the result of the RSD PD or CoP. A total of 73 actions (Fig. 5.4) were a result of RSD-related PD. Thirty-five courses were altered, eight posters were presented, 18 conference presentations were delivered, two publications were accepted, and 10 workshops were offered.

Fig. 5.4

Evidence of university educator growth by professional development category

In altering courses, we looked across groups of UEs with impacts on “Low”, “Medium”, or “High” numbers of students depending on how many courses were altered. Twelve educators who indicated they only impacted a “Low” number of students collectively altered 9 courses (0.75/each). Seven educators who impacted a “Medium” number of students collectively altered 11 courses (1.57/each). Meanwhile educators impacting a “High” number of students collectively altered 15 courses (2.5/each). It is clear that there is a relationship between the number of courses altered and the number of students impacted. Interestingly, there are three poster presentations and six conference presentations evident for UE respondents who indicated a low number of students involved. On closer analysis, evidence of professional impact also came from UEs who indicated a high level of engagement (3.4–5) with RSD-related PD without indicating how many students were impacted by their instruction. It is possible that these respondents were actively engaging with the RSD framework but impacted few students and/or are incorrectly categorized into the “Low” impact group.

Impacts to knowledge flow and the institutional environment (Taylor et al., 2021) were found in MTLC survey responses that reflected institutional longer-term vision and strategy. One UE participant spoke to strategizing ways to leverage their PD experience by stating, “I learned and valued this hands-on, professional, and positive experience. I have indirectly, yet holistically incorporated the professional development experience into my teaching, research, and service. Further, I have indirectly, yet holistically incorporated [the RSD framework] into my administration and accreditation work too”. A second UE participant spoke to strengthening existing work and visioning future PD opportunities indicating that,

Having the RSD framework to encourage student activity in research has strengthen[ed] this course component. I would like to learn more and engage with other instructors/professors [university educators] who are using it. I like the flexibility of the framework and while I might not use all of the components, I will continue to learn how to implement it better when workshops and other supports continue.

4.3 University Educators’ Connections

Communities of practice (CoP) create microcultures and connections (Taylor et al., 2021) critical to successfully implementing responsive change in the learning ecosystem at a university. UEs are willing to work with others across disciplines but frequently need a structured experience to facilitate constructive and collaborative conversations. Creating generative spaces where UEs can meet others, develop relationships, experiment with strategies, and commit to consistent meeting times are functions that teaching and learning centres easily facilitate. CoP, such as those related to the RSD framework in the contexts described here, created group hubs and microcultures influencing institutional environments that persist across UE attrition, changes in administration, and shifting institutional priorities. Analysis of MTLC and ITL revealed that university teaching and learning centers were both able to impact institutional teaching and learning ecosystems, and the associated knowledge flow, by creating connections across disciplines, with new and existing resources, including among a growing number of experts in CURE.

One UE who reflected deeply on the professional and student benefits of participating in the RSD-enriched PD also shared the experience of coordinating CURE in a large, multi-section engineering course. He noted further sharing his knowledge throughout his department at an event that highlighted teaching innovations, and through mentorship to contract UE. In so doing, he faced both collegial resistance and support from the department head for “trying new things”.

In terms of benefits, other UE participants in the ITL RSD-enriched PD noted multiple advantages relating to connections to peers equally or potentially invested in research thinking and teaching practices related to undergraduate research. One UE offering CURE in a senior seminar in communications found like-minded colleagues through the PD, “I am absolutely passionate about undergraduate research, so the direct benefit I felt [was] that there are other people as committed”. This educator continued to emphasize how this kind of PD empowered UE, including her, to promote research-oriented pedagogy within department networks and that more was needed:

I was the only one; nobody really understood what it [CURE] is. But one of the things that I would suggest is more promotion of this because some people could really benefit, and they had no clue… so I try to promote it. We need to promote undergraduate research, so I became quite a proponent…I’m a fan of the [CURE CoP] program.

4.4 Impacts on Student Learning

Students enrolled in courses involving CURE from 2020 to 2022 were invited to respond to online surveys. Of approximately 1780 enrolled students, 92 participated in the optional surveys. Survey questions were informed by the skill facets of the RSD (Willison & O’Regan, 2006, 2018) specifically asking students about their abilities to analyse and synthesize as well as communicate and apply. Ninety-one of the 92 respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to analyse/interpret data as a result of their course-based research experience. All 92 respondents indicated that they had communicated their research experience within their social networks. Respondents also indicated that the research experiences offered them a valuable learning experience (mean of 6.4 on a Likert scale of 7) and that the research experience helped them develop their academic skills (mean of 6.2). Over 70% of the respondents indicated that the research experience helped them to communicate research-based information and develop an ability to collaborate, build relationships and work with others. The survey concluded with three open-ended questions inviting respondents to complete the prompt: As a result of this research experience, I …; This research experience helped to develop …; and Participating in a research experience meant …. Students’ submissions provided insight into their thinking across the skill facets of Willison & O’Regan’s (2006, 2018) RSD Frameworks.

We return to MTCL to illustrate UEs' perceptions of student learning. Most survey respondents (12 of 13) from the “Medium” and “High” groups identified tangible impacts on student learning. One theme evident from the responses was students’ improved understanding of research and utilization of research processes both inside and outside of the classroom. As one UE respondent indicated, “Students saw the value of how research can be used in their careers and in various field settings. They learned best practices that they can easily recall and apply in their future courses and careers”. Students were more successful in submitting quality papers or projects with better writing as clearer expectations around assignments were provided. Several UEs mentioned an improvement in information literacy skills indicating a concerted effort to connect research skills with information literacy. Increased metacognition relating to the research process, including critical thinking, more interesting projects, and more project depth, were identified as impacts on student learning. This increase in critical thinking may be connected to UEs restructuring courses to provide more autonomy for students around choice of research topics and dissemination activities such as presentations to the local community, classmates, and invited guests during university-sponsored research day. As one respondent indicated, “I believe that the students have a deeper understanding of the... topic that they research[ed] using RSD. They become stronger critical thinkers [and]... told me that they really enjoy delving into a topic of their choice”.

Even though evidence comes from two separately facilitated CoP at two separate institutions, we note that commensurability across impact signals the RSD framework as a valuable tool in PD or educational development of UEs’ responsive teaching environments.

5 Conclusion

Both challenges and opportunities remain in creating institutionally responsive PD. Specifically, we have identified three challenges. Firstly, it is fraught to thoroughly evidence direct and indirect impact on student learning because the UEs as participant in PD is the main audience and students are the secondary audience. Secondly, despite the benefits of extended engagement with UEs through CoP, it can be challenging to sustain or resource these communities as priorities, needs, and energies shift within and across units and institutions. Finally, it can be challenging to sustain CoP because of top-down or outside-in changes to priorities and trends. There can be undue focus on a new tool or strategy, or there can be a deemphasizing of previous priorities related to changes in leadership. New trends can too easily supplant tried and true resources, including the RSD framework.

Investing in extended capacity building through communities-of-practice requires finding, generating, synthesizing, and communicating evidence of its efficacy and value not only for individual UEs but broadly for the benefit of the student experience, and for institutions holistically (Raffoul et al., 2022). Shifting expectations, modalities, priorities, and increasing workloads affect UEs, often negatively. Yet, as institutional priorities evolve, the RSD framework remains viable across trends and changing priorities.

Changing priorities impacted both contexts illustrated here and included changes to institutional leadership, changes in political climates, and shifting pedagogical foci during the time frames referenced. Institutional memory was threatened or even lost during multiple years of budget reductions, austerity measures, and the retirement or resignations of UEs and administrators committed to undergraduate research. The one constant element during times of fluctuating priorities was the MTLC & ITC academic staff who helped consolidate and sustain efforts as RSD-competent UEs left or changed their priorities.

Professional and academic development is a journey, not an end in itself. We recommend centres and educational developers consider launching and sustaining communities of practice that cultivate relationships for teachers, pre-service teachers, and UEs. We also recommend UEs continue engagement with scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) to remain responsive and continually interrogate what is, or can be, efficacious in terms of RSD-framework informed practice in teaching, learning and research. We note the value of providing for institutional cultures through the development of and support for integrated networks of educators and students (Taylor et al., 2021) as mechanisms to sustain learning ecologies across institutions. Regarding theoretical implications, we recommend further research into the nuances and diversities across professional micro-cultures and communities of practice. In turn, these investigations can be generative SoTL contributions. The PD activities and relationships that spark and sustain research thinking and research-oriented teaching practices evolve in concert, and these are of utmost importance to pursue in universities, especially in times of rapid and wide-reaching change.