Development and Performance of Communities of Practice

Pacific Alliance for Supporting Individuals with Disabilities in STEM Fields Partnership

Presentation for HERAFebruary 4, 2012

Kiriko Takahashi, Hye Jin Park, & Kelly RobertsUniversity of Hawai`i Manoa

www.cds.hawaii.edu/pacificalliance/

NSF Grant No. HRD #09-29079

Overview

1. Background & Context2. Goals of the study3. Theoretical Framework4. Research Questions, Methods & Results5. Conclusion6. Questions & Answers

• National economic trend to boost Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) related job market & the Governor’s new initiative for STEM promotion in Hawai’I

• Low rates of high school success; college enrollment, persistence, graduation; employment in STEM and other career positions for students with disabilities (SWD)

• Only 37% of SWD who graduate from high school enter any type of postsecondary education compared to 78% of individuals without disabilities (Zafft & Nott, 2006)

Background & Context

Pacific Alliance Goals

1. Increase the recruitment of SWD in high schools on O’ahu who enroll in STEM degree programs at partnering 2- and 4-year institutes of higher education by 20% per year.

2. Increase the graduation rates of SWD in STEM enrolled at O’ahu-based community colleges and university by 10% per year.

3. Increase successful entry (employed) rates of Alliance graduates (high school, associate, baccalaureate, and graduate) into STEM employment by 5% per year.

Theoretical FrameworkCommunities of Practice (COP)

COP is an evidence based practice where teams of people who share a concern or a passion for “something” they do, work together to learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wegner, McDermott, & Snyder, 2004).

The Domain: shared goal

The Community: shared resources, building relationships

The Practice: shared repertoire of resources for action – sustained interaction; practitioners

Three Elements of COP

RQ 1. How was the COP developed at each site? RQ 2. What were the initial gaps in the services and capacity of each COP for achieving the project goals?RQ 3. What priority needs were identified by each COP to achieve the project goals?

Research Questions

MethodsQualitative and quantitative research approaches were used appropriate to the

questions.

1. Qualitative Research: Notes from interactions in the field, COP contact logs, project staff meeting logs, e-mail exchanges, and informal conversations among staff were used to describe the formation of COP at each site included.

2. Quantitative Research: Regarding the suggested list of practices, each COP member rated whether each practice is appropriate to address the needs of IWD in their COP for achieving the project goals; whether each practice is feasible within their own COP; and the institutional issues that need to be addressed in order to implement the practices at their COP.

3. Qualitative Research: COP surveys, COP meeting logs, and informal conversations with COP members were used to find the priority needs of each COP to achieve the project goals.

Methods: Data Analysis

1. Qualitative data analysis: Based on grounded theory,Reading texts -> Open coding -> Identifying categories -> linking categories together -> Developing a “story” for each COP & Comparing the stories.

2. Quantitative data analysis: t-test was used.

“Enticing the Right People”Similar approach was taken to form 3 COP at UHM, HCC, and WCC.Community Colleges: Meetings with high level administrators and disability service personnel were held to identify STEM faculty and other support providers on campus. UHM: Information sessions with various colleges, departments and student services were held along with individual meetings with college deans and department chairs.

RQ 1: How was the COP developed at each site?

Interested individuals in the project and project goal of including SWD in STEM fields were gathered for an initial meeting. Information on COP, the COP process and specific roles of COP were provided. COP toolkit used for guidance.

At the initial meeting and subsequent meetings, more personnel and resources on campus were identified to form the COP for each site => An ongoing process.

Table 1 Number of COP members identified

UHM HCC WCC

12 members 7 members 12 members

RQ 1: How was the COP developed at each site?

RQ2: What were the initial gaps in the services and capacity of each COP for achieving the project goals?

Evidence-based & Student-centered

Practices

Appropriateness(1 to 5)

Feasibility(1 to 5) Institutional Needs

Disability specific mentoring 4.75 4.75

Pretty solid, but AT is needed & equipment; Expertise; Faculty training & involvement

STEM specific mentoring 5.00 5.00

Already exist; Better to work with the existing programs rather than duplicating efforts

Academic tutoring for basic skills 5.00 4.67 Pretty solid already

STEM specific tutoring 5.00 4.33

Infrastructure is in place for STEM tutoring; but needs improvement

Transition support 5.00 4.00 Needs to be enhanced; "Transition office" or specific advising

Career related support 5.00 3.67

High need; Need links to Companies and the community through university programs; Expand and leverage already existing programs (e.g., Center for Microbial Oceanography: Research and Education)

Stipends 5.00 3.67 High need

WCC COPA significant gap between appropriateness and feasibility of STEM-specific mentoring. Its appropriateness significantly higher than its feasibility.

Evidence-based & Student-centered

Practices

Appropriateness(1 to 5)

Feasibility

(1 to 5)Institutional Needs

Disability specific mentoring

4.40 4.20 Need mentors (new mentors or release time for faculty to be mentors); Money & time for staff; Additional AT needed; Additional support in technology (e.g., captioning, access to online classes)

STEM specific mentoring

4.60 3.80 Need mentors; Additional faculty to support such programs; Money for staff; & Faculty training

Academic tutoring for basic academic skills

4.80 4.40 Tutors are already in place; Additional space and tutors are needed; Money for staff; Specialized programs to meet specific cognitive needs

STEM specific tutoring

4.60 3.70 STEM tutors are transient; Best tutors usually move on to UHM; Done mostly in math and some chemistry; Money for staff; Tutors need training in content and disability related area specific strategies

Transition support 4.40 4.00 Insufficient staff; Better linkages with public schools Career related support

4.20 3.60 Insufficient staff; Need to identify intern locations/employers who will accommo-date particular disabilities safely; Need paid internships; Need external funding

Stipends 4.20 3.00 Support through Space Grant stipends; Need more money; Information on stipends needs to be available to students

HCC COP

A significant gap between appropriateness and feasibility of academic tutoring . Its appropriateness significantly higher than its feasibility.

Evidence-based & Student-centered Practices

Appropriateness(1 to 5)

Feasibility(1 to 5) Institutional Needs

Disability specific mentoring 4.60 3.40 -

STEM specific mentoring 4.20 3.50 -

Academic tutoring for basic academic skills 4.80 3.60

Integration challenges

STEM specific tutoring 4.40 4.20 Availability

Transition support 4.60 3.80 Interests

Career related support 4.80 3.40 -Stipends 4.80 3.40 -

UHM COP STEM specific academic tutoring, STEM specific mentoring, access to

resources, and accessible laboratories.WCC COP

STEM-specific tutoring, basic academic tutoring, STEM-specific mentoring, and information on STEM-related careers.

HCC COP STEM-specific tutoring and mentoring for better communication between

student and faculty.

RQ3: What priority needs were identified by each COP to achieve the project goals?

ConclusionThere are as many reasons to become a group member as there are members of a group. But successful groups seem to have the following characteristics in common when they recruit and retain members. Successful groups are: Clear about their mission and goals (The Domain); Clear about a time limit to the service requested; Clear and accurate about the time commitment involved; Clear and accurate about the work commitment involved; Clear about what kinds of characteristics they wish to add to their team (The Community); andClear in developing guidelines for the team and what team members can do (The Practice).

“Anytime you step outside your ordinary day to day things that you do and connect with another group of people, there is a potential that you can learn something” – Disability Services Staff

“The challenge is that in an institution like this, we tend not to respond to individual and unique needs; I feel like there just needs to be enough voices out there” – Learning Specialist

Questions & Answer?Thank you!

www.cds.hawaii.edu/pacificalliance/kiriko@hawaii.edu

parkhye@hawaii.edurobersk@hawaii.edu