Tag: teaching innovation

Innovating new technologies in the classroom is not everyone’s jam. For some faculty, it can be a slog to keep up with the rapid emergence of new digital tools and their place in teaching. Yet others love discovering new tools that can enhance their teaching experience, support their students’ success, and are perhaps fun to use in the classroom. The tech-enthusiasts, or early-adopters (Rogers, 1962), however, can often feel isolated. There are few opportunities for them to exchange ideas with like-minded peers across campus and/or to engage in deeper professional growth in this area. These sentiments were often expressed by our UMass Amherst faculty.  

To respond to these needs, we—the Instructional Design, Engagement, and Support (IDEAS) Team—embarked on creating a space where faculty could showcase their innovative approaches, inspire one another, refine their teaching practices through meaningful dialogue, and share teaching challenges honestly. In Fall 2022, we launched the Instructional Innovation Fellowship (IIF), adopting the Community of Practice (CoP) framework (Wenger, 1998; Wenger et al., 2002) as a guiding strategy. CoP is defined as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 4). CoP’s three core elements— Community, Practice, and Domain—shaped the program’s design and implementation.  

After completing the third iteration in the 2024-2025 academic year, and working with 30 instructors, we are excited to share the lessons we learned from designing and implementing the program. While IIF originated as a place to foster innovation in teaching, it also became a place for faculty to find strength through vulnerability—to learn with and from thought partners and supportive peers—and ultimately deepen their sense of belonging and community on campus.    

As the name suggests, a Community of Practice should embody Community—a place where social interactions and relationships among members develop (Wenger et al., 2002). The IIF fosters a supportive space for meaningful discussion, knowledge sharing, and collaboration among instructors of record—full-time faculty, adjuncts, and graduate teaching associates—who shape higher education (Alhija & Fresko, 2018). Faculty from all disciplines are encouraged to join, promoting cross-disciplinary connections and breaking down academic silos (Perignat et al., 2023). Such engagement deepens self-awareness in teaching, enhances understanding of diverse student experiences, and builds instructor confidence (Harmon et al., 2024). The IDEAS team—comprising a faculty member, staff, and graduate assistant—plays a key role in organizing and facilitating sessions. 

The Practice: How Do We Implement the Program?

The Practice element refers to activities, ideas, or tools that members share and maintain (Wenger et al., 2002). Faculty members and instructors apply to IIF from April to May. After a thorough selection process, 10 fellows are selected. We seek individuals who are eager to engage in a collaborative learning environment and who can commit to a year-long fellowship. 

Throughout the year, fellows are expected to: 

• Present Twice – showcase two different innovative approaches to teaching  

• Attend Monthly Meetings – participate in eight in-person meetings, each lasting 1.5–2 hours 

• Collaborate with the IDEAS Team – work closely with our team to refine presentations and align with program expectations. 

• Share Resources – upload presentation slides and related instructional materials to a collaborative online platform 

• Contribute to Outreach – allow the IDEAS team to feature their teaching strategies in newsletters and online resources 

Each session is designed to foster engagement and peer learning, typically following this format: 

• Community Building – Time to greet one another and check-in with one another.  

• Warm-Up Activity – Casual ice-breakers, thought-provoking questions, or interactive games. 

• Fellow Presentations – Two to three fellows share their innovative teaching practices (15-20 minutes each), followed by group discussions. 

• Community Building – Time to network and exchange ideas. 

During our final meeting, typically held in May, we come together to reflect on the year’s learning journey and celebrate the fellows’ achievements. As a token of appreciation for their dedication and contributions, each fellow receives a $500 stipend. 

The Domain: What Do We Talk About in the Program?

The Domain element is about a common interest or skill that brings people together (Wenger et al., 2002). Even though they teach different subjects, they come together to share creative and innovative teaching methods. 

We ask faculty to prepare a presentation that addresses: 

• A teaching problem or challenge they were experiencing 

• Technologies/technology-mediated pedagogies to address it  

• Success and challenges they had in their approach 

• Future modifications to the approach 

Over the years, faculty have shared their experiences and tips for using various technology-enhanced pedagogies that include digital storytelling practices, 3D printing, and video-production in the classroom. They also shared some lower-tech tricks that could be implemented immediately, such as using Google forms for absentee notifications or creating a ‘meme war’ to engage students in lively debate. You can read more about the strategies shared on our website.  

Each year, the sessions organically became spaces where faculty started saying “here’s what worked, and here’s where I’m still struggling and can use some help.” Participants began openly discussing their challenges and seeking advice from their peers, an act that can be particularly difficult for faculty, who are often expected to be experts in their discipline. For example, some faculty members were challenged by attendance issues, while others bemoaned inappropriate use of Generative AI. Sessions transformed into collective brainstorming on how to use technologies and other strategies to address these challenges and became a safe space for faculty to get teaching advice. 

The Outcomes: What is the Impact on Faculty? What Do We Recommend?

From our observations, surveys completed by participants, and faculty’s anecdotal feedback, we have learned that the IIF helped faculty feel less isolated in their teaching journey, realizing that others face similar struggles and moments of self-doubt. This sense of shared experience encourages participants to embrace vulnerability and to be more open and comfortable with the ups and downs of teaching. 

The design and format of the presentations—which lends itself to presenting their innovations as ‘works-in-progress’—helps lead to lively discussion and group problem solving. The community acknowledges that, while we may be experts in some areas, there’s always room to grow. We hope this growth mindset is something that they can take back to their classrooms and students.  

We also have a few key takeaways and recommendations for implementing a program, such as the IIF:  

• Selection & Commitment Matter: Although recruiting faculty members can be challenging due to their busy schedules, we found that offering a fellowship-style program helps overcome this obstacle. The selective application process allows for a more intentional and committed group of participants, ensuring that those who join are genuinely interested and able to engage fully. We also recommend that fellows sign a Memorandum of Understanding, outlining expectations   

• Presentation Drafting & Meeting: Meeting individually with faculty prior to the whole group presentation is beneficial in helping them shape their ideas and experiences into the format   

• Stipends: In line with the research in this area, even a modest stipend ($500) helps increase the prestige, commitment, and follow-through of participants (O’Meara, 2005; Jessani et al., 2020). Instructors prioritize these meetings, even when there are competing demands on their schedules  

• Clear Meeting Times & Format: Setting expectations on meetings dates and times, as well as format, during the application process enhances commitment and availability—though it inevitably restricts access for some folks who teach/have other commitments during those hours   

• Food & Refreshments: Modest refreshments, such as coffee and pastries, supports the creation a positive atmosphere and relaxes people in the space   

The IIF program fosters an environment where interdisciplinary perspectives thrive, faculty find a supportive teaching community, and vulnerability is embraced as a path to growth. We are proud to be part of this transformative initiative.

---

Sharon Kearney, PhD, (Trinity College Dublin) is a member of the University of Massachusetts Amherst faculty, currently serving as a Lecturer in the Department of Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies (TECS) in the College of Education. Additionally, Kearney has held positions as a K–12 educator, supervisor and mentor for teacher-candidates, and educational developer supporting faculty development. Her teaching and research interests span new literacies & literature, multicultural education, community-based learning, and technology-mediated pedagogies. 

Nanak Hikmatullah, MSc, is a graduate assistant within the Instructional Design, Engagement, and Support (IDEAS) team at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is also a PhD student in the UMass Amherst Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies (TECS) department in the College of Education, and his research focuses on humanizing online education.  

Joan Giovannini, MEd, is an Educational Developer with Instructional Design, Engagement, and Support (IDEAS) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Prior to joining the UMass team, Giovanni worked as the Associate Director for the Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Scholarship at Springfield College, and as a Faculty Member and Department Chair of Education at Holyoke Community College.   

Brad Wheeler, PhD, is the Director of Faculty Engagement within the Instructional Design, Engagement, and Support (IDEAS) team at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Previously, Wheeler served as the Associate Director of Faculty Development at Brandeis University and the Assistant Director of Faculty Development at Boston University. 

References 

Harmon, J., Brown, A., Birbeck, D., Crockett, J., Panadgoo, S., Nawas, A., Stringer, A. & Costabile, M. (2024). Interdisciplinary reflection by higher education academics using teaching squares: A scoping review. Nurse Education Today, 106353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106353  

Jessani, N.S., Valmeekanathan, A., Babcock, C.M. et al. (2020). Academic incentives for enhancing faculty engagement with decision-makers—considerations and recommendations from one School of Public Health. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7, 148. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00629-1 

Nasser-Abu Alhija, F., & Fresko, B. (2018). Graduate teaching assistants: how well do their students think they do? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 943-954. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1423673  

O’Meara, K. A. (2005). Encouraging Multiple Forms of Scholarship in Faculty Reward Systems: Does It Make a Difference? Research in Higher Education, 46(5), 479–510. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40197355  

Perignat, E., Fleming, F. F., Nicholas, D., King, D., Katz-Buonincontro, J., & Gondek, P. (2023). Effective practices for high performing interdisciplinary faculty teams. College teaching, 71(1), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2022.2086525  

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe. 

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. 

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press. 

Wise, K. (2020). Educational mindfulness: Embracing vulnerability. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 13(1).