Previous research suggests that faculty professional development is multifaceted, encompassing various continuing professional development models. Kennedy (2014) offers a framework for analyzing these models, examining nine key types based on the ability to foster professional autonomy and transformative practice. Rather than endorsing a single model, Kennedy (2014) argues that a blend of practices and conditions is essential for advancing a transformative professional development agenda.

This study aims to evaluate the implementation of a model for communities of learning and practice within a faculty professional development program in higher education. Implementing communities of practice or learning communities in professional development is supported by comprehending that learning is a social process (Wenger, 1998). In the Higher Education context, these concepts usually allude to a group of scholars who share either a strength – it might be an interest, a challenge, a knowledge interest – or a struggle – it might be a concern, a difficulty, a knowledge gap – in their professional practice. Previous studies indicate that depending on the role played by the individual as a member of these communities, learning within such a community could be either a passive or a positive and proactive experience (Kennedy, 2014; Bold & Blevins, 2020; Harvey et al., 2021). 

Over the last years, communities of practices have been studied extensively in the context of faculty professional development (Englund & Price, 2018; Brodie, 2019; Harvey et al., 2021, among others). However, there is limited research concerning evidence-based approaches to developing and implementing models to guide and inspire the development of professional communities. In this context, an evidence-based model called CLIL + U, aiming at fostering communities of learning and practice in promoting teacher agency, was developed through a design-based research process (described in a previous study). 

The model presupposes the development of communities comprised of five key phases, namely: (i) contextualize the challenge; (ii) lay out the principles; (iii) idealize learning scenarios; (iv) launch and implement the learning scenario; and (v) understand the outcomes. In the first phase, the participants are invited to specify their approach to the community thematic area and to characterize the pedagogical challenge(s) related to this theme that they identify in their practices (rather than simply assuming them). In the second phase, the participants are invited to define their priorities for addressing the challenge and the central aspects to be considered for developing new (or renewed) learning scenarios. Then, in the third phase, the participants are invited to think about different answers to the challenge, share ideas, discuss strategies, and develop new (or renewed) learning scenarios. After this, in the fourth phase, the participants are invited to implement the learning scenarios developed in the previous phases and share their experiences with other participants. Finally, the last phase of the model is to ‘understand the outcomes’. In this phase, the participants are invited to reflect on their experiences while implementing the learning scenarios and understand their outcomes in depth. This phase, on the one hand, closes one cycle and, on the other hand, is the starting point for a new one. 

This model was first implemented in a Higher Education Institution in Portugal from March 2024 to January 2025. The main goal of the present study is to evaluate the implementation and functioning of the model. Thus, our specific goals are (i) to characterize the implementation of the model, (ii) to identify the enablers and barriers to its successful implementation, and (iii) to map and analyze participants' perspectives.

This study focuses on a mixed-methods approach, which integrates both quantitative and qualitative research methods to provide a comprehensive understanding of the implementation and functioning of the CLIL + U Model. Action research is a participatory and iterative approach involving researchers and participants' collaboration to identify problems, implement interventions, and evaluate outcomes. In this study, action research allows for continuous feedback and adaptation of the model based on the experiences and insights of the facilitators and the participants of the communities in which the model was implemented. This iterative process ensures that the model is responsive to the needs and contexts of the participants, enhancing its relevance and effectiveness. Implementation science, on the other hand, focuses on systematically studying methods to promote the integration of research findings and evidence into practice. By incorporating implementation science practices, the study aims to understand the factors that influence the model's successful adoption, implementation, and sustainability. This includes identifying facilitators and barriers to implementation and evaluating the fidelity and quality of the implementation process. This methodological approach provides a robust framework for evaluating the model's implementation. The mixed-methods approach allows for the collection of rich, detailed data through qualitative methods such as focus groups and interviews while also providing quantitative data through surveys and questionnaires. This combination of data sources enables a comprehensive analysis of the implementation process, capturing the breadth and depth of participants’ experiences and perceptions. The participants included in this study comprise the facilitators (12 teachers) and the community members (50 teachers) of the four communities in which the CLIL + U model was implemented. The research instruments used include an expectations questionnaire administered before the start of the implementation, two focus group discussions conducted midway through the implementation (one with facilitators and another with community participants), an evaluation survey, and a facilitators and barriers survey completed by the community participants at the end of the implementation. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with facilitators were also conducted. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to provide an overview of the participants’ responses and identify trends. Qualitative data were analyzed through content analysis, using NVivo software to manage and code the data systematically. Ethical considerations were rigorously followed throughout the study, ensuring informed consent, anonymity, and confidentiality for all participants.

Preliminary analyses indicate several key findings regarding the implementation and functioning of the CLIL + U Model. First, the implementation occurred as planned in two of the four communities, highlighting variability across different settings. This characterization of the implementation process provides insights into the consistency and adaptability of the model in diverse contexts. Second, several elements were identified in terms of enablers and barriers. Barriers to successful implementation included the lack of time available to faculty members, the extended duration of the program (as it is not a single training session), and the need for active participation. On the other hand, there are enablers that supported the implementation of the communities, such as well-defined steps, regularly sharing meeting summaries with all participants, and communication between facilitators and participants during the process. Regarding participants’ perspectives, only approximately 50% completed the program. Those who completed it provided positive feedback, emphasizing peer learning and increased motivation to implement new strategies and use new tools in their teaching. These results have specific implications for enhancing the CLIL + U model, aiming to establish new communities that promote teacher agency and, more generally, for professional learning and development, as they provide evidence on the factors influencing the implementation of new professional development models.

Bold, M. A., & Blevins, S. J. (2020). Using faculty professional development to foster organizational change: A social learning framework. Tech Trends, 64(4), 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00459-2 Brodie, K. (2019). Teacher agency in professional learning communities. Professional Development in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.16895232019 Englund, C., & Price, L. (2018). Facilitating agency: The change laboratory as an intervention for collaborative sustainable development in higher education. International Journal for Academic Development, 23(3), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1478837 Harvey, J., Dodd, D., Deegan, C., Freeman, O., MacMahon, C. H., & Williams, H. (2021). Cultivating a community of practice model to support and encourage innovative T&L practices to engage practitioners and enhance student success. Irish Journal of Academic Practice, 9(2), 27 pp. https://doi.org/10.21427/8TG2-QF02 Kennedy, A. (2014). Models of Continuing Professional Development: a framework for analysis. Professional Development in Education, 40(3), 336–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.929293 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.