EDTECH 504 - Synthesis Paper
Click here to load reader
-
Upload
thomas-robb -
Category
Documents
-
view
51 -
download
3
description
Transcript of EDTECH 504 - Synthesis Paper
Running Head: COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE: EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY TOOLS IN WEB_BASED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
1
Communities of Practice: Effective Technology Tools in Web-Based Learning Environments
Thomas E. Robb
Boise State University
Communities of Practice 2
Abstract
Community of practice (Barab and Duffy, 2000) is a constructivist-based learning theory that
advocates the need for authentic learning environments situated within a real-world community
as a means to optimize learning. Given the growth in online education, this paper examines the
theory’s importance through a web-based learning environment lens and provides implications
for instructional design, tools that support the theory, addresses challenges with the theory, and
provides an example of a newer Human Presence system that provides promise in
implementation of those interested in community of practice as a framework for designing and
implementing their online course.
Communities of Practice 3
Communities of Practice: A Closer Look at Tools that Support Community Building in
Web-Based Learning Environments
Web-based learning environments, especially asynchronous web-based courses have had
explosive growth in recent years. Swan et. al. (2000) have argued that the virtual classroom is
the most promising, so promising that many in higher education are “rushing to create courses
using the web.” The promise of the virtual classroom has been realized in recent years. Means,
et al. (2010) reported that learners in online conditions performed better than traditional face to
face formats. With the growth of students enrolling in an online courses increasing each year,
the need to examine successful practices that create successful online learning conditions are
becoming more important.
Research suggests that building a sense of community (Abendin, 2010) and communities
of practice (Barab and Duffy, 2000) among individuals in a computer supported environments
provides for more effective and authentic approach to learning where the learners are more
engaged with content in real world situations. This paper examines online learning tools and
strategies that effectively enable the social interaction that is often lacking and thus, leading to
lower retention in web-based learning environments (Swan et.al., 2000) by looking at the theory
of communities of practice, the important role it has played in asynchronous and web-based
learning environments, some implications for instructional design, and some of the challenges
associated this theory. The importance of creating these environments that foster a sense of
community within an online learning environment is revealed through this analysis, providing
meaningful and actionable insight for instructional designers and online educators.
The Community of Practice Model
Communities of Practice 4
There are a plethora of theoretical frameworks that could be attached to online learning
formats. Barab and Duffy (2000) build upon the concept that Wenger (1998) describes as a the
community of practice model. This constructivist (or situated instruction theory) model is based
upon the notions that learning is social in nature and that knowledge is situated through
experience. In other words, situated instruction is a more meaningful way for learning to take
place. The contention here is that the situations where learning is more meaningful should be
facilitated within a community of practice.
Wenger (1998) described a community of practice as having three dimensions including
mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire where meaning, engagement,
relationships, and maintenance within the community are negotiated, interpreted, and revised
based upon the practices within the community. Barab and Duffy (2000) describe a continuum
along this constructivist-based model called practice fields and communities of practice. They
argue that communities of practice are where the most meaningful and effective learning take
place and distinguish and describe several various examples of the concept along this continuum.
They hold that authentic learning experiences, where learners can interact with experts in the
field, are coached about ways to think, have opportunities for reflection, where dilemmas are not
structured, where the learner is supported within a collaborative and social environment that is
motivating for students are more worthy of the constructivist approaches seen within problem
based, collaborative, and other typical constructivist approaches. These approaches are more
effective means of learning by doing as opposed to knowledge acquisition, which was largely the
perspective up to the 1960’s.
Wenger (1998) states that mutual engagement is an essential component of any practice.
The relationships between those in the community, the learners and students, and the interactions
Communities of Practice 5
between those relationships are of utmost importance. The hard part is in the development of
active discussion where “meanings are agreed upon, ideas negotiated, concepts evolved, and
knowledge constructed” (Wenger, 1998). Participants within the community must find value and
feel like learning is authentic. The authentic learning is heavily dependent upon that which is
perceived by the learner as opposed to what is designed by the instructor; however, the meaning
itself is negotiated between these participants of the community and experts within the field.
Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002)describe the development of communities of
practice in that it happens naturally. Their research outlines seven principles that help in
cultivating these practice. They include being able to have the community evolve, involving
multiple perspectives, inviting various levels of participation, developing public and private
spaces, focusing on value, combining familiarity and excitement, and creating a rhythm for the
community. An appropriate “amount of design can be a powerful engine for their evolution,
helping members identify knowledge, events, roles, and activities that will catalyze the
communities growth” (p. 63). The focus is upon building a means for participation.
The Importance of Community Building in Web-Based Learning Environments
DeWert et al. (2003) provide an example of an online community of practice where
beginning teachers used an web-based environment to provide support while they began
developing their teaching practice. The goal of the project was to investigate how online
collaborative tools could provide support (social, emotional, practical, and professional) to
beginning teachers. The study indicated that the support community was an effective means of
providing the support outlined in the goal as beginning teachers developed their understanding of
the issues necessary to teach. This community had hints of Barab and Duffy (2000) authentic
Communities of Practice 6
learning environment, and was supplemented with face to face instruction with university
mentors.
An extension of the notion of meaningful and authentic learning within a community can
be seen with Lee (2009) where students were asked to rate the learning activities that were most
meaningful. The course itself was partially conducted in an online format, where various
instructional strategies were utilized to, in fact, teach instructional strategies to future teachers.
Overwhelmingly, students selected the field experience, situated within the context of learning,
as their most beneficial. Those comments towards the field experiences and student-centered
approaches were relatively positive where students suggested more time within these situated
contexts. In other words, an authentic approach, in this research, is perceived by the learner as
being more beneficial than other approaches.
Barab and Duffy (2000) highlight several more examples of the community of practice
model, highlighting successes in more traditional classroom based instruction. These studies
underscore the ability for the online environment to support community building. Finally, it
highlights how authentic learning experiences are perceived as more meaningful when learners
are engaged within a community of practice.
Implications for Instructional Design
In an online environment, isolation can take over if the community is not visible to the
learner and participation in that community is not obvious. Abedin et al., (2010) define a sense
of community as the opposite of feeling isolated. When learners are aware that others are in the
course, a sense of community can then be more fully realized. Arguably, the instructor and
course designers have a responsibility to ensure that learners do not feel isolated, both in terms of
how the course is designed, as well as how the course is facilitated. Tools and instructional
Communities of Practice 7
strategies should be readily available to learners that allow them to engage both with the content
and with other participants in the online community.
Swan et al. (2000) looked at factors affecting success in asynchronous online learning
formats where they concluded that in order to build knowledge, learners must feel connected
with the online community. Three factors contribute to the success of this connection. These
factors include consistency in course design, contact with course instructors, and active
discussion. Wegerif (1998), also cited in Swan et al. (2000) argued that success is related to
whether students could “cross a threshold from feeling like outsiders to feeling like insiders”
within the online community. Further, Wegerif found similarities with Swan et. al. (2000) in that
the movement through the threshold is highly dependent upon the role of the moderators of
discussion and course design factors. In other words, success in asynchronous online instruction
is highly dependent on the roles of participants within the community and how visible the social
medium is within the environment.
Tools and Strategies That Support Community of Practice
Stein et al. (2007) investigated how shared understanding can develop using a
synchronous chat tool within a course. The study used a “practical inquiry model to assess the
development of cognitive presence.” They suggest that a group exploration enables the ability to
have a shared understanding of content within this community, or what Wenger (1998) would
call negotiated meaning. The focus of the study was in synchronous environments because
research from Bober and Dennen (2001) made claims that asynchronous formats allow time for
learners to gain a deep understanding of the material over a more synchronous format. While
they concluded synchronous chat sessions tend to discredit some of Bober and Dennen (2001)
work, a very specific community of inquiry process is required to help mitigate disjointed
Communities of Practice 8
thoughts commonly seen in chat sessions. One benefit seen in this study is how the learner was
the moderator of the chats, thus placing them in the seat of a more authentic learning context.
That is, they were expected to understand the material to moderate the discussion, which is
something typically required in many realistic and authentic learning environments. Because
both studies have merit, an aspect of course design might be to allow participation via both
asynchronous and synchronous tools for the same content.
Another common asynchronous tool is the use of blogs as a reflective practice where
learners relate course activities, readings, lectures, and other materials to their own personal
practice. Wolf (2010) investigated the use of the blog tool and concluded that her study provided
strong encouragement to, amongst other things, combat isolation in the online environment. The
blog tool also provided several students with the ability to connect learning to real world
contexts when students communicated with real world professionals at Apple Computer Inc., and
other companies. This suggests that this tool allowed students to experience more authentic
types of learning experiences stretching beyond the classroom and also connected them with
others in the online environment. In addition, students tended to use the tools as a way of
communicating a common practice within their community as a natural process which was
consistent with Wenger’s contentions of the community being cultivated in a natural way.
Mobile learning and the use of asynchronous and synchronous instant messaging or SMS
types of communication also provide promise for the building of online community. Kadirire
(2007) found that instant messaging can create sense of connectedness and online community
amongst students that is more natural and realistic than traditional forms of electronic
communication, including email. While the ability of various mobile devices were a challenge in
their study, the idea that these tools are a natural medium for online community building is a
Communities of Practice 9
notion that has promise in relation to lessening feelings of isolation and enabled reluctant
learners to more easily gain confidence in the online format.
Another asynchronous tool is the use of audio feedback. Ice et al. (2007) found that the
use of audio as opposed to text-based feedback helped learners feel a sense of community within
their asynchronous classroom. Students felt more involved in the course as they perceived that
the instructor was there. In addition, it helped create meaning as the nuances and intonation
lacking in text-based feedback can often times confuse learners understanding of that content.
This study suggests the need to have more human elements within the asynchronous
environment. Tools like Wimba which use voice threads as opposed to text based threads
provides promise in this regard to asynchronous learning environments.
Many other tools can be utilized in an web-based learning environments. Silvers et al.
(2007) indicate that multiple tools are seen in these environments including group projects,
extended online discussions, email, journaling, video, digital storytelling, and presentation
software. Their study focused specifically on building a community of learners in a purely
online graduate education program. Much of the community building was helping students to
perceive the discussion board as a tool with which they could build community. Students were
placed into groups based on similar content or based on selected inquiry questions. It was within
these groups that the learners became more connected and felt less like strangers within the
community. Several strategies were applied in an effort to establish a supportive learning
community, that included the use of the asynchronous tools listed earlier. A key factor here is
that the students had field experiences where they used the reflective tools, like blogs, to relate
these authentic experiences to the classroom. Many insights, in the end, were gained as to how
Communities of Practice 10
all of these tools combined together created a sense of community, most notably, notion that the
instructor’s role facilitated learning rather than transmitted it.
Considerations and Challenges in Online Learning Communities
Schwen and Hara (2003) also look at several other communities of practice examples and
caution at “the tendency to romanticize the communities of practice construct and especially
online communities.” They make a case for the enthusiasm placed in online community building
in that it is “premature in the sense that technology is the natural vehicle for communities of
practice.” The research they present claims to extend the work of Wenger (1998) in that [they]
“have become convinced that these constructs are extremely useful descriptions of the situated
learning patterns prevalent in many work settings.” The point of the research was to make others
aware of how misapplication of the concept of community become swept up in what appeared to
be online communities. Through the research they compare and contrast four examples facing
how communities of practice are designed and offer an alternative design that illustrates the
concepts more concretely. Schwen and Hara (2003) proposed four phases of design of an online
community of practice. These phases are interventions, analysis, design, and evaluation/revision.
Some relevant issues are seen in all four phases. In the interventions phase, the participants of
the community codesign the intentions and interventions within the community. Without
codesigners, then negotiation of meaning becomes problematic. This in itself could be
problematic given the realistic time constraints with designing online courses as there is a risk of
continual renegotiation, thus making the actual community building, and thus, the online course
somewhat slow in process. The analysis phase is perhaps the most complex. This phase
suggests the need to analyze the community in a holstic approach. Approaching this in an online
environment would prove to be very time consuming. In terms of analyzing learners in an online
Communities of Practice 11
format, a mechanism to help participants form an identity within the classroom seem necessary
as well as a mechanism to achieve the goals within that context. In the design phase, one would
arrange conditions to help participants with identity formation. Environments of “trust and
caring with ample opportunities for sharing stories, metaphors, and mental models” are necessary
in this phase. Finally, in the evaluation and revision phase, the designer would need to both
collect and present data in a way that allowed the community to confront their issues and reach a
concensus. This research also clearly outlines that few communities of practice have been built
in an online environment that can sustain themselves.
Conclusion and Discussion
The community of practice model seeks to engage learners within real world contexts, or
authentic learning environments. Given the growth of online learning environments in recent
years, it is important for online educators and course designers to be aware of this theory of
learning as well as the importance of successful implementation techniques when designing and
delivering courses in the online environment. Discussion boards, blogs, chats, mobile devices,
and many more online tools have proven effective in creating a sense of community when
utilized under certain conditions. The need for these tools to be visible and utilized are important
considerations when designing online courses as they can help in creating a community of
learners within the online environment. Linkages between learners and the tools must be
negotiated with learners, and it must be a tool that is natural for the learner to use. Given the
issues outlined in this paper that are associated with building communities of practice, the need
for a model and for a learning system that would effectively utilize the tools that have proven
effective in creating community in a web-based learning environment is evident.
Communities of Practice 12
Hersh (2010) in conjunction with Santa Barbara City College has developed an online
learning platform called the Human Presence Learning Environment. The system is a mashup of
Moodle, Skype, Elluminate, and other online learning tools that makes all asynchronous and
synchronous components of the online format visible to learners, providing a default layout for
online instructors and course designers. They specifically designed the system to enable building
community in an online environment. The tools within the system are consistent with those
examined within this paper, and provide course designers and online educators the ability to
easily create a learning community within the environment. More research on the ability of the
system to create a community of learners is necessary to more fully realize the potential of the
community of learners model.
Communities of Practice 13
References
Abedin, B., Daneshgar, F., & Ambra, J. (2010). Underlying factors of sense of community in
asynchronous computer supported collaborative learning environments. MERLOT
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(3),
585-596.http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no3/abedin_0910.htm
Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H.
Jonassen, & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp.
25-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bober, M., & Dennen, V. P. (1999). Intersubjectivity: Facilitating knowledge construction in
online environments. Small Group Research, 38(4), 241-250.
doi:10.1080/09523980110105150
DeWert, M. H., Babinski, L. M., & Jones, B. D. (2003). Safe passages: Providing online support
to beginning teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 311-320.doi:
10.1177/0022487103255008
Hersh, D. (2010, March 24). Human factors: The social aspect of online learning, an
introduction to the importance of both the cognitive and affective components of online
learning. Presentation on Human Presence Learning Environment [Audio and Visual
Recorded]. CCC Confer Archives, California. Available at
http://www.cccconfer.org/CCCC/GoToArchivesAnonymousely.aspx?
MeetingID=b46287a3-ebe2-48b2-a819-c0094b4dd8ca&MeetingSeriesID=4a65d057-
5ae8-4a5e-9583-
abe0f525fde0&ScreenName=&Channel=124310&PIN=&Role=Participant.
Communities of Practice 14
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to
enhance teaching presence and students' sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 11(2), 3-25. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
Kadirire, J. (2007). Instant messaging for creating interactive and collaborative m-Learning
environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2),
Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/344/874
Lee, K. (2009). The intersection of the scholarship of teaching and learning with online course
design in teacher education. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 477-485.
Retrieved from http://insightjournal.net/
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-
based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning
studies. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development Policy and Program Studies Service. Washington, D.C.: Center for
Technology in Learning. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
Schwen, T., & Hara, N. (2003). Community of practice: A metaphor for online design. The
Information Society, 19, 257-270. DOI: 10.1080/01972240390210073
Silvers, P., O'Connell, J. O., & Fewell, M. (2007). Strategies for creating community in a
graduate online program. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(3), 81-87.
Retrieved from http://www.west.asu.edu/achristie/journal.html
Communities of Practice 15
Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Glazer, H. R., Engle, C. L., Harris, R. A., Johnston, S. M., et al.
(2007). Creating shared understanding through chats in a community of inquiry. The
Internet and Higher Education, 10(2), 103-115. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.02.002
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, Greg. (2000). Building
knowledge building communities, consistency, contact, and communication in the virtual
classroom. J. Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359-383. doi: 10.2190/W4G6-
HY52-57P1-PPNE
Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. The Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34-49. Retrieved from:
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK:
Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Wolf, K. (2010). Briding the distance: The use of blogs as reflective learning tools for placement
students. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(5), 589-602. Retrieved from
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713423834