This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 29 November 2014, At: 11:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

Developing a discoursecommunity ofpreservice teachers in atechnology‐mediated contextKellah M. Edens a & Joan K. Gallini aa Department of Educational Psychology ,University of South Carolina ,Published online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Kellah M. Edens & Joan K. Gallini (2000) Developing adiscourse community of preservice teachers in a technology‐mediated context,The Teacher Educator, 35:4, 64-82, DOI: 10.1080/08878730009555238

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730009555238

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

DEVELOPING A DISCOURSE COMMUNITYOF PRESERVICE TEACHERS

IN A TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED CONTEXT

Kellah M. Edens and Joan K. GalliniDepartment of Educational Psychology

University of South Carolina

Abstract

Through an asynchronous discussion group on the Internet, students weregiven opportunities to interact in a community of beginning preserviceand inservice teachers. They questioned, argued, and negotiated issuesgenerated from their experiences in an introductory educationalpsychology course and school-based practicum. This paper reports findingsfrom an investigation into the social dynamics of a technology-mediatedenvironment and the extent to which community-building occurred.Using a discourse analysis approach, the data were analyzed to determinethe extent to which a technology-mediated discourse community reflectsthe five main features that characterize the ethos of classroomcommunities: respect among members with open exchange of ideas,individual responsibility with communal sharing, shifting roles amongmembers, constructive discussion/making meaning, and a participation

framework. Illustrations of each of these categories that demonstrate anoverall sense of community among the participants are provided.

The recent influx of constructivist theories and practices in theclassroom have been accompanied by a revised interest in thepragmatic dimensions of knowledge generation in a community ofinquiry (Seixas, 1993). The constructivist recasting of learningenvironments has been advanced by the belief that students' learningevolves from their development of a sense of ownership/authority in aknowledge domain through active construction of their ownknowledge within a community that shares a common culture ofthought. Lave (1991) described the process of learners' socializationinto a particular community of knowledge as a process of culturalapprenticeship. Learning in the community evolves as the"newcomers" observe and interact with the "oldtimers" (Lave, 1991;Lave & Wenger, 1991) in the context of domain-relevant tasks(Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994). Within schoolcommunities, a professional community among teachers "is regardedas an ingredient that may contribute to the improvement of schools"

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996, p. 757). The impact of restructuringefforts on students may be contingent on the interactions amongteachers within this professional community outside of theirclassrooms (Louis et al., 1996).

Communities and Apprenticeships in Teacher TrainingThe notion of an apprenticeship is consistent with the model of

teacher training curricula, where preservice teachers participate asinterns in the field to both observe from their mentor and participate inthe teaching process as an apprentice teacher. The models vary acrossdifferent institutions, especially in terms of the point during theirprograms when students participate in the school-based experiencesand the frequency of participation. However, the fundamental goal ofthe model is that the students become legitimate participants in thereal setting for which they are being trained, under the mentorship ofauthentic agents in the field (Lave &C Wenger, 1991). As described byLave (1991), students become legitimate participants in a communityof practice by being situated in the real setting.

The Vygotskian framework (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987) posits theimportance of an individual's enculturation into society in order forhigh mental processes to be attained. This enculturation calls forenriching opportunities for apprentices to increase their participationlevels so they perceive themselves as valid members of the teachingcommunity (Lave, 1991). Developing an identity with the groupinterrelates with the process of acquiring the content knowledge andskills for functioning as a successful member in the domain. From theinteractional-constructivist perspective, knowledge building andmaking meaning are dialogical processes that are generated fromindividuals engaging socially in talk and activity about sharedproblems and tasks in situated contexts and cultures (Driver et al.,1994; Resnick, 1989). This perspective further emphasizes, in equalmeasure, both the importance of individual learning and the socialdynamics of the context of learning (Bauersfeld, 1988), and thus,expands our thinking about the processes of and influences onlearning. To advance our understanding of the complex nature oflearning, investigations of learning contexts enriched withconstructivist principles and features of communities of learners areincreasingly emerging as focal points in educational research today.

This paper reports findings from an investigation about thesocial dynamics of a technology-mediated community. Through theuse of the Internet, students were given opportunities to interact in acommunity of preservice and inservice teachers. They questioned,

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

argued, and negotiated issues generated from their experiences intheir classes and their school-based experiences. Specifically, thedialogic processes of preservice teachers knowledge-building andmaking meaning of their shared early field experiences wereexamined in terms of five categories that characterize the ethos ofclassroom communities: (a) respect among members with openexchange of ideas, (b) individual responsibility with communalsharing, (c) shifting roles among members, (d) constructivediscussion/making meaning, and (e) a participation framework.Using a discourse analysis approach, the data were analyzed todetermine the extent that a technology-mediated discoursecommunity reflects these main features.

Characteristics of CommunitiesThe intent of the ongoing discussion group was to create an

environment conducive to promoting a sense of community amongpre-professionals. The authors generated a design of the technology-mediated context from the literature base suggesting characteristics ofcommunity structures and the important role that mediating toolsplay in advancing constructivist learning.

Communities are described in a number of different ways.However, at the fundamental level of their composition is a core setof features such as feeling of membership and shared values (Bryk &Driscoll, 1988; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Consistent with thesenotions are specific qualities of classroom communities. Brown et al.(1993) characterized the ethos of a classroom community in terms offive main qualities: (a) respect among community members—providing opportunities for an open forum for individual views andan open exchange of ideas that promotes negotiation, elaboration,and meaningful knowledge gains for all members; (b) individualresponsibility and communal sharing—creating an atmosphere ofindividual responsibility coupled with joint responsibility whereeach member has the opportunity to demonstrate authority in aknowledge domain; (c) shifting roles—promoting distributionof knowledge ownership and expertise among members;(d) constructive discussion/making meaning—designing activitiesthat stimulate constructive discussion, questioning, and criticism asthe mode rather than the exception (Brown et al., 1993, p. 200; Fish,1980), where negotiation and shared meaning develop; and (e) aparticipation framework—developing a structure with sufficientroom for inquiry and exploration, in which learners eventuallybecome familiar with their roles in these structures.

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

In implementing valid instructional design features ofcommunities, educators expand upon their current practices todeliberately capitalize on the social aspects of learning and instructionand the potential benefits of community structures. As described byDewey (1925/1981), in the learning community, ideas become"socially authored" in the sense that they undergo verbal exegesesamong the group members who become intent on understandingthem.

Purpose of the Current ResearchThe present study explores the "new frontiers" of an Internet

discussion group (see Fetterman, 1998a) as a tool that mediates theformation of communities for novices (i.e., preservice teachers). Thepurpose of this study is to report descriptively findings on the use ofthe on-line discussion group designed to develop a classroomcommunity, thereby determining the extent that a technology-mediated context fosters the building of a classroom community. Theanalysis focused on descriptions of the discussions in terms of the fivekey characteristics of communities. From the analyses andsuggestions in the literature, the concluding section raises challengesto community structures, descriptions of potential advantages, andreiterates the critical need to develop models for analyzing dialogicprocesses in technology-mediated community learning contexts.

The design of the technology-mediated discussion groupincorporated the core set of features of communities—that is,promoting a feeling of membership and shared emotionalconnections, a common agenda of activities, and a pattern of caringsocial relations with opportunities for decision making. This designprovided an open forum deliberately intended to promote thequalities of a discourse community: distributed cognition, socialresponsibility, and pride in knowledge ownership. A particularparticipation structure on the context (e.g., assign specific roles tostudent) was not designated. An inductive approach was intentionallyselected to identify viable participant structures to impose on thecontext for future study. Students' only instructions were that theywere to post a minimum of two issues and questions that occurred tothem as a result of their observations and interactions with studentsand teachers at the field sites of their practica. The postings shouldexplore connections to university class content and their reflectionsabout their experiences. The goal was to determine whether, giventhe basic features of community as a foundation, a sense of classroomcommunity (Brown et al., 1993)—albeit a virtual community—

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

would develop. The research is built on the promises of the potentialbenefits of community structures among apprentice teachers. At thesame time, barriers that circumvent community building werecritically considered. The pitfalls are further discussed in the endingremarks of the paper.

Context and SampleThe investigation centered on the dialogic processes of preservice

undergraduate students and faculty participating in a beginning fieldexperience that accompanies an introductory university coursefocusing on learners and the diversity of learning. During the firstsemester offering, formative and summative evaluations of thecourses highlighted several constraints to the formation of aclassroom community of students and university and school-basedfaculty (Edens, 1996, 1997). These constraints included lack ofopportunity for meaningful discourse, which was caused by too littletime in a one-credit course to devote to deep and meaningfuldiscussions. Further, it was logistically impossible for theapproximately 100 students to function as a community, becausethey were placed at seven different field sites in groups of 20 or lessduring different times of the day and week. Findings from anexploratory study (Edens, in press) also indicated that when studentsinteract with each other via an on-line discussion group, theyfrequently engage in superficial dialogue that does not reflect accurateapplication of course concepts to the classroom. Approximately 55%of the comments focused on negative events such as studentmisbehavior or teacher practices in the classroom toward thestudents. The postings tended to place blame on an individual(s) forthe occurrence, be it the teacher, the student, or the parents (Edens,in press), a finding consistent with cognitive views of learning thatemphasize the role of existing knowledge and beliefs in the formationof naïve theories of teaching. The beginning teacher educationstudents assumed the role of judge and critic by making unsupportedclaims and opinions, a finding consistent with Bonk, Malikowski,Angeli, and Supplee's (1998) findings in a recent study. Based on thefindings from this previous study (Edens, in press), the establishmentof a community of learners was expected to provide a context fordynamic meaningful dialogue that promoted a common culture ofthought and introduced individuals into the teaching community.

In the current study, therefore, the investigation focused onevidence of community building among a larger population ofpreservice teachers. In broad perspective, the study investigated the

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

extent to which a technology-mediated context helps studentsbecome legitimate participants within the community of practice(i.e., experience an initial phase of a cultural apprenticeship). Anunderstanding of the processes that occur within this context,however, was essential, so the focus was on the interactions that occurin a technology-mediated discussion group to determine the degreethat the five qualities of classroom communities are reflected.

Method

Data SourcesData were collected from the on-line discussion group for two

semesters (n = 90; n = 102) and from informal on-campus focusgroup discussions. Each semester, students in five separate practicumsections (approximately 20 students per section) were placed at sevendifferent field sites and attended a university-based lecture course(approximately 50 students per section). Each section had apracticum instructor who participated in the dialogue on a regularbasis. At the beginning of the semester, the students observed an in-class demonstration on how to access the College of Education'sHome Page and the Discussion Group. Students were encouraged tomake a minimum of two postings in the on-line discussion in orderto enhance their field-based visits by communicating experiences andobservations with their peers within a discourse community andexpanding their technological expertise. Teachers at the placementsites also were invited to participate in the discussion group.

Data AnalysisGiven the scarcity of methodological frameworks for

investigating and characterizing the new frontiers of the dialogicprocesses of technology based discussions (Fetterman, 1998a), thestudy was exploratory. The view that "the meaning of classroom talkis context dependent" (Carlsen, 1991, p. 159) was extended to theon-line classroom community, and thus a data analysis approachderived from a sociolinguistic perspective was chosen. This socialperspective of discourse formulates the theoretical basis forconstructivist learning environments, where interactions amongmembers in the social context of the classroom are critical to learningdevelopments.

The contents of the asynchronous on-line discussion group firstwere examined to determine which topics or themes elicited the mostdiscussion and the general patterns of interactions among discussants.

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

A content analysis of the dialogue contained in a total of 795postings generated three types of information: (a) the link studentswere able to make between course content and real-world classroomobservations; (b) misconceptions, inappropriate inferences, andappropriate conceptualizations students have developed of coursecontent based on their comments and discussions of classroomobservations; and (c) the ability of students to develop a sense ofcommunity through their ongoing interactions with peers andteacher.

The most frequently posted topics and associated conceptsrelated to the campus lecture course were: social-emotional anddevelopmental characteristics and adolescents; effective teaching,motivation, and learning processes; teaching as a profession andethical issues pertaining to teaching, classroom management, anddiscipline; multiculturalism; special education; and the influence offamily and home environment on learning. Each of these topics andassociated concepts generated between 11 and 38 replies. Althoughthese important concepts were addressed in the discussion group,other noteworthy concepts that were emphasized in the course eitherprompted no replies or were absent. The patterns of interactionsamong students indicated that no student or groups of studentsdominated the discussion and only five students failed to participate.

No prompts were provided to instigate a discussion—the topics,therefore, were entirely student-generated. The viewpoints expressedtended to focus on topics that were salient and likely to be observedby the majority of students in any field setting. In some instances,topics and the associated concepts were dealt with on a superficiallevel or in a manner that reflected a misconception by the student.These findings are consistent with research that indicates thatstudents misinterpret observations because of their limited basis forunderstanding what they see (Mclntyre, Byrd, &C Foxx, 1996).

The topics were analyzed using discourse analysis, asociolinguistic approach (Carlsen, 1991). This technique involvedclose scrutiny of transcripts of written discourse to determine theextent that the dialogic processes within a technology-mediateddiscussion group reflected the qualities of classroom communities(Brown et al., 1993). In the discourse analysis, a pre-existingtaxonomy of criteria that characterize the ethos of classroomcommunity outlined by Brown et al. was applied to specific writtendialogue that occurred within the discussion group to determinewhether a discourse community in the truest sense developed.

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Dialogue was analyzed on a horizontal (peer-to-peer) basis andvertical or expert (instructor or K-12 teacher) to student basis (Bonk,Malikowski, et al., 1998). As previously mentioned, the criteria wereapplied to specific scripts of horizontal and vertical dialogic episodeswithin the discussion group dialogue to determine if sufficientevidence of the five community features existed. A set of discussionevents between peers and between peers and the teacher were thenstrategically selected from the total set of practices to demonstrateexamples of substantive dialogue. The criteria for selection wereprimarily two: (a) that they involved substantive issues that linkedcourse content to the observations and (b) they engaged learners inan ongoing and meaningful (in terms of linking to course content,dialogue, and student explanations) dialogue with each other. Thesets of selections that follow several of the community features,therefore, are a good resource for identifying potential benefits thatcan emerge from a developing electronic-based community.

Community Feature 1: Evidence of respect with open exchange ofideas. Analysis of dialogue using the classroom community criteriaprovided strong evidence that technology is a viable tool fordeveloping a classroom community out-of-class. All of the 310 repliesto 485 original postings of items demonstrated respect for divergentviewpoints on a variety of topics ranging from logistical andadministrative issues, to ebonies (see Script 1 below), schooluniforms, classroom management or discipline, and tattoos.Although opinions about particular topics varied, students frequentlyopenly acknowledged and accepted differing viewpoints (e.g., "Iknow what you mean by that"). Students extended gratitude for thesharing of ideas (e.g., numerous "thank you for that great idea").

One exception to respectfulness during the first semesterinvolved a lengthy posting by a student complaining about thestringent grading with respect to mechanics of a reaction paper by asite-based practicum instructor. Several other students concurredwith the comment while others disagreed, thus within this discoursecommunity, students felt comfortable to express honestly differingviewpoints. A faculty community member's vertical contribution tothe discussion included a comment on the importance within aprofessional community of objectively reporting events and statingopinions rationally rather than venting anger at an individual bymaking disparaging remarks. In short, the display of anger andintolerance is not negotiable within a community structure.

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The dialogue scripts of on-line discourse that follow have beenextracted from lengthy postings and replies and illustrate respect fordivergent viewpoints within our emerging community, an openexchange of ideas, and individual responsibility and communalsharing. Script 1, an excerpt from a discussion on ebonies, illustratesthe open, respectful sharing of divergent viewpoints and also theopen exchange of ideas by several students.

Script 1—

Student 1:I have been really noticing the slang usage among my fifth graders, especially afterjust reading the ebonies article in [the newspaper] yesterday. The author madesome comments that were very thought provoking.... In my opinion, culture isso very important and needs to be maintained as part of one's heritage, and cultureincludes language and slang. While ebonies may be foreign to me, that does notmean it is bad. It is simply part of African American culture. Being from theSouth, I would be personally offended if somebody told me that saying ya'll wasinferior to you all. This only results in building barriers between different cultures;rather, we should embrace and appreciate our diversity and respect everyone'sdifferences. From the perspective of a U.S. citizen and future teacher, I feel a bitdifferently on the matter. In order to survive and succeed in the modern world,communication is key. How many careers nowadays look at the ability tocommunicate with co-workers and clients as a key essential? The answer ispractically all of them. Even in everyday settings, people have encounters with verydifferent types of people; therefore, it is necessary that they be able to toss theirpersonal language aside and use a mainstream accepted language in order toeffectively communicate. It is not ignoring one's culture by doing so. Instead, it ishaving good social skills and a true desire to relate and understand one another. Irealize that some argue it would hurt a child's self-esteem to be told that theirpreferred language is not to be used in particular settings; however, I definitelythink that it would hurt their self-esteem much worse to be rejected from job afterjob as an adult based on the fact that their communication skills are not up to par.

Student 2:I agree with [you]. I went to the ebonies lecture, and felt that the speaker was onlydealing with immediate issues, rather than long-term ones. That is, it is moreimportant that a child know how to speak English when he grows up than it is toavoid the temporary confusion of having his grammar corrected. The thing thatscares me about ebonies is the possibility that I will have trouble understandingsome of my students. Ebonics is not just different word order and grammar, it isalso different pronunciation. The last few letters of words get dropped, making itdifficult to understand for people who aren't used to it. It is embarrassing to me tohave to ask people to repeat themselves, and I imagine it would be embarrassingfor them too. I don't want to insult my students by failing to understand them.

Student 3:I definitely find the issue of ebonies to be a hot one which has crept up in a few ofmy other classes as well. I am also enrolled in [an anthropology class] in which wehave spent a lot of time talking about different languages and their uses ...[including ebonies] which is known as Black English Vernacular. Many of thesame points [Student 1] brought up were also discussed in our class. As futureteachers it is important for us to realize that to many, preserving their culture

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

though language is just as important as speaking "standard English." It should beexplained to the students why their grammar is being corrected, and theirgrammar should only be corrected in the classroom setting. Let then know thatthey need to be able to speak "proper English" (if there is such a thing) so they willbe employable in the future. However, there is no reason why the children cannotspeak ebonies or any other language during their social interactions. In accordancewith our request [that] students.. . learn what we are teaching, perhaps it wouldbe appropriate for us to be willing to embrace their language and learn it as well.I'm not saying we should teach it, but rather than we should learn it for our ownpersonal gains and possible respect from some of the students. . . .

Student 4:I have a serious problem with the term "Ebonics." I have had the advantage ofliving in several regions of this country. There is not one type of slang that iscommon to all African Americans. Therefore, the term itself is problematic. WhenI hear descriptions of the language that is termed "Ebonics," I am reminded of aSouthern dialect that is shared by all races of people whose language skills havebeen developed in the South. I realize not all Southerners have the same accent,but the overall speech patterns of "Ebonics" are markedly Southern. I also have aproblem with people who say that "Ebonics" should be treated as a separatelanguage. I can't imagine anyone hiring a person who does not have goodcommand of Standard English. I do not believe this is being pushed by peoplewith the best interest of African Americans in mind. As a future educator, I willunderstand the use of slang in everyday conversation. I have a good command ofit, myself. I will expect students to be able to grasp Standard English as well.Everyone should be able to understand and be understood by all people in thiscountry. That is important in the advancement of the African American race.

Student 5:I must disagree with you on your perception of the word Ebonics. If you had goneto the Ebonics seminar, you would know that this language is not based primarilyon Southern dialects, but it is a referent to the slang used by all blacks all over theU.S.

The comments tend to build somewhat on the original postingof SI as students add information from additional sources and fromtheir experiences. Students 2, 3, and 4 tend to acknowledge thepreviously stated viewpoint and add their own "slant" to the issue,whereas Student 5 tersely disagrees with Student 4 s comment,offering no further elaboration or prompting about the topic. Mostcomments relate personal experiences, a trend in the majority of thediscussions on specific topics, relevant to the topic (e.g., "I've beennoticing slang usage among my fifth graders," "When I was in highschool. . . ."). Existing schémas of the individual members in thecommunity, based on previous experiences and prior knowledge, aresignificant to the community-building process of negotiatingmeaning among the divergent viewpoints. As members are presentedwith information that may conflict with their schémas, they are facedwith the need to negotiate meanings with each other in efforts toresolve the conflict. This becomes a necessary process so that the

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Community can proceed onward towards reaching its common goals.While these varying viewpoints can generate controversy in thegroup, and even group disharmony, at the same time they canstrengthen the community building through appropriate facilitationby the teacher. Members are introduced to perspectives that expandbeyond their own cognitive structures, and thus provide the contextfor promoting problem solving and self-reflections. As discussed byPiaget (1970), cognitive conflict and the processes associated withresolving that conflict are integral to the social dimensions of theleaning process.

The highly social nature of the Internet communication isinstrumental in creating such situations (Lamott, 1994). Script 2below demonstrates principles of community building though thedifferent dialogic processes that evolved:

Script 2—Student 1:Today my class went on a field trip to the grocery store. The students have beenstudying grocery stores and what they consist of for the past couple of weeks. I hada lot of fun observing the students. They wanted to know about all of the foodsand touch everything in sight. I thought the field trip was a great idea. Thestudents had a lot of fun while getting to see what all they have been studying inclass.

Student 2:Your message sounded so strange to me. I can't help wondering what age yourstudents are. It just seems really strange to me to take a field trip to the grocerystore. I would think that kids have been there a million times. Since I obviously donot understand what the project was all about, would you please respond withsome more detailed information. I would really appreciate getting more info, onwhat this is all about. Thanks. I'll look forward to checking back for more detailslater.

Student 1:The grocery store field trip was not only beneficial to my five and six year olds, butalso a positive learning experience. They had been studying items in the grocerystore for previous weeks, and they had the opportunity to see firsthand whereitems were located. The students were also allowed to speak with employees in thestore and ask them questions that interested them. They may have been to thegrocery store with their parents, but they did not have the "behind the scenes"look as they did with their class. I hope this answers your questions, but if not,please reply!

Faculty 1:Sometimes very familiar places, such as grocery stores, prompt children to askreally good questions. I know even I have questions—and I've been a milliontimes at least! Just brainstorm and think of the neat things you as a teacher coulddiscuss with kids and questions you could have them investigate. . . . you couldbring in math and science concepts, nutrition, marketing, etc.—what else can youthink of?

74

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

In reading the exchange between the students, Student 2 isshown requesting an explanation/elaboration from Student 1 about abriefly described field trip. This request is a clear index of acommunication failure and the need for the communicator toconsider différent rhetorical choices to address the problem (Wells &Chang-Wells, 1992). Furthermore, it appears that the failure will notbe reconciled from Student 1 s brief response to the request for anexplanation; the explanation did not address the instructionalobjectives that the classroom teacher who was being observed mighthave had nor specific details concerning content. One of the facultymembers supervising the preservice teachers intervened to facilitateunderstanding among the students in their interactions. Sheencouraged the students to think about the situation in terms ofcontent related to the preservice course they are currently taking. Sheaddressed how instruction and learning can become meaningful bylinking real-world authentic experiences with subject-area content—math, literacy, social studies. Furthermore, linking new material witha familiar context, in this case the grocery store, can be an effectiveinstructional strategy to enhance new learning.

Several of the postings suggested that students felt comfortablecommenting on ideas that "popped into their heads" and were notconcerned about the simplicity or inaccuracy of their statements.Feeling "at ease"^no fear of retribution for one's remarks even whenincorrect—is important within a community. The open exchange ofideas seemed to facilitate the development of shared meaning. Themany unsupported claims and opinions (83) also provided evidencethat students perceived the technology environment asunthreatening. Few of these unsupported claims and opinions (5)were questioned or challenged. It should be noted, however, that themajority of these opinions were uncontroversial or it would bedifficult for another student to obtain evidence to the contrary (e.g.,"this is a boring teacher . . . , " "the student's got to be ADD . . . " ) ,perhaps reasons that unsupported statements tended to beunchallenged. Dialogue Script 3 illustrates an attempt to get severalstudents to "look deeper" at what was occurring at the field sitethereby promoting communal sharing. The peer-to peer dialogueincludes a very general statement about an observed classroom and areply that socially acknowledges it and goes on to include a personalexperience, also in general terms. Two responses from instructors aremoderate attempts to encourage the students to observe details andto think about alternative strategies that could be used.

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Community Feature 2: Evidence of individual responsibility withcommunal sharing.

Script 3—

Student 1I am so bored in my classroom. The teacher stands in front of the class andlectures the whole time. I know that she needs to cover the material before the APExam, but I feel that no learning is taking place. There are a couple of studentswho are falling behind. I am scared that the students are not going to pass theexam.

Faculty 1 :It's good to be concerned, but remember why you are there. Observe the students,how they respond or don't . . . . what opportunities are taken advantage of, whatare some missed opportunities?. . . try to be objective as you collect data and thenreflect upon it.

Student 2:I understand how you feel. When in high school AP classes, one of my teachersjust lectured as fast as he could to get the information in before the exam. Hecould [have] cared less if we understood it or not. The result, we were bored andcould [have] cared less. All ten of us failed the exam, and this class is no longertaught at our high school. We explained to the administration that it was no helpand lowered our GPA's. They took this into consideration and canceled the class.Other AP classes that I took, however, that put us into the learning process andused other techniques besides lecture, helped us tremendously. In these classesover half of the class passes with flying colors.

Student 3:The few times that I went to [high school name] I have been quite bored, too. Theteacher just went over the homework for an hour and for the rest of the time toldher students to start on their homework. Last time I went they took a test and thistime nothing interesting happened . . . oh well, hope things will pick up . . . but Istill enjoy going out there.

Faculty 2:This still might prove to be a fruitful situation. See how the students areresponding to what you perceive to be a less than exciting environment. It mightbe good to focus on one or two students and pay special attention to them for acouple of weeks. I guess what I'm saying is, try to make lemonade. . . .

Students by and large exhibited individual responsibility—whereeach member has authority in a certain knowledge domain. Studentstended to interject pieces of information appropriately, whichdemonstrates communal sharing, and did not pretend to have all ofthe answers. Rather, students appreciated input from their peers andfrom faculty.

Community Feature 3: Evidence ofshifiing roles. A furtherobservation of Script 3 illustrates the shifting-role characteristic. Onestudent who replied to several postings (11) concerning severaltechnological glitches that students experienced later posted acomment titled "I know this is silly, b u t . . . . (help)," asking for

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

advice about being invited to a birthday party by a child at his field-site. He was concerned about the need to draw a boundary betweensocial and professional interactions with the students. Thus, heshifted from a role as technology "expert," a role in which he wasconfident, to a role in which uncertainty about a social situationexisted. Although this one scenario is presented to illustrate theshifting-role characteristic of community building, it does not typifythe pattern of overall interactions among the postings.

Community Feature 4: Evidence of constructive discussion/makingmeaning. Although the open exchange of ideas demonstrated inScripts 1 and 2 tended to facilitate the development of sharedmeaning and negotiation, it did not reflect constructive dialoguetoward making meaning. In essence, the exchange of ideas among thestudents in this open forum did not simultaneously provide evidenceof student ability to construct new knowledge, perspectives, andmeaning. Negotiating issues and sharing meaning appears to requirea more firmly established sense of community, derived from sharedexperiences and the duration of time the group functioned as acommunity. The majority of students in the discussion group did notknow each other because this was the initial practicum experience forthem. Few students rose to the task of assuming the role ofnegotiator.

Community Feature 5: Evidence of emerging participant structures.Whereas evidence that the preservice teachers were beginning tofunction as a classroom community did exist, findings suggested thatdeliberate efforts should be made to establish a viable participantstructure that sustains the qualities that characterize the ethos of aclassroom community. As earlier indicated, for this study, the designprovided an open forum deliberately intended to promote thequalities of a discourse community, distributed cognition, socialresponsibility, and pride in knowledge ownership. A particularparticipation structure on the context (e.g., assign specific roles tostudent) was not designated. Given the basic features of communityas a foundation, the goal was to determine whether a sense ofclassroom community—albeit a virtual community—would develop.Analyses indicated that although a few students assumed particularroles (e.g., technology expert, complainer), the majority of studentsfailed to assume any role that was definitive. Those students tendedto post items that were less substantive than items from students whohad unknowingly self-selected a role. Further, although each of thecriteria was met, it should be noted that these qualities did notemerge initially. Rather, as participants assumed roles and seemingly

77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

became comfortable within the semblance of a framework, the groupdeveloped into a beginning community.

An interesting finding regarding the participant structure as itunfolded (i.e., emerged "on its on") is that one student who assumeda variety of roles spontaneously throughout the semester reportedthat he had participated frequently in on-line communicationswithin other contexts. Thus, he appeared to be "developmentallyadvanced" relative to the majority of other students, many of whomreported that this was their first time to participate in an on-linediscussion group. Perhaps as students become more facile withelectronic discussion groups, a sense of community and theconcomitant roles appropriate to that community will be more easilyattained.

Providing a participant framework has the potential to enable allstudents to function more actively. There are undoubtedly multiplevariations to its structure. One might consist of a clearly defined setof rules and tasks for all its members to pursue. However, sufficientflexibility is critical to allow for the rich mixture of individual andgroup-based contributions. Individual contributions reflect thevarying perspectives of each member; group-based contributionsinvolve the significant dialogic processes of negotiating meaningamong each other relative to their pre-existing schémas.

A participant structure that is defined for its members isparticularly useful to novices in learning about the discoursestructure, goals, and belief system of the community, and its practices(Brown et al., 1993). At the same time it is also useful for "oldtimers"who are serving as mentors to the novices regarding the operations ofthe community, much like the context of an apprenticeship model.

Benefits and Barriers of Community BuildingEducators' emerging interest at all levels in reconceptualizing

learning environments as communities gives focus at the same timeto the need for a research agenda in education that empiricallyinvestigates the processes and products of community-orientedenvironments and considers both the benefits and barriers to thesestructures. This goal was particularly important in the initial stages ofour investigations, which were directed at expanding the professionalexperiences of preservice teachers through the creation of atechnology-mediated discourse community. At a cursory level, thebenefits might become more apparent in addressing a dire need forteacher education students to interact among a community of

78

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

apprentices and professionals on issues authentic to the context inwhich they will be applying their professional training. Thetechnology-mediated design gave apprentice teachers opportunities toexpand their interactions with resources beyond the classroom wallsthrough electronic conversation. Feedback from teachers at the fieldsite, input frequently not available during class time and from peers,occurred. The forms of interactions associated with the vertical(preservice teacher-practicum instructor/mentor teachers) andhorizontal (peer-peer) dialogue (Bonk & Kim, 1998), such asprompting elaboration and fostering reflection, demonstrated thepotential value of "oldtimers" interacting with the "newcomers"(Lave, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The process of culturalapprenticeship in an early field-based experience is valuable because itfosters development of an identity with the group and interrelateswith the developing of shared knowledge and meaning. On the otherhand, in several instances, the beginning of a cultural apprenticeshipforced students to concede that teaching was not an appropriatecareer choice—these students did not develop an identity with thegroup. Another important function of the community was to provideassistance related to logistical concerns—posting of schedule changes,announcements, arranging transportation to the field-site.

Yet the preliminary findings also point to pitfalls. A communitythat is technologically-mediated has disadvantages at several levels,the first level having to do with the nature of the medium itself. Anon-line discussion is quite different from a context in which thediscussants utilize non-verbal language in addition to verbal language.The advantages of participating on-line at all hours of the day andnight appear to be an attractive feature but may not outweigh the factthat the context is devoid of feedback from facial gestures, lacks thespontaneity of face-to-face exchanges, and permits student todisengage (or not engage at all) at will. Prompts to promote dialoguemay go unread by many participants in the group for a variety ofreasons. Evidence suggested that students frequently did not "followthrough" on their comments and replies. Other difficulties withtechnological glitches also occurred, such as postings that never"posted" and others that posted numerous times, along with someoff-campus programs' incompatibility with the university hardware.Students unfamiliar with the Internet were apprehensive about theprocess, a difficulty often associated with computer use by novices.Although there were sessions for students to learn to access thecolleges web home page and the discussion group, some students felt

79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

uncomfortable about taking part, citing that it was inconvenient forthem to participate.

Other unexpected difficulties related to the unstructuredparticipant framework of the discussion group (i.e., no assignment ofspecific roles, a finding previously mentioned). Students in obscureroles or even no roles tended to interact on a sporadic basis and/orsuperficial level. Thus virtual communities can be dysfunctional, justas some classroom communities do not function as well as others.

All communities require guidelines, rules, and regulations inorder to function efficiently, and a virtual community is noexception. The need for explicit rules and guidelines became obvious,particularly relating to issues of confidentiality, spelling, andgrammar. The formulation of rules or norms of etiquette forconversing in a discussion group in the public domain (Cobb &Yackel, 1996) is necessary, findings consistent with Fetterman's(1998b) recommendations regarding the need for management indiscussion groups.

Thus, creating a sense of community early in the preserviceteacher's professional experiences calls for establishing viableparticipant structures whereby learners can engage in dynamicconversations with their peers and mentors. A flexible frameworkallows for shifting roles so that knowledge ownership and expertise isbroadly distributed. The establishment of a topic/task structure(conversation cafes) also could serve as a catalyst for dialogue andenhance opportunities for the airing of individual views in an openforum. Constructive discussion, critiques, and questioning could bethe mode rather than the exception, and students would have greateropportunity to have these meaningful processes modeledappropriately and to participate themselves.

Given the new frontiers of the technologies that can expand ourcommunity structures, there are limited models and methods foranalyzing the learning benefits and impediments. At the same time,they open up a host of new questions to explore and suggest theintroduction of new theories and the revisions of old theories toaccommodate those questions. The new focus on constructivisttheories of learning have given rise to constructivist informationprocessing views that propose a conceptualization of the individual asan active constructor of knowledge and that highlight the significantrole of the social dimensions of learning acquired through activeinteractions and communal sharing in collaborative environments.

80

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

References

Bauersfeld, H. (1988). Interaction, construction, and knowledge:Alternative perspectives for mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws, T. J.Cooney, & D. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives on research on mathematics teaching(Vol. 1, pp. 27-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending sociocultural theory to adultlearning. In M. C. Smit & T. Pourchot (Ed.), Adult learning and development:Perspectives from educational psychology (pp. 67-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bonk, C. J., Malikowski, S., Angeli, C., & Supplee, L. (1998, April). HolyCOW: Scaffolding case-based "conferencing on the web" with preservice teachers.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Diego, CA.

Brown, A., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., &Campione, J. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon(Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 188-228). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The school as community: Theoreticalfoundations, contextual influences, and consequences for students and teachers.Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Center on Effective SecondarySchools.

Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in the classrooms: A sociolinguisticperspective. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 157-198.

Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and socio-culturalperspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist,31(3/4), 175-190.

Dewey, J. (1981). Experience and nature. In J. A. Boyston (Ed.), JohnDewey: The later works. 1925-1953 (Vol. I). Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press. (Original work published in 1925.)

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994).Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher,23(7), 5-12.

Edens, K. M. (in press). Promoting communication, inquiry, and reflectionamong preservice teachers via an on-line discussion group. Action in TeacherEducation.

Edens, K. M. (1996, 1997). A formative and summative evaluation ofEDUC 401-P. Unpublished report.

Fetterman, D. (1998a). Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Fetterman, D. (1998b). Webs of meaning: Computer and internet

resources for educational research and instruction. Educational Researcher, 27(3),22-31.

Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretivecommunities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lamott, A. (1994). Bird by bird: Some instructions on writing and life. NewYork: Pantheon.

Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L.Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition(pp. 63-82). Washington, DC: APA.

81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.

Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers' professionalcommunity in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal,33(4), 757-798.

McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. (1996). Field and laboratoryexperiences. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education(pp. 171-193). NY: Macmillan.

McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: adefinition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.

Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael'smanual of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 703-731). New York: Wiley.

Resnick, L. B. (1989). Introduction. In L. B. Resnick (Eds.), Knowing,learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 1-24). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Seixas, P. (1993). The community of inquiry as a basis for knowledge andlearning: The case of history. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2),305-324.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In L. S. Vygotsky, Collectedworks (Vol. 1, pp. 39-285). New York: Plenum.

Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together:Classrooms as centers of inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Author NoteAn earlier version of this paper was presented as part of a symposium at the

1998 American Educational Research Association.

82

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

1:32

29

Nov

embe

r 20

14