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: 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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

http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.02.002

edtech 504 - synthesis paper

Documents