Start Talking in an e-Learning Environment: Building and Sustaining Communities of Practice
Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32870
Start Talking in an e-Learning Environment: Building and Sustaining Communities of Practice

Authors: Melissa C. LaDuke

Abstract:

The purpose of this targeted analysis was to identify the use of online communities of practice (CoP) within e-learning environments as a method to build social interaction and student-centered educational experiences. A literature review was conducted to survey and collect scholarly thoughts concerning CoPs from a variety of sources. Data collected included best practices, ties to educational theories, and examples of online CoPs. Social interaction has been identified as a critical piece of the learning infrastructure, specifically for adult learners. CoPs are an effective way to help students connect to each other and the material of interest. The use of CoPs falls in line with many educational theories, including situated learning theory, social constructivism, connectivism, adult learning theory, and motivation. New literacies such as social media and gamification can help increase social interaction in online environments and provide methods to host CoPs. Steps to build and sustain a CoP were discussed in addition to CoP considerations and best practices.

Keywords: Community of practice, knowledge sharing, social interaction, online course design, new literacies.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 178

References:


[1] D. Bouhnik, & T. Marcus. Interaction in distance-learning courses, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 299-305, 2006.
[2] J. Modig. (2014). Why do you end up quitting the online courses you’ve started? Retrieved from https://medium.com/@janimodig/why-do-you-end-up-quitting-the-online-courses-youve-started-52fd0f3e85f7 (2014).
[3] L. Lynch. Why do learners drop out of online courses? Retrieved from https://www.learndash.com/why-do-learners-drop-out-of-online-courses (2008).
[4] G. Siemens. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, vol. 2, 2004.
[5] M. A. Andrusyszn, C. Iwasiw, & D. Goldenberg. Computer conferencing in graduate nursing education: Perceptions of students and faculty. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 272–278, 1999.
[6] R. St. Clair. Andragogy revisited: Theory for the 21st century? Myths and realities. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, vol. 19, pp. 2-4, 2002.
[7] E. Wenger. Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/11736/A%20brief%20introduction%20to%20CoP.pdf (2007).
[8] W. J. Clancey. A tutorial on situated learning”, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers and Education (Taiwan). J. Self Ed. Charlottesville, VA: AACE, 1995.
[9] J. Lave, & E. Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1991.
[10] J. S. Brown, A. Collins, & P. Duguid. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 32-42, 1989.
[11] C. A. Hansman. Context-based adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, no. 89, pp. 43–51, 2001.
[12] L. Vygotsky. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steinver, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman Eds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978, pp. 79-91.
[13] C. H. Liu, & R. Matthews. Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms explained. International Education Journal, vol. 6 no. 3, pp. 386-399, 2005.
[14] D. Oblinger. The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, no. 8, pp. 1-18, 2004.
[15] A. Ravenscroft. Dialogue and connectivism: A new approach to understanding and promoting dialogue-rich networked learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 139–160, 2011.
[16] F. Bell. Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enable learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 98–118, 2011.
[17] G. Merchant. Web 2.0, new literacies, and the idea of learning through participation. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 107–122, 2009.
[18] E. B. N. Sanders. From user-centered to participator design approaches. In Design and Social Sciences: Making Connections. J. Frascara, Ed. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 2002, pp. 1–8.
[19] M. S. Knowles. The Modern Practice of Adult Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980.
[20] A. Sher, Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, vol. 8, pp. 102-120, 2009.
[21] A. Rovai. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-16, 2002
[22] C. Wanstreet. Interaction in online learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, vol. 7, 399-411, 2006.
[23] S. Essam & J. Al-Ammary. The impact of motivation and social interaction on the e-learning at Arab open university, Kingdom of Bahrain. Creative Education, vol. 4, no. 10A, pp. 21-28, 2013.
[24] A. Sfard. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 4–13, 1998.
[25] J. E. Ormrod. Educational Psychology: Developing Learners 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall, 2008.
[26] J. R. Anderson, L. M. Reder, & H. A. Simon, H. A. Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 5–11, 1996.
[27] N. Kapucu. Classrooms as communities of practice: Designing and facilitating learning in a networked environment. Journal of Public Affairs Education, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 585-610, 2012.
[28] D. R. Garrison. Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 61-72, 2007.
[29] L. Jelenjev, L. The 4 types of online learning communities part 2 – community of inquiry. Retrieved from https://www.dreamseedo.org/blog/the-4-types-of-online-learning-communities-part-2--community-of-inquiry (2018).
[30] R. Wegerif, The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 34-49, 1998.
[31] T. Marcus. Communication, technology and education – The role of the discussion group in asynchronic distance-learning courses as a beneficial factor in the learning process. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, 2003.
[32] M. Knobel, & C. Lankshear. Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 97-101, 2014.
[33] H. Martens & R. Hobbs. How media literacy supports civic engagement in a digital age. Atlantic Journal of Communication, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 120–137, 2013.
[34] D. Kellner. New technologies/new literacies: Reconstructing education for the new millennium. Teaching Education, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 254–265, 2000.
[35] L. Shi, A. I. Cristea, S. Hadzidedic, & N. Dervishalidovic. Contextual gamification of social interaction–towards increasing motivation in social e-learning. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lei_Shi24/publication/265383581_Contextual_Gamification_of_Social_Interaction_-_Towards_Increasing_Motivation_in_Social_E-learning/links/540c6e670cf2df04e753d025.pdf (2014)
[36] L. Shi, D. A. Qudah, A. A. Qaffas, & A. Cristea. Topolor: A social personalize adaptive e-learning system. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267630887_Topolor_A_Social_Personalized_Adaptive_E-Learning_System (2013).
[37] H. Annabi & S. T. McGann. Social medial as the missing link: Connecting communities of practice to business strategy. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, vol. 23, no. 1-2, pp. 56-83, 2013.
[38] B. Lewis & D. Rush. Experience of developing Twitter-based communities of practice in higher education. Research in Learning Technology, vol. 21, pp. 1-13, 2013.
[39] D. Cambridge, S. Kaplan, & V. Suter. Community of practice design guide: A step-by-step guide for designing & cultivating communities of practice in higher education. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2005/1/community-of-practice-design-guide-a-stepbystep-guide-for-designing-cultivating-communities-of-practice-in-higher-education (2005).
[40] C. Hoadley. What is a community of practice and how can we support it In Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land Eds. Philadelphia, PA, Routledge, 2012, pp. 287-300.
[41] C. C. Barczyk & D. G. Duncan. Facebook in higher education courses: An analysis of students’ attitudes, community of practice, and community classroom. International Business and Management, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-11, 2013.
[42] P. Duguid. The art of knowing’: social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. In The Knowledge Economy and Lifelong Learning. D. W. Livingstone & D. Guile Eds. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense, 2012, pp. 147-162.
[43] E. Wenger, R. McDermott, & W. M. Snyder. Seven principles for cultivating communities of practice. Retrieved from https://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/cultivating-communities-of-practice-a-guide-to-managing-knowledge-seven-principles-for-cultivating-communities-of-practice (2002).
[44] A. W. Astin. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 518-528, 1999.