Joyce Yukawa, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Graduate Program, Library and Information Science
College of St. Catherine (soon to be St. Catherine University, as of
June 1, 2009)
2004 Randolph Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55105
jyukawa@stkate.edu
Title: “We Create”: Blended Learning in LIS Courses Using the Communities of Practice Framework
While the term “communities of practice” (CoP) dates to the 1990s (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), the phenomenon it describes is the timeless work of learning through mentoring and apprenticeships. Contrast this with our typical methods of professional development today -formalized courses or one-time workshops, often conducted as lectures that focus on individual learning and answers rather than inquiry. Theories of constructivist and social learning and an awareness of multiple intelligences and diverse learning styles have positively influenced how we teach, but much work still needs to be done to improve teaching and learning, particularly in online and blended (combined face-to-face and online) environments. The CoP framework provides an integrated model and guide for social learning that is applicable to a broad range of contexts -from classrooms and professional communities to project management and organizational development.
As formal education and library services increasingly move online, the integration of library services into the curriculum using information and communication technologies has moved beyond information literacy across the K-12 curriculum to campus-wide, web- based information literacy initiatives in higher education. The term “blended librarian” dates to 2004 when Stephen J. Bell and John Shank proposed this definition: “the blended librarian [is] an academic librarian who combines the traditional skill set of librarianship with the information technologist's hardware/software skills, and the instructional or educational designer's ability to apply technology appropriately in the teaching-learning process” (2004, p. 374).
This paper summarizes the theoretical and research foundations in inquiry learning, project-based learning, computer-mediated communication, blended learning, and communities of practice that support a CoP-based approach to blended librarianship (Bell & Shank, 2007). A CoP model that incorporates a creative tension between face-to-face and online communication (Barab, MaKinster, & Scheckler, 2004) is presented. This is followed by a description of the application of the model, with the use of social software and low threshold applications, to two courses (Reference & Online Services, and
Internet Fundamentals and Design) taught by the author in an accredited MLIS program. The main advantages are: (1) The CoP delineation of social learning processes provides coherence for project-based learning approaches that build on the interdisciplinary expertise of students and also provides mechanisms for sharing that expertise and building collective knowledge on an ongoing basis. (2) The dualities, or creative tensions, posited by the CoP framework provide a means to clarify the choices faced by instructors in curriculum design. (3) The use of a CoP-based approach that incorporates social software and low threshold applications in LIS curricula can serve as a model for blended librarianship for future librarians. Student evaluations of these courses were highly positive. Finally, the disadvantages of a CoP-based approach to blended learning are discussed, with recommendations for further research and application. Teaching, learning, and librarianship, particularly reference services, can succeed or fail based on the quality of the human interactions. The CoP-based approach can positively influence human interactions in blended learning and librarianship contexts. uthor in an accredited MLIS program. The main advantages are: (1) The CoP delineation of social learning processes provides coherence for project-based learning approaches that build on the interdisciplinary expertise of students and also provides mechanisms for sharing that expertise and building collective knowledge on an ongoing basis. (2) The dualities, or creative tensions, posited by the CoP framework provide a means to clarify the choices faced by instructors in curriculum design. (3) The use of a CoP-based approach that incorporates social software and low threshold applications in LIS curricula can serve as a model for blended librarianship for future librarians. Student evaluations of these courses were highly positive. Finally, the disadvantages of a CoP-based approach to blended learning are discussed, with recommendations for further research and application. Teaching, learning, and librarianship, particularly reference services, can succeed or fail based on the quality of the human interactions. The CoP-based approach can positively influence human interactions in blended learning and librarianship contexts.
Barab, S.A., MaKinster, J.G., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities: Characterizing an online professional development community. In S.A. Barab, R. Kling, & J.A. Gray (Eds.), Designing virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 53-90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, S.J., & Shank, J.D. (2004). The blended librarian: A blueprint for redefining the teaching and learning role of academic librarians. College and Research Libraries News, 65(7), 372-375.
Bell, S.J., & Shank, J.D. (2007). Academic librarianship by design: A blended librarian's guide to the tools and techniques. Chicago: ALA.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
“We Create”: Blended Learning in LIS Courses
Using the Communities of Practice Framework
Joyce Yukawa
Assistant Professor, MLIS Program, College of St. Catherine
Email: jyukawa@stkate.edu
While activities combining face-to-face and online activities in libraries predates the use of the term, “blended librarian” dates to 2004 when Stephen Bell and John Shank proposed this definition: “the blended librarian [is] an academic librarian who combines the traditional skill set of librarianship with the information technologist’s hardware/software skills, and the instructional or educational designer’s ability to apply technology appropriately in the teaching-learning process” (2004, p. 374).
Librarianship, information technology skills, and instructional design using appropriate technology for learning are the three pillars of expertise needed for effective information literacy instruction (Bell & Shank, 2007). How can LIS curricula provide students with opportunities to develop this diverse expertise? A potentially valuable approach is blended learning in a classroom community of practice (CoP). The CoP framework provides an integrated model for inquiry learning and social learning within the context of professional principles, practices, values, and leadership. Using the framework in a blended learning context presents opportunities and challenges, due to the affordances of online communication. The paper presents a CoP framework for blended learning, describes its implementation in LIS courses, and evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of its use.
Blended learning brings benefits and challenges on many levels. A frequently mentioned benefit of online learning is flexibility in time and learning environments (Vaughan, 2007). Multimedia environments can provide visualizations that simulate the face-to-face environment and provide engaging stimuli for learner involvement. Interactive tutorials scaffold instruction with timely feedback that encourages active involvement and individual control over the pace of learning, appropriate for problem solving of well-structured tasks.
The challenge, however, is the appropriate use of technology. Larreamendy-Joerns and Leinhardt (2006, p. 586-90) note that multimedia experiences are often isolated from other important learning factors and that online tutorials are generally not available for domains that require deep conceptual understanding. They argue that a view of learning that proceeds incrementally from simple to complex cannot approximate the multilayered, creative responses provided by expert teachers, leaving students with a superficial understanding of complex subjects.
Moreover, social constructivist approaches such as communities of practice stress that learning is not merely knowledge acquisition but more fundamentally a process of identity formation and empowerment through participation in learning communities. New concepts, models, and theories are constructed from a base of previous experiences and worldviews. Styles, discourses, and patterns of practice emerge through mutual participation. Dialogue and social interaction are “essential aspects of knowing a domain” (Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006, p. 590).
While social software provides tools for intellectual and social discourse that support cognitive development, social networking, and community building (Kim, 2000; Paloff & Pratt, 1999; Preece, 2000), the primary means of online communication is typed text, which lacks the expressive features of nonverbal communication and voice tone, as well as a shared awareness of context. Thus, some studies stress the importance of face-to-face encounters to promote bonding as a basis for continued interaction and participation online (Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker, 2000).
Departing from the early behaviorist orientation of instruction, contemporary learning theories lean heavily toward constructivist and social constructivist ideas (Salomon & Perkins, 1998). Constructivism in education has its roots in John Dewey’s (1916) ideas of progressive education based on learning through inquiry and experience, combined with insights on cognitive development put forth by Piaget (1932), Vygotsky (1962; 1978), Bruner (1990), and others. Learners interact with the physical and social world to actively create rather than passively receive knowledge. Some see dialogue and guided conversation as the primary means of inquiry learning (e.g., Edwards, 1991; Mercer, 1995; Wells, 1999).
In LIS education where many students are returning to school to pursue second careers, theories of adult learning provide additional guidance. Mezirow’s (1978, 2000) study of older women returning to community colleges to continue their education found that adults learn by negotiating contested meanings, using contextual understanding, and critically reflecting on assumptions to reinterpret the meaning of their experiences as a guide for future action (2000, p. 5). Adult learning is active, problem-based, dialogic, and focused on critical reflection for more effective action. Such approaches as problem-based learning, project-based learning, and case-based learning emphasize solving authentic problems to develop professional expertise (Prince & Felder, 2006; Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006).
Two community-based approaches have received popular and research attention in the last decade: communities of inquiry (COI) and communities of practice (CoP). The COI model focuses on using text-based computer-mediated communication for computer conferencing in higher education. It posits that cognitive, social, and teaching presence are essential to the online learning experience (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000). Research on COI has focused on the effects of writing on critical thinking (e.g., Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 1999, 2001) and has recently addressed issues in blended learning (Garrison & Vaughan, 2007).
Lave and Wenger (1991) introduced the term, “communities of practice.” Using different apprenticeship situations, they describe how learning begins with observing experts, being mentored, and other forms of legitimate peripheral participation before an apprentice becomes a full-fledged member of the community. The work on CoP is broader in scope, audience, and influence than COI, particularly in professional education such as the health sciences and teacher education. The CoP framework is richly complex but has been criticized for its lack of rigor as a testable theory (Storberg-Walker, 2008).
These theories of constructivist and social constructivist learning have contributed much to our understanding of how adults learn, but LIS education lacks a holistic, integrated professional development model for blended environments. The CoP framework has the potential to fill this gap for LIS curricula aimed at educating practitioners.
Communities of practice differ from other types of communities because they involve a domain and a practice as well as a community (Wenger, 1998). According to Snyder, Wenger, and de Sousa Briggs (2004):
• “Community” includes its member relationships and the nature of their interactions—levels of trust, belonging, and reciprocity.
• “Domain” refers to the community’s focal issues and the sense of members’ identity with the topic.
• “Practice” consists of a repertoire of tools, methods, and skills, as well as members’ learning and innovation activities.
CoP learning is based on mutuality and shared learning through the dynamics of dualities (Wenger, 1998). A duality is a pair of elements that is always present in different forms and degrees, not a spectrum that indicates movement from one pole to another. A duality can be characterized as a creative tension. Wenger (1998, p. 231) identifies four dualities that address “the fundamental issues of meaning, time, space, and power” and present their own resources and constraints.
The duality of participation and reification signifies the interaction between the social production of meaning and the concrete forms (termed “reifications”) that reflect that meaning. Participation means action, involvement, and connection. It results in reification – an outcome such as an idea, an artifact, increased knowledge or competence. Reification provides a means to share practice while also, to a degree, restraining it. Wenger (1998, p. 52) states that the interaction between participation and reification is essentially the negotiation of meaning.
The duality of the designed and the emergent signifies the interaction between designed structures and those that emerge through practice over time. Wenger’s basic premise is that community structures arise organically through practice. Communities may also intentionally design structures to direct their practices, but these designed structures are also subject to change. Thus, practice is not the result of design but a response to it. I characterize this duality as the negotiation of models of practice.
The duality of the local and the global refers to how CoPs relate to other CoPs through crossing boundaries and bridging differences. The differences are bridged through: (1) the use of boundary objects, such as artifacts, standards, or codes of ethics; (2) brokering to make connections, enable coordination, and facilitate meaning making; and (3) boundary encounters, opportunities for dialogue that allow individuals to “deepen their relationships and discover … collective ways of thinking, approaching a problem, and developing a solution” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 84). I characterize the interaction between the local and the global spaces of knowledge and practice as the negotiation of expertise.
The duality of identification and negotiability focuses on how individuals form identities through participation in community practices, multiple memberships in local and global communities, their learning trajectories within a CoP, and modes of belonging. An individual takes ownership of collective meaning and shapes that meaning through negotiation. Negotiability is the use of power, not driven by conflict or domination, but “primarily as the ability to act in line with the enterprises we pursue” (Wenger, 1998, p. 189). I characterize this duality as the negotiation of identity and leadership within the community.
Negotiability is made possible through three modes of belonging: engagement, imagination, and alignment. Engagement is active involvement in meaning making, based on mutuality, competence, and continuity (Wenger, 1998, p. 237-8). Through engagement, community members participate in and shape practice, contribute to the community’s shared history, and gain competence and respect.
Imagination is seeing connections through time and space by extrapolating from experience through orientation, reflection, and exploration (Wenger, 1998, p. 238). Imagination involves new insights, awareness of broader systems, standing in others’ shoes, creating models and visions, and reinterpreting histories.
Alignment is coordinating activities and resources to fit within broader structures and achieve results, involving convergence, coordination, and jurisdiction (Wenger, 1998, p. 238-9). Alignment involves finding common ground, defining visions, establishing procedures and structures, and exercising power to focus efforts. Wenger (1998, p. 240) proposes a design framework for CoP learning that incorporates the four dualities and three modes of belonging (see Table 1).
Source: Wenger, 1998, p. 240, 263-270. Wenger’s descriptions of the modes of belonging for each duality are quoted from Figure 10.3, “Articulating components and dimensions,” with my clarifications derived from other parts of his text in brackets.
Barab, MaKinster, and Scheckler (2004) propose a fifth duality: face-to-face and online communication. Herbert Clark's (Clark & Brennan, 1991) theory of common ground provides a basis for understanding the tensions of this duality through the inhibiting and enabling effects of different communication media. The theory posits that common ground must be established for effective communication to occur, and that this “grounding” is based on least collaborative effort. Clark identifies eight “constraints” (i.e., enabling factors) that affect communication efficiency: copresence, visibility, audibility, cotemporality, simultaneity, sequentiality, reviewability, and revisability (see Table 1). Face-to-face communication allows the greatest communication efficiency because it provides the richest array of enablers.
Establishing common ground entails costs, including: (1) effort needed to formulate utterances, (2) effort needed to receive and process communication received, (3) effort needed to understand communication, (4) effort needed to start up new communication, (5) adverse effects of delaying one's communication, (6) effort needed for turn taking, (7) effort needed to gesture and indicate, and (8) adverse effects of committing a communication mistake. The type of medium influences the techniques used to compensate for these costs. Four media that I use in my blended courses offer different configurations of enablers and costs (see Table 3).
Some observers believe that text-based online communication may be superior to face-to-face for supporting reflection because it initially requires more care taken in writing (higher formulation costs) and has reviewability (e.g., Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000; Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006; Yukawa, 2005). The influence of writing on critical thinking has also been examined (Applebee, 1984; Ong, 1988). However, writing cannot be viewed in isolation from other factors in the learning environment (Mimirinis & Bhattacharya, 2007; Tolmie & Boyle, 2000; Ziegler, Paulus, & Woodside, 2006), nor is the reviewability of online communication sufficient encouragement in and of itself for critical reflective thinking (Seale & Cann, 2000).
While a full description of the process of model building is beyond the scope of this paper, it involved developing a preliminary model based on Wenger’s design framework (Table 1) and related concepts from constructivist learning approaches and adult learning theories, with attention to the fifth duality – face-to-face/online communication. This was used to redesign two blended LIS courses and iteratively tested and refined during implementation.
The model (Figure 1) focuses on the four CoP dualities – negotiating the meaning of core concepts, negotiating models of practice, negotiating expertise, and negotiating identity-leadership – which I believe students should ideally experience in a blended learning LIS classroom. These dualities are articulated through the three modes of belonging (engagement, imagination, alignment) and enacted through face-to-face and online communication (the fifth duality), requiring a negotiation of the benefits and costs of each medium to meet learning needs. The desired result of negotiating all five dualities is the personal realization of professional identity, principles, practices, values, and leadership skills that help students become accepted and contributing members of the profession.
The purpose of this study is to test the CoP framework for its efficacy in designing blended learning environments that ground students in the core concepts, practices, and values of library and information science. These questions guided the study:
1. How effective is the CoP framework for supporting student growth toward knowledge of professional principles, skills of practice, appreciation of the values of the profession, leadership skills, and professional identity?
2. How effective is the CoP framework for guiding the development of effective blended learning environments?
3. What refinements were made to the CoP model during implementation?
4. What changes from previous teaching practice were required to implement the CoP model?
5. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of using the CoP framework for blended learning to achieve student learning objectives?
The approach taken in this study is design-based research (DBR), a young methodology that has been undergoing renewed scrutiny and revitalization in the past five years. Introduced by Brown (1992) and Collins (1992) as “design experiments,” it was a response to laboratory research in education that lacked ecological validity due to its isolation from complex educational settings. DBR involves the integration of design, theory, research, and practice in naturalistic settings (P. Bell, 2004). The focus of DBR is generally innovation in educational interventions, often but not always involving technology development.
According to Edelson (2002, p. 108), “design research explicitly exploits the design process as an opportunity to advance the researchers’ understanding of teaching, learning, and educational systems.” The design and the hypotheses upon which it is based are continually refined during implementation until a more coherent theory emerges, embodied in the design. Sandoval (2004) calls these hypotheses “embodied conjectures.” The embodied conjectures in this study are the CoP learning processes (Figure 1).
Data collected include a comprehensive record of the design process, how learning was organized and supported, and data about the learning processes and outcomes (Borko, Liston, & Whitcomb, 2007, p. 7). This study is being conducted in two phases: formative and summative. This paper reports on the formative analyses conducted during the implementation of the model in fall 2008. These analyses focused on how the model was implemented and how student learning was supported through modifying conjectures and refining the model. A summative analysis will be conducted to determine how the features of the model affected student learning and outcomes. Data will be collected from students on perceptions of gains made in knowledge, skills, professional identity, and values of the profession using questionnaires and analyzing communication in the course related to the dualities. The summative analysis is expected to yield more clearly defined constructs, a refined coding scheme, and modifications to the model and the teaching and learning strategies and tools. This will initiate another cycle of implementation, analysis, and refinement.
The strengths and weaknesses of this study are those that characterize DBR in general (Hoadley, 2004). Its strengths are that: (1) it presents a realistic view of learning as the result of a complex interaction between educational intervention, learner psychology, personal histories, and situational contexts; (2) it recognizes that the educational intervention, the blended CoP learning model, is itself an outcome (i.e., dependent not independent variable); and (3) as in qualitative research, it provides detailed reports from the insider’s intimate knowledge of the design process, the students, and teaching and learning in context. DBR may in fact be more rigorous than experimental research at aligning theory, treatments, and measurement in complex classroom situations (Hoadley, 2004, p. 204). Its major weaknesses are: (1) the threat to rigor when the designer is also the researcher and the implementer, (2) the difficulty of transferring a locally sensitive design to other contexts, and (3) the difficulty of ascertaining whether outcomes can be attributed to the design rather than other complex factors operating within the learning environment.
Guided by the model, I refined course content, structure, strategies, and tools in two courses (Reference & Online Services and Internet Fundamentals & Design). The subject of the course determined the focus of the dualities. I also identified face-to-face and online strategies to facilitate learning. This process of “embodying” the model in course design is a process of defining and refining the model’s constructs as classroom practices in response to a particular course with particular students.
Of the four substantive dualities, negotiating identity and leadership is the most encompassing and perhaps the most challenging, one that is a lifelong effort that begins with a decision to educate oneself in the profession. This duality is a creative tension between taking ownership of community meanings and taking leadership in the community based on expertise, influence, and relationships built over time. I believed that engaging students to find personal meaning in the focus of the course and to commit to collaborative learning were the most critical early tasks. My strategies from the first class session included building an atmosphere of trust to encourage confidence building, risk taking, and relationship building. I expressed enthusiasm for the subject and the learning process, in order to stimulate the acquisition of basic knowledge, curiosity, exploration, and intrinsic motivation (Bain, 2004). I shared my commitment to the goals and values of the profession at opportune moments in discussions and encouraged students to do the same. I also built into discussions and assignments student reflections on personal philosophy related to the subject. I viewed myself as a co-learner, described my learning processes related to the subject, and encouraged students to share their insights and challenges related to learning. I assigned participation in online discussion forums and student blogs to foster identification with the class community and to provide additional opportunities to reflect on and influence emerging meanings. Group work and team projects such as website design provided opportunities to lead, inspire, share expertise, persuade, and advocate for action.
The core concepts of the subject are the basic building blocks of knowledge. Negotiating their meaning involves a creative tension between action and the concepts that represent that action, the proverbial tension between theory and practice. It also involves a creative tension between previously held assumptions and new understandings. Students initially engaged with core concepts through the syllabus, which describes the knowledge, skills, and processes expected as learning outcomes. The syllabus structured the main course websites created with Moodle, MediaWiki, or PBwiki , which I encouraged students to contribute to. Other engagement strategies included readings to scaffold the learning of core concepts; lectures with Socratic questioning to ascertain what students know and to build upon it; and structured and open discussions based on dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999) to encourage collaborative questioning and synthesis. In addition, the students and I exchanged ideas via wiki page creation and comments, email exchanges, feedback on assignments, and responses to student blogs.
Face-to-face group discussions and problem solving provided opportunities for students to orient to, explore, and collaboratively reflect on core concepts. Online group exercises, student reports, and summaries of in-class group work posted on the class wiki were additional venues for sharing, reflection, and creative thinking.
Assignments such as search exercises, pathfinders, and web page construction required that students put core concepts into practice. Group presentations that required critical thinking about issues, problems, and values were part of the process of aligning ideas and vocabulary to the discourse of practice. Clear rubrics for assessment were boundary objects that helped me negotiate meaning with students. As well as providing individual feedback on assignments, I also posted on the class wiki summary comments and exemplary student work (posted anonymously). This provided advice on how to solve professional problems that built upon student work and created a community knowledge base.
Negotiating models of practice involves a creative tension between one’s own mental models of an area of practice and those valued by LIS professionals and experts. This process focuses the learning on developing serviceable models of practice, achieved through an iterative process of exposure to models of practice, constructing one’s own models from existing knowledge and practical experience, reflection on practice, and model building and refinement. One example is how the views that students held of information seeking behavior in their own lives changed with exposure to Kuhlthau’s (2004) model of information seeking and their own practical experience of seeking information for assignments and observing the information seeking of others.
Concept mapping allowed students to explore the content and structure of practice. Concept maps posted on the class wiki supported exploration and reflection. Face-to-face simulations such as reference interview roles plays gave students practical experience. Online simulations (e.g., chat reference simulations) were also used to explore and reflect on models of practice. Project-based and case-based learning were used to help students refine models of practice, coordinate group activity, self-assess, and align to standards of good practice. My wiki postings of general feedback and student assignments posted voluntarily on the class wiki supported the development of shared standards and best practices and added to the community knowledge base.
Negotiating expertise involves a creative tension between one’s existing expertise and that of professionals and experts in the field. Engagement strategies included sharing stories from my own professional life and inviting stories from students. Students often commented that hearing from their peers was especially meaningful and instructive. The students and I also linked class discussions to real world events whenever possible. Blogs, personal pages, and spontaneously created new pages on the class wiki supported online sharing of experiences and expertise and added to the community knowledge base. Exposure to professionals in action is essential for negotiating expertise. Guest speakers, informational interviews, and observations exposed students to real world practices, while multimedia presentations provided vicarious experience. These experiences were discussed in class and online to probe and deepen understanding related to the discourse and patterns of practice. Students monitored LIS listservs and posted summaries and responses on issues of personal interest on the class discussion forum. Through collaboration on group projects, students developed shared standards, practices, and values around centers of expertise within the group.
This section summarizes the main points of the formative analyses of the effectiveness of the CoP model for supporting student learning and guiding the development of blended learning environments, model refinement during implementation, and changes in teaching practices. It concludes with an assessment of the model’s advantages and disadvantages.
The CoP model is more abstract and broader in scope than the learning objectives specific to a given course (denoted by the center circle in Figure 1). As Figure 1 suggests, the features of the model serve as a systematic yet flexible set of principles that surround the specific student learning outcomes for a given course and guide the design of learning environments toward professional principles, practices, values, and leadership skills. Supporting student learning requires balancing each duality with its three modes of belonging, and embodying these in the course content, structure, strategies, and tools. In implementation, each course requires an adaptation of the model based on the subject matter and needs of the students. Assessing the effectiveness of the model requires not only determining how well it helps each student achieve course learning outcomes but also how well it supports his/her growth as a member of an LIS community of practice. These are challenging issues that the summative analysis will grapple with.
Assessment of the model’s effectiveness for guiding the development of blended learning environments faces similarly challenging issues. I believe assessment should be considered at three levels: micro, meso, and macro. I define micro-level assessment as an evaluation of ease of use of the technology, similar to the usability testing advocated by Jakob Nielsen. Usability issues that result in a failure to achieve common ground will inhibit communication and possibly derail the blended learning process at the outset. At the micro level, the formative analysis identified difficulties students had using multiple tools. While those more experienced with online tools and communication reported few difficulties, those with less experience reported confusion about what tool to use for what purpose and where to find information online. New users expressed trepidation but also confidence and a sense of accomplishment after use.
Meso- and macro-level assessments will be addressed in the summative analysis. I define meso-level assessments as those that address appropriate uses of technology to support social constructivist pedagogy, with attention to issues such as establishing norms of communication, online facilitation strategies, and psychological barriers to online communication. I consider the guidelines provided by Preece (2000) and Paloff and Pratt (1999, 2003), for example, to be meso-level treatments. Macro-level assessments are the most challenging and address the capacity of blended learning environments to support the CoP dualities. This extends beyond an assessment of the communication function or educational technology function of the online tools. Larreamendy-Joerns and Leinhardt, (2006, p. 591-2) describe the challenges well:
Although online learning environments that allow for social interaction constitute a remarkable advance, they should not be construed as inevitably conducive to learning solely because student-student and student-instructor exchanges take place. Nor should they be understood as obviously consistent with … efforts to nurture communities of practice … The design of online environments should be primarily dictated by an understanding of the epistemic and discursive practices that constitute disciplinary communities, and not by pedagogical considerations and technologies that short-circuit the engagement of students.
Regarding refinements made to the model during implementation, this was an ongoing effort to better understand Wenger’s ideas and interpret them accurately and meaningfully using the frameworks of social constructivism and adult learning theories. While Wenger does deal briefly with design for education (1999, p. 263-270), his advice is broadly suggestive rather than definitive and given in the form of questions to stimulate thinking.
The changes in my teaching practice during implementation were primarily a matter of self-training and disciplined commitment to a more refined teaching-learning model. I began to be influenced by communities of practice in early 2003, drawn to it for its resonance with my ideas of practice-based community learning. However, my teaching practices regarding CoP learning had been more instinctive and opportunistic than systematic. As I used the model, I continually referred to it, refined it by clarifying ambiguities, and examined the connection between it and my practice. I kept a reflective journal and used Schon’s (1983) guidance for reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action to record and respond to the complex, multilayered consideration of my observations of teaching and learning in my classes.
In particular, I realized that I needed to become more skilled at reflection-in-action when facilitating dialogic inquiry in order to be responsive in the moment to conversational contributions. A contribution may be relevant to subject knowledge (core concepts), patterns of practice, identity formation, communal knowledge creation, leadership development, instructional goals, and/or ascertaining the student’s ongoing understanding. This is a highly complex process and set of factors to consider. Students contribute much to the learning of their peers, but primary responsibility lies with the instructor for appraising the importance of each contribution and facilitating the making of connections to support learning. The instructor should also provide periodic summaries of the learning to promote imagination, reflection, and alignment and to mark progress and celebrate achievements.
I provisionally conclude that the main advantages of using the model are as follows: (1) The CoP approach of situating learning within a community, a domain, and a practice provides coherence for social constructivist learning approaches that build on the interdisciplinary expertise of students; the model also suggests mechanisms for sharing that expertise and building collective knowledge on an ongoing basis. (2) The CoP dualities are a guide for prioritizing blended learning design choices and have the potential to guide curriculum planning, implementation, and assessment in practitioner education programs. (3) The use of the CoP approach with social software can serve as a model for blended learning and librarianship for future librarians. The main disadvantages to faculty of this CoP-based approach to blended learning are: (1) its complexity, (2) time needed to implement the model, (3) lack of support for course redesign, (4) difficulty of acquiring new teaching and technology skills, and (5) risk factors associated with this type of course (cf. Vaughan, 2007).
The CoP model serves to focus attention on broader professional development goals, much as a program’s mission and goals attempt to do. A typical mission statement might include wording such as “educates students in the principles, practices, and ethics of library and information science, imbues them with a sense of service to diverse populations, and prepares them to be life-long learners and active leaders in a rapidly changing information society. ” While the specific learning outcomes for each course differ, aggregated course learning outcomes should be the means of achieving the curricular goals and mission of a program.
In practice, this is a difficult challenge. Within a local community (e.g., the faculty of a LIS program), perspectives on how a mission should be accomplished will differ. The LIS field itself is undergoing redefinition, so global LIS CoPs may also have differing characteristics and emphases. While online tools overcome many physical and temporal barriers to communication, they also create barriers to deep learning and meaningful community building. As blended and online learning environments grow increasingly attractive to busy students and professionals, we may also find it increasingly difficult to build community on common ground. Under the pressure of these dispersive forces, the communities of practice model may prove valuable as an integrated, holistic guide to course, curriculum, and program planning that maintains a clear focus on professional principles, practices, values, and leadership.
Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social foundations of thought and actions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barab, S.A., MaKinster, J.G., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities: Characterizing an online professional development community. In S.A. Barab, R. Kling, & J.A. Gray, J.A. (Eds.), Designing virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 53-90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243–253.
Bell, S. J. & Shank, J. D. (2007). Academic librarianship by design: A blended librarian’s guide to the tools and techniques. Chicago: American Library Association.
Borko, H., Liston, D., & Whitcomb, J. A. (2007). Genres of empirical research in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 3-11. DOI: 10.1177/0022487106296220.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
Edwards, D. (1991). Discourse and the development of understanding in the classroom. In O. Boyd-Barrett & E. Scanlon (Eds.), Computers and learning (pp. 186-204). Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley.
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2007). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87 - 105.
Haythornthwaite, C. et al. (2000). Community development among distance learners: Temporal and technological dimensions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120837807/HTMLSTART.
Hoadley, C. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212.
Kuhlthau, C. 2004. Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services. 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited/Greenwood Press.
Lampert, M. (2002). Appreciating the complexity of teaching and learning in school: A commentary on Cobb; Forman and Answell; McClain; Saxe; Schliemann; and Sfard. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2-3), 365-368.
Larreamendy-Joerns, J. & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567-605.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Mezirow, J. (1978). Education for perspective transformation: Women’s re-entry programs in community colleges. New York: Teachers College Press.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation (pp. 3-34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mimirinis. M. & Bhattacharya, M. (2007). Design of virtual learning environments for deep learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(1), 55-64.
Ong, W. (1988). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London; New
York: Routledge.
Paloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Paloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability and supporting sociability. New York: John Wiley.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T. Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-70.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12. Retrieved Oct. 13, 2008, from http://aied.inf.ed.ac.uk/members01/archive/vol_12/rourke/paper.pdf.
Salomon, G. and Perkins, D. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23(1), 1-24.
Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures
embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223.
Seale, J. K. & Cann, A. J. (2000). Reflection on-line or off-line: The role of learning technologies in encouraging students to reflect. Computers & Education, 34(3-4), 309-320
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.
Snyder, W.M., Wenger, E., & de Sousa Briggs, X. (2004). Communities of practice in government: Leveraging knowledge for performance. The Public Manager 32(4), 17-21.
Storberg-Walker, J. (2008). Wenger’s communities of practice revisited: A (failed?) exercise in applied communities of practice theory-building. Research Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(4), 555-577.
Tolmie, A., & Boyle, J. (2000). Factors influencing the success of computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: A review and case study. Computers and Education, 34, 119-140.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education.
International Journal on ELearning, 6(1), 81-94.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Wells, Gordon. 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Yukawa, J. (2007). Factors influencing online communication style in LIS problem-based learning. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 48(1), 52-63.
Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 203-228.
Ziegler, M., Paulus, T., & Woodside, M. (2006). Creating a climate of engagement in a blended learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(3), 295-318.
Posted by admin on September 8, 2008
Tags: Uncategorized
Comments on specific paragraphs:
Click the
icon to the right of a paragraph
Comments on the page as a whole:
Click the
icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)