<notes: will edit asap>
Underlying theoretical framework that dictates the overall design
Preece (2001) suggests that there are four important design considerations needed to create a successful community of practice. These components ensure that the technological environment supports social interaction. These elements include: Dialogue and Social Interaction; Information design; Navigation; and Access. All four of these components were taking into consideration in the overall design.
Navigation
Preece (2001) states that participants in a community should be able to move around the virtual space with ease, we decided this was done best through focussing in on the existing shared meaning that exists within the community, as well as focus on building on this ‘shared meaning’.
Shared meaning
Wenger (1998) states that shared jargon and shared shortcuts to communication is a crucial indicator that a Community of Practice has formed. The need for ease of navigation and shared meaning were combined in the overall site design. The website template consists of five static hyperlink buttons which allow for easy navigation. The five areas where named using the school theme, thus utilising existing ‘shared meaning’ that exists amongst teachers. The five areas are: Reception, ‘Show n Tell’, Teacher’s lounge, Roll Call, Assembly and Canteen.
The home page shows a list of the web 2.0 modules in icon format, rather than just using text links. This is also to encourage the tools to become part of the ‘shared language’ within the community. The aim is that the participants will be able to associate the icons with the tools.
Information Design
Preece (2001) state that information should be clear, precise and relevant. This is achieved by communicating community information as well as allowing users to be able to control their learning environment as they deem relevant.
Community Information
According to Cothrel and Williams (1999) it is crucial to determine the kinds of knowledge, tools and relationships the members want and need. As well as determining the purpose and scope (Wenger et al 2002). This would include defining the Community of Practice, identifying important issues as well as building a case for action (Wenger et al 2002). As a result, communicating these points was decided as being important. When clicking on the yellow sticky note on the home page, participants are forwarded to information about the community including the scope of the community and the benefits of participation.
Control over learning
The modules allow participants to choose the learning method that suits them best. For example, participants are able to download PDF’s, watch videos, or participate in related discussion. This allows learners to gain control of their own learning environments. The onset of technology has given learners more control to mediate their own learning environments (Attwell 2007). Participants will also be able to create their own learning support infrastructure - their ‘social network’ of friends, which will supplement the learning content.
Access
Access issues are important to consider as not all users have the same level of technological expertise (Preece 2001). The use of a moderator is essential in ensuring that technological problems are mediated, but their use is extended to motivating participants.
The use of a moderator
Many theorists point out the importance of leadership in developing online communities (Wenger et al 2002; Cothrel & Williams 1999; Stuckey & Smith 2004, Gray 2004). These theorists state that to maintain online communities, they must be driven by leaders who keep members involved.
Gray (2004) conducted a study of the experiences of coordinators of Alberta Community Adult Learning Councils (A professional Development Association) who volunteered to participate in an informal online community of practice. The studies main findings were that the use of a moderator within online learning communities was absolutely crucial. Gray (2004) states that “moderator techniques of summarizing, weaving, and nudging the discussion to a deeper level helped coordinators to construct meaning and identity in the community of practice” (p. 31). The use of the moderator helped the discussion go from information exchange to community of practice – making it more than just an online community of interest. It’s important to note that the Moderator could only encourage rather than mandate participation. The use of a moderator will be critical in driving and supporting the community, as well as assisting the participants with technical problems, and will be needed on an ongoing basis.
Dialogue and Social Interaction
Preece (2001) state that the design of the community should focus on creating an environment where participants are able to communicate with each other. As a result, we focused on ensuring collaboration and social support. This is maintained through the Social Networking design that our community takes. The use of optional yearly face to face seminars has been chosen in order to concrete a sense of community.
Professional Development and Collaboration
Murphy and Laferriere (2003) state that an important part of Professional Development should focus on the exchange of ‘teachers artistry’ and competence, which they can share with other teachers, as opposed to being supplied information at a workshop or seminar from an ‘expert’ to a ‘novice’. Many academics argue that this type of Professional Development is ineffective (Webb, Robertson & Fluck 2004; Hawley & Valli 1999). This type of professional development is said to only provide teachers with information about their practice, but no actually way of showing teachers how to put this information into practice (Schlager & Fusco 2004). As a result, a big part of our community design allows teachers to share their experience and knowledge, as well as reflect on the experience and knowledge of others – this will be mainly done through the use of blogs as well as discussion boards.
As Murphy and Laferriere (2003) state, this allows teachers to “reflect on their experiences and share their interpretations of problems and situations in order to better understand them and make sense of them in relation to their practice” (p. 10), Our community design is collaborative, long term focussed and information rich (Hawley and Valli 1999).
Social Networking Desigh
Boyd and Ellison’s (2007) state that there are 4 elements those are important to any Social Networking Site. These important elements have been integrated into our pedagogical design. They include Impression management, Friendship management, Network structure, and Bridging the Online and the Offline. Essential to these four areas is the concept of identity.
Impression Management is where users are able to construct an online personal representation. Information that is included includes: Age, Location and school details. A profile picture or avatar can also be included - this is important for identity creation/association.
Friendship Management is connected closely with Impression Management. This is where users search the above profiles to choose who they would like to be ‘friends’ with, in order to interact with these ‘friends’ in a variety of different ways throughout the website.
Network Structure relates to the different roles people play in the network. Some users will be more active than others, freely sharing information and building an intricate network of friends. This highlights the freedom that social networking sites give participants. Wenger et al (2002) states that there are three different levels of participation in a COP:
1. Small core of active participants who lead the community
2. A small group of active participants who participate regularly
3. Large group of participants who rarely participate
We have tried to cater for all levels of participants, so that all users feel that their participation is considered valued.
Bridging the Online and Offline is concerned with the degree that the SNS supports pre-existing social relations. This is important aspect of our community design, as the site aims to foster existing relationships within schools.
Face to face seminars
Wenger et al (2002) suggests that public face-to-face events can help develop a stronger sense of community for online environments. As a result, we have decided to supplement online activity with annual face-to-face conferences.
Social Support
Ridings and Gefen (2004) illustrate through their study, that social support is one of the major reasons why participants join an online community. As a result, the ‘Canteen’ area was created in order to allow users to start different interest and support groups (that are not particularly related to web 2.0 tools). This is also an area where inter-school projects can be initiated, allowing users the opportunity to network further.
My notes: To add??????
Trust
Why share information
Anon vs real identities
How to manage informal / formal
More about blog and reflection
References
