Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T14:42:58.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Shared “We” and Shared “They” Indicators of Group Identity in Online Teacher Professional Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Kirk Job-Sluder
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Sasha A. Barab
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Sasha Barab
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Rob Kling
Affiliation:
Indiana University
James H. Gray
Affiliation:
SRI International, Stanford, California
Get access

Summary

Currently, many educators are adopting community of practice theory (CoP) as a framework for designing environments to support learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). An assumption underlying community of practice theory is that learning occurs not only as a cognitive change in the learner but also as a social trajectory within a group. The social identities of learners change as the learners become recognized as experts within a social group that shares a set of practices. Wenger uses the example of insurance claims processors to illustrate how communities of practice work. The actual practice of claims processors is as much a product of the informal social networks and war stories of experienced members as it is a product of the formal procedures mandated by the company.

Not surprisingly, CoP as a descriptive theory has been applied as a design framework for online learning in addition to an analysis framework for examining workplaces bounded by a common location (Johnson, 2001; Schwen & Hara, this volume). The hope is to combine the information sharing and shared enterprises that characterize physical CoPs, along with characteristics of longstanding communities that have emerged on the Internet. Although the definitions of Internet community differ, most of the work on online communities makes a distinction between groups of people forming cohesive social structures in an online space and groups of people who just happen to use an online space (Barab, 2003).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barab, S. A. (2003). An introduction to the special issue: Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Information Society, 19(36), 197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barab, S., MaKinster, J. G., Moore, J., Cunningham, D., & the ILF Design Team. (2001). Designing and building an online community: The struggle to support sociability in the Inquiry Learning Forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 71–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J., & Scheckler, R. (this volume). Designing system dualities: Characterizing an online professional development community
Barab, S. A., Thomas, M. K., & Merrill, H. (2001). Online learning: From information dissemination to fostering collaboration. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 12(1), 105–143Google Scholar
Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Qualitative researching with Text, Image and Sound (pp. 131–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: SageCrossRef
Bucholtz, M. (1999). “Why Be Normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language and Society, 28(2), 203–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and Community: Chat in a Virtual World. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information
Geertz, C. (1983). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary Field Research: A Collection of Readings (pp. 37–59). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press
Grossman, P., Wineberg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2000). What Makes Teacher Community Different from a Gathering of Teachers? (occasional paper): Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. C. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication (vol. 39, pp. 81–107). Philadelphia: John BenjaminsCrossRef
Herring, S. C. (this volume). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior
Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online community of practice. Internet and Higher Education, 2001(4), 45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koku, E., & Wellman, B. (this volume). Scholarly networks as learning communities: the case of TechNet
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability and online communities: determining and measuring success. Behavior & Information Technology, 20(5), 347–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, A. (2002, Feb. 20, 2002). Simple Concordance Program [Software]. Textworld. com. Retrieved Feb. 26, 2002, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://web.bham.ac.uk/a.reed/textworld/scp/
Schwier, R. A. (in press). Catalysts, emphases, and elements of virtual learning communities: Implications for research and practice. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
Schlager, M., & Fusco, J. (this volume). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse?
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research, Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don't ride alone. In P. Kollock (Ed.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 331–366). New York: Routledge
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press
Winograd, D., & Milton, K. (1999). Asynchronous Online Listserve Exchange as a Conduit to Conflict. Unpublished study received by author

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×