Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of hierarchical positions on communities of learning

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Communities of Learning (CoL) are an innovative methodological tool to stimulate knowledge creation and diffusion within organizations. However, past research has largely overlooked how participants’ hierarchical positions influence their behavior within CoL. We address this shortcoming and provide empirical evidence on 25 CoL for a global training program, analyzing user statistics from 249 staff members. Our results indicate that participants’ level of activity and performance are significantly influenced by their hierarchical position. We also discover a duality among participants holding low hierarchical positions. The implications of these results and future research avenues are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi, M., Yoo, Y., & Vogel, D. R. (1997). Using information technology to add value to management education. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1310–1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Finch, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological and social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(4), 435–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, S. J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2008). Learning on demand, at your own pace, in rapid bite-sized chunks: The future shape of management development? The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7(4), 571–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arts, J. A., Gijselaers, W. H., & Boshuizen, H. (2006). Understanding managerial problem-solving, knowledge use and information processing: Investigating stages from school to the workplace. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(4), 387–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, M., Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., & Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond Kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. The Canadian Journal of Statistics / La Revue Canadienne de Statistique, 27(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banfield, J. D., & Raftery, A. E. (1993). Model-based Gaussian and non-Gaussian clustering. Biometrics, 49, 803–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Fişek, M. H. (2006). Diffuse status characteristics and the spread of status value: A formal theory 1. American Journal of Sociology, 111(4), 1038–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. (1998). The legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. American Sociological Review, 63(3), 379–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, A. (1994). Careers as repositories of knowledge : A new perspective on boundaryless careers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower, H. H. (2003). On emulating classroom discussion in a distance-delivered OBHR course: Creating an on-line learning community. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(1), 22–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S. (2003a). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 557–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S. (2003b). Team memeber functional background and involvement in management teams: Direct effects and the moderating role of power centralization. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 458–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 875–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., Gorsky, P., & Chajut, E. (2003). The influence of group size on nonmandatory asynchronous instructional discussion groups. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(3), 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K., & Beyth-Marom, R. (2006). The influence of personality on social participation in learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 129–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, L., & Keown, P. (2006). Communities of practice and professional development. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(2), 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., & Ingraffea, A. (2007). Social Networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community. Computers & Education, 49, 309–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). Statistics a power primer. Psychology Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Gruop effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. P., & Zhou, X. (1991). Status Processes in Enduring Work Groups. American Sociological Review, 56(2), 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Subgroup dynamics in internationally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning? Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 231–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cress, U. (2008). The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research—An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Laat, M., & Lally, V. (2003). Complexity, theory and praxis: Researching collaborative learning and tutoring processes in a networked learning community. Instructional Science, 31(1–2), 7–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., & McDowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145–186. doi:10.3102/00346543069002145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13(2), 128–146. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.2.128.530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foldy, G. E., Rivard, P., & Buckley, T. R. (2009). Power, safety, and learning in racially diverse groups. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garavan, T. N., Carbery, R., O'Malley, G., & O'Donnell, D. (2010). Understanding participation in e-learning in organizations: A large-scale empirical study of employees. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(3), 155–168. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2010.00349.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer†mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. doi:10.1080/08923649709526970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 397–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G., & Green, B. (2007). The Future of Management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harasim, L. (1993). Collaborating in cyberspace: Using computer conferences as a group learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3, 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, D. W. L., & Der-Thanq, C. (2001). Situated cognition, vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of Web-based learning. Educational Media International, 38(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Im, Y., & Lee, O. (2004). Pedagogical implications of online discussion for preservice teacher training. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(2), 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., & Veermans, M. (2008). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 122–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6), 703–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self disclosure in computer mediated communication: The role of self awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, G. C., & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational learning: An investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science, 18(5), 796–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keegan, D. (1980). On defining distance education. Distance Education, 1(1), 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirwan, C., & Birchall, D. (2006). Transfer of learning from management development programmes: Testing the Holton model. International Journal of Training and Development, 10(4), 252–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The Role of Tacit Knowledge in Group Innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magurran, A. E. (1988). Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachmias, R., Mioduser, D., Oren, A., & Ram, J. (2000). Web-supported emergent-collaboration in higher education courses. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 3(3), 94–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black Box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2006). Consensus and the creation of status beliefs. Social Forces, 85(1), 431–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., & Segers, M. (2009). The role of academic motivation in computer supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1195–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey, D., Khoo, H., & Powers, C. (2000). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. Technical Communication, 47(1), 51–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Design and Use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive qualities in distance courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romme, A. G. L. (1996). A note on the hierarchy-team debate. Strategic Management Journal, 17(5), 411–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 8–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). Learning, training, and development in organizations: Much progress and a peek over the horizon. In E. Salas & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Learning, Training, and Development in Organizations (pp. 461–476). NY Routledge: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sambrook, S. (2005). Factors influencing the context and process of work-related learning: Synthesizing findings from Two research projects. Human Resource Development International, 8(1), 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schippers, M. C., den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 779–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, M., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. (2002). Evolution of an online education community of practice. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 129–158). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T., Pelled, L. S., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making Use of differences: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in Top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 662–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, P., & Lawson, S. (1993). Evaluating results using corrected and uncorrected effect size estimates. The Journal of Experimental Education, 61(4), 334–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soden, R., & Halliday, J. (2000). Rethinking vocational education: A case study in care. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(2), 172–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, E., Smith, P. J., & Barty, K. (2004). Adult learners in the workplace: online learning and communities of practice. Distance Education, 25(1), 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Education, 46(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R., Neale, M. A., & Owens, D. (2000). Technologies of Status Negotiation: Status Dynamics in Email Discussion Groups. Palo Alto: Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tachibanaki, T. (1988). Education, occupation, hierarchy and earnings. Economics of Education Review, 7(2), 221–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Ogden, T. Y., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Who’s really sharing? effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Science, 49(4), 464–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, J. S., & Oosterhof, A. (2006). Expertness diversity and interpersonal helping in teams: Why those who need the most help end up getting the least. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 877–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. Paper presented at the In EURO CSCL 2001. Maastricht: McLuhan Institute. University Maastricht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrasidas, C., & Zembylas, M. (2003). The nature of technology-mediated interaction in globalised distance education. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27(2), 141–162. doi:10.1177/014920630102700202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T. (1995). Computer mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1124–1151. doi:10.2307/256623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. L. (1999). Why do women feel lgnored? gender differences in computer-mediated classroom interactions. Computers and Composition, 16(1), 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamnill, S., & McLean, G. N. (2001). Theories supporting transfer of training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(2), 195–208. doi:10.1002/hrdq.7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 299–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zack, M. H., & McKenney, J. L. (1995). Social context and interaction in ongoing computer-supported management groups. Organization Science, 6(4), 394–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2007). Listening for silence in text-based, online encounters. Distance Education, 28(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K.-K., & Chen, H. (2010). Exploring the role of psychological safety in promoting the intention to continue sharing knowledge in virtual communities. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 425–436. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Lab | Educational Media & Knowledge Management, University Duisburg-Essen, Forsthausweg 2 (Building LC), 47057, Duisburg, Germany

    Martin Rehm

  2. School of Business and Economics, Department of Educational Research and Development, University Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Wim Gijselaers & Mien Segers

Authors
  1. Martin Rehm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wim Gijselaers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mien Segers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wim Gijselaers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rehm, M., Gijselaers, W. & Segers, M. The impact of hierarchical positions on communities of learning. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 10, 117–138 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9205-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9205-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation