Abstract
Learning communities (LCs) can provide authentic, social learning experiences but require an extensive amount of time and effort to orchestrate, often more than instructors can provide in typical university courses. Extracurricular, undergraduate, student-led learning communities (SLLCs) overcome this cost through volunteer peer-instructors. Unfortunately, LCs theory is based exclusively on teacher-led LCs. Here we ask what instructional processes emerge in SLLCs? We conducted a qualitative case study of SLLC student leaders’ attempts to teach a project management practice (StandUp) to student innovation teams. We found that instruction in SLLCs takes the form of a bi-directional diffusion process, in which peer-instructors influence students’ decisions about what practices to participate in, and students influence peer-instructors’ decisions about advocating for practices. Three major findings support the bi-directional diffusion model. First, students’ participation in StandUp hinged on whether they saw the practice as valuable with respect to their social, learning, and/or performance goals. Second, peer-instructors struggled to persuade and scaffold students to participate in StandUp. Third, students influenced peer-instructors to stop advocating for StandUp. The bi-directional diffusion model highlights the practical importance of persuading students to participate in the community’s practices. The model suggests that we might support peer-instruction by promoting peer-instructors’ content knowledge about practices, their persuasion skills, and their motivation to advocate for practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andriessen, J. H. E. (2005). Archetypes of knowledge communities. In P. Van Den Besselaar, G. De Michelis, J. Preece, & C. Simone (Eds.), Communities and technologies (pp. 191–213). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3591-8_11.
Ben-Zvi, D., Bielaczyc, K., & Hod, Y. (2015). Call for papers: Special issue on “revisiting learning communities: innovations in theory and practice.” Retrieved from http://lc.edtech.haifa.ac.il/special-issue/call-for-papers.
Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_1.
Bielaczyc, K. (2013). Informing design research: Learning from teachers’ designs of social infrastructure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 258–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.691925.
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. Instructional-design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 269–292.
Bielaczyc, K., Kapur, M., & Collins, A. (2013). Cultivating a community of learners in K-12 classrooms. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, A. M. O’Donnell, C. Chan, & C. A. Chinn (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 233–249). New York: Taylor & Francis, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837290.ch13.
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.40.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. The Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015.
Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x032006003.
Dale, A. T., Hess, J. L., Best, R. E., & Lennox, E. R. (2015). Beyond professional development: The value proposition of multi-disciplinary networks for creating global engineers. Paper Presented in the QScience Proceedings of Engineering Leaders Conference 2015. https://doi.org/10.5339/qproc.2015.elc2014.11.
DeBarger, A. H., Choppin, J., Beauvineau, Y., & Moorthy, S. (2013). Designing for productive adaptations of curriculum interventions. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 298–319.
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New Science of Learning (pp. 525–552). New York, NY: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_26.
diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_4.
Dunning, D. (2012). Self-insight: Roadblocks and detours on the path to knowing thyself. New York: Psychology Press.
Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2016). The logic of the theoretical and practical products of design research. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2464.
Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D. G., & Gerber, E. M. (2017). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2017.1286367.
Easterday, M.W., Gerber, E.M., & Rees Lewis, D.G. (2018). Social innovation networks: A new approach to social design education and impact. Design Issues, 34(2).
Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511816833.021.
Engle, R. A., Langer-Osuna, J. M., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2014). Toward a model of influence in persuasive discussions: Negotiating quality, authority, privilege, and access within a student-led argument. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.883979.
Fischer, G., Rohde, M., & Wulf, V. (2007). Community-based learning: The core competency of residential, research-based universities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 9–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9009-1.
Gerber, E. (2014). Design for America: Organizing for civic innovation. Interactions, 21(2), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1145/2567840.
Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 287–300). New York: Routledge.
Hod, Y., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2014). A group psychotherapeutic perspective on transforming participation in a learning community. Instructional Science, 42(6), 949–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9321-x.
Hong, H.-Y., Chang, Y.-H., & Chai, C. S. (2013). Fostering a collaborative and creative climate in a college class through idea-centered knowledge-building. Instructional Science, 42(3), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9289-y.
Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., et al. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1.
Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1080.
Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel, R. R. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 490–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.896254.
Kafai, Y. B., Burke, W. Q., & Fields, D. A. (2009). What videogame making can teach us about access and ethics in participatory culture. Paper in the proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association (DIGRA) 2009. London, UK.
Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Kullenberg, T., & Pramling, N. (2016). Learning and knowing songs: a study of children as music teachers. Instructional Science, 44(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9361-x.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. London: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Miller, M., & Hadwin, A. (2015). Scripting and awareness tools for regulating collaborative learning: Changing the landscape of support in CSCL. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.050.
O’Neill, D. K. (2001). Knowing when you’ve brought them in: Scientific genre knowledge and communities of practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 223–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1003_1.
Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000226.
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x.
Rees Lewis, D. G., Easterday, M. W., Harburg, E., Gerber, E. M., & Riesbeck, C. K. (2017). Overcoming barriers between volunteer professionals advising project-based learning teams with regulation tools. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12550.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Roosevelt Institute. (2016). Our National network. Retrieved from http://rooseveltinstitute.org/national-network/.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_3.
Slack. (2017). Slack: Where work happens. Retrieved from https://slack.com.
Small, M. L. (2009). How many cases do I need? On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108099586.
Smirnov, N., Easterday, M. W., & Gerber, E. M. (2017). Infrastructuring distributed studio networks: A case study and design principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1409119.
Stewart, O. G., & Jordan, M. E. (2017). “Some explanation here”: A case study of learning opportunities and tensions in an informal science learning environment. Instructional Science, 45(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9396-7.
Sullivan, F. R., & Wilson, N. C. (2013). Playful talk: Negotiating opportunities to learn in collaborative groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 5–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.839945.
Sutherland, J. (2014). Scrum: The art of doing twice the work in half the time. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Wang, S., & Murota, M. (2016). Possibilities and limitations of integrating peer instruction into technical creativity education. Instructional Science, 44(6), 501–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9385-x.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: Free Press.
Yadav, A., Shaver, G. M., & Meckl, P. (2010). Lessons learned: Implementing the case teaching method in a mechanical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01042.x.
Yadav, A., Subedi, D., Lundeberg, M. A., & Bunting, C. F. (2011). Problem-based learning: Influence on students’ learning in an electrical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 253–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00013.x.
Zhang, H., Easterday, M. W., Gerber, E. M., Lewis, D. R., & Maliakal, L. (2017). Agile research studios: Orchestrating communities of practice to advance research training. Paper in the proceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. Portland, OR, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998199.
Zhang, J., Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.528317.
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802581676.
Zhang, J., & Sun, Y. (2010). Reading for idea advancement in a grade 4 knowledge building community. Instructional Science, 39(4), 429–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9135-4
Acknowledgements
We thank Natalia Smirnov, Emily Harburg, Serene Yu, David Rapp, Penelope Peterson, Tracy Dobie, Bruce Sherin, Christina Krist, Julie Hui, Leesha Maliakal, Pryce Davis, and Delta Lab for their feedback on this paper. We thank Sameer Srivastava for providing access. This work is supported by US National Science Foundation Grants No. IIS-1320693 and No. IIS-1217225, and the Undergraduate Research Grant Program at Northwestern University. An earlier version of this study was presented at the 17th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction 2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Excerpts from interview protocol for team members and team leads
-
Can you tell me a bit about your project and how it’s been going?
-
How’s it been going working with your team?
-
What about your studio lead -- have you been talking with them much?
-
How have you been communicating with your team and your studio lead?
-
Thinking back to the last time you communicated with your studio lead, can you walk me through that interaction in as much detail as you can remember?
-
When do you have meetings?
-
What did you do during your last meeting? Can you tell me what happened in as much detail as you can remember?
-
You mentioned [StandUp – use participant’s language to refer to StandUp] -- could you tell me more about that?
-
Why do you use/do [StandUp]?
-
Can you walk me through the last time you used/did [StandUp]?
-
What do the other people in your group think about [StandUp]?
-
And they said that? Or you think they feel that way because of how they act?
-
Last time someone acted that way, can you tell me what they said and did as best you can remember?
Appendix 2: Coding scheme
Code | Full name | Applies to evidence of… |
|---|---|---|
DT-K | Knowledge of StandUp (costs/benefits, how to use, knowledge of studio leads’ credibility) | What teams knew of the benefits and costs of implementing StandUp, including social benefits and costs (why teams should use StandUp): knowledge of compatibility with needs, values, and pre-existing ideas (knowledge of how StandUp aligns with my needs, values, and prior knowledge about design and teamwork) knowledge of relative advantage (knowledge of how StandUp is better than what we already do) knowledge of observability (knowledge of how to observe the beneficial impacts of using StandUp) knowledge of non-complexity (knowledge of how StandUp is non-complex) knowledge of trialability (knowledge of how we can try out StandUp without significant overhead costs) knowledge of social benefits and costs of StandUp ALSO, teams’ knowledge of how to implement StandUp, including the processes and principles underlying how StandUp produces value. ALSO, what teams knew of studio leads’ credibility as a source of information about design. NOT team leads’ knowledge of teams attitudes (that is DT-A) |
DT-A | Attitude toward StandUp | Design teams’ (affective/emotional) attitude toward StandUp, including generalized or vaguely articulated judgments about StandUp ALSO team leads’ knowledge of team members’ attitudes toward StandUp |
DT-D | Decision to adopt Standup or to reverse adoption | Design teams’ (including team members’ and team leads’) decisions about adopting StandUp, including their reasoning process in deciding: Future tense: “I will do X” OR past tense “I decided to do X” |
DT-I | Implementation of StandUp or practices replacing StandUp | Design teams’ implementation of StandUp, and what design teams communicated to studio leads about StandUp, including communication about design teams’ attitudes toward, and knowledge of, StandUp (does not include within-team communication): Past tense: “we did X,” “we said something to the studio lead” OR general present tense: “we do X” |
SL-K | Knowledge of StandUp advocacy and utility | What studio leads knew of the benefits and costs of advocating StandUp, the benefits and costs to teams using StandUp, why teams think they should use StandUp, whether teams like/dislike StandUp, how teams should implement StandUp, and the processes through which StandUp produces value NOT how teams do use StandUp (unless the data segment also contains knowledge about 1+ of the 6 items listed above) |
SL-A | Attitude about StandUp advocacy and utility | Studio leads’ (affective/emotional) attitude about StandUp and whether their advocacy of StandUp is going well, including generalized or vaguely articulated judgments |
SL-D | Decision to advocate Standup or to cease advocacy | Studio leads’ decisions about advocating for StandUp, including evidence about their reasoning process in deciding |
SL-AA | Advocacy actions (includes communication about StandUp) | Actions studio leads took to advocate for StandUp: Communication Inexplicit communication/other advocacy (e.g. modeling or leading team in StandUp) |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carlson, S.E., Rees Lewis, D.G., Gerber, E.M. et al. Challenges of peer instruction in an undergraduate student-led learning community: bi-directional diffusion as a crucial instructional process. Instr Sci 46, 405–433 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9442-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9442-0