Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of online communities of practice in promoting sociotechnical capital among science teachers

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the diffusion of Web 2.0 technologies among science educators and the ways that these technologies are used to build teacher professional communities of practice (CoP) in life sciences and physical sciences. We used surveys and web analytics collected over a 21-month period to examine factors that motivate teachers to collaborate in these CoPs and the extent to which collaborative participation contributes to the development of sociotechnical capital and job outcomes, such as instructional practices and self-efficacy for science instruction. Results showed that only the lack of co-located peers at teachers’ schools predicted CoP participation. Participation did not predict job outcomes, but it did predict some aspects of sociotechnical capital, such as a cohesive climate and situated knowledge. In addition, sociotechnical capital was associated with job outcomes, including use of inquiry-based instruction, use of inquiry-based classroom activities and teacher self-efficacy. The lack of effect of most of the antecedent variables in predicting participation and the relatively minor role of participation in contributing to sociotechnical capital and job outcomes may be explained by floor effects on participation due to infrequent and ephemeral engagement of CoP members. Although participation rates were generally low, the positive association of participation with sociotechnical capital as well as generally favorable ratings of sociotechnical constructs suggest that online CoPs may have value for distributed science educators. Future research should address whether persistent participation by individuals is needed to build and sustain sociotechnical capital in online CoPs and to enhance development of participants’ teaching attitudes/practices.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We do not study the feedback loops in the model, i.e., the link between job outcomes and subsequent participation in this study and between sociotechnical capital and participation.

  2. As of December, 2016, the Learning Center had approximately 194,000 registered users.

  3. We also analyzed the data by examining the number of days in which participants engaged in different types of collaborative activities. For example, if a respondent posted three messages to an online forum and attended a webinar on the same day, this would count as one forum day and one webinar day. Results are similar when calculating collaboration based on total activities or activity days.

References

  • Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). The antecedents and consequents of user perceptions in information technology adoption. Decision Support Systems, 22(1), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ardichvilli, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge sharing in communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7, 64–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arguello, J., Butler, B., Joyce, E., Ling, K. S., & Wang, X. (2006). Talk to me: Foundations for successful individual-group interactions in online communities. In CHI 2006: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 959–968). New York: ACM Press.

  • Avery, C., & Carlsen, W. (2001). Knowledge, identity, and teachers’ multiple communities of practice. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

  • Baniflower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. Retrieved July 8, 2015, from http://inkido.indiana.edu/research/onlinemanu/papers/commun.pdf.

  • Bateman, P. J., Gray, P. H., & Butler, B. S. (2011). The impact of community commitment on participation in online communities. Information Systems Research, 22(4), 841–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J. G. (2014). Implementing Web 2.0 tools in organisations. The Learning Organization, 21(1), 2–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bikson, T. K. (1986). Understanding the implementation of office technology. In R. Kraut (Ed.), Technology and the transformation of white collar work (pp. 155–176). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bikson, T. K., & Eveland, J. D. (1986). New office technology: Planning for people (monograph). New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bikson, T. K., & Eveland, J. D. (1991). Integrating new tools into information work: Technology transfer as a framework for understanding success. In D. Langford et al. (Eds.), People and technology in the workplace (pp. 229–252). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bikson, T. K., & Eveland, J. D. (1996). Groupware implementation: Reinvention in the sociotechnical frame. Paper presented at the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) conference on computer-supported cooperative work, New York.

  • Blanchard, A. L. (2008). Testing a model of sense of virtual community. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2107–2123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, A. L., & Horan, T. (1998). Virtual communities and social capital. Social Science Computer Review, 16(3), 293–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, A. L., & Markus, M. L. (2004). The experienced “sense” of a virtual community: Characteristics and processes. Data Base Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 64–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, A. L., Welbourne, J. L., & Boughton, M. D. (2011). A model of online trust. Information, Communication & Society, 14(1), 76–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, R. K., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2005). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics & science: Results from survey of enacted curriculum project final report. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blitz, C. L. (2013). Can online learning communities achieve the goals of traditional professional learning communities? What the literature says (REL 2013-003). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., et al. (2006). Creating and sustaining an effective professional learning community (Research Report RR637). Bristol, United Kingdom: University of Bristol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, S. E. (2012). Cultivating knowledge sharing and trust in online communities for educators. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, S. E., & Kellogg, S. B. (2014). Value creation in online communities for educators. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/bjet.12168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyns, D., & Karam, R. (2010). Copernicus project evaluation report. Riverside, USA: UC Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing act: How to capture knowledge without killing it. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 21, 2015, from http://lymabe.edublogs.org/files/2007/04/balancing-act.doc.

  • Byers, A., & Mendez, F. (2016). Blended professional learning for science educators: The NSTA Learning Center. In C. Dede, A. Eisenkraft, K. Frumin, & A. Hartley (Eds.), Teacher learning in the digital age: Online professional development in STEM education (pp. 167–185). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciborra, C. (1992). From thinking to tinkering: The grass roots of strategic information systems. The Information Society, 8(4), 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, C. W. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics, 31(5), 463–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, B. S., & Brown, C. A. (2013). Teaching as a profession—And more: Why? And how? In S. Conley & B. S. Cooper (Eds.), Moving from teacher isolation to collaboration: Enhancing professionalism and school quality (pp. 1–16). Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. L. (2005). The SAGE Dictionary of Statistics: A Practical Resource for Students in the Social Sciences (3rd ed., p. 21). SAGE (entry “ceiling effect”). ISBN 978-0-7619-4138-5. Lay summary (August 1, 2010).

  • Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2012). The core and cosmopolitans: A relational view of innovation in user communities. Organization Science, 23(4), 988–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C., & Eisenkraft, A. (2016a). Online and blended teacher learning and professional development. In C. Dede, A. Eisenkraft, K. Frumin, & A. Hartley (Eds.), Teacher learning in the digital age: Online professional development in STEM education (pp. 1–12). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C., & Eisenkraft, A. (2016b). Insights and next steps. In C. Dede, A. Eisenkraft, K. Frumin, & A. Hartley (Eds.), Teacher learning in the digital age: Online professional development in STEM education (pp. 235–246). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development. Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. (2008). Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doan, A., Ramakrishnan, R., & Halevy, A. Y. (2011). Crowdsourcing systems on the world-wide web. Communications of the ACM, 54, 86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducheneaut, N. (2005). Socialization in an open source software community: A socio-technical analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(4), 323–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estellés-Arolas, E., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science. doi:10.1177/016555150000000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Y. H., & Chiu, C. M. (2010). In justice we trust: Exploring knowledge-sharing continuance intentions in online communities of practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Macchrzak, A. (2011). Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organization Science, 22(5), 1224–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farooq, U., Schank, P., Harris, A., Fusco, J., & Schlager, M. (2007). Sustaining a community computing infrastructure for online teacher professional development: A case study of designing Tapped In. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16, 397–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayard, A.-L., & DeSanctis, G. (2010). Enacting language games: The development of a sense of ‘we-ness’ in online forums. Information Systems Journal, 20, 383–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice, G., Davidian, M., Verbeke, G., & Molenberghs, G. (Eds.). (2008). Longitudinal data analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goggins, S. P., Laffey, J., & Gallagher, M. (2011). Completely online group formation and development: Small groups as socio-technical systems. Information Technology & People, 24(2), 104–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19, 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under no child left behind. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henri, F., & Pudelko, B. (2003). Understanding and analyzing activity and learning in virtual communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 472–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hester, J. (2014). Socio-technical systems theory as a diagnostic tool for examining underutilization of technology. The Learning Organization, 21(1), 48–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollins, E. R., McIntyre, L. R., DeBose, C., Hollins, K. S., & Towner, A. (2004). Promoting a self-sustaining learning community: Investigating an internal model for teacher development. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(2), 47–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hur, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2009). Teacher participation in online communities: Why do teachers want to participate in self-generated online communities of K-12 teachers? Journal of Research in Technology on Education, 41(3), 279–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janes, P., Patrick, K., & Dostika, F. (2014). Implementing a social intranet in a professional services environment through Web 2.0 technologies. The Learning Organization, 21, 26–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, X.-L., Lee, M. K. O., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2010). Predicting continuance in online communities: Model development and empirical test. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(4), 383–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joe, W. S. (2010). Assessing job self-efficacy and organizational commitment considering a mediating role of information asymmetry. The Social Science Journal, 47, 541–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces. Information Systems Research, 15(2), 194–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, E., & Kraut, R. E. (2006). Predicting continued participation in newsgroups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(3), 723–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Kwok-Kee, W. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R., Burke, M., Riedl, J., & Resnick, P. (2012). Dealing with newcomers. In R. Kraut & P. Resnick (Eds.), Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design (pp. 179–230). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R., Wang, X., Butler, B., Joyce, E., & Burke, M. (2008). Beyond information: Developing the relationship between the individual and the group in online communities (unpublished manuscript).

  • Lampe, C., Wash, R., Velasquez, A., & Ozkaya, E. (2010). Motivations to participate in online communities. In CHI 2010, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1927–1936). New York: ACM Press.

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, A. J., Eisenkraft, A., & Fields, E. (2016). Just-in-time professional development: The active physics teacher community. In C. Dede, A. Eisenkraft, K. Frumin, & A. Hartley (Eds.), Teacher learning in the digital age: Online professional development in STEM education (pp. 109–126). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities: Shaping the future of teacher development. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 221–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teacher College Record, 91, 509–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, J. M. (2006). Attracting and retaining teachers in small schools. Rural Education, 27(2), 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lytinen, K., & Newman, M. (2008). Explaining information systems change: A punctuated socio-technical change model. European Journal of Information Systems, 17, 589–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, M., & Agarwal, R. (2007). Through a glass darkly: Information technology design, identity verification, and knowledge contribution in online communities. Information Systems Research, 18(1), 42–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, K. H. (2009). Virtual communities for educators: An overview of supports and best practices. Paper presented at the technology, colleges, and community (TCC) worldwide online conference 2009, Honolulu, HI.

  • Molleman, E., & Broekhuis, M. (2001). Biotechnical system: Towards an organizational learning approach. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18, 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, E. (1985). Sociotechnical systems design: Evolving theory and practice. Manchester, UK: Manchester Business School Centre for Business Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Science teachers learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Committee on Strengthening Science Education through a Teacher Learning Continuum. Board on Science Education and Teacher Advisory Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • Pitt, J., & Nowak, A. (2014). The reinvention of social capital for socio-technical systems. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Spring, 27–80.

  • Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top 5 reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 221–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Raban, D., Moldovan, M., & Jones, Q. (2010). An empirical study of critical mass and online community survival. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW 2010) (pp. 71-80). New York: ACM Press.

  • Ransbotham, S., & Kane, G. (2011). Membership turnover and collaboration success in online communities: Explaining rises and falls from grace in Wikipedia. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 613–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren, Y., Harper, F. M., Drenner, S., Terveen, L., Kiesler, S., Riedl, J., et al. (2012). Building member attachment in online communities: Applying theories of group identity and interpersonal bonds. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 841–864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P. (2002). Beyond bowling together: Sociotechnical capital. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Human–computer interaction in the new millenium (pp. 647–672). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P., & Varian, H. R. (1997). Recommender systems [introduction to special section]. Communications of the ACM, 40(3), 56–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, R. E., & Bair, J. H. (1984). New organizational media and productivity. In R.E. Rice and Associates (Ed.), The new media (pp. 185–215). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The Information Society, 19, 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, M. S., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. (2002). Evolution of an on-line community. In K. Renninger & W. Schumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in the cyberspace (pp. 129–158). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, G., Byers, A., & Rapp, S. (2008). Evaluation of online, on-demand science professional development material involving two different implementation models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2015). Digest of Education Statistics 2013 (NCES 2015-011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sole, D., & Edmonson, A. (2002). Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. British Journal of Management, 13, S17–S34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer-Rodgers, J., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 369–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, L., & Patterson, J. (2000). Computer support for local communities (working paper). New York: NYU Stern School of Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K. E., & Simon, R. (2002). Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work: An empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 420–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. C. (1986). Long-term sociotechnical systems change in a computer operations department. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 303–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonteri, L., Kosonen, M., Ellonen, H., & Tarkiainen, A. (2011). Antecedents of an experienced sense of virtual community. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2215–2223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trist, E. W. (1981). The evolution of sociotechnical systems. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Quality of Work Life Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transferring American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Connect and inspire: Online communities of practice in education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, G., & Molenberghs, G. (2009). Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2006). A review of research on professional learning communities: What do we know? Paper presented at the National School Reform Faculty (NSRF) Research Forum, Seattle, WA.

  • Wang, X., Butler, B. S., & Ren, Y. (2013). The impact of membership overlap on growth: An ecological competition view of online groups. Organization Science, 24, 414–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, B. (1997). An electronic group is virtually a social network. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the internet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 185–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5, revised). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. OCI-1122692.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90407, USA

    Rita Karam & Matthew Cefalu

  2. RAND Corporation, 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Susan G. Straus & Courtney A. Kase

  3. National Science Teachers Association, 1840 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA, 22201-3000, USA

    Albert Byers

Authors
  1. Rita Karam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan G. Straus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Albert Byers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Courtney A. Kase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthew Cefalu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rita Karam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6, 7, and 8.

Table 6 Antecedents: survey items and reliability coefficients for composite scales
Full size table
Table 7 Sociotechnical capital: survey items and reliability coefficients for composite scales
Full size table
Table 8 Job outcomes: survey items and reliability coefficients for composite scales
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karam, R., Straus, S.G., Byers, A. et al. The role of online communities of practice in promoting sociotechnical capital among science teachers. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 215–245 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9541-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9541-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation