A Community of Practice among tutors enabling student participation in a seminar preparation

Article

Abstract

Educators who are prepared to make use of CSCL can find themselves restricted in their space for maneuvering regarding educational innovation. As a supportive context can be very important for them, the study presented here describes and analyzes a related case of a Community of Practice (CoP) among tutors contributing to the development and conduction of an educational in situ experiment. The paper describes the emergence of the CoP, its dissolving impact on limiting context factors and the empowerment of student participation in a MOO-mediated preparation of a Computer and Law seminar. It shows that a CoP among tutors can be beneficial for educational innovation and is a promising model to support the implementation of CSCL.

Keywords

Learning Collaboration Computer support Communities of Practice MOOs Seminar Organization Educational Innovation 

References

  1. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). Réponses. Pour une anthropologie reflexive. Editions du Seuil, Paris.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. S., Denning, S., Groh, K., & Prusak, L. (2004). Storytelling in Organizations: Why Storytelling is Transforming 21st Century Organizations and Management. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruckman, A. (1992). Identity Workshop: Social and Psychological Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual Reality. MIT, Cambridge, MA: unpublished paper, quoted in: Haynes and Holmevik 1998.Google Scholar
  5. Bruckman, A., & Resnick, M. (1996). The MediaMOO Project, Constructionism and Professional Community. In Y. Kafai, & M. Resnick (Eds.) Constructionism in practice-designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 207–222). N.J.: Mahwah.Google Scholar
  6. Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Enyedy, N., & Hoadley, C. M. (2006). From dialogue to monologue and back: Middle spaces in computer-mediated learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 413–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, G., Rohde, M., & Wulf, V. (2007). Socio-cultural theories of learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 9–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldstein, E. B. (1998). Sensation and Perception. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  10. Haynes, C., & Holmevik, J. R. (1998). Highwired. On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hoadley, C. M. (1998). Between information and communication, middle spaces in computer media for learning.. In C. Hoadley, & J. Roschelle (Eds.) Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Palo Alto California: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  12. Holmevik, J. R., & Haynes, C. (2000). MOOniversity: A Student’s Guide to Online Learning Environments. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  13. Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (2006). IT to support knowledge sharing in communities: Towards a social capital analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 21(1), 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Nett, B. (2003). Identifying learning scenarios for a MOO in an academic learning context. In Proceedings of “e-Society 2003” (pp. 11–18). Lisbon, Portugal: IADIS Conference Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nett, B. (2005). Measuring virtual student–student cooperation. A case study. The Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(3), 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about Machines. An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Osterlund, C., & Carlile, P. (2003). How Practice Matters: A Relational View of Knowledge Sharing. In M. Huysman, E. Wenger, & V. Wulf (Eds.) Communities and technologies (pp. 1–22). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Rogoff, B., Matsuov, E., & White, C. (1998). Models of teaching and learning: Participation in a community of learners. In D.R. Olsen, & N. Torrance (Eds.) The handbook of education and human developments. New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 338–414). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Rohde, M., Stahl, G., & Wulf, V. (2007). Introduction to the special issue on computer support for learning communities. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(1), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2003). Learning and collaboration across generations in a community. In M. Huysman, E. Wenger, & V. Wulf (Eds.) Communities and technologies (pp. 203–226). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Scarborough, H., & Swan, J. (2001). Knowledge communities and innovation. In M. Huysman and P. Van Baalen (Eds.), Trends in Communication, Special Issue on Communities of Practice (pp. 7–20).Google Scholar
  23. Schinzel, B., Berszinski, S., Huber, B., Knirsch, S., Müller, A., Nett, B. et al. (2003). Ausgewählte Studien (selected studies), IIG-Berichte I/03, IIG, Freiburg im Breisgau.Google Scholar
  24. Schulmeister, R. (1997). Grundlagen hypermedialer Lernsysteme: Theorie, Didaktik, Design, (Basics of hypermedia for e-learning. Theory, didactics, design) 2. Auflage, Oldenbourg, München, Wien.Google Scholar
  25. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
  27. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907 39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from: http://www.cis.drexel.edu/faculty/gerry/mit/.
  29. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated action. The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (1999). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. In Proceedings of CSCL 1999. University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  31. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice—The social fabric of a learning organization. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wulf, V. (2000). Exploration environments: Supporting users to learn groupware functions. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 265–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer-Institut für Angewandte Informationstechnik FITSankt AugustinGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Informatik und Gesellschaft Abteilung 1: Modellbildung und soziale Folgen Friedrichstr.FreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations