Building a community among teachers, researchers and university students. A blended approach to training

  • Donatella Cesareni
  • Francesca Martini
  • Ilaria Mancini
Article

Abstract

In this paper we present a case study about a community of practice’s foundation and development among Italian teachers, researchers and university students who participated in a European project aimed at developing and testing innovative pedagogical models and technologies for collaborative knowledge building. Forty-five people (34 teachers, five researchers and six university students) participated in the community of adults that interacted for a school year both face to face and online. We analyzed interactions in order to study the roles, forms and distribution of participation in that community, and the content of teachers’ reflections about the activity. The analysis focuses particularly on different modalities of participation between expert teachers (involved in the project from the beginning) and novices, novice and expert being treated as relevant dimensions according to Wenger’s model. Conversations were transcribed and a qualitative analysis of face-to-face and online discussion performed. The diversity of roles and different modalities of participation between social factors involved in the community, in particular between novice and expert teachers, emerged from the analysis. In final focus groups, teachers underlined innovative potentialities as well as difficulties related to computer-supported collaborative learning, both in classroom activities and in teacher training. In these final focus groups, novice teachers participated in the community, becoming more competent and conscious partners in shared planning with the expert teachers.

Keywords

Blended learning CSCL Community of practice Participation Teacher training 

References

  1. 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. 229–70). Cambridge: MIT Press, Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge-London: Belknap.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission (2000). A memorandum on lifelong learning. Commission staff working paper. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/policy/memo_en.pdf
  6. Fasulo, A. (1998). La ricerca etnografica [ethnographic research]. In L. Mannetti (Ed.), Strategie di ricerca in psicologia sociale (pp. 183–225). Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar
  7. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Emergence of progressive-inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6, 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kirschner, P., & Lai, K. W. (2007). Online communities of practice in education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(2), 127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kranzberg, M. (1985). The information age: Evolution or revolution? In B. R. Guile (Ed.), Information technologies and social transformation (pp. 35–54). Washington: National Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
  11. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ligorio, M. B., & Caravita, S. (2003). Apprendimento collaborativo: Dal gruppo alla rete [collaborative learning, from the group to the net]. Rome: ICA.Google Scholar
  14. Ligorio, M. B., Cesareni, D., Mancini, I., Talamo, A. (2001). Collaboration, constructivism, community: The three “C” for the CSCL in Italy. In M. Lakkala, M. Rahikainen, K. Hakkarainen (Eds.), Perspectives of CSCL in Europe: A review. Report D1 of ITCOLE European project (pp. 59–70). Available online at: http://www.euro-cscl.org/site/itcole/ITCOLE_Final_Report.pdf
  15. Ligorio, M. B., Cacciamani, S., & Cesareni, D. (2006). Blended learning. Dalla scuola dell’obbligo alla formazione adulta [blended learning, from school to adult training]. Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar
  16. Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 72–81). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., & Lakkala, M. (1999). Collaborative technology for facilitating progressive inquiry: The future learning environments tools. In C. Hoadley & J. Roscelle (Eds.), Computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 406–15). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Piaget, J. (1937). La naissance de l’intelligence chez l’enfant [the birth of the child’s intelligence]. Neuchatel: Delaxhaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
  19. Pontecorvo, C. (1999). Manuale di psicologia dell’educazione [manual of educational psychology]. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  20. Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Stewart, T. (1997). Intellectual capital. New York: Currency/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  24. Veermans, M., & Cesareni, D. (2005). The nature of the discourse in web-based collaborative learning environments: Case studies from four different countries. Computers in Education, 45, 316–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vygotskij, L. S. (1934). Mislenie i rec’, Gosudartsvennoe Social’no-Ekonomiceskoe Izdatel’stvo, Moska- Leningrad [thought and language]. Chicago: MIT. 1962.Google Scholar
  26. Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models, representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  27. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Zucchermaglio, C. (2003). Contesti di vita quotidiana, interazione e discorso [everyday life context, interaction and discourse]. In G. Mantovani & A. Spagnolli (Eds.), Metodi qualitativi in psicologia [qualitative methods in psychology] (pp. 47–72). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  29. Zucchermaglio, C., & Alby, F. (2005). Gruppi e tecnologie al lavoro [groups and technologies at work]. Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donatella Cesareni
    • 1
    • 2
  • Francesca Martini
    • 1
  • Ilaria Mancini
    • 1
  1. 1.University SapienzaRomeItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e SocializzazioneRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations