Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 731–746 | Cite as

Seeking Shared Practice: A Juxtaposition of the Attributes and Activities of Organized Fossil Groups with Those of Professional Paleontology

  • Kent J. Crippen
  • Shari Ellis
  • Betty A. Dunckel
  • Austin J.W. Hendy
  • Bruce J. MacFadden
Article

Abstract

This study sought to define the attributes and practices of organized fossil groups (e.g., clubs, paleontological societies) as amateur paleontologists, as well as those of professional paleontologists, and explore the potential for these two groups to work collaboratively as a formalized community. Such an investigation is necessary to develop design principles for an online environment that supports this community and encourages communication and shared practice among individuals with different backgrounds in paleontology and who are geographically isolated. A national survey of fossil group representatives and professional paleontologists was used to address the research questions. The results provide a rich description of the attributes and activities of both groups and are discussed in terms of three design principles for supporting the two groups in a form of collaboration and fellowship via a coherent shared practice within an online learning community.

Keywords

Community of practice Design Fossil Informal education Formal–informal links Paleontology Public engagement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (DRL-1322725). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We thank the survey participants for their responses; this protocol was approved by UF IRB 12U1052.

References

  1. Andriessen EJH (2005) Archetypes of knowledge communities. In: Besselaar P, Michelis G, Preece J, Simone C (eds) Communities and technologies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 191–213Google Scholar
  2. Azevedo FS (2012) The tailored practice of hobbies and its implication for the design of interest-driven learning environments. J Learn Sci 22(3):462–510. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2012.730082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell P, Hoadley CM, Linn MC (2005) Design-based research in education. In: Linn MC, Bell P, Davis EA (eds) Internet environments for science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, pp 73–88Google Scholar
  4. Bhabha HK (1994) The location of culture. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonney R, Ballard H, Jordan R, McCallie E, Phillips T, Shirk J, Wilderman CC (2009) Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Braund M, Reiss M (2006) Towards a more authentic science curriculum: the contribution of out-of-school learning. Int J Sci Educ 28(12):1373–1388. doi: 10.1080/09500690500498419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton A (2012) The ichthyosaur in the room. Front Ecol Environ 10(6):340. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295-10.6.340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickinson JL, Bonney R, Fitzpatrick JW, Louv R (2012) Citizen science: public participation in environmental research. Comstock Publishing, IthacaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duguid P (2005) “The art of knowing”: social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. Inf Soc 21(2):109–118. doi: 10.1080/01972240590925311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenhart M, Edwards L (2004) Red-eared sliders and neighborhood dogs: creating third spaces to support ethnic girls’ interests in technological and scientific expertise. Child Youth Environ 14(2):156–177Google Scholar
  11. Eveleigh JC, Blandford A, Brohan P, Cox AL (2014) Designing for dabblers and deterring drop-outs in citizen science. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’2014), Toronto, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Everett K (2011) Designing the networked organization. Business Expert Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gongla P, Rizzuto CR (2001) Evolving communities of practice: IBM Global Services experience. IBM Syst J 40(4):842–862. doi: 10.1147/sj.404.0842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gutiérrez KD (2008) Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Res Q 43(2):148–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Higgins S (2011) Digital curation: the emergence of a new discipline. Int J Digital Curation 6(2):78–88. doi: 10.2218/ijdc.v6i2.191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoadley C (2012) What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In: Jonassen D, Land S (eds) Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, pp 286–300Google Scholar
  17. Hoadley CM, Kilner PG (2005) Using technology to transform communities of practice into knowledge-building communities. SIGGROUP Bull 25(1):31–40. doi: 10.1145/1067699.1067705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson CM (2001) A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet Higher Educ 4(1):45–60. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00047-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson L, Adams Becker S, Freeman A (2013) The NMC horizon report: 2013, Museum edition. The New Media Consortium, AustinGoogle Scholar
  20. Kienle A, Wessner M (2005) Principles for cultivating scientific communities of practice. In: Besselaar P, Michelis G, Preece J, Simone C (eds) Communities and technologies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 283–299Google Scholar
  21. Kraut RE, Resnick P, Kiesler S (2012) Building successful online communities: evidence-based social design. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin M-JJ, Hung S-W, Chen C-J (2009) Fostering the determinants of knowledge sharing in professional virtual communities. Comput Hum Behav 25(4):929–939. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lincoln Y, Guba E (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  25. MacFadden BJ, Lundgren LM, Crippen KJ, Dunckel B, Ellis S (2016) Amateur paleontological societies and fossil clubs, interactions with professional paleontologists, and the rise of 21st century social paleontology in the United States. Palaeontol Electron 19(2):1–19Google Scholar
  26. Manfreda KL, Bosnjak M, Berzelak J, Hass I, Vehovar V (2008) Web surveys versus other survey modes: a meta-analysis comparing response rate. Int J Mark Res 50(1):79–104Google Scholar
  27. McKenney S, Reeves TC (2012) Conducting educational design research. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Muller MJ (2003) Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In: Julie AJ, Andrew S (eds) The human–computer interaction handbook. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York, pp 1051–1068Google Scholar
  29. National Research Council [NRC] (2009) Learning science in informal environments: people, places and pursuits. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Probst G, Borzillo S (2008) Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail. Eur Manag J 26(5):335–347. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2008.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rennie LJ, Feher E, Dierking LD, Falk JH (2003) Toward an agenda for advancing research on science learning in out-of-school settings. J Res Sci Teach 40(2):112–120. doi: 10.1002/tea.10067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rubin A, Doubler SJ (2009) The role of representations in shaping a community of science inquiry online. In: Falk JK, Drayton B (eds) Creating and sustaining online professional learning communities. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 153–174Google Scholar
  33. Sadler TD (2009) Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Stud Sci Educ 45(1):1–42. doi: 10.1080/03057260802681839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shih T, Fan X (2008) Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field Methods 20(3):249–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SVP Ethics Committee (2014) Guidelines from the ethics committee. http://vertpaleo.org/Membership/Member-Ethics/Guidelines-from-the-Ethics-Committee.aspx. Retrieved 15 May 2014
  36. van den Akker J (1999) Principles and methods of development research. In: van den Akker J, Branch R, Gustafson K, Nieveen N, Plomp T (eds) Design approaches and tools in education and training. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder W (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Publishing, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Wenger E, White N, Smith JD (2009) Digital habitats: stewarding technology for communities. CPsquare, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  40. Wenger E, Trayner B, de Laat M (2011) Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Ruud de Moor Centrum, The Netherlands, p 60Google Scholar
  41. Zgorski L (2012) NSF leads federal efforts in big data [Press release]. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=123607&org=NSF&from=news

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kent J. Crippen
    • 1
  • Shari Ellis
    • 2
  • Betty A. Dunckel
    • 2
  • Austin J.W. Hendy
    • 3
  • Bruce J. MacFadden
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Teaching and LearningUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Florida Museum of Natural HistoryGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Natural History Museum of Los Angeles CountyLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations