Skip to main content

Encouraging collaboration and building Community in Online Asynchronous Professional Development: designing for social capital

Abstract

This research investigates a design and development approach to improving science teachers’ access to effective professional development (PD) in a fully online, asynchronous environment. Working with a small number of teachers, this study explores how a design combining social capital mechanisms with essential teacher learning and PD characteristics supported teachers’ abilities to participate in the online course and collaboratively build knowledge. Teachers’ perceptions of their experiences both in surveys and interviews demonstrated high satisfaction with the quality and usability of the PD, including positive beliefs related to the social capital elements of tie quality, depth of interaction, and access to expertise. Further transactivity analyses of their interactions in course discussions showed higher levels of collaborative discourse resulting from prompts that specifically targeted the exchange of information over those that asked teachers to reflect about their content understanding or their classroom practice. Implications for this design for asynchronous online PD approaches to reach more teachers are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alterman, R., & Harsch, K. (2017). A more reflective form of joint problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(1), 9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. An, Y. (2018). The effects of an online professional development course on teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions regarding digital game-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 1505–1527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. Chen, B., & Huang, T. (2019). It is about timing: Network prestige in asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35, 503–515.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chi, M., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Sociology and economic approaches to the analysis of social structure. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

  11. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. European Commission. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. European Union: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Science with and for Society.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Farley-Ripple, E. N., & Buttram, J. L. (2018). Structuring for success: Building instructional capacity through social capital at Allegheny elementary. In S. Yoon & K. Baker-Doyle (Eds.), Networked by design: Interventions for teachers to develop social capital. Routledge.

  15. Fishman, B., Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B. W., Vath, R., Park, G., Johnson, H., & Edelson, D. (2013). Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional development in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 426–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gerard, L., Varma, K., Corliss, B., & Linn, M. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gweon, G., Jain, M., Mcdonough, J., Raj, B., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). Measuring prevalence of other-oriented transactive contributions using an automated measure of speech style accommodation. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9172-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hatch, T., White, M. E., Raley, J., Austin, K., Capitelli, S., & Faigenbaum, D. (2006). Into the classroom: Developing the scholarship of teaching and learning. Jossey-Bass.

  19. Hew, F., & Cheung, W. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hill, H. C. (2009). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 470–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hill, H. (2015). Review of the mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher development. National Education Policy Center. http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-tntp-mirage

  22. Hodkinson, H., & Hodkinson, P. (2005). Improving schoolteachers’ workplace learning. Research Papers in Education, 303(2), 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. IES & NSF. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development. Washington, DC: Authors.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Leana, C. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 30–35.

  26. Lieberman, A., & Mace, D. P. (2010). Making practice public: Teacher learning in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Merritt, E. G. (2016). Time for teacher learning, planning critical for school reform: Students aren’t the only ones who need more time to learn; teachers also need more and better time for learning and for planning. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(4), 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., Cornelissen, F., Liou, Y.-H., Callier, S., Riordan, R., Wilson, K., & Cohen, N. A. (2014). Linked to innovation: Shaping an innovative climate through network intentionality and educators’ social network position. Journal of Educational Change, 15(2), 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Moon, J., Passmore, C., Reiser, B., & Michaels, S. (2014). Beyond comparisons of online versus face-to-face PD. Commentary in response to Fishman et al., Comparing the impact of online and face- to-face professional development in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 172–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press.

  31. Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Parsons, S. A., Hutchison, A. C., Hall, L. A., Parsons, A. W., Ives, S. T., & Leggett, A. B. (2019). U.S. teachers’ perceptions of online professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 82, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Peltola, P., Haynes, E., Clymer, L., McMillan, A., & Williams, H. (2017). Opportunities for teacher professional development in Oklahoma rural and nonrural schools (REL 2017–273). Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for education evaluation and regional assistance, regional educational Labo­ratory southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

  34. Penuel, W. R., de los Santos, E., Lin, Q., Marshall, S., Anderson, C. W., Frank, K. (2018). Building networks to support effective use of science curriculum materials in the Carbon Time project. In S. Yoon & K. Baker-Doyle (Eds.), Networked by design: Interventions for teachers to develop social capital. Routledge.

  35. Peterson, A. T., Beymer, P. N., & Putnam, R. T. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect. Online Learning, 22(4), 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 2nd ed. (pp. 397–417). Cambridge University Press.

  37. Snyder, M. M. (2009). Instructional-design theory to guide the creation of online learning communities for adults. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 53, 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Teasley, S. D. (1997). Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 361–384). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. TNTP. (2015). The mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher development. https://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP-Mirage_2015.pdf

  40. Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2014). The role of content support and transactivity for effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts on domain-specific learning: A meta-analysis. In 2014 International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems (pp. 677–682). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/INCoS.2014.82.

  41. Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Reiss, K., & Fischer, F. (2016). Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of transactivity. Instructional Science, 44(5), 477–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Webb, D. C., Nickerson, H., & Bush, J. B. (2017). A comparative analysis of online and face-to-face professional development models for CS education. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 621–626).

  43. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46(1), 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340, 310–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Yoon, S. (2018). Mechanisms that couple intentional network rewiring and teacher learning to develop teachers’ social capital for implementing computer-supported complex systems curricula. In S. Yoon and K. Baker-Doyle. Networked by design: Interventions for teachers to develop social capital. Routledge press.

  46. Yoon, S. A., & Baker-Doyle, K. (Eds.). (2018). Networked by design: Interventions for teachers to develop social capital. New York: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Yoon, S., Klopfer, E., Anderson, E., Koehler-Yom, J., Sheldon, J., Schoenfeld, I., Wendel, D., Scheintaub, H., Oztok, M., Evans, C., & Goh, S. (2016). Designing computer-supported complex systems curricula for the next generation science standards in high school science classrooms. Systems, 4(38), 1–18 http://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/4/4/38/html.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Yoon, S., Anderson, E., Koehler-Yom, Evans, C., Park, M., J., Sheldon, J., Schoenfeld, I., Wendel, D., Scheintaub, H., & Klopfer, E. (2017a). Teaching about complex systems is no simple matter: Building effective professional development for computer-supported complex systems instruction. Instructional Science, 45(1), 99–121.

  49. Yoon, S., Koehler-Yom, J., & Yang, Z. (2017b). The effects of teachers’ social and human capital on urban science reform initiatives: Considerations for professional development. Teachers College Record, 119(4), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2014). Guidelines for facilitating the development of learning communities in online courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 220–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (2014). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Routledge.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a Discovery Research K-12 National Science Foundation Grant– #1721003.

Funding

This research was funded by two U.S. National Science Foundation Discovery Research K-12 grants (DRL #1721003 and DRL #1019228).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan A. Yoon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no known conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoon, S.A., Miller, K., Richman, T. et al. Encouraging collaboration and building Community in Online Asynchronous Professional Development: designing for social capital. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 15, 351–371 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09326-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social Capital
  • Online Asynchronous Learning
  • Teacher Professional Development
  • Transactivity