Advertisement

Communities of Practice as a Support Function for Social Learning in Distance Learning Programs

  • Ashley Healy
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 49)

Abstract

Communities of Practice (CoP) are organic entities, which evolve as a result of the passion for the domain by its members. CoP present opportunities for social learning and supporting distance learning programs.

But, What Is Social Learning?

Simply, learning is the process of moving from not knowing to knowing. The ‘social’ aspect of the learning relies upon human interaction. Therefore, social learning is constructed from conversations and participation within a CoP. It is about ‘how’ members learn, rather than the content or ‘what’ they learn. This is in contrast to the Cartesian vision of learning, which proposes, “I think, therefore I am”. Social Learning puts forward the alternative “We participate, therefore we are” (Seely Brown and Alder, 2008).

How Do CoP Support Social Learning?

CoP support social learning through an apprenticeship model. Members take on simple tasks under the guidance of the community, they then progress to more demanding tasks as confidence, skills and knowledge improve. The CoP supports the apprentice by interacting regularly, sharing tales and experiences. Social Learning within a community is ‘learning about a subject’ as well as ‘learning to be a full participant’. The shared passion and the interaction engages the learner and enables them to acquire deep knowledge about a subject and the ability to participate in the community through productive enquiry and social interaction.

Keywords

communities of practice CoP learning social learning distance learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Galusha, J.M.: Barriers to Distance Education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology 7, 7 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eastmond, D.V.: Alone but Together: Adult Distance Study Through Computer Conferencing, p. 46. Hampton Press, Cresskill (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sloan Consortium Survey of Online Learning (2007), http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/index.asp (cited 14/07/2009)
  4. 4.
    Filipczak, B.: Putting the Learning into Distance Learning. Training Journal 32(01), 111–118 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wenger, E.: Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cantelon, J.E.: The Evolution and Advantage of Distance Education Facilitating Distance Education, p. 5. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knapper, C.: Lifelong Learning and Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education 2(1), 63–72 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kotsiantis, S., Pierrakeas, C.J., Pintelas, K.E.: Preventing Student Dropout in Distance Learning Using Machine Learning Technologies. In: Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems. Springer, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sweet, R.: Student Drop-out in Distance Education: An Application of Tinto’s Model. Distance Education Journal 7, 201–213 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keegan, D.: The Foundations of Distance Education. Croom, London (1986)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galusha, J.M.: Barriers to Distance Education. Interpersonal Computing and Technology 7, 3 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Webster, J., Hackley, P.: Teaching Effectiveness in Technology Mediated Distance Learning. Academy of Management Journal 40, 1282–1309 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berger, N.S.: Pioneering Experiences in Distance Learning Lessons Learned. Journal of Management Education 6, 23–68 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brower, H.: On Emulating Classroom Discussion in a Distance Delivered Course: Creating an Online Learning Community. Academy of Management Learning and Education Journal 2, 1–10 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fontaine, M.A., Millen, D.R.: Understanding the Benefits and Impact of CoP. In: Hildreth, P., Kimble, C. (eds.) Chapter to be in Knowledge Networks: Innovation through Communities of Practice. Idea Group Publishing, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wasko, M.M., Faraj, S.: It Is What One Does: Why People Participate and Help Others in Electronic Communities of Practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9, 155–173 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rohfeld, R.W., Hiemstra, R.: Moderating Discussions in the Electronic Classroom. In: Computer Mediated Communication And The Online Classroom, vol. 3, pp. 91–104. Hampton Press, Cresskill (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seely Brown, J., Alder, R.P.: Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long-tail and Learning 2.0 (2008), http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420 (cited 13/07/2009)
  19. 19.
    Bandra, A., Walters, R.: Social Learning and Personality Development. Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1963)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bandura, A.: Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press (1977)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lave, J., Wenger, E.: Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashley Healy
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of the West of ScotlandPaisley

Personalised recommendations