Connecting online learners with diverse local practices: the design of effective common reference points for conversation

This mixed‐methods study probed the effectiveness of three kinds of objects (video, theory, metaphor) as common reference points for conversations between online learners (student teachers). Individuals’ degree of detail‐focus was examined as a potentially interacting covariate and the outcome measure was learners’ level of tacit knowledge related to their practice (teaching). Analysis was conducted using hierarchical linear modeling and significant results were followed up with a qualitative theme analysis. An interaction between reference point type and detail‐focus was found, demonstrating a positive effect of detail‐focus within the metaphor condition. Unexpectedly, some participants interpreted the metaphors in ways other than those intended, leading to differences in the kinds of understandings developed. The study indicated that a conceptual frame is an important characteristic of a reference point that will be truly taken in common, and that metaphors need additional framing to be viable in this role. Implications for online learning conversation design are discussed.

[1]  Thomas M. Duffy,et al.  Deepening Online Conversation: How and Why to Use a Common Referent to Connect Learners with Diverse Local Practices. , 2008 .

[2]  Mark S. Schlager,et al.  Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning: Teacher Professional Development, Technology, and Communities of Practice , 2004 .

[3]  Karen Kear,et al.  Following the thread in computer conferences , 2001, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Stephen T. Kerr,et al.  Knowledge management support for teachers , 2003 .

[5]  Victoria Hoban,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner , 2013 .

[6]  D. Schoen.  Educating the reflective practitioner , 1987 .

[7]  Robert J. Beck,et al.  Effects of Videocase Construction on Preservice Teachers' Observations of Teaching , 2002 .

[8]  R. Luppicini.  Online learning communities , 2007 .

[9]  T. Anderson,et al.  Online Social Interchange, Discord, and Knowledge Construction , 1998 .

[10]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Frameworks for Sharing Teaching Practices , 2005, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[11]  D. Berliner,et al.  Differences Among Teachers in a Task Characterized by Simultaneity, Multidimensional, and Immediacy , 1991 .

[12]  Fred A. J. Korthagen,et al.  The Relationship Between Theory and Practice: Back to the Classics , 1996 .

[13]  Maged N Kamel Boulos,et al.  The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. , 2007, Health information and libraries journal.

[14]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The knowledge-creating company , 2008 .

[15]  Mark S. Schlager,et al.  Teacher Professional Development, Technology, and Communities of Practice: Are We Putting the Cart Before the Horse? , 2003 .

[16]  D. J. Dewhurst,et al.  Educational Stories: Engaging teachers in educational theory , 2005 .

[17]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live by , 1982 .

[18]  B. Glaser.  The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis , 1965 .

[19]  Sasha A. Barab,et al.  The inquiry learning forum: , 2002 .

[20]  S. Barab,et al.  Designing system dualities: Characterizing an online professional development community , 2004 .

[21]  Zdeslav Hrepic,et al.  Comparing Students’ and Experts’ Understanding of the Content of a Lecture , 2007 .

[22]  Tammy Schellens,et al.  Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups , 2007 .

[23]  Rob Kling,et al.  Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning: Titles in the series , 2004 .

[24]  D. Watson,et al.  Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development , 1995 .

[25]  M. Grant,et al.  Communities of practice. , 2020, Health progress.

[26]  E. Wenger.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[27]  M. J. W. Thomas,et al.  Learning within incoherent structures: the space of online discussion forums , 2002, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[28]  Paul Duguid,et al.  “The Art of Knowing”: Social and Tacit Dimensions of Knowledge and the Limits of the Community of Practice , 2005, Inf. Soc..

[29]  C. P. Goodman,et al.  The Tacit Dimension , 2003 .

[30]  Jim Hewitt.  Toward an Understanding of How Threads Die in Asynchronous Computer Conferences , 2005 .

[31]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Evaluating computer-supported cooperative work: models and frameworks , 2004, CSCW.

[32]  Carl Auerbach,et al.  Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis , 2003 .

[33]  D. Schoen.  The Reflective Practitioner , 1983 .

[34]  W. Jochems,et al.  The Effect of Functional Roles on Group Efficiency , 2004 .

[35]  Donald J. Cunningham,et al.  Metaphors we teach by: An embodied cognitive analysis of No Child Left Behind , 2006 .

[36]  Joop J. Hox,et al.  Multilevel modeling: When and why , 1998 .

[37]  Ulrike Cress,et al.  The need for considering multilevel analysis in CSCL research—An appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods , 2008, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..