Baran, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). The Dynamics of Online Communities in the Activity Theory Framework. Educational
Technology & Society, 13 (4), 155–166.
The Dynamics of Online Communities in the Activity Theory Framework
Bahar Baran and Kursat Cagiltay1
Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Buca Faculty of Education, Dokuz Eylul
University, 35160 Buca, Izmir, Turkey // [email protected]
1
Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical
University, 06531, Ankara, Turkey // [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to reveal how well online communities of practice (oCoPs) help teachers share explicit
knowledge and bring their tacit knowledge to the surface. An Internet based oCoP platform called “The
Professional Development Circle” (The PDC) was developed for this study. The study was conducted in two
phases: 1) a mandatory participation term and 2) a voluntary participation term. In the first phase, the
researchers designed a learning environment in which 28 preservice teachers from three universities watched
and discussed digital videos recorded in real classroom environments. In the second phase, the researchers tried
to build another oCoP environment based on the successes and failures of the mandatory term but with
voluntary members. This article presents the results to designers and educators who want to use oCoP
environments in teachers’ professional development.
Keywords
Online communities of practice, Activity theory, Teacher education, Computer mediated communication
Introduction
The educational sector offers a great amount of tacit knowledge but needs incentives to transform this knowledge
into explicit terms. That is, although teachers are generally full of theoretical information after graduation, in time,
they gain expertise. However, these teachers need an incentive to share their expertise. Currently, communities of
practice are considered potential arenas that may impel teachers to share their experiences with others. Regarding
this issue, Schaler and Fusco (2003) state, “Teachers’ professional development is more than a series of training
workshops, instates, meetings, and in service days. It is a process of learning how to put knowledge into practice
through engagement in practice within a community of practitioners” (p. 205). A community of practice provides
both tacit and explicit knowledge communication among teachers in a community by producing useful
documentation, tools, and procedures to be shared with one another. Therefore, establishing communities of practice
has become an important focus within teachers’ professional development projects, providing lifelong learning
opportunities (Wenger, 1998).
This study is based on knowledge types from knowledge management literature, considering communities of practice
theory as one enabler of knowledge management. Therefore, in this section, these issues will be outlined briefly in
terms of teacher education.
Knowledge management
Knowledge management generally involves generating ideas, disseminating information, and promoting knowledge
sharing among workers in an organization (Garud, 1997). The main discussion topic in this field is the meaning of
information and knowledge. Information is unprocessed content that needs to be cultivated by human beings into
knowledge. Nonaka (1994) defines knowledge as “justified true belief.” That is, knowledge is an interpreted form of
information. Teacher educators are mainly interested in whether knowledge has been gained or not. Therefore, it is
important to understand the process of knowledge creation. There are two types of human knowledge: explicit
(codified knowledge) and tacit (non codified). Polanyi differentiates between these knowledge types by explaining,
“We can know more than we can tell” (Polanyi, 1966, as cited in Nonaka, 1994, p.16). Tacit knowledge lacks shape
and is difficult to transmit to other people, while explicit knowledge is simple book information. These two
dimensions of knowledge creation play an important role in the interaction of school teachers. By its nature, tacit
knowledge is not always transformed into explicit knowledge. However, owing to incentives, sometimes tacit
knowledge becomes explicit.
ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the
copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies
are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by
others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at [email protected].
155
Communities of practice
The term “Communities of Practice” was first coined by Lave and Wenger (1991) in their discussion of the social
nature of learning. Their basic argument is that communities of practice are everywhere and that people are generally
involved in a number of them—whether at work, school, or home, or in civic or leisure interests. In some groups,
people are core members; in others, on the outskirts (Wenger, 1998). Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002)
describe communities of practice as “Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a
topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (p. 4). Along
with developing information and communication technologies, instructional technologists have begun addressing the
idea of using these technologies in the theory of communities of practice for teachers’ professional development.
Problems in the area of teacher education and technology based learning environments
Although today’s university instructors are becoming more technology literate and tend to use technology as a
secondary support, many do not know how to integrate it fully into their courses. Integrating technology in teacher
education courses has great potential and would provide more quality learning environments for teachers.
Barab, Kling, and Gray (2004) have reported a problem in the area of web based and supported learning
environments in teacher education. They emphasized that researchers generally use a course environment in which
participation is reinforced with a grade. Further, Sprague (2006) determined “mandating by universities” as the main
motivation for teachers to participate in online professional development. Therefore, researchers need to investigate
environments in which participants discuss topics voluntarily.
Activity Theory as a theoretical framework for analysis
The basics of activity theory draw heavily on Vygotsky’s concept of “mediation” (Vygotsky, 1978). His famous
triangular model includes subject, object, and tool and shows the relationships between each item to mediate an
interaction. Activity Theory is a sociocultural theory that helps researchers to examine an individual in a large
activity system. Rather than investigating an individual separately from his or her surroundings, however, minimal
meaningful context must be included in the analysis (Kuutti, 1995). Therefore, activity theory framework is a useful
analytical lens for understanding the social structure of online environments, which show a learner both in an
individual group and in a large community (Engeström, 1999; Barab, Evans, & Baek, 2003). This study discusses
findings from the perspective of activity theory to understand the dynamics of two online communities of practice.
Research aim and questions
By taking the issues and concerns of the literature into consideration, this study intended to investigate how well
oCoPs help teachers share explicit knowledge and bring tacit knowledge to the surface. Under this main theme, this
study reveals outcomes of designed and built online communities of practice by investigating preservice teachers’
experiences and perceptions. In addition, this study aims to examine the dynamics of the relationship between
community members and the process of knowledge sharing and creation in two communities.
Methodology
Research methodology: Qualitative research
The purpose of this study requires in-depth analysis of the community building efforts and experiences of teachers in
an online learning environment. Barab, MaKinster, and Scheckler (2004), while focusing on challenges in the
development of a web supported community of practice, note that qualitative research “makes a commitment to
analytical framework that provides a useful lens through which the data can be interpreted” (p. 57). Therefore, the
researchers aimed to present a detailed picture of the phenomenon based on the research questions. Qualitative
research methodology was primarily employed. In this study, all cases occurred in a natural environment in their own
156
context. The researchers spent time in the field, communicated with the participants, and experienced the experiences
of the participants while collecting data. Lastly, different qualitative data collection methods such as interviews,
observations, and document analysis were utilized.
Tools used in the study
In this study, the researchers used an oCoP platform called “The Professional Development Circle” (The PDC). The
main theme of the portal was teaching mathematics. This portal is comprised of three parts: 1) a digital library of
resources, 2) video recordings from constructivist classroom environments in real schools, and 3) forum and
communication tools. The digital library includes student projects, academic reviews, mathematics games, computer
aided mathematics instruction software, etc. The digital videos were recorded by one of the researchers for using
only in this study. The aim of using videos was to reveal a mathematics teacher’ s teaching activities, classroom
management, or point of view on a teaching topic. Forum and communication tool allow members of the PDC to
send short messages to each other. In addition to the portal, a discussion list was used to allow for asynchronous
exchanges. The main communication tool of this study was the discussion list.
Research process
There were two phases of this research study. The first phase, “the mandatory participation term,” lasted four
months. A total of 28 senior teacher candidates from three universities in different regions of Turkey participated in
this phase as part of their regular teaching practice course, providing a diverse group of preservice teachers. The
participants, who were grouped based on their universities, earned a partial grade at the end of this phase, which had
one meeting period and four discussion periods. At the beginning of each discussion period, the starting and ending
dates of the period were announced in the discussion list. During the meeting period, the participants introduced
themselves via email. Throughout each discussion period, the participants were responsible for watching assigned
digital videos and sending at least three messages about them. Every period had a curricular process: one of the
universities started the discussion, the second university added comments, and the third university composed a new
lesson plan for the video class incorporating the feedback from other participants. During each period, the
responsibility of each university changed, giving every participant a chance to contribute to each activity.
In the second phase, “the voluntary participation term,” inservice teachers, professors, and graduate students
voluntarily participated in the PDC in addition to the teacher candidates of the first phase. The researchers
announced the portal on relevant web sites and discussion lists to increase the number of members. This phase lasted
six months. The membership history shows that 177 newcomers had participated in the online community by the end
of this phase, giving participants a larger community that included both experienced and novice members. This phase
had four periods, and each lasted approximately one month. The beginning and ending dates of each period
fluctuated when intensive discussions demanded the researchers extend the periods.
Data collection and analysis methods
During the mandatory term, discussion list messages were archived. This history includes a total of 186 messages, an
average of 46.5 messages per period. In addition, the researchers visited universities and participated in regular faceto-face sessions to address the problems and concerns of participants. Finally, at the end of the term, all of the
participants wrote a reflection report highlighting positive and negative issues with this online environment,
performing a comparison of this environment with traditional courses, and evaluating group interaction and tools
used during the semester. The participants knew that reflection reports would not be graded.
During the voluntary term, discussion list messages were the primary data source. A total of 219 messages were sent
to the discussion list during the term. In addition, the researchers conducted six interviews with participants to
evaluate their experiences during both the mandatory and the voluntary terms.
While analyzing data from the mandatory participation term, the 28 reflection reports were read twice. Emerging
codes and themes were categorized under each component of Activity Theory. Codes were then compared with data
157
from discussion list messages and interviews. Analysis of the voluntary participation term began with the 219
messages sent to the discussion list. Synchronously, six interviews about both terms were analyzed. Finally, the
results of the mandatory term and voluntary terms were combined.
Results and Discussion
Modeling of mandatory and voluntary participation terms
There were two participation terms in this study. The first, mandatory participation term (MPT) required the
subjects’ participation in online discussions, while the second, voluntary participation term (VPT) thrived on its
members’ choice to get involved (Fig. 1). The determined activity in these two systems was teachers’ professional
development leading to professional qualifications.
Subjects
In the mandatory participation term, the subjects were 28 preservice teachers who needed professional development
and experience. In the voluntary participation term, the subjects were volunteer participants seeking additional
professional development; they recognized the importance of this sociocultural environment and how they would
benefit from interacting with experienced teachers, colleagues, and professors.
Figure 1. Definition of mandatory and voluntary participation terms according to Activity Theory framework
Object
In the two participation terms, the object was knowledge creation and sharing in teaching mathematics. In order to
explain how knowledge was shared and created during each participation term, the researchers used Nonaka’s (1994)
model of “modes of knowledge creation,” which views knowledge sharing as a spiral process of interactions between
158
explicit and tacit knowledge. The model’s main components are Socialization (tacit to tacit), Externalization (tacit to
explicit), Internalization (explicit to tacit), and Combination (explicit to explicit; Nonaka, 1994, p. 19).
Tools
The two participation terms required different tools. For the voluntary participation term, the tools were changed
according to lessons learned in the mandatory participation term. In the mandatory participation term, digital videos
and the discussion list guided the subjects to reach the objective. In the voluntary participation term, the materials
were scientific publications (articles, research results, theses, etc.) and a discussion list.
Rules
Design decisions (posting a minimum of three messages in each discussion period, stable discussion duration, and
determined responsibilities of each university’s students during different periods) were the rules of the mandatory
participation term. However, in the voluntary participation term, the community itself determined the rules, which
were emergent, flexible, and improved over time. At one point, a rule was tentative and individualistic; later, the rule
was more robust and relevant across the community.
Community
The community of the mandatory participation term consisted of 28 preservice teachers who participated in the PDC
environment as a part of an undergraduate course. They were from three different universities and departments, so
they had varied backgrounds. In the voluntary participation term, the community was composed of experienced
teachers, academicians, and preservice teachers. The community was always open to newcomers.
Division of Labor
Separation of duties allowed for specialization of roles and tasks, increasing the quality of the outcome. In the
mandatory participation term, there were two main divisions of labor: comment writers and lesson plan producers. In
the voluntary participation term, division of labor was an emergent attempt. There were discussants, material sharers,
and lurkers.
Outcome
The main outcome of the two participation terms was “better understanding of field practice” in teaching
mathematics. In this vein, how the activity systems affected preservice teachers’ professional knowledge was
investigated based on the participants’ perspectives. In the mandatory term, 24 out of 28 participants reported that
their professional knowledge improved owing to the PDC activities. One of them said:
This experience was entirely positive for me. I think that knowledge, I gained, will be helpful in my future
professional life. After graduation, I will also continue to share my experiences and ideas in the PDC.
However, the remaining four participants criticized the mandatory participation and a heavy study load as a barrier to
professional development.
It was sometimes tedious. Quality of my contribution to discussions was changed according to my busy
calendar. In my free time, I made more comments but when I was busy neither I wrote nor read the
messages. To me, reading all messages and replying them were very time consuming for learning.
I think that voluntary participation is essential to learn something from other members in the PDC. If there
is an external pressure, please don’t demand so much participation to online discussions. If you control how
159
many times I accessed to the PDC, you will notice that in the beginning, I was a more active member, but
later my contribution to discussions decreased significantly.
In addition, in the voluntary term, active members said that their professional knowledge developed through online
discussions with experienced teachers and professors. One participant said:
I believe that this new term was very beneficial for me. Different from the first term (mandatory
participation term) experienced teachers contributed to discussions in the PDC. Their deep understanding of
practice was very different from teacher candidates’ theoretical knowledge… Indeed, we need this practical
knowledge to be a good teacher.
In sum, the results revealed that both participation terms contributed to preservice teachers’ professional knowledge.
The main advantage of the two participation terms was practice-based construction, which face-to-face traditional
environments do not have.
The uppermost outcome of this study, “better understanding of field practice,” was a result of lower level outcomes:
1) learning the relationship between theory and practice; 2) gaining different experiences, perspectives, and ideas; 3)
confirming ideas related to practice; 4) visiting various teachers’ classrooms; 5) overcoming a challenges; 6) belief
modification; and 7) learning teaching topics in a cost effective way. Although the outcomes seem overly similar, the
driving reasons for each sub-outcome are different.
As for the first outcome, the participants said that because they had field practice, they learned how to put learning
theories into practice. In the mandatory participation term, the participants watched videos and then linked the video
teachers’ activities to learning theories. For example, one participant observed:
It was very beneficial to put ourselves in the teachers’ shoes, and so, to think about how we could teach
video students in the same lesson. I noticed that the videos, which we watched in the PDC environment,
contributed to my point of view on mathematics teaching. For example, I learned how to implement
discovery learning in a classroom owing to one of the digital videos which was based on Bruner’s theory.
In the voluntary participation term, preservice teachers discussed teaching topics and then compared their own
knowledge about theories with community members. In doing so, they converted abstract theories to concrete
knowledge. Regarding this issue, one participant said:
Why am I following to discussions? Firstly, I learned teachers’ experiences and I keep up-to-date from
developments in mathematics teaching. In all honesty, I got lots of ideas. For instance, how can a
mathematics lesson be taught with drama method? Consequently, it keeps being live in my mind. In the
future, as a teacher, I may use the method in my classroom.
The second outcome of this study is gaining different experiences, perspectives, and ideas. One participant
commented:
Discussing on video cases with other experienced teachers and other teacher candidates have contributed
significantly to our mathematics teaching knowledge. Why?, because we already share our opinions and
thoughts with our classmates in regular classes. In general, we have the same ideas. Different views are
essential for professional development.
The participants said that the PDC let them confirm their ideas related to practice. They drew lessons from video
content where novice teachers made mistakes or when an experienced teacher instructed the participants not to repeat
teaching mistakes in videos. One of them observed:
We are amateurs and we will gain experience over years. Therefore, it is beneficial to gain experience from
negative points of the activities in the videos and thus to think about how we can make them valuable.
Furthermore, watching different videos presented an opportunity to visit various teachers’ classrooms, whereas the
participants could observe only one or two classrooms during their school practice courses.
160
Prior to this study, the Turkish Elementary Education Curriculum changed; this new, constructivist-based curriculum
had been an unknown challenge for teachers. The participants of this study had only started learning about it in
undergraduate courses and arranged workshops. They stated that this Internet based oCoP environment served as
another source for learning new curriculum. One of the participants said:
The digital videos gave us an opportunity of observing application and results of the new mathematics
curriculum. We would not observe this approach and discuss on it in another place.
Belief modification is an important focus of teacher educators. Studies have shown that preservice teachers develop
their beliefs about teaching long before they enroll in undergraduate studies (Cochran-Smith, 1991, cited in Wang &
Hartley, 2003). In this study, belief modification was a dominant outcome in the voluntary participation term because
the participants found experienced teachers’ ideas more credible than those of their less educated peers. Two of the
active members explained:
Drama and mathematics! Because I didn’t know drama before the PDC discussions and I did not have any
idea about it. In the beginning, I had negative attitudes towards its applicability. But, I understood that there
were such things in teaching and I could put it into practice. I thought that it was difficult to prepare such a
lesson. But, I understood that it could be. Experienced teachers in the second term (voluntary term) showed
how to prepare such a lesson.
Finally, the results showed that the participants learned different teaching topics in a cost effective way. Visiting a
school to observe a classroom or discussing scenarios with teachers can be very time consuming. In addition, face-toface discussion does not generally include new teaching methods. Therefore, the participants took advantage of the
richness of these participation terms to learn new teaching methods. One of the participants said:
I learned developments in mathematics education. For instance, how can a lesson be taught with discovery
approach?, After being a teacher, when I teach angles in math curriculum I will remember that drama
method will be very effective for my students. Or, I learned how to teach capacity of a cube in a
constructivist learning environment. And I learned lots of teaching ideas.
Four sub-activity systems
Once the two participation terms for teacher education were produced, the activity system was broken down into the
following four sub-activity triads:
1. subject-tool-object
2. subject-rules-object
3. subject-community-object
4. subject-division of labor-object
Subject–Tool–Object
Digital videos were used during the mandatory participation term. Rather than simply a talking head who presented
information directly to viewers, the videos presented complex classroom dynamics. Zooming in and out frequently
allowed viewers to see different details in the classroom. In the knowledge creation process, videos can be seen as
tools that make the tacit knowledge of the video teachers more explicit. That is, the teachers were externalized
knowledge sources. By using videos, the participants observed the video teachers’ classroom experiences but felt that
they were in the classroom. The participants said that they absorbed the video teachers’ tacit knowledge and
internalized it during the online discussions. The results revealed that the participants emphasized the importance of
digital videos in preservice teacher education because digital videos represent knowledge in ways no other medium
can (Bieber et al., 2001). Two participants said:
While I was watching the video, I felt the students’ enthusiasm. After watching the videos, now I am sure
that all of us will teach this topic more effectively.
161
In the videos, there were both traditional teachers and constructivist teachers. Therefore, we observed
different and various classroom dynamics. In addition, the videos showed us our own performance as
teachers since we compared us with the video teachers.
Contrary to these benefits of videos, in some situations, the videos hindered the knowledge sharing and creation
process. First of all, despite how much the videos let the participants feel part of a classroom environment, there was
a lack of interaction among participants, the video teacher, and students. This factor decreased the benefits that could
be obtained from videos since they observed classroom environment behind a screen. The second problem was the
limited viewing angles of the video cameras. The zooming in and out was not sufficient to capture all the dynamics
of very active lessons. The final problem was related to technological issues. The infrastructure of the universities
and the presence of a home computer with an Internet connection were essential. In this study, although the
participants had a laboratory hour in their universities to watch the videos, most of them preferred to access them
from their homes or Internet cafes. However, watching videos in these locations caused additional problems, such as
low connection speed. In addition to existing infrastructure, the technology skill of the participants was another
important factor in watching the videos. If they had high technology skills, they could overcome video related
problems such as streaming or audio problems. For example, one of the participants said:
Please remember. You visited our regular class. You distributed us some headphones to listen video voice.
But we did not know how to use it. We thought that we should use them with speakers. So, we brought
speakers to the classroom. Finally, through the mid of the term, we give up bringing them to the class.
Indeed simply, we can put it behind the computer.
In both participation terms, the discussion list served as an essential tool. The reason for using a discussion list
during the mandatory participation term was because synchronous scheduling of preservice teachers from three
different universities was impossible. In the voluntary participation term, the participants communicated with
experienced teachers and academicians through this tool. During the knowledge creation process, a teacher learns to
look at the same topic from different viewpoints. Another feature of the discussion list was that messages went
directly to private email accounts. This feature had both positive and negative results. As a positive result, discussion
list messages were brought to the attention of members, encouraging participants to read them. However, individual
messages may inconvenience a participant if he or she is not interested in a specific discussion topic or does not have
time to follow emails. Lastly, some participants criticized writing on the computer. Two of the participants pointed
out:
I do not like to write on the computer. I generally study by writing on coursebooks... and I like to use hand
writing, colorful paper and pencil. But, computers limit me to use these tools while studying.
We didn’t send anything to the discussion list although we had [some teaching activities to share]. The
Internet technology is far from teachers. I think that we do not know it very well. To be able to send
something to others we have to transfer our resources to digital format. This process requires additional
time. After having digital materials, second problem will be how we send it to the discussion list? All of
them are questions in my mind.
Subject–Community–Object
In the mandatory participation term, community members were preservice teachers from three different universities
and two different departments. If the goal of a participant aligned with the object of the participation term, she or he
easily adapted to the system and participated in activities. Participant goals coincided with the system objectives in
two possible ways. First, a preservice teacher considered to be a lifelong learner would be open to new opportunities
and thus willing to participate in the activities since she or he already searched for an alternative source of
knowledge on the Internet. Second, participants seeking credit for graduation recognized that they needed to
complete the required undergraduate courses. Even if a participant’s expectations did not coincide with the objective,
social relations, or pattern of interaction, the mandatory constitution of the participation term forced participation in
the discussions. However, if mandatory participation failed to motivate the preservice teacher to communicate with
others, he or she remained a lurker in this participation term.
162
First, I think that mandatory participation is the unique reason to motivate me in the PDC. Indeed I do not
interest in to have a good GPA. However, I have to graduate. So, I tried to make my best.
Moreover, being from different universities caused polarization among members. This study showed that some
preservice teachers assumed a defensive position of their fellow university students against other community
members. In addition, one of the interviewees said that some of the participants also tried to benefit by asking
questions in private messages because of short discussion duration. In the mandatory term, a sense of community
among the participants never completely formed. Therefore, learning was limited to knowledge sharing through
responsibility, despite being in a sociable environment. Extended knowledge sharing among community members
remained limited.
In the voluntary participation term, new community members—experienced teachers, academicians, and other
preservice teachers—participated with existing members. In this new participation term, almost all prior community
members preferred to lurk. However, 4 out of 28 preservice participants did participate in discussions. In this new
environment, these preservice teachers produced and reproduced ideas with the help of this rich community. In the
knowledge creation process, sociability played an important role since preservice teachers exchanged their tacit
knowledge with others. When a participant asked a question, she or he received answers from the community,
showing the empathy among some people in online communities. When they thought themselves in similar
situations, they found a reason to help.
In both participation terms, conversations extended beyond discussion lists with different aims. In the mandatory
participation term, although community members were limited to preservice teachers who participated in the PDC in
an undergraduate course frame, they shared the PDC experience with professionals out of these environments. One
of them explained:
I praised the PDC to my mentor teacher very much. He listened with my ideas, discussed on them and
proposed new point of views. I think that talking with him out of the PDC was very helpful for me. And I
believed that he also benefited from the PDC.
The subject-community-object triad expands to include individuals external to the environments. However, in the
mandatory participation term, there were a limited number of private messages between the subject and other
community members. In these messages, the subject requested course materials or ideas about how courses were
conducted by others. However, in the voluntary participation term, discussions that first sparked in the discussion list
frequently and easily shifted to private messages.
Subject–Rules–Object
In the mandatory participation term, the first rule was to post at least three messages in each discussion period. The
aim of this rule was to build a discussion environment in which the subject and other community members
interactively discussed video cases and exchanged knowledge sources. Furthermore, this rule encouraged the
participants to think about the dynamics of the video classroom in detail. Two of them commented:
Three e-mails rule made the PDC discussions more effective. Although most of my friends found the rule
nonsense, in my opinion, it was reasonable. Otherwise, everyone would send only one e-mail and complete
their responsibility.
Owing to three email rule, I examined the videos from different points. That is, I made a discussion plan.
First one was related to classroom management. Second was mathematics teaching and the third was
another case from a different class.
However, some participants reacted negatively to this rule, as they found it difficult to contribute additional ideas for
each video. The discussion list history and interviews showed that some preservice teachers sent messages without
reading and considering prior messages. One participant explained:
163
We didn’t have much time to watch the videos and to write comments. So, the quality of our comments
decreased. Three messages were too much.
Another rule was strict discussion duration and structured discussions. This rule allowed preservice teachers to watch
up to four selected videos in the fall term. If the periods were flexible, the discussion might be extended and
participants might not watch subsequent videos. By watching more videos, preservice teachers observed more real
classroom environments and experienced more teaching activity. One of them pointed out:
I want to discuss on more videos. They took only maximum 15 minutes. However, in real environments, I
have to participate in 40 minutes lesson to get the same experience. I believed that more video means
more teaching practice for me.
However, some participants criticized the short length of each period since they could not read all posted messages.
Regarding this negative reaction, one of the interviewees said:
Some of my friends are not good with computers. They do not know how to solve simple computer
problems. And, some have not an Internet connection at home. So, they told that discussion duration is very
short to watch the videos and read messages.
In the voluntary participation term, rules were emergent and defined by community members. In this term, preservice
teachers did not direct any criticism towards the rules. They accepted and adopted them easily. If they felt frustrated
by them, they tried to change them or left the community. Community defined norms simplify the process of
reaching the objective. Therefore, preservice teachers should determine their own rules. This style of development is
also beneficial in motivating unwilling preservice teachers to participate in discussions.
Subject–Division of Labor (DoL)–Object
In both participation terms, division of labor affected the format of the preservice teachers’ knowledge creation and
sharing. In the mandatory participation term, there were two main duties: comment writing and lesson plan
producing. Comment writers externalized the video teachers’ experiences by writing about them. In addition, they
had to add their own comments on the videos, making the process more vigorous. For example, the following
participant discussed one video:
I agree with my friends’ ideas. The video teacher was certainly poor to teach parallelogram which her
students first met with. May be, the video teacher did not have time to teach it, but at least she should have
asked which geometric figures it could be made up.
Lesson plan writers read their colleagues’ messages after watching the videos. Then, they produced an improved
lesson plan, joining their experiences with these comments in a combination and socialization process. One
participant whose lesson plan was found very successful by the others said:
We experienced warm times that transformed into good friendship. We sent e-mails to each other out of
discussion list discussions. Especially, in the week when it was our plan sending period, some messages
came to me about my lesson plans. I tried to guide them. To be able to help others made me happy. This
was very magnificent feeling. I helped the future teachers.
In the voluntary participation term, division of labor was an emergent attempt. There were discussants, material
sharers, and lurkers in the system. Discussants preferred to be social and participate in discussion. They commented
on topics and criticized others’ comments. There is a socialization process in this behavior. Material sharers sent
their lesson activities or plans to the discussion list, making their tacit knowledge more explicit. Lastly, the lurkers
neither participated in discussions nor shared any material. These members only consumed the benefits of the
community, rather than contributing. One lurker said:
I could not read regularly but I didn’t delete them, kept them. They remained since one day I may need
them. I wanted to follow them but I did not read very much.
164
Conclusion
This study provides a foundation for future studies on web based/supported communities. The Activity Theory
framework provided a useful theoretical lens for evaluating and comparing designed and built oCoPs with design and
implementation processes. Therefore, other researchers may use this theory to compose a framework for their own
studies. Similar to the present study, previous research in this field has revealed promising evidence for using web
based/supported communities in teacher education (Barnett, 2002; Wang & Hartley, 2003; Davis & Roblyer, 2005;
Sprague, 2006; Levin, He, & Robbins, 2006; Simpson, 2006). The results of this study indicate that practitioners may
use online communities with four purposes: 1) teaching to apply aspects of learning theories to real classroom
environments, 2) creating discussion environments in which teachers can obtain different perspectives and ideas, 3)
changing teachers’ beliefs about practice, and 4) uncovering new teaching topics.
The primary issue of this study is the importance of obtaining practical knowledge in teacher education. First, this
study determined that digital videos recorded in real classrooms are especially outstanding tools for online
communities. This rich tacit knowledge source forces teachers to obtain practical knowledge about the teaching
profession. In addition, discussion lists provide teachers an opportunity to consider their peers’ perspectives.
However, practitioners should take into account some strategies to overcome video related problems. First, they
should create a video team. The responsibility of this group would be to record the videos, transfer them to a digital
format, and publish them in a portal. Second, because video streaming can pose a problem, arranging a laboratory
hour is critical for those students who lack the technical resources to access the Internet. A laboratory hour cannot
ensure that preservice teachers watch the videos, so practitioners should investigate their target population’s
situation. In addition, to overcome the lack of interaction between the participants and the video teachers, video
teachers should be invited to participate in discussions toward the end of the discussion period. These teachers
should not participate in discussions too early because preservice teachers may hesitate to discuss the videos in the
presence of the teachers. The discussion list is another incentive mediating the relationship between (a) community
members and (b) knowledge creation and sharing in both designed (mandatory participation term) and built
(voluntary participation term) communities. This tool promotes sociability among members and, thus, effectively
prompts knowledge creation and sharing. However, although this tool allows for sociability among community
members across long distances, developing robust relationships with this tool is not possible during a short time
period. Therefore, community members would also benefit from synchronous chat, face-to-face meetings, or other
Web 2.0 social network tools (e.g., Facebook). These tools let community of teachers know one another closer which
in turn leads an increase in their sharing of materials in communities owing to their trust of one another (Baran &
Cagiltay, 2010). For instance, Facebook, which is the leader of social networking websites, can be used as a tool to
increase social presence of teachers in a community. In addition, out-of-field discussion topics on Facebook may
assist members in getting to know each other better.
The second and third explored issues were proposing examples of using technology in teachers’ professional
development and the lack of research studies on voluntary participation in oCoP environments. First, this study
showed that mandatory participation resulted in some strict criticism of the PDC. The sense of community among
members was especially explicit in the voluntary term, more than in the mandatory term. In the mandatory
participation term, separating teachers according to their universities contributed to a decrease in the members’ sense
of community. Every preservice teacher felt compelled to support his or her own university in these groups.
Therefore, heterogeneous groups of preservice teachers from different universities would be more likely to increase
the feeling of community, increasing sociability among members. In contrast to this designed community, in a built
community, active preservice teachers could greatly benefit from the other members. As stated before, the most
noteworthy disadvantage of the first term was the strict rules of participation in discussions. Therefore, it is not true
to say that all preservice teachers benefited from the sociability of the voluntary participation term. Consequently,
providing motivation to preservice teachers to continue discussions remains a significant challenge for built online
communities. However, in-service teachers have enough intrinsic motivation to be active in a community because
they search, find and involve in teacher communities, voluntarily. Therefore, they need an external motivation to be
core members in the community. In sum, this study, with its dual design of mandatory and voluntary participation
types, will be an example for other researchers, academicians, and practitioners.
165
References
Barab, S., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (Eds.) (2004). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Barab, S. A., Evans, M., & Baek, E. (2003). Activity theory as a lens for charactering the participatory unit. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),
International handbook on communication technologies (pp. 199-214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities: Characterizing an online professional
development community. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of
learning (pp. 53-90). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Baran, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Motivators and barriers in the development of online Communities of Practice. Egitim
Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 39, 79-96.
Barnett, M. (2002, April). Issues and trends concerning electronic networking technologies for teacher professional development:
A critical review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Bieber, M., Engelbart, D., Furuta, R., Hiltz, S. R., Noll, J., Preece, J., et al. (2001, January 3), Virtual community knowledge
evolution. Paper presented at the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Conference. Abstract retrieved April
14, 2010, from http://www.cis.njit.edu/~bieber/pub/hicss01/hicss01-ckess.pdf.
Davis, N. E., & Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Preparing teachers for the “schools that technology built”: Evaluation of a program to
train teachers for virtual schooling. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 399-409.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki
(Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Garud, R. (1997). On the distinction between know-how, know-what and know-why. In A. Huff & J. Walsh (Eds.), Advances in
strategic management (pp. 81-101). London: JAI Press.
Kuutti, K. (1995). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.),
Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Levin, B., He, Y., & Robbins, H. (2006). Comparative analysis of preservice teachers’ reflective thinking in synchronous versus
asynchronous online case discussions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 439-460.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Schaler, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting
the cart before the horse? Information Society, 19, 203-220.
Simpson, M. (2006). Field experience in distance delivered initial teacher education programmes. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 14(2), 241-254.
Sprague, D. (2006). Research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
14(4), 657-661.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wang, J., & Hartley, K. (2003). Video technology as a support for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education 11(1), 105-138.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
166