EEEP Online Community of Practice:
the First to Boldly Go in Greece
Niki Lambropoulos, EEEP member
eLearning & Online Communities Architect, Researcher
Abstract: We present results from a study conducted in the Greek context of online communities within online courses for informal and life-long learning.Online Communities of Practice (CoP) are associated to Open and Distance Learning (ODL) and Informal Learning. In investigating Informal Learning,fourteen Greek teachers, members of the ‘Greek Primary Teachers’ Association for the Valorization of ICT in Education’ (EEEP) responded to a questionnaire. The questions werebased on identification of informal learning abilities and were related to sociability and usability for groupz-ware and management, online participation and activation processes, as well as other suggestions and changes in the Greek educational system regarding ICT in Education.
Keywords: online communities, informal learning, life-long learning, active participation processes
Introduction
The rapid development of eLearning started in the 1990’s lead many educational organizations to either blend their educational activities or adopt the web-based education model. Additionally, after Rheingold’s book The Virtual Community in the 1990s, the idea of simulating a community was as popular as ever. Collaborative learning (Brown et al, 1989) and the communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) supported both views and online educational communities contributed to community knowledge building in Learning Management Systems (Zaphiris et al., 2004). Online communities of practice and communities of special interest (Preece, 2004), as well as semi-structured communities in online courses, are based on participants’ discussions, and usually blend both off and online synergetic activities. The development of a group of individuals who belong to ‘real’ Communities of Practice (CoP) to an Online Community of Interest (OnCoI) is an interesting issue in both everyday and scientific life. The development might continue to an Online CoP (OnCoP), where a common constitution, shared visions, as well as shared products just like this chapter and the book or seminars as well as roles assigned by democratic procedures (voting a committee). Some of the members act as invisible observers of the synergetic activities and never seem to cross the threshold of observation (Observational & Vicarious Learning; Bandura, 1986). Research has been conducted on these observers, as it is considered to be a common phenomenon in both online and online learning communities.Sproul and Faraj (1997) refer to an 80% lurking and Preece from 46% to 82% (2000). Some people spend many hours lurking and know the topics of conversation and key players very well. Thus, evidence of Informal Learning in a Self-organized way exhibit the hidden learning processes of inactive contributors.
Little research has been done on the cognitive processes and the strategies lurkers use in online forums, such as information seeking and locating, creative information ‘copying’ and the thick red line which separates lurkers and active members. Additionally, there is not adequate research on discussions developing in online courses, as well as frameworks and groupz-ware applications that might help to bridge this gap and enhance informal learning and community knowledge building. The latter as tacit knowledge could be identified (Polanyi, 1966), recognized, transferred and used in different educational and social contexts, for example in the classrooms. In our study we are going to investigate inactive contributionand the potential of members’ contributionin discussion forums withinLMS. The aims for this study were to identify, describe and analyse the context for the Greek teachers in online courses as well as cognitive processes and mechanisms for working in online courses and communities within a learning management system.
The Road to Online Communities of Practice
The aims of this chapter are the description ofsociability issues (people, policies, practices) and the process that occurs between ‘Real Communities of Practice’ (CoP) to ‘Online Communities of Interest’ (CoI) and ‘Online Communities of Practice’ (OnCoP). The grey zones within the transitions, which describe the plasticity of CoP development to a potential online CoP, are suggested to be based on the attitudes concept for ‘complexes of ideas and sentiments… contained in motives’ (Cohen, 1966). The grey zones are related to the ‘sleeper effect’ (change of behaviour after a lapse of time), borrowed from the social psychology terminology of the 60s (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953). At that time, sociologists were actually interested in attitudes ‘always as a part of an ultimate aim of studying the structure of social conduct’ (Cohen, 1966). Thomas and Znaniecki (1918-20) have defined social psychology as the ‘scientific study of attitudes’ (cited in Allport, 1954).The 50’s and 60’ era decision in favour of the social learning was made because social psychology and social learning theory appeared as the passage from American behaviourism to a more sociocultural approach with an emphasis into group intelligence due to mass media development. The author finds similarities in the recent years such as the introduction of new disciplines coming from the passage of social psychology and learning theories to the online social psychology and online learning.
The last 5 years Jenny Preece insisted on the concepts of sociability and usability regarding creation, design and development of online communities in a more or less theoretical vacuum. Sociability is concerned with ‘the collective purpose of a community, the goals and roles of the individuals in a community, and policies generated to shape social interaction’ (Preece, 2000:7). Usability is a measure of quality of user’s experience when interacting with a product or a system and is described by the ease of learning, efficiency of use, memorability, error frequency and severity and subjective satisfaction. As such, the theoretical framework sketches two processes in a macro and micro level i.e. the group formation and the individual’s contribution process to the group. The ‘sleeper effect’ exists within the ‘potency of contributing’ drawing from social psychology (group dynamics, attitudes and communities of practice), learning technology (tacit and informal learning in communities of interest), management (group organisation and motivation) and communication studies (online interactivity and dialogue).
In the Formal, Informal and Life-long Learning framework, we are going to discuss similarities and differences between Cop and CoI. This is due to the fact that CoP are closer to the formal education whereas CoI are more open and creative as in Informal Learning. The idea of simulating a community is as popular as ever. Fox (2002), Hodgson & Reynolds (2002) as well as Jones (2003) do not share the enthusiasm. Fox suggests the actor-networks based on a more individualized approach as the communities of practice are actually imagined communities. This is due to the fact that specific practices are exhibited in communities of practice such as mimicry, demonstrating and collaborative work and these properties cannot be implemented in an online learning community. Communities of Practice (CoP) associated to Open and Distance Learning (ODL) suggest specific stages and practices when a newcomer engages in CoP. The procedure is called legitimate peripheral participation (LPP, Lave and Wenger, 1992) and it is based on the old ‘master and disciple’ relationship.
Nowadays, CoP and CoI echo Sherif and Sherif (1953) as well as Siegel and Siegel (1957) as they recommended a distinction between reference (RG) and membership groups (MG). Reference groups work differently than structured, membership groups i.e. motivation appeared higher in membership groups although the quality was better in the reference groups. Sherif and Sherif (1953) suggested that both membership and reference groups affect the attitudes held by the individual. The direction of a person’s attitude change over time depending on the attitude norms of her membership and her reference group. The members attain membership in RG while maintain membership in MG whereas membership is some times imposed comparing to free registration in a reference group. The quality of work is sometimes better in RG due to free improvisation, unguided self-directed learning and brainstorming. People tend to exhibit attitude change in reference groups rather than membership groups (Siegel and Siegel, 1957). So, the process of active participation is certain in CoP and possible in CoI whereas CoI are more likely to exhibit change i.e. self-development comparing to membership groups. Reference group members tend to discuss their cognitive dissonance with the content and are more motivated in a free environment comparing to the experts-disciples interaction in membership groups (McGuire, 1965).
CoP and CoI differ in the set of goals especially towards the final products of participation. Attention and goal making process is quite different than setting intention. Setting intention is focused on the present moment and is connected on the importance of group existence as the underline force that aligns the members’ actions. Intention does not change comparing to goals and motivation although sometimes is not detectable. Attitudes, motivation, attention, shared focus and goals are outgrown on intention, are directed on future outcomes in order to deliver the artefact. Identifying the group intention and being grounded provide integrity and unity in the group. As such, group dynamics are aligned and all members’ move towards the same direction. Right group intention provides the group with continuing aspiration and quality of work. As such, in the Greek framework of our study, Greek Teachers CoP (GTCoP) might have higher levels of motivation and goals, and division of labour that follows the jigsaw strategy for completing a mission, but they lack the ‘unified thread’ that intention provides, offers shared focus and vision and excels the quality of work. In GTCoI, shared intention creates the self-organised system that enhances informal and non-formal learning. Engagement in CoP is crucial but in CoI it is not necessary. According to Wenger (1998), engagement in social practice is the fundamental process by which members learn and so become who they are as they pursue shared goals over time. Levels of engagement are depended in many factors, both external and internal to the individual.
Being co-present with the members of the community of practice saves significant time for newcomers’ introduction and engagement and enhances creativity as the newcomers bring new ideas to the group. Energetic participation is evident in similar frameworks. Specific practices are suggested within the previous stages, such as mimicry, demonstrating and working together. Mimicry is related to observation and reproduction of model’s behaviour (Bandura, 1977). Newcomers are within the zone of proximal development and during LPP they observe the tutor’s and/or other members’ behaviour. In the first stage GTCoI newcomers appear as lurkers and active readersas they start reading other people’s messages and trying to get familiar with the interface. Observational Learning is the potential benefit to these learners when they observe or ‘listen in’ on experts or their peers as they discuss and perform a new activity on an online environment. These discussions are based on verbal reasoning and self explanation (Chi et al., 1994). GTCoI interact and work towards the construction of community-artefacts which might be in an abstract form i.e. knowledge.
The differences between Online Communities of Practice (CoP) and Online Communities of Interest (CoI) are based on the following levels:
- the intention drive and its attributes (intensity and awareness) that leads to motivation,
- the different levels of external and internal motivation as central towards attention,
- the rules and the netiquette of communication and practice,
- the production of artefacts and
- the division of labour.
Intention is the initial framework that defines the next levels. The corollary of the characteristics is the determination of the levels of members’ engagement. They describe more the social activity theory framework than a free and open level of self-organised CoI. Purpose, people and policies are the components of sociability in Communities of Interest (CoI). In our study, EEEP group is a developing Online Community of Interest; the members have special interest in the Valorisation of the Use of ICT in Primary Education and there is a need of exchanging knowledge and experience. The main purpose of the community is to share information, solve any kind of problems, and help each other. EEEP members crossed the threshold of CoI and developed an online Community of Practice.
There was an effort to open up existing systems in education in Greece (lifelong learning, nationwide school communication and teachers’ online communities of practice), learning management systems (LMS). Eight online training courses were created using moodle LMS open source software and Greek Teachers now have the freedom to participate in theses courses on a voluntary basis. Creative transfer of learning is of great importance given that they are expected to implement the acquired knowledge in everyday practice and vice versa. As a result, the Greek Teachers Community of Practice (GTCoP) made its entrance to the online educational world with two groups of special interests (GTCoI) via two networks: the Greek National School System ( 8,500 members in March 25, 2004) and the Scientific Society for the Promotion of ICT in Primary Education ( 90 members in March 25, 2004). The educational system in Greece does not favour online learning despite the EU educational policy. Not only is there a law that prohibits online education unless an organisation proposes its use implicitly in its constitution but there is not any consideration for a new law that allows online learning, recognise online learning communities and consequently Informal Learning. As such, the system creates more obstacles for online, informal and life-long learning needed in GTCoI, so a way of validation of participation in the provided online courses is not feasible at the moment.
Informal as Social Learning in Online Communities
Livingston (2000) indicated that informal learning includes anything you do to gain knowledge, skill or understanding from learning about anything that interests the individual outside of formal or organized courses occurred either individually or collectively. He stresses the fact that ‘the centrality of their tacit knowledge to the production and reproduction of society has typically been unrecognized both by others and by these people themselves’. According to McGivney, V. (1999) informal learning is learning that takes place outside a dedicated learning environment, which arises from the activities and interests of individuals or groups, but which may not be recognised as learning. As McGivney (1999, p. vi) points out “in the context of adult learning, ‘progression’ can mean several things – personal progression, social progression, economic progression and educational progression. These frequently overlap.” In a recent study conducted by Cook and Smith on UK Online Centres (2004), progression was taken to mean evidence of an advancement of a person’s goals, knowledge, viewpoint, ambitions and/or confidence.Livingston (2000) extends the informal learning concept to lifelong learning and knowledge society.
Livingston’s paper is the main reference to informal learning in our days. He suggested that the basic terms of informal learning (e.g., objectives, content, means and processes of acquisition, duration, evaluation of outcomes, applications) are determined by the individuals and groups that choose to engage in it. He uses the terms explicit and implicit knowledge as found in Claxton, 1998. Livingston stresses the importance of the collective aspects of informal learning - the social engagement with others - as an integral part of any actual knowledge acquisition process.In addition, he suggests that ‘much of the most important learning adults do occurs in these moments of transition which provoke a concentrated period of informal learning’. Guy Claxton (1998) described tacit learning within informal learning environments such as working environments, super-markets, galleries etc. His definition of knowledge was implicit and explicit (1998:31). Lynne Chisholm, in apresentation for the EU for non-formal learning (2003), summarised learning methods that seem to be applied to our effort for informal learning recognition for CoI:
- Communication-based methods: interaction, dialogue, mediation
- Activity-based methods: experience, practice, experimentation
- Socially-focussed methods: partnership, teamwork, networking
- Self-directed methods: creativity, discovery, responsibility
Our suggestion is founded on the previous discussions and sees informal learning under the same lens as formal learning. When we refer to education most of the times we connote formal education and academic training without considering neither the framework where formal education takes place (schools, organizations, buildings, the educators as human beings with shared problems), nor the timetable, the actual time spent on education. Most important of all, everyday learning is not considered to be part of the education and the educational system. Seeing and being aware of everyday situations is learning indeed, learning about the world we live in; learning is seeing and being aware of how we learn, about our behaviour and our own selves in a self-reflective manner. This is the parallel school. The following figure describes the three sides of learning that simultaneously occur: (a) learning in specific institutions and organizations (formal learning); (b) learning about the world and ourselves (informal learning); (c) learning in our working environment within communities of practice (CoP). The connecting thread between all is interaction, co-operation and collaboration with the context and the people inside the context.