Establishing an Online Community of Practice for Instructors of English As a Foreign Language Christopher M
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks CEC Theses and Dissertations College of Engineering and Computing 2005 Establishing an Online Community of Practice for Instructors of English as a Foreign Language Christopher M. Johnson Nova Southeastern University, [email protected] This document is a product of extensive research conducted at the Nova Southeastern University College of Engineering and Computing. For more information on research and degree programs at the NSU College of Engineering and Computing, please click here. Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Share Feedback About This Item NSUWorks Citation Christopher M. Johnson. 2005. Establishing an Online Community of Practice for Instructors of English as a Foreign Language. Doctoral dissertation. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences. (614) https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd/614. This Dissertation is brought to you by the College of Engineering and Computing at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in CEC Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Establishing an Online Community of Practice for Instructors of English as a Foreign Language by Christopher M. Johnson A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences Nova Southeastern University 2005 An Abstract of a Dissertation Submitted to Nova Southeastern University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Establishing an Online Community of Practice for Instructors of English as a Foreign Language by Christopher M. Johnson June 2005 Communities of practice are entities that emerge for the purposes of learning and advancement of knowledge in a particular area. They emerge under all circumstances, even adverse situations. Because they can spawn great innovation and knowledge advancement, organizations need to cultivate and establish environments that allow them to develop. Currently, communities of practice have moved into the online world, in which their members use computer mediated communication to collaborate with each other. In January, 2002, a virtual community was formed to enable teachers of English as a Foreign Language to collaborate on learning and applying various computing technologies in language teaching. This community is known as Webheads in Action. Because many teachers with this interest are geographically disbursed, this distributed community allows the members to contact others with similar interests in this field. This virtual community also considers itself a community of practice because some of its core members are interested in the research and literature in this area. The literature presents communities of practice as falling within a range of attributes and characteristics. However, this presentation of ranges causes the concept of “communities of practice” to be elusive for members and stakeholders alike. In addition, the difference between communities of practice and virtual communities needs to be delineated. This dissertation established criteria that distinguish distributed communities of practice from other types of virtual communities. The author derived the criteria from theory, and conducted a case study that compared communities of practice theory with the virtual community of Webheads in Action. Based on this analysis, this dissertation refined and furthered develop theory of distributed communities of practice. This case study opened the debate on general criteria, as well as a benchmarking system, for communities of practice. It provided guidelines for future study in the areas of methodology and criteria refinement with respect to multiple case studies. Acknowledgements The dissertation process is one of great personal, professional, and academic growth, and it seems to be an individual endeavor. However, it was only possible through the help of special individuals, to whom I would like express my gratitude and thanks. My chair and advisor, Dr. Laurie Dringus, was always present with encouragement, invaluable practical advice, and support during this process. I am also very grateful for her publishing my initial research in this field. Also, many thanks to my committee members, Dr. Tim Ellis and Dr. Steve Terrell, who provided both expertise and support. All of the committee expressed such great interest in my work. It was a pleasure working with them on both this dissertation and participating in their courses. In addition to Dr. Dringus and my committee members, two other facility members, Dr. George Fornshell and Dr. David Metcalf, supplied initial advice and direction during the early stages of my doctoral work. The members of the online community of Webheads in Action (WIA) embraced my proposal to study their community with immense enthusiasm. It was a privilege to be able to work with this group of diverse individuals linked via computer mediated communication from every corner of the globe. In particular, I very much appreciate the support and volunteer work of the following three individuals in categorizing data and providing feedback on my survey questions: Susanne Nyrop (Denmark), Dr. Elizabeth Hanson (California, USA), and Dr. Arif Altun (Turkey). Dr. Dafne Gonzales (Venezuela), Teresa Almeida d'Eca (Portugal), and Michael Coghlan (Australia) always gave encouragement and moral support for my study. Vance Stevens (UAE), WIA’s founder, is a model facilitator for this diverse group. I am grateful for the opportunity he initiated to be in contact with a this fine group of colleagues, whom I have never met face to face. Dr. Barry Floyd (California, USA) put me initially in contact with Vance Stevens and WIA. I am very grateful to Gabrielle Johnson for the final proofreading and stylistic advice she provided for this immense paper. I am proud to be included among my colleagues at Nova Southeastern University. In particular, Dr. Robert Poselli was always there for encouragement and help, as well as a plethora of inside jokes. He, along with Dr. D. Bruce Curry and Randall Palmer, comprised the best project team, on which I have ever participated. In addition, I would like to the thank the other “tacos”, as we called ourselves, for the fantastic memories: Pam Bell, Ian Johnson, Dr. Ed Lovitt, Dr. Jo Lundy, Brad Nixon, Mava Norton, Kristen Pitner, and Dr. Will Smith. I also express my heartfelt thanks to my family and friends for their encouragement and support. This includes Mom, Tim, Jenny K, as well as my other relatives and fellow karate-kas. Finally, thank you to my beloved Kathryn (plus Fiona & Robbie) for her encouragement, support, and patience. This work is dedicated in memory of my father, Neill L. Johnson. Table of Contents Abstract ii List of Tables ix List of Figures xi Chapters 1. Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem to be Investigated and Goal to Be Achieved 1 Problem Statement 1 Goal 3 Relevance and Significance 4 Barriers and Issues 6 Tradeoffs with respect to CoPs. 6 Conflicting issues between CoPs and Virtual Communities 8 Theoretical Proposition and Research Questions to Be Investigated 10 Theoretical Proposition 10 Research Questions 11 Unique Identifiers of Distributed Communities of Practice 13 Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 15 Definition of Terms 17 Summary 22 2. Review of the Literature 23 Historical Overview of the Theory and Research Literature 23 The Theory and Research Literature Specific to the Topic 26 What are communities of practice? 26 Characteristics of CoPs: 1. Core Membership 29 Characteristics of CoPs: 2. Peripheral to Center Movement 31 Characteristics of CoPs: 3. Boundary Practices 33 Characteristics of CoPs: 4. Knowledge: Community, Explicit, and Implicit 34 Characteristics of CoPs: 5. Artifacts 38 Characteristics of CoPs: 6. Emergence 39 Distributed Communities of Practice versus Virtual Communities and Virtual Teams 40 Supporting Concepts of CoPs and VCs: 1. Roles and Rotating Leadership 43 Supporting Concepts of CoPs and VCs: 2. Negotiated Meaning 45 Supporting Concepts of CoPs and VCs: 3. Facilitation 45 Supporting Concepts of CoPs and VCs: 4. Social Scaffolding 46 Supporting Concepts of CoPs and VCs: 5. Trust 48 Supporting Concepts of CoPs and VCs: 6. Reflection 50 Current Issues in CoP and DCoP/VCoP Research 51 Degree of Organizational Control 52 Technology in Relation to DCoPs/VCoPs 53 v Degree of Face-to-Face (F2F) Versus Online or Virtual Contact 54 Different Terminology for Virtual Communities and DCoPs/VCoPs 55 Summary of What Is Known and Unknown About the Topic 57 The Contribution This Study Made to the Field 59 3. Methodology 61 Introduction 61 Overview 61 Evolving and Iterative Nature of Qualitative Methodology and Case Studies 62 Decisions in the Iterative Process of Examining the Data 65 Research Methods Employed 67 Introduction 67 Initial Definitions 67 The Pilot Study 69 The Interim Case Study Report 73 The Interim Case Study Report: Artifacts vs. Documentation 75 Final analysis of communication data and survey data. 77 Specific Procedures Employed 78 Introduction 78 Unit of Analysis and Embedded Subunits 79 Data Views and Artifact Designation of CMC Data Types 83 Time-Series Analysis 87 Conversation Analysis 89 Memos with Respect to Communication and Artifact Logs 93 The Survey 94 Survey