Self-assessment is a powerful tool that encourages learners to take responsibility for their own learning. Taking a moment to reflect on learned content and future application supports retention and promotes metacognition. I have used self-assessment with my students with great success. As I pondered what angle to approach ISTE Coaching Standard 4B this week (Design, develop, and implement technology rich professional learning programs that model principles of adult learning and promote digital age best practices in teaching, learning, and assessment.), it struck me that I’d never been asked to assess myself following a professional development session. This realization led me to wonder what role self-assessment could play in effective professional development.
Self-assessment is a three-part process. The first step requires reflection on the intended learning goals of a class, presentation, concept, etc. Juvenile learners may need to be prompted to reflect on a particular goal while adult learners should be able to pull out key points. Next, the learner should evaluate their own learning in conjunction with the goal: Was the goal met; how do you know? The final piece is reflecting on future learning: How will I apply this knowledge in the future? This is a simplified example, but I’ve found that most self-assessments follow this general structure.
Professional Development Applications
Despite research supporting the efficacy of self-assessment, few resources exist linking self-assessment explicitly to professional development. The research outlined below deals with two aspects of self-assessment: the type that happens immediately after a professional development session and a more extensive self-assessment that occurs later once teachers have had a chance to implement the knowledge. While a bit aged (1999), the rationale behind the study is solid and the results show that self-assessment can support teachers in implementing new content and strategies from workshops into their classroom practices.
The professional development at the focus of
this study was entitled PEERS (Promoting Educational Excellence Regionally and
Statewide) and was developed by the Nebraska Math and Science Initiative. The
stated purpose of the PEERS 2-week long workshop was “to increase teacher understanding
of mathematical and scientific processes, improve teaching methods in math and
science, and create a supportive network for systemic change in the state.”
(Wise et al., 1999) Teachers were placed into groups by grade-level and
sessions were created and hosted by lead teachers who had undergone 5-week
residential training institutes. Goals, activities, and lessons were tailored
by grade-level. Participating teachers attended an additional follow-up session
once the school year began.
As with many professional development
workshops, teachers were asked at the end to evaluate the workshop’s
effectiveness of meeting intended learning goals. While the immediate feedback
was positive, the study’s authors recognized that this feedback “indicated that
they were effective in delivering the intended content and experiences…this
evaluation provided only indirect information regarding the extent to which
teachers can use these new skills in their classrooms. It provided no
information concerning whether the teachers had translated their workshop
experiences into their classroom practices.” (Wise et al., 1999) This is such
an important distinction to make!
To gather a complete picture of the effectiveness of the PEERS workshops, facilitators conducted a follow-up in the form of open-ended reflective questions. The questions were purposely designed to not copy the wording of the immediate assessment. Instead, evaluators coded the open-ended responses based on whether a workshop strategy was ‘explicitly stated or easily inferred.’ The following eight questions were used by teachers as a self-assessment:
1. Please describe the new lesson/unit or teaching strategy you tried.
2. How does this lesson/unit relate to the national standards or Nebraska frameworks?
3. What were your objectives/goals in the lesson or strategy you used? (Why did you decide to use a new strategy or lesson?)
4. Did students respond differently than in a typical lesson?
5. What evidence did you see of differences in student learning or student attitudes? (Student comments? Student work? Assessments? Attach examples if desired.)
6. Will you do this lesson again?
7. What modifications will you make and why?
8. What have you learned from this experience?
The following table shows the percentages of teachers across high school, middle school, and elementary who implemented aspects of the workshop goals into their classrooms:
While many of the results were very
encouraging, this study is also interesting in terms of the gaps that exist
between immediate self-assessment at the end of a workshop and later
implementation. For example, 84% of high school teachers reported at the end of
the PEERS workshop that they were able to implement technology successfully
into lessons. After the later reflection, only 48% of those teachers had
actually made a change based on the workshop and included technology in a
Another benefit of this study is seeing a conclusive link between professional development and classroom practice. As stated by the authors, “This reflective practice approach to evaluation provides a clear link between a significant professional development activity and classroom practice.” (Wise et al., 1999)
Spiller, D. (2012, February). Assessment Matters: Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment. Retrieved February 19, 2019, from University of Waikato website: https://kennslumidstod.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ assessment-matters-self-assessment-and-peer-assessment.pdf
Wise, Vicki L.; Spiegel, Amy N.; and Bruning,
Roger H., “Using Teacher Reflective Practice to Evaluate Professional
Development in Mathematics and Science” (1999). Educational Psychology
Papers and Publications. 184. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers/184
For today’s post, I’d like to take an in-depth
look at a perennial favorite of those hosting professional development for
teachers: the workshop model. When you think of a workshop outside of the education world, you probably picture a full day,
hands-on session learning how to lay laminate flooring or perhaps weekly
evening classes on water coloring. Whatever comes to mind, I’d venture to say
it is prolonged and requires active learning. I doubt anyone would attend a
workshop that featured someone lecturing at you for an hour while you try your
best to stay awake! Unfortunately, workshops in the world of education often
look like the latter example. As educators, we need to make sure workshops are
places of active learning where teachers have multiple exposures to content.
Despite the popularity of workshop-based
professional development (one study showed over 90% participation nationwide),
research does not show a link between the traditional, once and done workshop
model and student achievement. In an extensive report completed by the Regional
Educational Laboratory Southwest for the Institute of Education Services,
researchers combed through over 1,300 studies on teacher professional
development to find links between teacher development and student achievement. Ultimately,
the studies which had the lowest number of hours of professional development
using the workshop model (5-14 total) showed no statistical impact on student
achievement. Conversely, in studies where teachers received an average of 49
hours of professional development using the workshop model, students’
performance was boosted by 21 percentile points. (Yoon et al, 2007)
Case Study: University of Toledo
While researching ways in which the workshop
model can support ISTE coaching standard 4B (“Design,
develop, and implement technology rich professional learning programs that
model[s] principles of adult learning and promote[s] digital age best practices
in teaching, learning, and assessment”), I came across a detailed case study
that outlined the evolution of one college’s program from the traditional
workshop model to one that was more robust and responsive to teacher needs.
This study, published in 2005, examined the
evolution and subsequent effectiveness of the workshop model for
technology-related professional development. The test subjects were university
professors interested in incorporating more technology into their courses. The project, ‘Teachers
Info-Port to Technology,’ began with a traditional professional development workshop
model in year 1 and then incorporated new strategies and follow-up support in
year 2. Additional ideas were implemented for year 3 and beyond.
In the first year, professors
participating in the program self-divided into two groups based on platform
preference (Mac vs PC). They then attended eleven sessions, some targeted to a
specific area such as digital portfolios. The sessions were intentionally
designed following the workshop model where part of the class was spent on
content and the remainder on application. Interestingly (and in line with the
findings of Yoon et al), the session with the most lecture time and least
hands-on application time was ranked least helpful by attendees.
The effectiveness of the year 1
program was measured by participant surveys, course syllabi comparison (to see
if additional technology had been implemented), and faculty discussions. Based
on the three data sets, seven areas of improvement were identified:
Depth: more time spent on fewer technologies
Hands-on Practice: at least 50% of workshop spent on practice/creation
Project-based Approach: focus on practical products, follow from start to finish
Modeling: demonstrate classroom applications
Examples: use specific content areas, resources and templates
Ongoing Assessment: short modules, frequent assessments
Timesavers: access to templates and copyright-free visuals, review sheets
A second group of professors
participated in the modified workshops held in year 2. These workshops
incorporated feedback from the first group and resulted in even higher rates of
self-reported ability to utilize new technology. Additionally, participants
viewed the sessions more favorably than the first group with some even wishing
the workshops were longer. Based on the data from this second group, two more
areas of improvement were added to the program:
Differentiation: additional one-on-one assistance, additional smaller workshops tailored to a specific need
Expanded opportunities: observe colleagues, mentorship opportunities, cohort groups for collaboration
In addition to the nine factors
identified in the study, there are other implications for the workshop model that
we can derive from the study:
professional development is ongoing
The professional development occurred
over a long period of time. Each test group met eleven times over the course of
the school year, requiring a great investment of time and resources on the part
of both administrators and participating professors. This prolonged exposure
contributed to the success of the project. Research shows that the critical
stage of professional development is not the initial concept attainment, but
rather the ongoing implementation: “mastery comes only as a result of
continuous practice despite awkward performance and frustration in the early
stages.” (Gulamhussein, 2013) Later in the study, even more support was added
in the form of one-on-one assistance and mentorships.
professional development is responsive to teacher needs
Another important element of success
was the responsive nature of the professional development. Changes were made
based on participant feedback in order to provide a better experience for
participants. In addition to giving teachers what they need content-wise, this
practice also communicates respect for participants which boosts morale and
investment in future sessions.
professional development includes plenty of time for hands-on application
Teachers responded best when given
adequate time to try out the new concept or tool presented at each training. Sessions
where teachers were asked to bring existing content for modification using the
new tool worked best. In response to feedback, the study implemented a standard
of dedicating at least half of future sessions to application.
professional development rewards teachers for their time
A final factor was the extrinsic
support participants received. Professors willing to participate were granted
either a stipend or release of course assignment in exchange for their time. We
often assume adult learners should be motivated solely by intrinsic means, but
this case study shows that compensation for participants’ sacrifice of time can
be equally important.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Recently I implemented a brand-new digital tool to aid my high school students in organizing their research and citing their sources properly. The tool had just recently been purchased by my school and this was the first time both my students and I would be utilizing the tool for a major project. To roll out this new tool, I asked my school’s digital literacy educator (think, 21st Century Librarian) to come by and walk students through the registration and process of first use. As she projected each step of the process onto my Smartboard, I walked around and made sure students were able to follow along. Then students followed step by step as we went through citations, research, and note-taking. Despite a few minor bumps, we were off to a great start within a short amount of time.
This experience happened to
coincide with this week’s research question for my 6106 class: how can tech
coaches and administrators balance delivery of content and the opportunity for
hands-on application and practice when introducing teachers to a new digital
tool or platform? There is no way I would introduce a digital tool to my
students without allowing them the opportunity to walk beside me and experiment
with the new tool. You can probably imagine the lack of success and confusion
if I had shown students a PowerPoint introducing the tool and then asked them
to go home and give it a try. Why then do we use this method when introducing
teachers to a new digital tool?
The guiding adult learning principle at play when we consider how to balance content delivery and application is the principle of active learning. Though the particular percentages assigned to learning activities in Edgar Dale’s Cone of Experience have been debated (see here), most educators would agree that active learning is far more beneficial than passive learning.
Passive learning through lectures,
reading from assigned texts, or outlining content are still prevalent in higher
education and teacher trainings despite evidence that supports active learning:
“Long-term retention, understanding, and transfer is result of mental work on
the part of learners who are engaged in active sense-making and knowledge
construction … learning environments are most effective when they elicit
effortful cognitive processing from learners and guide them in constructing
meaningful relationships between ideas rather than encouraging passive
recording of information.” (Lynch, 2017)
According to educational
researcher Dr. Jay Lynch, three of the most powerful ways to incorporate active
learning into instruction include production of ideas over passive collection,
integration of new knowledge with existing knowledge, and frequent opportunities
to engage with new content.
As technology coaches,
administrators, and innovative teachers consider methods of professional development,
I would argue that active learning should be a guiding principle when “Design[ing],
develop[ing], and implement[ing] technology rich professional learning programs.”
So what might this look like on a practical level when introducing a new tool or platform? In researching possible answers to this question, I discovered the ITPD3 Framework as introduced at the 2015 ISTE Conference by Dr. Cynthia Vavasseur, Sara Dempster, and Cammie Claytor.
ITPD3 is an interesting approach to technology professional development that attempts to clarify and systematize what ‘relevant, timely, and meaningful’ PD looks like. Previously I’ve explored whateffective professional development looks like, but I’d struggled to find a tangible tool/framework to guide educators.
The ITPD3 Framework (ITPD = Instructional Technology Professional Development) features three leaders, three levels, and three steps (hence, the 3 at the end of the acronym). Here’s what it looks like:
The three leaders each take on a level of tech adopter to teach:
early, intermediate, and advanced. Interested teachers opt into the group based
on their comfort level.
The leader then identifies an area of focus for the group based on
From there, training occurs in three steps:
1) “flipped” screencast tutorial with instructions for any
registration or preparation work that should occur prior to the PD session
2) small group PD session with goal of integrating newfound tech
tool/skill into upcoming lesson plans, also providing opportunity to ask
clarifying questions and collaborate
with resources and artifacts published in iBook or website form for teachers to
refer back to
Here’s what I love about this
model (not to mention how it incorporates best practices in adult learning):
CHOICE: teachers get to select the tool or resource they want to
DIFFERENTIATION: by allowing teachers to opt into groups by level,
coaches can better meet individual needs and increase efficiency by not going
over the basics for more advanced teachers
EFFICIENCY: “flipped learning” is a buzzword for students, yet it
works wonderfully for teachers in this framework; time is saved when all
teachers are registered and familiar with the site or tool before meeting
MULTIPLIER EFFECT: the last step in the ITPD3 process calls for
coaches to design a tutorial that teachers can refer back to along with
additional resources and examples from teachers who have gone through the cycle;
this resource can be shared with new teachers or those who weren’t able to
For educators and coaches looking to move away from the ineffective lecture model of technology professional development, the ITPD3 framework offers an interesting solution that balances the need for content delivery and hands-on application while incorporating vital principles of adult learning such as choice and relevancy.
For our last post on ISTE Coaching Standard 4: Professional development and program evaluation, we’re thinking about what technology rich professional learning looks like, in the ideal. In my own typical fashion, I am generalizing the population to “learners” before thinking about the specifics of professional development (PD) for teachers.
Ideally, an online learning community looks like a group of people engaged in meaningful, virtual conversation/sharing/collaboration which supports their learning.
But how do you have meaningful conversations in virtual environments? What does it require? What’s different than in-person communication? Why does it feel more difficult?
How can we use what we know from our experiences in other online communities to inform our interactions in the online learning communities that we wish to create?
How can we use that information to support teachers in creating virtual communities of practice that support them in their professional learning?
Talking with the experienced
I’ve had a hard time finding information about what online community members themselves can do to develop their shared community and learn from each other. There is a lot of information on what facilitators and community leaders can do to encourage community participation, but at the end of the day, it’s up to the community members to engage. So what should community members know about engaging in rich discussions through text to help them have successful text-based discussions? (When I refer to “text” I don’t necessarily mean “texting,” I just mean any form of text-based communication – e.g., texting, Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Reddit, etc.)
My primary tactic for answering my questions this module was to talk to a handful of people I know, who are both thoughtful and have spent a considerable amount of time participating in online communities or otherwise engaging in text-based communication.
Through these conversations, I realized that I was conflating two things: actions that community members can take that support participation in the community and its discussions, and actions that people can take that support engaged conversations. This may or may not be a subtle distinction. The difference is like participation in discussion threads, which may not have much of a back and forth conversational element, versus participation in an engaged conversation where there is a back and forth between participants. For example, if someone posts a question and everyone simply gives their own answer, versus if someone posts a question and a debate begins. One of my friends proposed this definition for an engaged conversation: “engagement is usually when both parties are kinda, aware of and committed to the outcome/effect of the conversation on the other person.” I haven’t fully explored if I think this is a complete definition for my use, but I think it’s worth considering, and for now it’s the most concise and accurate definition I have to work with, so I will use it.
What I was really after was how to support engaged conversation, but there was a noteworthy similarity in what everyone said about how to support participation. The two main things that community members can do to support participation in the community and its discussions are:
Respond to posts (even when you disagree)
On the one hand, “yeah, duh,” but on the other hand, even though it’s obvious, there seems to be no escaping that this is the bottom line for an online community. And the smaller the community, the more important it is for community members to commit to doing these things.
However, having an engaged text-based conversation is not dependent on participating in a community,since it really only requires two people. So whether your participating in a community, or just one-on-one discussion, what’s different about communicating through text compared to verbal conversation? For text-based conversations:
It can require more energy – Typing your thoughts takes time and effort, and communicating through text is slower, overall. The thought of putting all you’re thinking into coherent sentences can feel like walking through pudding.
The ability to put ideas into sentences becomes very important – Sometimes we don’t have the words, but in person we still manage to communicate our thoughts or questions through half-sentences and body language. There’s a certain concreteness that becomes very important in a text-based conversation.
Multiple people can share ideas simultaneously – Conversations don’t need to be as turned based. You can complete your thought while the other person is typing. In this way, you don’t have to be interrupted and everyone can keep contributing to the conversation. While this can work really well in one-on-one conversations, it seems plausible that this could also work against large-group conversations; if there’s too much to respond to, groups may break out into multiple, smaller-group conversations.
You can keep track of multiple conversations simultaneously – For example, in a one-on-one, real-time conversation, while I respond to conversation 1, the other person can respond to conversation 2.
Tangents can be easier to come back from – If you are talking about some topic, and you go off on a tangent (or a few), in a verbal conversation it can be hard to remember what point you were initially discussing. But when talking through text, you can make your tangential point and then refer back to what you were discussing earlier to get back on track.
They can be very focused – Being able to look back at what you’ve been talking about (like in the above bullet) can promote focused conversation on whatever central thing you’re discussing.
Miscommunication or misunderstanding may be more challenging to overcome…
The challenge of miscommunication was my husband’s central focus during our discussion (which was verbal). To him, the main thing that seems hard about text-based conversation is preventing and fixing miscommunication. Indeed, when I am writing for people that I don’t know well (like posting to a discussion board for a class), what stresses me out the most is worrying that I will be misinterpreted…and offend someone. And I can easily think of examples where a conversation essentially ended due to unfixed miscommunication. But miscommunication isn’t a difficulty unique to text-based conversations, so what is it about text that makes it feel so much harder?
Signaling misunderstanding is a slower process than the immediate “wait, what?” of verbal conversation. It can take more time and energy to fix miscommunication, and it might be one of those things that feels like walking through pudding. Because the whole process is so much slower, it might amplify how much it feels like clarifying derails the flow of the conversation.
And we all know that lack of tone and body language can lead to miscommunication. But there are two specific ways I can think of that the missing tone and body language can cause a miscommunication to effectively end the conversation:
Emotions are muted in text, and emotions are a huge indicator that miscommunication is happening. Therefore, we can’t necessarily see that miscommunication is happening in real-time. And if tension is on the rise, being able to respond to the miscommunication is time-sensitive. If you’re upsetting someone, and you can’t see it, the conversation may be over before you even know what happened. (This happened to me recently. I was pressing for clarification and didn’t realize I was upsetting him.)
When miscommunication is realized, and emotions are affected, we don’t have access to tone and body language to smooth things over, which we rely on heavily in verbal conversations. This just increases the difficulty of managing certain types of miscommunication.
So what does this mean for those of us who are trying to engage in an online community or otherwise trying to have a meaningful conversation through text (whether it be for an online class or professional development, or for a hobby)?
Commit to putting your thoughts in writing – There are a handful of people I communicate with regularly, and primarily, through text. There are times when I have to make a conscious decision to sit down and take a minute to write out what I’m thinking. I can feel that I’ve stepped into the pudding, and I can either choose to step out, or walk through it. If you want to have that meaningful conversation, accept that you’re going to walk through it.
Work to clarify miscommunication or misunderstanding – Ask for clarification. Put in the time to clarify. Be patient. While it can derail the flow of the conversation to go back and hone in on something you didn’t understand, luckily, tangents are easy to recover from. And it’s worth it. Trusting that someone will work with me to resolve a misunderstanding makes the effort of communicating worth it – because if we’re not going to work to understand each other, why are we even communicating?
The ultimate question
The ultimate question we need to ask each other, and ourselves, when trying to encourage meaningful communication online is:
What will make you choose to participate in engaged conversation in an online community? What do you need in order to commit to writing your thoughts and responding to others? What do you need in order to commit to working through miscommunication?
If we want to intentionally build online learning communities, I think it’s important that we figure out what our own answers to these questions are. If we are going to use virtual communities of practice to support teachers’ professional learning, we need to know what the teachers need in order to participate; and the teachers need to know what their own needs are, too.
I’d like to preface my post by saying there’s a lot of research to be found about CoPs in business. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder’s (2002) reformulation of the communities of practice theory (compared to Wenger’s original work in 1998) is written in a way that appeals to the business world, so it didn’t surprise me that the research I found this week comes from business. I know it can be controversial to link education with business, but I think the research done on CoPs in business can certainly inform us as we try to implement them in education, even if we have to adjust or completely rethink some of that information.
This week we are turning our focus to the role of administration in supporting teachers in technology-related professional learning programs as we continue to investigate ISTE Coaching Standard 4: Professional development and program evaluation. This focus led me to my investigation question:
What does research say about the role of leadership in a community of practice (CoP) or virtual community of practice (VCoP)?
Leadership roles in CoPs
In my search, I quickly found research which uses the set of community roles identified through a study conducted by the Institute for Knowledge Management (Fontaine and Prusak, 2004):
• Subject matter experts
• Core team members
• Community members
• Community leaders
• Content coordinators
• Admin/Events coordinators
• Technologists (p. 125)
Bourhis, Dubé, and Jacob (2005) proposed adding this role to the above list:
• Coach (p. 26)
Among these roles, the role of sponsor piqued my interest. Fontaine and Prusak’s (2004) definition reads:
Sponsors, who’re generally not part of the community, are senior managers who recognize the strategic importance of the community and its contribution to the overall business objectives of the organization. Sponsors help secure needed resources, nurture and protect the community, and ensure its exposure in the organization. (p. 126)
Fontaine and Prusak (2004) list the primary responsibilities of the sponsor as follows:
• Tie the community and its benefits to the organization’s strategic objectives
• Measure and evaluate the community’s contributions to business objectives
• Allocate budget and resources for the community
• Advocate acceptance and recognition for the community
• Work with Community Leader to support additional community roles (pp. 127-128)
This role is intriguing to me because it puts the job of securing support from the larger body of “management” on an intermediate person in management, not on someone from the community. The sponsor is already, or has become, sold on the value of the CoP – they no longer need to be convinced – and they act as a fighting voice for the CoP within management; the job of the sponsor was found to require 5.7% of the sponsor’s time per week (p. 126), which amounts to slightly less than 2.5 hours in a 40 hour work week. What this means to me is that the community leader would focus on maintaining the support of a single person (the sponsor), rather than trying to win over the support of a large body of people (management in general). This seems like a more manageable task for the community leader, or for someone who sees the potential to develop a CoP in their workplace but is struggling to get the upper-level support needed.
How sponsors make a difference in VCoPs
I’m operating on the assumption that VCoPs can be used to support and extend the learning done in teacher professional development (PD). Whether the initial PD happens in person or virtually, giving the participants a virtual space to continue discussion seems like it could have a lot of potential to support their learning. I have a lot of questions about how to implement and encourage this sort of continued engagement, and when and how to develop that continued engagement into a VCoP. For this week, I found a study that narrows in on how management can support VCoPs.
Bourhis, Dubé, and Jacob (2005) report on the successful management practices of eight VCoPs. In their study, they use the community roles listed above from Fontaine and Prusak’s (2004) study, and the additional role of a coach who supports the community leader. In general, they found that “the leadership team, especially the organization management team and the sponsor, needs to take actions so as to ensure that the [community] leader, supported by his/her coach, can effectively play its role in the community” (p. 31).
In regard to the role of the sponsor in intentionally-form VCoPs, they report that even just the identity of the sponsor can have an impact on: (1) the community members’ perceptions of how successful VCoP would be, and (2) the community members’ initial and continued involvement in the VCoP. I wish there was more information about what traits the sponsor should be identified as having in order for the identity of the sponsor to positively impact the community members’ participation and optimism that the VCoP will succeed.
As far as active support for a VCoP, the study found that the management team and sponsor can play a crucial role in: (1) selecting a strong community leader (if using a top-down approach when building a VCoP), (2) selecting the right coach to support the community leader, (3) providing resources needed for the VCoP, and (4) “helping solve major issues as they occur” (p. 33).
Together, these studies suggest that management can support a VCoP by helping the community leader fulfill his or her role, and the connection between management and the community leader is primarily supported by the sponsor. Despite Bourhis et al.’s (2005) study being done on virtual CoP’s, their findings on what management can do to support the VCoPs didn’t include a whole lot of information that relates to technology. What was mentioned was related to management providing funding for appropriate VCoP technology (p. 29) and replacing a community leader “because he could not adjust to the new software used by the VCoP” (p. 30).
As far as supporting community members in using the VCoP technology, Bourhis et al. (2005) describe this responsibility as being directed to community leaders in the VCoPs studied. Considering Fontaine and Prusak’s (2004) set of community roles, this suggests that in these VCoPs, the community leader also played the role of the technologist.
Bourhis, A., Dubé, L., & Jacob, R. (2005). The success of virtual communities of practice: The leadership factor. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(1), 23-34.
Fontaine, M., & Prusak, L. (2004). Keeping communities of practice afloat: Understanding and fostering roles in communities. In Lesser, E., & Prusak, L. (Eds.), Creating value with knowledge: Insights from the IBM Institute for Business Value (pp. 124-133). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/0195165128.001.0001
I heard this week that the PEW Research Center identified a generational shift for those born after 1996. They are now known as the post-millennial generation while awaiting an official name, (Dimok, 2018). It is interesting that the movement of education mirrors life and society. Just as we have moved into a new name for the latest generation of young people in America, the United States in December, 2015, moved from No Child Left Behind to a new revitalization of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, called Every Student Succeeds Act. From what I understand about ESSA so far, I see that there is a shift from accountability in NCLB to thinking about the child as a complete learner, and beginning to re-think the parameters used to measure schools and including growth as a valuable indicator of progress, (ESSA Implementation, 2018). I found this video helpful to get an overview of where the state of Washington is going during the rest of the 2017-2018 school year.
For this module, we started off with a guiding question. What role should administrators play in professional learning programs and how do we advocate for their involvement and adequate professional learning support for technology-based learning initiatives? I decided to ask a question that would allow me to reflect on my own experiences. I’m thinking about an entire school community and how a principal can shape that community. So I’m wondering;
How can administrators work under district constraints and plan and advocate for PD that is best for their schools? What happens when administrators are involved in learning? Click To Tweet
This idea is related to what I have been investigating for some of this quarter and in previous quarters. I have been thinking about administrators,what a collaborative staff and school looks like and how an administrator can craft and support that environment. It is not directly related to technology professional development, but I am going to try to weave it into my post in a meaningful way. I do want to consider and keep in mind that I am not an administrator, however, I have been fortunate to work with some very dedicated and effective administrators and I would like to talk about some of what I have seen in their work.
The Changing Role of Administrators
As I read about how an administrator supports their staff. I found some ideas that I had maybe been familiar with but hadn’t yet read about in literature. These ideas certainly relate to some of the work I have seen my past administrators engage in and they help me to see the shift that has happened since before 2008. The book Creation of a Professional Learning Community for School Leaders: Insights on the Change Process from the Lens of the School Leader, shares that previously administrators were managers. One administrator from New York put it this way:
Before, you ran your school, you carried your budget, you hardly ever saw anyone. Now, suddenly it’s different thinking, a different conversation. We are all learners. We are all to be involved in learning. It is not just about being an administrator, it’s about being instructional leaders, (Humada-Ludeke, 2013).
That quote captures the essential shift in my opinion and in my findings,
for administrators, “it’s about being instructional leaders,” (Humada-Ludeke, 2013).
Being an instructional leader must take a lot of hard work and focused planning. I know administrators have an insane amount of work to do with evaluations, student behavior, school management, parent and family relations, staff dynamics not to mention guiding the learning of an entire school. So know this is not a simple shift but I think it is probably one of the most important things an administrator can do well.
Another idea that I want to highlight is collaborative leadership. It reminds me of distributed leadership from my module 2 post. The Office of Educational Technology NETP Leadership section uses collaborative leadership to describe how leaders support learning, gather input from diverse stakeholders, communicate clear learning goals, and create a culture of trust and collaboration, (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). I have no doubt that collaborative leadership leads to an increase in buy-in which I will discuss again later in this post.
What Might an Engaged Administrator Do?
An engaged administrator keeps those tenets as a central part of their practice in a school. One of my previous administrators seemed to have this kind of laser focus. She knew that collaboration among staff was of the utmost importance. She kept coming back to a system that built collaboration, the grade level PLC. The leadership team remained focus on this goal of building a PLC that was focused on data in spite of the other mandates that came from the district level. That helped my team and our school to build a culture of collaboration. She also talked with us regularly about life which helped build a strong community among the staff.
Finally, one more way administrators can show they are engaged that is more directly related to my question and this module is to be a part of encouraging technology best practices through PD. I think an administrator could do some of this work on their own. Instead I think administrators can highlight and encourage staff members to share technology best practices that they are seeing in their time in classrooms. Another way to integrate technology into professional development is to learn to use a tool from staff members before demonstrating using it in PD or asking a staff member to demonstrate their work. My past principal was masterful in that way, she was always sharing best practices through technology by either learning herself or encouraging other teachers to demonstrate. Being closely involved with the PD happening in schools and best practices should lead administrators to engaging in best practices of technology integration.
Getting Started with Tech Integration in PD
So what might an administrator do if they don’t feel a strong urge to engage with technology? The first idea is to set up a team. In his article about helping administrators become technology leaders Morrison (2006), suggests an administrator establish a team of teachers from all grade levels interested in technology best practices and integration. I think having those teachers be a part of the building leadership team is a great way to ensure there is a voice advocating for technology in PD and instruction. Another way for administrators to get another perspective would be to stop by some PLC meetings. Administrators could spend PD planning time investigating the best practice of instruction with technology. As I found in my last post, about Local PLCs and Global PLNs, Twitter chats are a great way to participate in a discussion where you can learn a lot from educators locally and globally. Sometimes a little exploration goes a long way in fueling interest. If the focus is on the best professional development for your staff, planning and delivering the best professional development you are able, technology integration can naturally fit into that process.
Vancouver Public Schools has started to follow an interesting model of professional development and technology integration. They started with providing focused professional development for administrators. It might be something for other districts to consider to get all staff and buildings onto the same page. This model would allow administrators to use coaching support and would increase understanding of how instructional technology coaches can support them and their staff.
Building a community of learners is key in the classroom and it is also very important in a staff. To do that administrators really do need to be instructional leaders. However, just because they are instructional leaders doesn’t mean they can’t have help from others. There are supports they can put in place as I’ve described above that would help administrators advocate for their buildings through professional learning. In addition to the above ideas, I think Lewis (2015), offers great advice to administrators on how to engage and understand the needs of their teachers:
Offer teachers choice
Personalizing the learning gives teachers that choice and will likely increase buy-in.
Observe in order to differentiate
Decide what your staff needs to meet their needs. Once again meeting their individualized needs will lead to an increase in buy-in.
Be clear and transparent about why something can’t be done
Share the wider lense with staff when they suggest ideas that won’t work right now. Let teachers know where the district is going and where there suggestions would fit in. Also don’t forget about their suggestion. Keeping those ideas in some kind of shared document that staff can view just to keep the conversation going would let them know you are coming back to their ideas.
I think that as the culture in the school changes maybe looking out to other schools or groups of teachers around a school district for professional learning might be possible and become more common. Bishop, Lumpe, Henrikson & Crane (2016) indeed found that as one of the side effects of the transformation of professional learning in section 3.4. They also found a general positive perception of professional learning which would be a significant outcome in most buildings.
I’m still left wondering about some common questions that I wasn’t able to answer in this post.
What is the best way to prepare new staff members for the team and collaborative culture? How can they be welcomed in a meaningful way?
What does district wide implementation of professional development add or take away from this model?
To close, I should clarify that once again I’m an observer. I think I’ve worked with and seen effective principals and I’ve tried to share what I’ve noticed that they did. Also much of the literature I’ve come across supports a gradual shift. Ultimately an administrator has to work to make learning relevant for their staff and that is no small commitment. If they do I believe that they would notice a change in engagement, teaching and learning.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update, Washington, D.C., 2017. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/netp/
This quarter we continue to investigate ISTE-C Standard 4b about how Educational Technology coaches can model principles of adult learning while demonstrating best practices in professional development. It makes sense that we are spending our entire quarter considering this standard because of the importance professional development could play in the role of a teacher. In much of the current professional development it appears that there is an unmet potential. It’s not really a surprise then that I’m finding my post this module is related to the last two posts I’ve written this quarter. It too has elements of choice for teachers along with variety in the offerings for professional development.
I started off this module asking about teachers as learners and trying to decide how professional development opportunities could be continue to be relevant after a session ends? I was wondering how Twitter chats, hashtags and online PLNs could play a role in helping teachers to continue learning and how learning through technology in that way might demonstrate digital age best practices. I’m not going to completely abandon that idea but in conducting research I’ve decided to include some best practices for professional development in the physical school environment as well because in my school district this constitutes the majority of professional learning opportunities. I also know that previously PLCs were a part of the district but they were required, much like in my past district so I wanted to revisit the practice of PLCs in a way that might appeal to teachers even if it wasn’t a requirement. My new question became how can individual buildings and the school district support PLCs and teachers as learners? As I asked this new question I also had to consider if PLCs can support digital age best practices, and I think they do as I’ll explain a bit later as I look at the Triple E framework through the lens of professional learning. The only thinking that might be missing from this post for me personally as a technology coach is maybe what role do I play in supporting this kind of learning in my schools? I don’t know if I will get to that specifically in this post or not, but if not it is something I will continue to think about.
Starting the Change
Over and over again in my readings on professional development throughout my time in the Digital Education Leadership Program at SPU I’ve read about how important teacher choice is in education. In this case I’m talking about choice in professional development. This week I read an interesting paper on teacher agency in professional learning and I think it makes a good case for involving teachers in the process. The paper starts out by asking an important question, “What if we are operating under faulty assumptions about how adults learn and what motivates them to learn?” (Calvert, 2016). For my school district I think it is important to start to involve teachers in the process of shaping their own professional learning again. I’ve seen some of the school improvement plans for my buildings and I don’t know how much teacher input there is into a school professional learning plan. To get teachers engaged in their learning many resources suggest getting input from teachers. A popular way to do that in my district is through survey data. I’ve heard talk from the district level that they are afraid of survey fatigue but it seems to me that in spite of that possibility we have to find a way to have teachers weigh in on the learning they will receive at buildings.
For the school district the focus should begin to shift as well. There are many initiatives happening and I don’t doubt that they are valuable but if improvign teaching and learning is a focus then devoting some time to professional learning is important. A teacher survey is the first step to designing learning that will be meaningful to each school individually. With over 20 elementary schools the needs are diverse, so learning should be diverse especially if it is designed from input from staff members at individual buildings. If members of the leadership are concerned with getting input from staff members I think this quote is a helpful way to frame the thinking about teacher input. “They must understand the intangible, but enormous, value teachers place on being listened to and involved meaningfully as well as the benefits the school community enjoys when teachers are intrinsically motivated to pursue their continued development” (Calvert, 2016). More involvement translates to an improved school community, which is related to a district goal we are pursuing.
After staff have provided input (or maybe before the process starts they can make it clear that) the district will ask teachers to lead sessions of professional learning for their staff. This provides an opportunity for coaches to guide teachers in some best practices for adult learners or to provide some guidance on technology integration. Here is how one district tackled designing the learning, “after conducting the survey, Mieliwocki and Almer brought together teacher leaders from each school to talk about the survey results and make teacher-directed plans for professional learning,” (Calvert, 2016). Again support was provided but plans were individualized for each school based on local needs.
With input from schools the district office is better able to support individual schools and can support administrators. The shift from whole district to school based professional learning topics in fact might help administrators to better support their staff as talked about in the WA-TPL “when district leadership utilizes a research-based approach to making decisions about the design of professional learning opportunities, individual school leaders are better able to make decisions about how to meet the needs of all educators,” (Bishop, Lumpe, Henrikson & Crane, 2016). So,individualizing professional learning eases the burden administrators carry to make learning relevant to their staff. If a staff is able to pick their learning, it will be relevant!
One final consideration I read about for districts to support this initial change is to provide quality professional learning for principals. Some principals may need guidance on how to be instructional leaders in their buildings. They might not be aware of the adult learning principles, just as I was not aware of them before learning about them during this class. In addition to learning about adult learning principles, they can learn about why and how to give teachers support in their professional learning. I know principals are stretched thin, so I’m not saying they have to be a part of everything, they might have to release some responsibility to let teachers grow. However, it is clear that somehow, they should be learning alongside their staff, (Bishop, Lumpe, Henrikson, & Crane, 2016). As was said in Moving from Compliance to Agency, “the principal doesn’t have to be on every team, but she or he must foster a commitment of excellence, improvement, and shared leadership through such peer networks,” (Calvert, 2016).
Connection to Digital Age Best Practices
I wanted to clearly connect my thinking to digital age best practices since that was the original goal of this module and much of our learning as digital education leaders. In order to do that I want to use the Triple E framework from Liz Kolb. The Triple E is designed to analyze best practices in teaching with technology but I think it would apply to professional learning as well. The three E’s are Engagement, Enhancement and Extension. I’ve done my best to connect how those relate to digital age best practices in professional development.
I think that teachers will be more engaged in their learning because of the level of involvement they are given by providing input on learning. In addition to that, Twitter or an educational chat on any other social media service provides access to learning and resources after initial exposure in a PLC. At a district level I think those resources could be shared with principals or may even be shared at a school level by teachers who are following or participating in Twitter chats to the benefit of others. Later at the end of this post I’ll share some possible resources that I found also for discovering Twitter chats. Overall, I think that school based learning would help ensure teachers are active learners instead of passive learners.
The understanding of content and professional learning is enhanced by using technology. Technology may even act as a scaffold providing multiple entry points and directions when staff members are researching or learning about the same topic. All contributions become valuable to the team, shifting the idea that any one person is in charge of the learning of others which shows respect for those participating in the PLC. To demonstrate understanding of a concept or topic or in a content area teachers could even participate in a micro credentialing course as a PLC or pursue some other kind of badging to demonstrate their learning. In addition to these ideas simply participating in a Twitter chat would provide additional understanding over time. One great resource I’ll share a link to later is Participate, because it shows daily or weekly educator chats that are upcoming and shows topics that will be discussed.
Teachers learning is extended when working with their PLC if they continue to investigate topics they are learning about outside of the school day. If teachers participate in a Twitter chat they are definitely extending their learning, and with a teacher laptop or smartphone they could do that learning from anywhere with an internet connection. Other tools like microcredentials are also available for teachers outside of the school day. Both of these tools help teachers to build a positive digital footprint and connect them with other educators across the country and world.
Ways to Connect
In this post I also want to make sure to share some ways that teacher can connect and for me as a coach, I think part of my role should be sharing the idea of participating in a Twitter chat with the teachers I work with. I came across a few good resources in my investigation this module as I read about “Professional Development for Globally Minded Educators” and “The Future of Professional Development is Collaborative Development,” both of those resources can be found below. They each talk about why educators might use something like a Twitter chat for professional development. In “The Future of Professional Development is Collaborative Development,” they provide a resource that I think would be beneficial for teachers getting started with Twitter chats. At the Participate website there is a way to search for Twitter chats that are happening that day or that week. The daily chats are even divided up by morning, afternoon or evening. One other resource I thought would be helpful for getting teachers connected outside of their PLC is the list of Education Chats from ISTE. They have curated a list of 40 chats that are worth the time of teachers. Finally here are a couple other ways to connect, you can use a variety of resources to search for hashtags on Twitter after you find a chat to follow or investigate.
Now I wanted to think about how this information can be shared with an entire school district to focus buildings on learning that applies for them and to encourage PLCs meeting within each building. First I think teachers need to be able to provide input through a survey or some other way to hear the voices of all affected. In addition to asking what professional learning would help them, I think the survey could be used to share a hashtag that teachers could use to track their learning and contributions on Twitter. Instructional coaches could help to share any shift in practice by giving a quick talk at staff meetings or in informal discussions with teachers. The district leadership could share the shift with principals in one of their monthly meetings. The changes I’ve written about would likely help teachers to be more active participants, and would also incorporate some of the characteristics of adult learning into professional learning.
Reconsider the Plan for Professional Learning
This post is meant to get schools and school districts to think about redesigning their professional learning with a focus on school level learning. The ways to do that are, turning over control to teachers at a school – not simply entrusting that work to an administrator or even to a leadership team – the input should come from the majority, if not from all of the staff. Evaluate the learning community a principal builds in their school. One way a district administrator could do that is by attending occasional staff meetings at schools, or through feedback forms filled out by school staff members. Provide additional coaching training and guidance for building a community of learners. Make it a part of a district wide focus. Encourage ideas and input from teachers. Provide a way for teachers to track the learning that they engage in over a school year, maybe as a part of their grade level goal, individual goal or SIP goal. Encourage reflection. I still am wondering how a positive impact on teaching and learning would be measured, maybe it could rely on SBA scores for some teachers, but maybe just as other data is used in Growth Goals the impact could be measured there. The report on Transforming Learning in Washington State provides some interesting data on the effectiveness of professional learning on classroom practice. I’m hopeful that as school districts continue to change professional learning and implement some of these ideas that are shared across the literature, teacher engagement will improve and we will be providing professional learning that considers the characteristics of adult learners and also models digital age best practices.
For Module 3, we were prompted to look into the “digital age best practices” part of ISTE Coaching Standard 4b – design, develop, and implement technology rich professional learning programs that model principles of adult learning and promote digital age best practices in teaching, learning, and assessment.
I’d like to write a bonus blog for sharing something I want to say about the process I went through during this module, but for now I’ll get straight to the point. What I found during this module were a few terms that help me ask my question using words that help me find information I’m looking for. The new terms are Web 2.0 and knowledge management (KM), and my reformulated question is:
What best practices are associated with using Web 2.0 technologies and knowledge management systems for the purpose of continuing engagement in professional development through virtual communities?
Be aware that the term “knowledge management” seems to be a business term and so I expect that the business aspect of this term may not always map directly to education. Nevertheless, the term seems very helpful to me because of the vein of information I can find by using it since there is a lot of overlap between business and education – especially when it comes to collaboration.
I’ve come to the conclusion that, in general, if you want definitions for ideas which are consistently used everywhere, you’ll probably be out of luck. And since I currently want some flexibility in the definitions, I’m going to use Wikipedia to define the terms:
Web 2.0: “A Web 2.0 website may allow users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to the first generation of Web 1.0-era websites where people were limited to the passive viewing of content. Examples of Web 2.0 features include social networking sites and social media sites (e.g., Facebook), blogs, wikis, folksonomies (“tagging” keywords on websites and links), [and] video sharing sites (e.g., YouTube)…” (Web 2.0, n.d.).
Knowledge management: “Knowledge management is the process of creating, sharing, using and managing the knowledge and information of an organisation” (Knowledge management, n.d.).
Designing platforms for PD
During Module 1 this quarter (blog here), I read that learning management systems (LMSs) aren’t designed for professional development (PD), and we need platforms which are (Spirrison, 2016). I don’t know how true that statement is, or why Spirrison claims that, but I’ve been puzzling over it ever since and I’ve been wondering:
What makes a platform ideal for PD versus some other purpose (like running a class, for example)?
With that question in mind, a quote from a dissertation I’ve been referencing, titled Constructing Guidelines for Building Communities of Practice for Supporting Faculty Professional Development in Electronic Environments (Bond, 2013), stood out to me: “Early results indicate that both Facebook and Twitter may provide the social structures for building community, but lack infrastructure for knowledge creation and sharing” (p. 20). This sentence suggests to me that there are two big things that a platform designed for supporting PD needs to do: support social structures and support knowledge creation and sharing.
I can rewrite this claim using the new terms -> There are two big things that a platform designed for supporting PD needs to have: well-developed Web 2.0 technologies and KM technologies. I think integration of these two things is what platforms like Microsoft Teams and Slack are trying to do. Frost (2013) says that the mapping of Web 2.0 principles to KM is referred to as “KM 2.0” – another good term which would probably be valuable for me to investigate.
My experience as insight
My own experience as a graduate student suggests that what is lacking from your typical LMS is the social-structures support. I don’t think LMSs are devoid of social-structures support, but I don’t think they strongly support the social side of the equation. I’d have to think more about why, but that’s what I’m inclined to say at the moment. It could be more about the way we tend to use the tool than it is about the features and capabilities of the tool itself, and that could lead us to thoughts about best practices for using LMSs as a Web 2.0 tool, not just a KM tool.
So what I’m left with for this module are not thoughts about best digital age practices, but thoughts that put me in a better position to ask about, and search for, best digital age practices for extending PDs beyond face-to-face time.
Bond, M. A. (2013). Constructing Guidelines for Building Communities of Practice for Supporting Faculty Professional Development in Electronic Environments (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University).
My main question by the end of my last module post was something like:
What features are essential for platforms which are hosting a PLC?
This module follows up on that question.
Recall that this quarter is all about investigating ISTE Coaching Standard (CS) 4: Professional development and program evaluation. For Module 2, I’m looking specifically at ISTE CS 4b – design, develop, and implement technology rich professional learning programs that model principles of adult learning and promote digital age best practices in teaching, learning, and assessment.
Communities of practice
Communities of practice, as defined by Wenger (1998), is not a theory of learning that is specific to adults. As I understand it, it’s a theory of learning that can be applied to all ages. (Though more recent reformulations of communities of practice – i.e. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder, 2002 – focus on their applicability to the workplace, which can be assumed to be adult-focused. See Cox (2005) for more on the different formulations of communities of practice.)
In short, Wenger’s (1998) conceptualization of a community of practice is a group of people who develop and use a shared repertoire of tools to mutually engage in the pursuit of a joint enterprise. “Learning” is a form of identity development and done through learning to participate in the community – through developing a shared meaning of what the community is and what it means to participate. What it means to participate is inherently flexible and under constant re-negotiation; thus, participants are continuously learning by virtue of participation in the community.
According to Schlager and Fusco (2003),
Researchers and reform advocates consistently cite participation in communities of practice as an integral factor in achieving effective, sustainable professional development systems. … The recognition that communities of practice can play important direct and catalytic roles in teacher learning has spurred great interest in how to harness the power of communities of practice in the context of systemic school reform and professional development projects. ( p. 206)
For clarity, I should note that one critique of communities of practice – and therefore, implicitly, the related body of literature – is that Wenger (1998) and Wenger et al. (2002) conceptualize communities of practice in sufficiently different ways. Based on these differences, Cox (2005) suggests that people using communities of practice pick one formulation of the theory and stick with it; I suspect that much of the communities of practice literature uses the two conceptualizations without distinction. On a different note, Schlager and Fusco (2003), draw a distinction between communities of purpose and communities of practice, claiming that professional development communities are often better defined as communities of purpose; they also elevate the question “what counts as a community of practice?”
All this to say, unless indicated otherwise, I now approach the mention of communities of practice with the assumption that those speaking of it aren’t making a distinction between the two conceptualizations of it; and I wonder if there is a justifiable argument to be made for carefully combining the two conceptualizations in a way that better fits the communities that can form in professional development. Or to put it a different way, is there a way to justifiably redraw the boundaries of “what counts” as a community of practice, which draws on both conceptualizations, so that we can better “harness the power” of communities of practice in PD contexts?
Platform features that support online communities
The above critiques and questions aside (for now), and working from the assumption that communities of practice can support teacher learning in PD, I was pleasantly surprised to find that Wenger et al. (2002) actually made a list of seven “online facilities that are among the most useful to communities”:
(1) A home page to assert their existence and describe their domain [compare to joint enterprise] and activities.
(2) A conversation space for online discussions.
(3) A repository for documents, including research reports, best practices, and standards.
(4) A good search engine to find things in the knowledge base.
(5) A directory of membership with some information about members’ areas of expertise in the domain.
(6) In some cases, a shared workspace for synchronous electronic collaboration, or to enhance teleconferences with visuals.
(7) Community management tools… These might include the ability to know who is participating actively, which documents are downloaded, how much traffic there is, which documents need updating, and so forth. (p. 197)
I also found two other lists: one from Feverbee (2012), and one from Serrat (2017). It is unclear to me how these two resources generated their lists, and Serrat’s (2017) references appear to be incorrect/incomplete. However, I found no other resources to compare to Wenger et al. (2002).
Out of curiosity, I color coded the lists for like elements (I took liberties with what I counted as the “home page” element).
The observations which I think are worth pointing out are:
there are only two features that show up on all three lists: a discussion space and a list of members.
if a feature showed up on only two lists, it did show up on Wenger et al.’s (2002) list.
“notifications” only showed up on Feverbee’s (2012) list.
My top three most important features
Two levels of threaded conversation
Notifications is one of my top two essential features of communication platforms; the other being member tagging, which is related to notifications, and not on any of the lists. I agree with Feverbee (2012) that “members need to be notified when people have responded to their posts. This keeps members coming back. It sustains activity.” And tagging supports conversation by directing someone’s attention to a specific place.
I can’t say this feature is essential… but I think it’s extremely valuable: at least one extra level to threaded conversations. I think we can assume that most platforms have a commenting feature, which is the first level of threaded conversations – someone can make a post and that thread contains the post with its comments. So the extra level I’m referring to is being able to reply to a comment, giving you a second level of threaded conversations in that post. I think having at least two levels of threaded conversation is helpful because it supports linked (but possibly diverging) conversations by keeping conversations/responses more organized.
I couldn’t find a more recent academic list, but I do suspect that notifications and member tagging would make the cut on a list of essential elements of community platforms, and I suspect that I’m not the only one who sees multiple levels of threaded conversation as beneficial. I wish I could find a more recent academic resource on the topic, and without a formal study, I wonder what I would learn if I compared common features of the most popular social networking sites.
It would still be worth considering what activities people in PLCs engage in that make the PLCs successful, and then generating my own list of platform features from there (like I mentioned in my Module 1 blog post). Towards that end, Pappas’ (2016) blog post 8 Tips To Build An Online Learning Community would be a good resource to refer back to.
Bond, M. A. (2013). Constructing Guidelines for Building Communities of Practice for Supporting Faculty Professional Development in Electronic Environments (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University).
Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of information science, 31(6), 527-540.