Abstract
Through this mixed methods study, using a sequential exploratory approach, the application of a cyberethnography was utilized to gain insight into the experiences of new and veteran teachers involved in a Twitter chat. A quantitative survey administered through Twitter further supported the identification of teachers’ professional development preferences. Overall findings suggest there are benefits for both new and veteran teachers related to membership in an online community that shares similarities to a traditional community of practice. Advantages identified include asynchronous opportunities for teachers to communicate 24 h/seven days a week across the globe on relevant issues of practice. Disadvantages also exist and can be associated with issues of anonymity and the vetting of community members.
Introduction
Social media tools and apps continue to emerge, and their use is increasing in various sectors of society. Without question, businesses are engaging in the use of social media more frequently (Holmes, 2015; Shaw, 2018); however, more educators and educational institutions are now also bending towards the use of social media as they attempt to reap the benefits of connecting with one another beyond their school building walls (Howard et al., 2015; Carpenter and Krutka, 2014, 2015; Krutka and Carpenter, 2016). Institutes of higher learning utilize social media to remain connected with prospective and current students, as well as alumni. Educators now turn to social media to establish brand identity, to connect with other educators through personal learning networks (PLNs), and to promote and sell their own teaching and learning materials (Howard et al., 2015).
Education is a particularly important sector of our society occupied with growing concerns about the equitable use of technology in K-12 classrooms. Subsequently then, is the need to explore whether social media can support teachers with any improvements or enhancements in their teaching and learning. Social media in teaching and learning is no longer just “fringe science” territory; the use of social media has been increasingly advocated in educational settings (Howard, 2012; Dlamini, 2017; Howard et al., 2015; Krutka and Carpenter, 2016; Prestridge and Main, 2018). Advocates for the use of social media, in teaching and learning, support the utilization of social media to engage students, yet they also understand the benefits of teacher-use. Certain social media offer an interesting platform for teachers to engage in online professional development (PD), as the constraints of time and locale are minimized (Pestridge, 2019). Since teacher learning (more specifically PD) has been known to impact student learning, there is a need to consider and research the use of social media by teachers and between teachers.
Examining interactions between teacher members of a PLN on Twitter provides insight into how online community members, specifically teachers, learn from one another in cyberspace. In this paper, I shed light on the following qualitative questions (QUAL): (1) What are the parallels between an online community (called #chat in this research) and a traditional CoP?; and, (2) What are the similarities and differences between the representations of #chat and a traditional CoP as it relates to “meaning,” “practice,” “community,” and “identity”? The follow-up quantitative question (quan) is as follows: What are teacher attitudes toward self-selected PD and online PD? This question further expounded on the four themes that emerged through the qualitative stage of this project: beyond borders, encouragement, standing in the gap, and chasing resources.
Theoretical frameworks
A community of practice (CoP) occurs as a vital resource where community participants learn and share their common expertise (Kirschner and Lai, 2007; Wenger, 1998). Additionally, they oversee and distribute their knowledge for the greater benefit of the community. Through regular interactions with one another, members learn how to do what they do better and in a more meaningful way. Consequently, the primary focus of a CoP is learning as social participation comprised of the following four components: meaning, practice, community, and identity (Wenger, 1998). Examples of a CoP include, but are not limited to, the congregation of a church, a campus cultural club, or the local Girl and Boy Scout troupes. The above definition and examples suggest that we all may belong to one or more CoPs.
Online communities of practice have continued to grow in cyberspace (Kirschner and Lai, 2007; Prestridge, Tondeur and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2019; Waldron, 2009). Wenger (1998) pointed out that people can congregate in cyberspace and still develop shared ways of pursuing common interests. Chen (2007) and Fang and Chiu (2010) further asserted that the value of an online CoP is contingent upon the continued participation of its members. According to Wenger and Wenger-Trayner (2015), CoPs are known under various names, including learning networks. Online communities of practice in education are now commonly called professional learning networks (PLNs). Through their PLN Enrichment Framework, Krutka et al. (2016, 2017) encouraged consideration of the limitations of traditional PD and asserted that “Professional Learning Networks are uniquely defined systems of interactions made up of people, spaces, and tools that support learning and professional growth” (p. 247). Their framework was purposefully designed as a reflective tool to encourage teachers to analyze their PLNs through the following: (1) Identification – What is my PLN?; (2) Reflection – How does my PLN shape my professional growth?; and, (3) Intention – What are my PLN goals?
A CoP framework provides a context for understanding the level of knowledge sharing between members of online communities. This study extends Wenger’s work to address myths about CoPs as new technologies emerge and open the door for opportunities to interact “beyond the geographical limitations of traditional communities” (Wenger and Wenger-Trayen, 2015). Additionally, the PLN Enrichment Framework is helpful for understanding and discussing why and how an online CoP (or a PLN) may support educators in their practice and PLN engagement (Krutka et al., 2017).
Methodology
Among qualitative researchers, it is clear that being reflexive about our purposes and biases in research is of great importance; it can both create ethical dilemmas, as well as provide us with great resources to better understand the study at-hand. A reflexivity can create rapport and inter-subjectivity with participants. As a researcher engaging in a quest to understand the workings of one particular online community, I brought my technology advocacy, personal online community experiences, and teacher PD experiences to this research. Whilst I taught elementary and high school in a low-socioeconomic and low-performing school, I also taught in teacher education programs at private universities. I acquired my MA in Educational Technology in a program that modeled the development of online communities through discussion boards, wikis, and social media. I hope my reflexivity provides one lens through which this research may be interpreted, although I temporarily set aside my personal biases to explore the phenomenon of online communities in this study.
In summary I employed a mixed methods design consisting of sequential-qualitative first (QUAL → quan), wherein qualitative data were used to explore the interactions of myself, and participants of a Twitter chat (#chat), to inform subsequent inquiry through survey methods. During the QUAL stage, I used Cyberethnographic methods and inductive content analysis (Cohen et al., 2018). The use of content analysis allowed me to analyze tweets and document data in order to identify emerging themes through repeated examination of the raw data. The data in this study also include quantitative findings from an anonymous survey that I administered to K-12 teacher participants (quan).
Why use a cyberethnography?
Cyberethnography is defined as a study of online interaction and the methodology applied when examining interactions, communications, and communities online (Jones, 1998). A cyberethnography provides advantages for ethnographers, such as great insight and depth into a range of ideas, practices, and emotions across time zones. Cyberethnographic methods combine images with text to enhance the data collection process. Although the involvement with the research may potentially be more irregular than a traditional ethnographic method, the engagement in a cyberethnography may be similar in power. Emerging technologies require innovative approaches to exploring their use, especially in an ever-changing field of education.
Using this method allowed me to remain hidden from participants (teachers) being observed and to collect the data without interfering with the natural interactions amongst teachers. It also allowed for me to engage with participants as a member of the #chat. Cyberethnographers, such as myself, participate in and observe websites and chat rooms to analyze how participants form their groups online (Keeley-Brown, 2011). We contend that inquiry into computer environments is destined to be exploratory, as research in open online environments is a developing phenomenon (McConnell, 2000). Moreover, researchers are grappling with the notion of finding appropriate research models to utilize with online data (McAteer et al., 2002). The nature of cyberspace requires a dynamic perspective in how the data are collected and analyzed; therefore, cyberethnographic methods were used to collect data for this study on #chat.
Why use a mixed methods approach?
A mixed methods approach combines the individual strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research methods such that the overall strength of an inquiry surpasses that of one method alone (Creswell, 2009). The roots of mixed methods research have been traced to the social science works of Campbell and Fiske (1959), whereby they advocated for a research process that converged the independent measures of variables of interest. This approach to research has also been described as a paradigm that allows the generating of important research questions and warranted answers (Johnson et al., 2007). In order for a mixed methods approach to transpire, quantitative and qualitative data should be linked to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a research question or set of related questions (Plano Clark and Creswell, 2010).
Using quantitative or qualitative data in isolation would not provide complete answers to the questions related to teachers’ preferences for PD or online communities. Analyses of the quantitative survey in this research can provide a measure of the various teacher preferences but gives no insight into the actions teachers take to establish an online CoP to support their preferences. Conversely, a qualitative cyberethnography can provide an opportunity to capture the voice of participants in a meaningful context while validating the existence of an online CoP; however, they are limited in explanatory value as the data collected through this method cannot be generalized to others (Creswell and PlanoClark, 2011).
Quantitative survey
The quantitative phase of this study (quan) consisted of a web-based survey administered to 107 consenting participants at or near the conclusion of the research. The survey was developed after identifying an overarching theme in the qualitative data (QUAL) which was “Twitter as a 24/7 PD opportunity.” Such references related to accessing resources were made three to four times during each weekly chat as well. Not only were the questions from the survey related to the PD, they were also consistent with the themes identified in the cyberethnography: beyond borders, encouragement, standing in the gap, and chasing resources.
Procedures
The data in this study were analyzed in three phases using NVivo and SPSS. Phase one consisted of coding and content analysis of the archives, the first set of 50 profiles, and the first two months of live #chat observations. During the initial two month period of the study, I examined the archived inaugural year of #chat. Although the archive contained chats for the previous five years, the first year was analyzed along with the current year to determine consistency among the identified themes. The chat occurred weekly at the same time, with the exception of one month in the summer. Therefore, approximately 47 archived chats and 12 current chats were analyzed and coded during this initial qualitative phase.
After two months of observations, I engaged in a participatory cyberethnographic approach of collecting data by following the “unwritten” code of conduct for joining a new chat. First, I observed for these two months and then joined the chat with a brief introduction using no more than 140 characters (the maximum allowed on Twitter at the time of this research). In a second tweet, I made it clear that I was interested in joining the chat by introducing myself and where I was from. This was done in an effort to gain the trust of the #chat members. I received nearly 25 variations of welcome messages and questions about where I taught and which grade level. For the next three months (12 chats), I participated in the #chat. I returned to unobtrusive observations for the remaining six months. The exact number of tweets analyzed cannot be determined; however, there were nearly 200 tweets in the inaugural chat and over 500 in each chat observed during the course of this study.
Findings
In the first phase of analyses, 15 propositions emerged. Findings were linked to the initial propositions; however, they were narrowed down to 10 in phase two using inductive content analysis as several were closely related which resulted in the emergence of four themes: beyond borders, encouragement, standing in the gap, and chasing resources. The themes are outlined below in relationship to Wenger’s CoP Framework and later discussed within the context of Krutka, Carpenter, and Trust’s PLN Enrichment Framework.
Beyond borders through meaning
Meaning is the first of the four components of learning as social participation, which is managed in a community through twofold interactions of participation (Wenger, 1998). Reification refers specifically to the role of what is considered abstract or artifacts (e.g. images/videos) that function as symbols of connecting to segments of society. Wenger explains that they enable members to overcome the spatio-temporal boundaries characteristic of participation. The #chat thread explored below represents one example of how meaning in #chat is negotiated as it contains an embedded artifact (an image/video) and an education government official asking teachers about their biggest challenges during year one of teaching – followed by a reply. The tweets between the members of #chat not only signify the negotiation of meaning, but they also represent a theme found in the data – Beyond borders.
The first tweet of a video from Massie, located in Washington, D.C., is prefaced with “great responses ensue.” The tweet reply from Patrick of California thanked Massie for the initial post. The online interaction was as follows: Massie (pseudonym for #chat participant): .@govEdu asks teachers their biggest challenges during year one – great responses ensue [image/video]. Government Officer’s Tweet (@govEdu will be used as a pseudonym): Teachers share their biggest challenges during year one – great responses ensue here: *link inserted* [link removed to protect participant identities]. Patrick (pseudonym for #chat participant): @govEdu Thanks for posting these responses. So much to learn about balance between prof and personal life.
Further examples of the beyond borders theme was evident from a veteran teacher whose profile stated she was a teacher in India. Membership beyond borders was also visible through tweets from members (all given pseudonyms), such as: “People from across the pond say – It's 2am I really want to join the chat #chat.” Examples of additional member profiles (all given pseudonyms) are as follows: (1) Spencer: Educator and community building specialist – Australia; (2) Katie: Teaching 3rd grade – Canada; (3) Bob: HS biology teacher and EdTech advocate – Brazil; and (4) CeCe: Wife, mother, instructional coach, middle school math teacher – Illinois.
Encouragement and practice
The interaction between Massie and Patrick signified another theme identified as encouragement. During #chat, we encouraged one another by replying to tweets. In the exchange mentioned previously, not only did Patrick reply to Massie’s initial tweet, but he also thanked her for posting. Another form of encouragement in #chat occurred through retweets or likes. I engaged in the act of encouragement by retweeting and liking Massie’s message, as well as others in #chat. Below is an example of another exchange with evidence of encouragement (note that an RT stands for retweet): Stacy: I found guidance from here: Tips for Writing Comments on Reports Cards: gazette.teachers.net #chat Bailey: RT @Stacey I found guidance from here: Tips for Writing Comments on Reports Cards: gazette.teachers.net #chat Me: RT @Stacey I found guidance from here: Tips for Writing Comments on Reports Cards: gazette.teachers.net #chat
Practice in community materializes through three interconnected dimensions: (a) mutual engagement of community participants; (b) negotiation of a dual venture delineated by participants in the process of tracking it; and, (c) a shared collection or repertoire (Wenger, 1998). The interaction above between Stacey, Bailey, and I represented an example of encouragement and also symbolized the first of the three dimensions – mutual engagement. All three dimensions of practice in community can be viewed in the following #chat thread, which began with a question from #chat member Jessica, a former principal and veteran teacher from California: Jessica: How do you decide on your delivery method when teaching your lesson? Whole group, small group, inquiry, teacher-led? #chat
Standing in the gap with community
The discussion above, which began with Jessica’s initial query, triggered another new question: Jessica: Great responses. Another question – How do you set the stage and Hook the students into the Lesson? Video, photo, textbook? #chat Ben: @Jessica Opened ended questions, odd facts about the concept, spark a discussion and get them started #chat Jessica: @Ben Nice! #chat Sherri: My delivery and grouping depends on my objective. I like to start most lessons with a video (anticipatory set) #chat Roman: @Sherri Can you give an example? #chat Sherri: @Roman Lesson-CA endangered animals- begin with vid: http://animal.discovery.com, prompt & think-pair-share #chat Roman: @Sherri That’s a great idea-thx. I like that website, will have to try your idea for an upcoming lesson #chat Tran: @Sherri @Roman Thank you I did not know about this resource. Where can I find more about anticipatory sets with tech? #chat Sherri: @Tran @Roman no worries I had to teach myself through research #chat The goal of the chat is to stand in the gap – didn’t get all this in my Teacher Ed program #chat.
Chasing resources and identity
Prior to sharing in #chat, it is expected that a teacher has tried the tool first. For example, in one exchange a new teacher who was searching (or chasing) a resource asked a veteran teacher their opinion about a tool. The veteran teacher replied by informing the new teacher that she had not yet used the tool with her students. Another member of #chat replied with their personal experience. Chasing resources happened in quest for a new tool, the vetting process of the tool, as well as through the exchange of personal accounts from #chat members.
Identity as the fourth component in Wenger’s CoP theory is connected to this theme of chasing resources. While I learned how to navigate the #chat, my own teacher identity developed further through the search of resources as members engaged with me and one another. The identity of members informs the community, and the community informs its members – A community and its members’ work together. We worked together to search for resources on several occasions and each time I personally shared a resource and received a reply, like or retweet, I felt more connected to other #chat members. Through the shared experiences with the community, identity emerged.
In addition to developing my #chat identity, I was concerned about my initial involvement and I was unsure about whether I would be a welcomed participant. My apprehension was unrelated to the fact that I was also a researcher and more connected to my concern about how (or if) I would be accepted into the group. Although many of the shared experiences through #chat were directly related to the fact that we were all educators chasing resources, some of us were less comfortable revealing detailed information about our personal or professional background. I personally struggled to find a place in the #chat community initially.
The emerging of identities within #chat can be seen in the changes made by members to their personal profiles, as well as an increase in levels of participation over time. Of the 107 profiles observed, 42 changed over the course of this study. Twenty of the 42 that were altered made changes from stock photo images to personal photos, and they added personal details to their bios. Personal details included locations where they teach, years of teaching, and/or grade levels taught. Further analyses of the #chat archives also revealed a pattern of increased participation among members. This was also true for myself. When I started out in #chat, I participated very little and used a stock photo due to uncertainty about whether how I looked may influence how members engaged with me as a new member. After a couple of months, I became comfortable enough to change my stock photo to a personal profile picture and added more detail to my bio. Although I viewed this as a necessary step in gaining trust from members, I also noticed my internal conflict and comfort in revealing my identity. The changes to profiles and bios also supported the notion of “community” in that the identities of the participants are evident and aligned with #chat membership.
Quantitative results
The following statements are examples of the prompts participants responded to when taking the online survey: (1) PD sessions I choose on my own help me support the learning of my students; (2) PD sessions I choose on my own support my personal learning growth; (3) PD sessions help me to make valuable connections with teachers around the world; (4) PD sessions offered as lecture presentations (only) are effective; (5) PD sessions offered as computer-based training are effective; and, (6) PD sessions offered on Twitter are effective. All 25-items in the survey contained a five-point Likert Scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” The following demographic questions were also included in the survey: (1) How many years have you been a K12 teacher? (2) What grade level(s) have you taught? (3) How is your school classified? and (4) On average, how many PD days do you attend each academic year?
Participants’ in this phase of the study reported agreement or disagreement with various statements related to professional learning (also known as PD). Descriptive statistics indicated that approximately 87.9% of the 107 respondents believe that professional learning (PL) sessions they actually “choose” themselves helped in making valuable connections with other teachers around the world. Only 13% of the respondents indicated that PL sessions they were “required” to attend helped in making valuable connections with other teachers. These findings support the notion that allowing teachers to self-select PL and their learning community (or CoP) may be more beneficial than forcing a teacher to attend a session.
In addition to descriptive statistical analysis, a Pearson's product-moment correlation was run to assess the relationship between self-selected (choice) or required PL and perceptions related to effective PL in the form of lectures or using social media. My analyses revealed the relationship to be linear with both variables normally distributed, as assessed by Shapiro–Wilk's test (p > .05), and there were no outliers. There was a positive correlation between self-selected PL offerings and thoughts related to social media as an effective tool for PL delivery, r(107) = .279, p < .0005. The findings in the quantitative data further supported the themes identified with relation to teachers using social media as a tool for their PL, especially when selecting their own PD and CoP (or PLN). Additionally, these findings support the notion that allowing teachers to self-select an online community of like-minded learners may be more beneficial than forcing a teacher to attend a one-time face-to-face PD session.
Discussion
The captured themes (beyond borders, encouragement, standing in the gap, and chasing resources) support the notion that the learning within an online community may be similar to a traditional CoP. As previously mentioned, this research sheds light on the following questions: (a) What are the parallels between an online community (called #chat in this research) and a traditional CoP?; (b) What are the similarities and differences between the representations of #chat and a traditional CoP as it relates to “meaning,” “practice,” “community,” and “identity”?; and, (c) What are teacher attitudes toward self-selected PD and online PD? The findings in this study evidence the existence of an online community; however, there are key differences between traditional and online communities that raise questions about whether #chat is truly a CoP.
Research question #1: What are the parallels between an online community (called #chat in this research) and a traditional CoP?
Numerous questions from various #chat members provoked replies from members of the online community. In seeking support, new and veteran teachers asked and answered questions, and they showed knowledge of teaching and interest in sharing resources. As they stood in the gap, they rallied to identify the most useful resources to support one another in their teaching practice. Participants of the community exhibited genuine appreciation for their role in the field of education and their online community. Together, the members sought out new teaching and learning methods and shared findings with one another. These #chat interactions and engagement are similar to the sharing nature and make up of membership in a traditional CoP known as “learning.” Arguably, effective learning transpires in social groups where individuals engage in meaningful exchanges about their practice and in the process create influential communities in which they participate. Herein lies another similarity between an online community and a traditional CoP.
Although the term “community” may differ in meaning as theories in sociology are concerned, online communities of practice display analogous learning characteristics to traditional communities. For example, members of #chat connected regularly, exchanged information, and learned from one another as is the case in traditional face-to-face communities. The online community members in this study also found specific days/times to meet to share information in the same way that face-to-face communities may plan to meet. Similar to traditional CoPs, online community members of #chat were more than a club of friends and possessed what Wenger calls a shared commitment and domain of interest in teaching. The parallels between #chat (an online community) and a traditional CoP were evident in this study; however, when examining #chat as it relates to Wenger’s Framework, more nuanced similarities and differences emerged.
Research question #2: What are the similarities and differences between the representations of #chat and a traditional CoP as it relates to “meaning,” “practice,” “community,” and “identity”?
According to Wenger (1998), “negotiation of meaning” occurs when we experience the world and engage meaningfully. “Reification” and “participation” are interrelated components of this negotiation of meaning in traditional CoPs. Both components were also evident in #chat through Massie and Patrick’s exchange, as well as the active participation of group members within and outside of the scheduled chat times. That said, in #chat the absence of “reification” is more likely to occur. This means the fluid and informal group interactions of #chat members can potentially interfere with the development of mutual understandings that happen in traditional CoPs.
As it pertains to “practice,” Wenger describes members of a CoP as practitioners. The similarity between this traditional definition and that of the #chat is clear. #Chat members were teachers who shared experiences, resources, and tools online within and outside of the scheduled chat time. Members of a traditional CoP, who are teachers, are practitioners who likely possess the same commitment to their shared domain of interest.
Evidence from my observations and membership participation in #chat conversations suggest that meaningful learning experiences that take place in traditional CoPs also take place in online communities. The term “community” is defined in the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary as “a unified body of individuals” or “a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society.” Wenger defined “community” as a group with a shared domain of interest that interacts and learns together. According to the above definitions, #chat is similar to a traditional CoP.
Communities do not always exist in physical spaces, yet they may look differently in cyberspace. An exclusion of the physical proximity of group members, within the above definition, suggests the possibility that a “community” (called a CoP) can exist in cyberspace. For example, within a CoP, learning occurs through social participation and this was the same in #chat. Members of the online community (#chat) used social media, specifically Twitter, to navigate their discussions and they were aware of their personal learning desires as they chased resources and sought support from others by standing in the gap. That said, the use of cyberspace for text-based exchanges did not allow #chat members to observe facial expressions and the body language of members, which is a key component of social interactions when it pertains to reading cues from one another in a CoP. For example, if I witnessed a member of my CoP seemingly down at a meeting I may ask “what’s wrong?” or offer a comment to support based upon their demeanor or expression. My recognition of their posture could lead to us making “meaning” together after a long day of teaching, whereas I did not have this luxury as a #chat participant.
Another key difference between #chat and traditional CoPs pertains to the negotiation of “identity.” Wenger asserted that identity is associated with the connection between the social and the personal. Members identify with a community and the need to belong to it. “Practice,” “community,” and the connection a member has with a traditional CoP inevitably become part of an individual’s “identity.” Initially, I personally struggled to find “identity” in the #chat community more than I have in a traditional CoP. Although “identity” work in #chat is possible, #chat and a traditional CoP may be no different as it is difficult to fully measure “identity” development in both spaces.
Research question #3: What are teacher attitudes toward self-selected PD and online PD?
According to the quantitative findings, teachers have positive attitudes about choosing their own PD, and they are also comfortable selecting online PD offerings using social media. Online communities such as #chat utilize social media platforms as their space to connect and share resources, stories, and tools. There is no surprise that teacher’s prefer to choose their own PD and enjoy learning in online spaces, like #chat, that allow for 24/7 access to learning.
As noted previously, Wenger asserted that the members in these spaces may not always use the term CoP and may refer to their groups as learning networks. They may even be called PLNs as they choose their own learning path and the space in which they interact and learn. These findings are important as they further indicate a need for educators to have access to online communities (or CoPs) as an option to engage in ongoing professional growth, beyond borders or time zones.
Advancements in social media communications offer a flexible and innovative approach to learning and teaching within #chat and can be an essential component to the process of PL (also known as PD). The PLN Enrichment Framework of Krutka et al. (2017) further supports the need for teachers to critically examine their online communities (PLNs) and how they shape their teaching and learning. Krutka et al. would also caution that reflection is important to this process, because there may come a moment when it is important to “learn from colleagues about new people, spaces, or tools to add to their PLNs” (p. 250). An example might even entail joining a new Twitter #chat that better represents how one specifically identifies in their field (e.g. elementary vs. secondary educator).
Conclusion
Noticeably, something is occurring in cyberspace that implores keener examination. Cyberspace offers valuable communal learning opportunities that extend beyond borders and serve as metaphorical bridge that stands in the gap between what is available for teachers through districts and/or face-to-face peer educator connections. Online communities such as #chat operate similar to traditional CoPs in which a culture particular to the group develops around common concerns – including rules, values, and beliefs related to the group location (space), the members (people), and tasks involved (tools). Similar to traditional CoPs, online communities also allow members to connect, share, and chase new resources together.
Although an online community like #chat supports global connections, it is important to remain mindful of the 280 character limits to messages on platforms such as Twitter. Further research is necessary to determine long-term effects and sustainability of online #chat (or PLN) memberships and whether members are also taking advantage of opportunities to share their own experiences and learn from others within their online networks in offline settings, which may support the “identity” development that is more visible in traditional CoPs or PL settings (e.g. conferences).
This mixed methods exploration of an online CoP is a useful study for teacher educators. This exploration supports current efforts in the education field to allow teachers to choose their own PD while connecting teachers globally to fully engage them in making deeper connections with one another in their PL opportunities. This exploration of #chat in the context of the PLN Enrichment Framework is useful for teacher educators when facilitating reflective experiences with preservice educators, with the goal of encouraging them to continue enhancing their PLNs to further impact their teaching and learning. PLNs offer valuable communal learning opportunities that extend beyond borders and serve as a metaphorical bridge that stands in the gap between what is available for teachers through teacher education programs, their districts, and practice. Furthermore, this research supports current efforts in the education field to allow teachers to choose their own PL in the form of online CoP memberships.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.