The purpose of this study is to discover factors related to fostering a sustainable online community for K-12 teachers. This study was conducted through the investigation of an online teacher community called INDISCHOOL in Korea. Data were gathered through in-depth telephone interviews with INDISCHOOL members, the examination of archived postings on the Web-boards, and participant observations. Twelve factors, including eight support factors and four hindrance factors, were identified as results of this study. These factors were categorized into three subgroups: internal, external, and outcome factors. Findings from this study revealed that internal factors, such as having a sense of ownership and autonomy and acknowledging the value of participation, played a significant role in the growth of INDISCHOOL. It was also noted that the value of teachers' participation was related to their belief that active involvement in INDISCHOOL improves student learning. These teachers also reported that INDISCHOOL participation is a valuable part of their professional development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArdichviliA.PageV., & WentlingT. (2002). Virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice at caterpillar: Success factors and barriers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(3), 99–113.
2.
ArdichviliA.PageV., & WentlingT. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–77.
3.
AuyeungL. H. (2004). Building a collaborative online learning community: A case study in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 119–136.
4.
BarabS. A.MaKinsterJ. G.MooreJ., & CunninghamD. (2001). Designing and building an online community: The struggle to support sociability in the Inquiry Learning Forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49, 71–96.
5.
BarabS. A.MaKinsterJ. G., & SchecklerR. (2003). Designing System Dualities: Characterizing a Web-Supported Professional Development Community. Information Society, 19(3), 237–256.
6.
BarnettM. (2002). Issues and trends concerning electronic networking technologies for teacher professional development. A critical review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
7.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
8.
BrownJ. S. & DuguidP. (2000). The social life of information.Cambridge., MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
9.
CarspeckenP. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research.New York: Routledge.
10.
CobbP. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and section perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.
11.
DeLaceyB. J., & LeonardD. A. (2002). Case study on technology and distance in education at the Harvard Business School. Educational Technology & Society, 5(2), 13–28.
12.
Department of Education. (2004). Visions 2020.2: Student views on transforming education and training through advanced technologies.
13.
DubéL.BourhisA., & JacobR. (2005). The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities of practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(2), 145–166.
14.
EllisD.OldridgeR., & VasconcelosA. (2004). Community and Virtual Community. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38, 145–186.
15.
FranklinC. A., & SessomsD. B. (2005). A situative perspective on a collaborative model for integrating technology into teaching. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 315–328.
16.
GeorgeJ. F.IaconoS., & KlingR. (1995). Learning in context: Extensively computerized work groups as communities-of-practice. Accounting, Management, and Information Technology, 5(3/4), 185–202.
17.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
18.
GoldmanS. R. (2001). Professional development in a digital age: Issues and challenges for standards-based reform. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 2, 19–46.
19.
GrayB. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20–35.
20.
GrossmanP.WineburgS., & WoolworthS. (2001). Toward a Theory of Teacher Community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1012.
21.
HaraN. (2000). Social construction of knowledge in professional communities of practice: Tales in courtrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.
22.
HolsteinJ. A., & GubriumJ. A. (1995). The active interview (Vol. 37). Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications.
23.
HutchinsE. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In ResnickL. B.LevineJ. M., & TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
24.
IngersollR. (2003). Who controls teachers' work: Power and accountability in America's schools.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
JohnsonC. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 45–60.
26.
KellerJ. B.BonkC. J., & HewK. (2005). The TICKIT to teacher learning: Designing professional development according to situative principles. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 329–340.
27.
KlingR., & CourtrightC. (2003). Group behavior and learning in electronic forums: A sociotechnical approach. Information Society, 19(3), 221–235.
LincolnY. S., & GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.London: Sage Publication.
31.
LittleJ. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers' communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917–946.
Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development. (2003). Adapting education to an information age. A white paper. Retrieved from February 1st, 2005 from the Korean Education & Research Information Service Website: http://www.keris.or.kr/main/index.jsp.
34.
PutnamR., & BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
35.
RogoffB. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture & Activity, 1(4), 209–229.
36.
SalmonG. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognition. Psychological and educational considerations.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
SchlagerM. S., & FuscoJ. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse?Information Society, 19(3), 203–220.
38.
SchlagerM. S., & SchankP. K. (1997). TAPPED IN: A new on-line teacher community concept for the next generation of Internet technology. Paper presented at the second international conference on computer support for collaborative learning, Toronto.
39.
SchwenT. M., & HaraN. (2003). Community of practice: A metaphor for online design?The Information Society, 19, 257–270.
40.
SilvermanD. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
41.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
42.
SugarW. (2005). Instructional technologist as a coach: Impact of a situated professional development program on teachers' technology use. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 547–571.
43.
ThompsonM. (2005). Structural and epistemic parameters in communities of practice. Organization Science, 16(2), 151–164.
44.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
WengerE.McDermottR., & SnyderW. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
46.
WestheimerJ. (1998). Among school teachers: Community, autonomy, and ideology in teachers' work.New York: Teachers College Press.
47.
ZhaoY., & RopS. (2002). A critical review of the literature on electronic networks as reflective discourse communities for inservice teachers, Education and Information Technologies, 6(2), 81–94.
