Communities of practice online: Reflection through experience and experiment with the Webheads community of language learners and practitioners

 Week 2

Characteristics of CoPs

I found in a book (in Crhis' bibliography) some characteristics of CoP's Pallof, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. Effective Strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. "some of the desired outcomes, then, indicating that an online community has been forming, are as follows: Active interaction involving both course content and personal communication. Collaborative learning evidenced by comments directed primarily student to student rather than student to instructor. Socially constructed meaning evidenced in the agreement or questioning, with the intent to achieve agreement on issues of meaning. Sharing of resources among students. Expressions of support and encouragement exchanged between students, as well as willingness to critically evaluate the work of others.

It is certainly possible, in this environment, to foster the development of a community wherein very little learning occurs but strong social connections exist among members. It is for this reason, among others, that the instructor needs to remain actively engaged in the process in order to gently guide participants who stray; they must be coaxed back to the learning goals that brought them together in the first place. It is the development of a strong learning community and not just a social community that is the distinguishing feature of computer mediated distance learning " (p. 32).

What do you all think about this?

Dafne Chavez


Daf and all--

I think some of the characteristics of CoPs in Pallof & Pratt are right on, esp, several on their mini-list. I think WebHeads doesn't fit in most definitions in that it is less student-teacher than peer-peer interactions. We all take turns gladly learning and teaching, to paraphrase Chaucer. Another difference is that our content/curriculum is not clearly defined. We make up our "curriculum" as new projects, new technologies, and new bits of learning present themselves. Possibly this is also a result of tech environment, which is in change around us. And finally, we don't necessarily agree about everything, but are (unusually for an e-list or e-group) willing to leave some issues open, e.g., to learn HTML or not as a good idea. Our intention is not so much to achieve agreement (which implies there is only one final answer) as to explore.

--Elizabeth


Elizabeth wrote: I think WebHeads doesn't fit in most definitions in that it is less student-teacher than peer-peer interactions.

____________

Based on this given definition, can we consider or classify EFIWebheads a CoP?

Aiden Yeh


> Elizabeth wrote: Daf and all--
> I think some of the characteristics of CoPs in Pallof & Pratt are right on, esp, several on their mini-list.
>
> I think WebHeads doesn't fit in most definitions in that it is less student-teacher than peer-peer interactions .. Another difference is that our content/curriculum is not clearly defined. We make up our "curriculum" as new projects, new technologies, and new bits of learning present themselves.

> Based on this given definition, can we consider or classify EFIWebheads a CoP?
> Aiden Yeh

I am not able to put my hand on a copy of Pallof, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. Effective Strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, but the scope of their work appears to be on building community, not necessarily communities of practice. Also, their distinction between students and teachers assumes a hierarchical educational context which runs counter to the idea of a community whose members tend to value equally the work of one another (so ideally you couldn't tell who was the teacher, and who the student).

But in answering the question based on what I know of their work, I would say yes, W4W (Writing for Webheads) is a CoP though less so than WIA which was set up specifically to enable peers to engage in the kind of experimentation with community bldg via CMC that W4W had evolved, but W4W was the original CoP that provided WIA with its inspiration (and many W4W members have moved into WIA and are still involved in both groups).

Here is a place where I took time to document how W4W started, as early as June 1999, to bootstrap its members into just one aspect of its many practices, in this case the use of video as a CMC tool to promote community building ...

http://sites.hsprofessional.com/vstevens/files/efi/vcommunity.htm#video

In Pallof & Pratt terms, this might be an example of "active interaction involving both course content and personal communication" and "collaborative learning evidenced by comments directed primarily student to student rather than student to instructor" (because this student-instructor distinction has started to disappear; in fact, in these examples, Felix, supposedly a student, takes the lead in inspiring the 'instructors').

You can also find evidence of Webheads involvement in international conferences and other academic pursuits here:

http://sites.hsprofessional.com/vstevens/files/efi/reports.htm

Conference participation would be in Pallof and Pratt terms "socially constructed meaning evidenced in the agreement or questioning, with the intent to achieve agreement on issues of meaning" and "expressions of support and encouragement exchanged between students, as well as willingness to critically evaluate the work of others." (Evaluation occurs when you put your work on center stage at a conference.)

W4W has been a live training ground for practitioners. Webheads teachers and students have always lived in symbiotic relation to one another. In this environment the students have been able to develop their language skills through interaction with one another and with native speakers while the practitioners among us have been able to develop skills in our practice of community building through the medium of CMC. Both stakeholders have benefited, as suggested by the fact that there are many long-term members (over 4 years for several students and teachers; and assuming that people who are not benefiting would have long ago turned off the deluge of emails).

Vance


I haven't read all the postings yet, but (in response to a posting by John I just read) and having just posted regarding two CoPs (Apple clubs and the group that eventually formed CALL-IS) that were not virtual (except in the sense that to many they existed through newsletters) ... now I'm wondering - what is virtual anyway? - on my last conference trip to the states I had the good forturne to meet two student webheads, one of whom commented that her friends had chided her on participating in the Webheads community, suggesting it wasn't 'real'. In her case, we'd helped her compose letters to get her into her college into the states, where she 'really' was. Ok, why don't I invite you to share in the experience virtually, and you can decide if it is 'real' or not: http://sites.hsprofessional.com/vstevens/files/efi/sue_houston.htm

To you, it's virtual, just as is any vicarious experience filtered through a book, TV, a magazine, or a newspaper. Computers and the Internet are just another medium. To the participants, it's real. What we're doing now is virtual only in the sense that many of of haven't met (yet) and there is therefore no F2F dimension (yet - but many of us have met, esp at last year's TESOL conference, as many of us will do again in Baltimore this March, plus we all have our 'real' professional lives, which this is a part of).

In the following posting of Daf's, I think the virtual and real 'communities' mentioned so far fall on a continuum of social /collaborative / instructive and often have elements of all. TESL-L list members for example have met for several years at TESOL conferences to put faces to the postings, and a strong
component of F2F conferences is always social (business is conducted on the golf course, isn't it?). It's not as common to be social on listservs and that's perhaps where this group is treading on new ground. We let our hair down, which brings us more in line with the norm in F2F professional encounters.

This behavior of our group elicits interesting reactions. We have traditionally held Halloween parties at Tapped In (if you're still around next October, join us!). We 'dress up' virtually of course, creating the impression we are wearing elaborate costumes, and in these personas interact (some might
say as usual). During one of these gatherings, two newbies dropped by Tapped In coincidentally almost at the same time and both reacted to their first encounter with us. One behaved as if he had walked into the wrong bathroom by mistake and quickly excused himself. The other became an instant convert and
joined us.

Many of you reading this posting may still be trying to make up your minds, but many who feel attracted to this group I think are responding to the strong social appeal COUPLED and this is very important with the validity of our knowledge base. We like to have fun but we're also highly informative in the Vygotskian sense of scaffolding and sharing within our zone of proximal development (someone asked earlier if we were constructivist; I think very much

To address the point below, in social mode we sometimes stray off our topics, but as members have pointed out, it is important to our cohesion that we allow ourselves that license. I think we self regulate ourselves back onto topic most of the time, but an occasional reminder from whoever is acting as cat
herder (even if it's one of the cats) is usually appreciated.

Nothing wrong with having fun, especially if it intensifies the learning experience? Does it? Interesting question ...

Vance


Vance (and everyone else, of course),

Just to clarify my posting on virtual communities: "Virtual" in "virtual communities", is synonymous with "online" or "Internet-based". Its antonym would be "face-to-face" instead of "real" or "real-life". "Virtual" in this case is as "real-life" as anything else. We have a space, we have limits, we have boundaries separating members from non-members, we have interaction among/between members, and, most important, we have a sense of community. So, anybody who tells you the Webheads is not a "real community" . . .

Just thinking out loud.

Comments, anybody?

Dr. Cat


Dafne wrote quoting an article: It is certainly possible, in this environment, to foster the development of a community wherein very little learning occurs
_________

It's not that there is little learning that takes place in webheads, on the contrary, a vast amount of knowledge has been exchanged resulting to skills being honed through constant practice and for some, keep on practising what they practice. So, in this light, I believe that the 'practice' in CoP could refer to both meanings as given by Tere and Don.
__________

Daf wrote: but strong social connections exist among members.
___

That's what makes webheads tick, in the first place.
_________

Daf wrote:It is for this reason, among others, that the instructor needs to remain actively engaged in the process in order to gently guide participants who stray;

_____

In guiding participants in their learning, I agree that the instructor has loads of work to do in maintaining the high level of activity and this is possible in short term courses or full-term courses but to continuously do is quite overwhelming. In CoP such as Webheads, it is needless to say, that Vance is the man, the person behind it all, but Vance could not have done it alone. What's a herder got do when there are no herds to herd? I think that webheads has evolved and continuous to in such a way that some members of the herd lead the herd? Now, what do we call them?
___

Daf wrote:they must be coaxed back to the learning goals that brought them together in the first place.

In Webheads, members who don't feel like staying or participating in the group's activities are free to leave whenever they want to. This also reflects the learners' personalities and attitudes toward learning. Some just leave the moment they get what they came for, while others stayed.

Aiden Yeh


Dear Aiden,

This is just what I wanted to "hear" about the cite. I did not want no make any comment myself because people might be tired of my preaching about webheads. As a said in a previous message, the socially constructed learning, the constant scaffolding, and the special bond among members that characterize Webheads go hand by hand with my social personality and free spirit. I believe that the low affective filter that we breathe in this community has been fundamental for our learning curve. Now, that some people have talked about f-2-f learning communities, I have come to realize that I have belonged to different f-2-f LC, only that I used to give them the label of "team work" but these team works were always embedded in social activities, we even called one of these activities "our weekly affective lunches". As Vance pointed out, many business transactions are made in golf courses or in a restaurants. At my university, in Caracas, we have a social committee, and we celebrate birthdays, holidays, lunch or breakfast for our
Departmental meetings, etc. We are the only Department with such a practice, and we are considered the most cohesive department of that institution. I believe that such social practices are in a high degree responsible for that cohesiveness and for the collaborative work that takes place among us. Enough for now.

Dafne Chavez


Aiden Yeh wrote:

> What's a herder got do when there are no herds to herd? I think that webheads has evolved and continues to in such a way that some members of the herd lead the herd? Now, what do we call them?

One of my principles is that the proof of a group's value and viability is what happens to it when its instigator or instigators retire. If the group carries on of its own accord, then it is indeed a special group that was worth the time and effort put into it.

In what I have read so far about communities of practice, for example Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder, Cultivating Communities of Practice, 2002, Harvard Business School Press, on p. 108 in talking about mature stages of CoP development, it is mentioned that some communities are sustained through a program of mentoring new members. One reason for this is that if there is too much reliance on too few 'experts' then it becomes too great a burden on their time. I think we have seen in this group how many of those mentored last year are stepping in to roles of in turn becoming the mentors. One of the greatest challenges of a 'leader' (I don't say 'the' leader) of this group is creating web pages to facilitate the mentoring process, and many of these mentors are doing even that, spontaneously, of their own accord.

So I see that as a remarkable development, part of the process of 'rotating' leadership that a sustainable community needs to foster.

Perhaps it comes to a question of ownership of a group as opposed to (rotating) leadership. Perhaps a sustainable group is truly 'owned' by its members (is this a form of dot.communisim?). Perhaps some groups are suppressed through someone trying to exercise a claim on ownership. Who herds the cats, in other words? Perhaps when they are kittens the herd recognises a leader at first but then realizes, hey we're all cats here. At that point the dynamics are in place and there is less a need for a single leader as for several people taking on more of the burdens of work and initiatives in direction.

Sus had a great term for what we do based on her first impression of webheads: chaos navigation. What do we call leaders who step in to lead the herd? Chaos navigators, of course.

Vance

 
  Week 2