Building Successful Online Learning Communities for Teacher Professional Development

 

Ms Susanne Owen Teachers Registration Board of South Australia Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

 

Text messaging with bullet-like speed, PowerPoint presentations with fly-ins and audio, editing html computer languages in website design, creating lengthy dialogue in MSN chatrooms; such are the sophisticated skills of even some of our struggling students. Supporting learning through technology is certainly a way to captivate their interest in the classroom and meet learning needs at all different levels.

While adults have sometimes denigrated the power of computers because of the apparent isolation of the learning process, in reality there can be a strong sense of situated and social learning involved, as students use a wide range of artifacts (Putnam & Borko, 2000). The student learning takes place within a particular environment and with the potential for considerable social interaction occurring over time, joint problem-solving happens and there is a focus on practical activities, such as games, computer programs and language. When there is an extended timeframe, there are also values and practices which are owned by that chatroom group or by the students helping each other and they become a community of practice. There can also be a sense of identity with the group and of community responsibility for the learning of others.

 

Heavy Focus on Social Aspects

 

This student captivation with learning through technology seems at times to be at odds with teacher learning processes, in which the social aspects of professional development are emphasised, with online learning dismissed as isolationist. Yet, with scarcity of funding dollars, travel costs, time efficiencies and overcrowded work schedules, we’re generally aware of the benefits of online professional development programs, particularly in terms of flexibility and convenience.

Despite this, a comprehensive Australian study on the effectiveness of professional development, PD 2000 Australia, indicated that only 8.3% of the 5,000 teachers involved preferred online professional development courses. Surprisingly perhaps, country teachers were less positive than city colleagues, despite technology potentially overcoming the barrier of distance. Of the teachers who preferred online learning, this represents 15% secondary and 10% primary teachers, with experienced staff (13.1%) showing preference more frequently than less experienced staff (8.5%). Australian research on professional development (Kenway, Henry, Johnson, Matthews, Blackmore, White, Muhleback & Bates, 1999: 134) has noted the importance of the availability of converging and interactive technologies, such as email, interactive TV, internet, CD ROM, teleconferencing, as well as a balance of online and face-to-face: “Online could be a component but not a substitute for face-to-face interaction and group work…..It’s about creating communities of learners.”

My own South Australian research on professional development through an internet survey of school leaders also showed that only 2-6% of respondents, dependent on the type of school, indicated online programs among professional development formats commonly used (Owen, 2003a). Few case study teachers in some follow-up interviews were using online professional development (Owen, 2003b).

 

Breaking Through a Old Mindset

 

While there is an apparent lack of interest, online professional development programs for teachers and leaders are beginning to be developed in South Australia. Technical expertise is beginning to be used to develop engaging programs, with content being written by experienced teachers and leaders. As Kenway et al. (1999) have indicated, the inclusion of some face-to-face interaction is important. A comment from an interviewee indicates the types of processes being used in regards to a jointly developed online professional development programs from a university and educational technology specialist service:

I did a trial last year with Teaching and Learning with new technology. Five of us were interviewed for half a day and our responses formed the basis of the course. And we had to submit a unit of work and that unit of work became what the course was based on. So people had to look at our unit of work and unpack it and really pull it to pieces and say what was good about it and what wasn't. What I really liked about that course was that, early on, they had a face-to-face day. And that was fantastic to just put a name to a face that you previously only saw as a photo on the website. It’s nice to know what people look like when you're talking to them. I guess the course was based on lots of reading, lots of theory and then trying it out in your classroom and like that. There was an expectation to read three articles each week, to write something about the relevance to our current teaching situation and then to do something practical and to share that online before the next session. And it also was very much a process of reading, discussing practical applications and building on that cycle (Interview 7).

While online programs are still evolving in many places, there are models of quality online professional development programs for groups available. For example, to address the issue of up-skilling current and future leaders, the British Columbian School Superintendents Association has developed an online leadership course for principals. Active association members and newly retired principals have developed the content materials and university technology expertise has created high quality learning objects, with Masters and doctoral accreditation being available. There is face-to-face contact and small teams of participants work together in a chat room. The program is focused around the Association’s Dimensions of Practice, with six weeks for participants to complete each dimension and four dimensions being covered in the first and second years. The program begins with three days of face-to-face interaction and participants are divided into teams for chat room work, with current superintendents as active members of the learning groups and online conversations (BCSSA).

Similarly, a two-year university-accredited leadership course for future leaders has been developed by another Canadian school district involving website modules and five face-to-face sessions with the notion of a learning community being fostered. In addition to the face-to-face sessions, job-embedded activities are completed between sessions and there is a personal learning plan. Website modules are focused on management, vision, relationships, culture, curriculum and instruction, assessment and evaluation, staff development and supervision, with online discussion tasks in small groups also occurring ( Surrey school district).

 

Global Real-World Problems

 

Some of these professional development programs certainly seem to bring more global real-world problems into the learning process, which is an advantage of online courses over the more traditional programs (Ghenfaili, 2003). Access to experts through video and internet connections, scaffolded approaches to complex problem-solving and flexibility available through multi-dimensional formats (such as images and videos), are highlighted (Muirhead, 2002). At the heart of effective online programs are relevant content and an in-depth understanding of teaching and learning pedagogy, using asynchronous and synchronous material such as text, quizzes, music and games. However, this material needs to be situated within a social context, involving chatroom discussion with others undertaking the online course, with ongoing opportunities to learn and support other participants in that community of learners.

The importance of this ongoing support in teacher professional development and educational change has been highlighted by researchers (Hawley & Valli, 1999; Spillane, 2002; Retallick, 1997). They have increasingly questioned the value of the traditional one-off workshops involving experts and unconnected to other school directions and support processes. Only 10% educational change has been reported as a result of input-focused PD, with Rhodes and Houghton-Hill’s (2000) research indicating that there was progressively more impact on classroom practice when discussion and practical activities were supplementing expert input. However, when regular coaching and support occurred, this resulted in 90% of conference participants actually implementing change. Situated learning models involving collegial groups working together over extended timeframes, such as school-based teams, coaching and mentoring pairs, subject association and leaders’ networks, operating as communities of practice, seemingly support change (Owen, 2003a; Owen, 2003b).

 

Learning as a Joint Enterprise

 

So it’s worth looking closely at the situated learning models to see the applicability for online programs. Situated learning models based on situativity theory highlight learning as situated, social and distributed (Putnam & Borko, 2000). Therefore, learning happens within a situation involving joint enterprise and is supported through collaboration with others, through engaging in relevant problem-solving and distributed practical activities, such as examining student assessment items, using language and sharing strategies. Through sharing values and practices over an extended timeline, and through self-management of the group, identity with the community is formed and responsibility for newcomers and for the learning of others occurs (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

 

Commitment to Others

 

However, the idea of a situated community shouldn’t be limited to a geographical notion. In fact, much of the work in situativity theory has arisen within the technology environment. The key factor is that those involved in the professional development program have a commitment to others in the group and a common purpose and the materials are relevant and high quality. There’s also a need for there to be an expectation on group members collaborating and supporting the learning of others and valuing and working through conflicting views, rather than only engaging at a level of congeniality (Grossman, Wineburg & Woolworth, 2000). Certainly, Jarzabkowski’s (2001) research indicates that ongoing involvement with others over an extended timeline, in which values and beliefs are shared and debated, is necessary, with social and informal contacts supporting and building confidence to reveal and work through differing opinions.

 

Successful Online Learning Environments

 

So strategies such as face-to-face interaction, photos and personal profiles, expectations of regular chatroom discussion and completion of tasks in small groups, practical activities within one’s own work-based community and sharing of this with a few others in the online group, seem to support successful professional development programs in virtual learning environments. As one of the interviewees in my own research (Owen, 2003b) indicated:

“They put us into groups of three and those other two people were to be your mentors. And there were a list of criteria and the other two people in your group had to give you very explicit feedback about it and then you put it up for open discussion in the full group, to have a look at it. So you’d already been through the process with the other two. One of the other people in our group said if it wasn’t for letting you guys down, I’d just drop out. So it was that feeling that there was a commitment to a smaller group within a bigger group that kept them going” (Interview 7).

For successful online professional development, quality content is certainly very important. But supporting this with opportunities for collaboration and practical and relevant tasks, and building that sense of community identity and fostering a community of learners, is critical.

 

References

British Columbian School Superintendent Association (BCSSA). Dimensions of Practice. Professional Development Plan. (online). URL: http://www.bcssa.org/pro-d/DOPindex.html

(Accessed January 2003).

Ghenfaili, A. (2003). ‘Cognitive Apprenticeships, Technology and the Contextualized Learning Environments’. In Journal of Educational Computing, Design and Online Learning, Vol. 4, Fall. (online). URL: http://coe.ksu.edu/jecdt/Vol_4/Articles/Aziz.htm

(Accessed May, 2004).

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S. & Woolworth, S. (2000). What Makes Teacher Community Different from a Gathering of Teachers. Centre for the Study of Teaching and Policy. December.

Hawley, W.D. & Valli, L. (1999). ‘The Essentials of Effective Professional Development’. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds). (1999). Teaching as the Learning Profession. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Jarzabkowski, L. (2001). The Primary School as an Emotional Arena: A Case Study in Collegial Relationships. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Canberra.

Kenway, J., Henry, C., Johnson, R., Matthews, R., Blackmore, J., White, G., Muhleback, R. & Bates, R. (1999). New Approaches to Teacher Professional Development in Devolved Environments. Report. Deakin University

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press

Muirhead, B. (2002b). Communities of Practice in Web-centric Learning - Sharing Lessons Learned. Presentation at International Conference of the Australasian Association of Distance Education Schools, Adelaide, September 26.

Owen, S. (2003a). ‘School-based Professional Development – Building Morale, Professionalism and Productive Teaching and Learning Practices’. In Journal of Educational Enquiry. Vol. 4 (2).

Owen, S. (2003b). The Power of Collegiality and Collective Thought in Effective School-based Teacher Learning. Paper presented at NZ/AARE conference, Auckland, New Zealand, November.

Putnam, R. & Borko, H. (2000). ‘What do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking Have to Say about Research on Teacher Learning?’ In Educational Researcher, 29(1), pp. 4-15.

Retallick, J.A. (1997). ‘Workplace Learning and the School as a Learning Organisation’. In R.J. King, D.M. Hill & J.A. Retallick (Eds). Exploring Professional Development in Education. Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press.

Rhodes, C. & Houghton-Hill, S. (2000). ‘The Linkage of Continuing Professional Development and the Classroom Experience of Pupils: Barriers Perceived by Senior Managers in Some Secondary Schools’. In Journal of Inservice Education, 26 (3), pp 413-4.

Spillane, J. (2002). ‘Local Theories of Teacher Change: The Pedagogy of District Policies and Programs’. In Teachers College Record, 104(3), April.

Surrey School District Leadership Academy (online). URL: http://www.leadershipacademy.sd36.bc.ca/

(Accessed 22/4/05).

 

Ms Susanne Owen has held a range of Project Officer positions in the South Australian Department of Education and Children’s Services. She is currently conducting research in professional issues for the Teachers Registration Board.

Ms Owen has been a primary and secondary school teacher in South Australia, Tasmania and Canada, and also a secondary school leader responsible for Training and Development, personnel issues, induction, performance management and managing underperformance.

She was awarded a department scholarship for Doctor of Education studies at the University of South Australia in January 2000. Her research has focused on teacher professional development, Communities of Practice and situativity theory. Her doctoral studies are currently being finalised.

 

Join online discussion here on Sunday 12 June 2005