Baran, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). The Dynamics of Online Communities in the Activity Theory Framework. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (4), 155–166.

The Dynamics of Online Communities in the Activity Theory Framework Bahar Baran and Kursat Cagiltay1 Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Buca Faculty of Education, Dokuz Eylul University, 35160 Buca, Izmir, Turkey // [email protected] 1 Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, 06531, Ankara, Turkey // [email protected] ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to reveal how well online communities of practice (oCoPs) help teachers share explicit knowledge and bring their tacit knowledge to the surface. An Internet based oCoP platform called “The Professional Development Circle” (The PDC) was developed for this study. The study was conducted in two phases: 1) a mandatory participation term and 2) a voluntary participation term. In the first phase, the researchers designed a learning environment in which 28 preservice teachers from three universities watched and discussed digital videos recorded in real classroom environments. In the second phase, the researchers tried to build another oCoP environment based on the successes and failures of the mandatory term but with voluntary members. This article presents the results to designers and educators who want to use oCoP environments in teachers’ professional development.

Keywords Online communities of practice, Activity theory, Teacher education, Computer mediated communication

Introduction The educational sector offers a great amount of tacit knowledge but needs incentives to transform this knowledge into explicit terms. That is, although teachers are generally full of theoretical information after graduation, in time, they gain expertise. However, these teachers need an incentive to share their expertise. Currently, communities of practice are considered potential arenas that may impel teachers to share their experiences with others. Regarding this issue, Schaler and Fusco (2003) state, “Teachers’ professional development is more than a series of training workshops, instates, meetings, and in service days. It is a process of learning how to put knowledge into practice through engagement in practice within a community of practitioners” (p. 205). A community of practice provides both tacit and explicit knowledge communication among teachers in a community by producing useful documentation, tools, and procedures to be shared with one another. Therefore, establishing communities of practice has become an important focus within teachers’ professional development projects, providing lifelong learning opportunities (Wenger, 1998). This study is based on knowledge types from knowledge management literature, considering communities of practice theory as one enabler of knowledge management. Therefore, in this section, these issues will be outlined briefly in terms of teacher education.

Knowledge management Knowledge management generally involves generating ideas, disseminating information, and promoting knowledge sharing among workers in an organization (Garud, 1997). The main discussion topic in this field is the meaning of information and knowledge. Information is unprocessed content that needs to be cultivated by human beings into knowledge. Nonaka (1994) defines knowledge as “justified true belief.” That is, knowledge is an interpreted form of information. Teacher educators are mainly interested in whether knowledge has been gained or not. Therefore, it is important to understand the process of knowledge creation. There are two types of human knowledge: explicit (codified knowledge) and tacit (non codified). Polanyi differentiates between these knowledge types by explaining, “We can know more than we can tell” (Polanyi, 1966, as cited in Nonaka, 1994, p.16). Tacit knowledge lacks shape and is difficult to transmit to other people, while explicit knowledge is simple book information. These two dimensions of knowledge creation play an important role in the interaction of school teachers. By its nature, tacit knowledge is not always transformed into explicit knowledge. However, owing to incentives, sometimes tacit knowledge becomes explicit. ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at [email protected].

155

Communities of practice The term “Communities of Practice” was first coined by Lave and Wenger (1991) in their discussion of the social nature of learning. Their basic argument is that communities of practice are everywhere and that people are generally involved in a number of them—whether at work, school, or home, or in civic or leisure interests. In some groups, people are core members; in others, on the outskirts (Wenger, 1998). Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002) describe communities of practice as “Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (p. 4). Along with developing information and communication technologies, instructional technologists have begun addressing the idea of using these technologies in the theory of communities of practice for teachers’ professional development.

Problems in the area of teacher education and technology based learning environments Although today’s university instructors are becoming more technology literate and tend to use technology as a secondary support, many do not know how to integrate it fully into their courses. Integrating technology in teacher education courses has great potential and would provide more quality learning environments for teachers. Barab, Kling, and Gray (2004) have reported a problem in the area of web based and supported learning environments in teacher education. They emphasized that researchers generally use a course environment in which participation is reinforced with a grade. Further, Sprague (2006) determined “mandating by universities” as the main motivation for teachers to participate in online professional development. Therefore, researchers need to investigate environments in which participants discuss topics voluntarily.

Activity Theory as a theoretical framework for analysis The basics of activity theory draw heavily on Vygotsky’s concept of “mediation” (Vygotsky, 1978). His famous triangular model includes subject, object, and tool and shows the relationships between each item to mediate an interaction. Activity Theory is a sociocultural theory that helps researchers to examine an individual in a large activity system. Rather than investigating an individual separately from his or her surroundings, however, minimal meaningful context must be included in the analysis (Kuutti, 1995). Therefore, activity theory framework is a useful analytical lens for understanding the social structure of online environments, which show a learner both in an individual group and in a large community (Engeström, 1999; Barab, Evans, & Baek, 2003). This study discusses findings from the perspective of activity theory to understand the dynamics of two online communities of practice.

Research aim and questions By taking the issues and concerns of the literature into consideration, this study intended to investigate how well oCoPs help teachers share explicit knowledge and bring tacit knowledge to the surface. Under this main theme, this study reveals outcomes of designed and built online communities of practice by investigating preservice teachers’ experiences and perceptions. In addition, this study aims to examine the dynamics of the relationship between community members and the process of knowledge sharing and creation in two communities.

Methodology Research methodology: Qualitative research The purpose of this study requires in-depth analysis of the community building efforts and experiences of teachers in an online learning environment. Barab, MaKinster, and Scheckler (2004), while focusing on challenges in the development of a web supported community of practice, note that qualitative research “makes a commitment to analytical framework that provides a useful lens through which the data can be interpreted” (p. 57). Therefore, the researchers aimed to present a detailed picture of the phenomenon based on the research questions. Qualitative research methodology was primarily employed. In this study, all cases occurred in a natural environment in their own 156

context. The researchers spent time in the field, communicated with the participants, and experienced the experiences of the participants while collecting data. Lastly, different qualitative data collection methods such as interviews, observations, and document analysis were utilized.

Tools used in the study In this study, the researchers used an oCoP platform called “The Professional Development Circle” (The PDC). The main theme of the portal was teaching mathematics. This portal is comprised of three parts: 1) a digital library of resources, 2) video recordings from constructivist classroom environments in real schools, and 3) forum and communication tools. The digital library includes student projects, academic reviews, mathematics games, computer aided mathematics instruction software, etc. The digital videos were recorded by one of the researchers for using only in this study. The aim of using videos was to reveal a mathematics teacher’ s teaching activities, classroom management, or point of view on a teaching topic. Forum and communication tool allow members of the PDC to send short messages to each other. In addition to the portal, a discussion list was used to allow for asynchronous exchanges. The main communication tool of this study was the discussion list.

Research process There were two phases of this research study. The first phase, “the mandatory participation term,” lasted four months. A total of 28 senior teacher candidates from three universities in different regions of Turkey participated in this phase as part of their regular teaching practice course, providing a diverse group of preservice teachers. The participants, who were grouped based on their universities, earned a partial grade at the end of this phase, which had one meeting period and four discussion periods. At the beginning of each discussion period, the starting and ending dates of the period were announced in the discussion list. During the meeting period, the participants introduced themselves via email. Throughout each discussion period, the participants were responsible for watching assigned digital videos and sending at least three messages about them. Every period had a curricular process: one of the universities started the discussion, the second university added comments, and the third university composed a new lesson plan for the video class incorporating the feedback from other participants. During each period, the responsibility of each university changed, giving every participant a chance to contribute to each activity. In the second phase, “the voluntary participation term,” inservice teachers, professors, and graduate students voluntarily participated in the PDC in addition to the teacher candidates of the first phase. The researchers announced the portal on relevant web sites and discussion lists to increase the number of members. This phase lasted six months. The membership history shows that 177 newcomers had participated in the online community by the end of this phase, giving participants a larger community that included both experienced and novice members. This phase had four periods, and each lasted approximately one month. The beginning and ending dates of each period fluctuated when intensive discussions demanded the researchers extend the periods.

Data collection and analysis methods During the mandatory term, discussion list messages were archived. This history includes a total of 186 messages, an average of 46.5 messages per period. In addition, the researchers visited universities and participated in regular faceto-face sessions to address the problems and concerns of participants. Finally, at the end of the term, all of the participants wrote a reflection report highlighting positive and negative issues with this online environment, performing a comparison of this environment with traditional courses, and evaluating group interaction and tools used during the semester. The participants knew that reflection reports would not be graded. During the voluntary term, discussion list messages were the primary data source. A total of 219 messages were sent to the discussion list during the term. In addition, the researchers conducted six interviews with participants to evaluate their experiences during both the mandatory and the voluntary terms. While analyzing data from the mandatory participation term, the 28 reflection reports were read twice. Emerging codes and themes were categorized under each component of Activity Theory. Codes were then compared with data 157

from discussion list messages and interviews. Analysis of the voluntary participation term began with the 219 messages sent to the discussion list. Synchronously, six interviews about both terms were analyzed. Finally, the results of the mandatory term and voluntary terms were combined.

Results and Discussion Modeling of mandatory and voluntary participation terms There were two participation terms in this study. The first, mandatory participation term (MPT) required the subjects’ participation in online discussions, while the second, voluntary participation term (VPT) thrived on its members’ choice to get involved (Fig. 1). The determined activity in these two systems was teachers’ professional development leading to professional qualifications.

Subjects In the mandatory participation term, the subjects were 28 preservice teachers who needed professional development and experience. In the voluntary participation term, the subjects were volunteer participants seeking additional professional development; they recognized the importance of this sociocultural environment and how they would benefit from interacting with experienced teachers, colleagues, and professors.

Figure 1. Definition of mandatory and voluntary participation terms according to Activity Theory framework

Object In the two participation terms, the object was knowledge creation and sharing in teaching mathematics. In order to explain how knowledge was shared and created during each participation term, the researchers used Nonaka’s (1994) model of “modes of knowledge creation,” which views knowledge sharing as a spiral process of interactions between 158

explicit and tacit knowledge. The model’s main components are Socialization (tacit to tacit), Externalization (tacit to explicit), Internalization (explicit to tacit), and Combination (explicit to explicit; Nonaka, 1994, p. 19).

Tools The two participation terms required different tools. For the voluntary participation term, the tools were changed according to lessons learned in the mandatory participation term. In the mandatory participation term, digital videos and the discussion list guided the subjects to reach the objective. In the voluntary participation term, the materials were scientific publications (articles, research results, theses, etc.) and a discussion list.

Rules Design decisions (posting a minimum of three messages in each discussion period, stable discussion duration, and determined responsibilities of each university’s students during different periods) were the rules of the mandatory participation term. However, in the voluntary participation term, the community itself determined the rules, which were emergent, flexible, and improved over time. At one point, a rule was tentative and individualistic; later, the rule was more robust and relevant across the community.

Community The community of the mandatory participation term consisted of 28 preservice teachers who participated in the PDC environment as a part of an undergraduate course. They were from three different universities and departments, so they had varied backgrounds. In the voluntary participation term, the community was composed of experienced teachers, academicians, and preservice teachers. The community was always open to newcomers.

Division of Labor Separation of duties allowed for specialization of roles and tasks, increasing the quality of the outcome. In the mandatory participation term, there were two main divisions of labor: comment writers and lesson plan producers. In the voluntary participation term, division of labor was an emergent attempt. There were discussants, material sharers, and lurkers.

Outcome The main outcome of the two participation terms was “better understanding of field practice” in teaching mathematics. In this vein, how the activity systems affected preservice teachers’ professional knowledge was investigated based on the participants’ perspectives. In the mandatory term, 24 out of 28 participants reported that their professional knowledge improved owing to the PDC activities. One of them said: This experience was entirely positive for me. I think that knowledge, I gained, will be helpful in my future professional life. After graduation, I will also continue to share my experiences and ideas in the PDC. However, the remaining four participants criticized the mandatory participation and a heavy study load as a barrier to professional development. It was sometimes tedious. Quality of my contribution to discussions was changed according to my busy calendar. In my free time, I made more comments but when I was busy neither I wrote nor read the messages. To me, reading all messages and replying them were very time consuming for learning. I think that voluntary participation is essential to learn something from other members in the PDC. If there is an external pressure, please don’t demand so much participation to online discussions. If you control how 159

many times I accessed to the PDC, you will notice that in the beginning, I was a more active member, but later my contribution to discussions decreased significantly. In addition, in the voluntary term, active members said that their professional knowledge developed through online discussions with experienced teachers and professors. One participant said: I believe that this new term was very beneficial for me. Different from the first term (mandatory participation term) experienced teachers contributed to discussions in the PDC. Their deep understanding of practice was very different from teacher candidates’ theoretical knowledge… Indeed, we need this practical knowledge to be a good teacher. In sum, the results revealed that both participation terms contributed to preservice teachers’ professional knowledge. The main advantage of the two participation terms was practice-based construction, which face-to-face traditional environments do not have. The uppermost outcome of this study, “better understanding of field practice,” was a result of lower level outcomes: 1) learning the relationship between theory and practice; 2) gaining different experiences, perspectives, and ideas; 3) confirming ideas related to practice; 4) visiting various teachers’ classrooms; 5) overcoming a challenges; 6) belief modification; and 7) learning teaching topics in a cost effective way. Although the outcomes seem overly similar, the driving reasons for each sub-outcome are different. As for the first outcome, the participants said that because they had field practice, they learned how to put learning theories into practice. In the mandatory participation term, the participants watched videos and then linked the video teachers’ activities to learning theories. For example, one participant observed: It was very beneficial to put ourselves in the teachers’ shoes, and so, to think about how we could teach video students in the same lesson. I noticed that the videos, which we watched in the PDC environment, contributed to my point of view on mathematics teaching. For example, I learned how to implement discovery learning in a classroom owing to one of the digital videos which was based on Bruner’s theory. In the voluntary participation term, preservice teachers discussed teaching topics and then compared their own knowledge about theories with community members. In doing so, they converted abstract theories to concrete knowledge. Regarding this issue, one participant said: Why am I following to discussions? Firstly, I learned teachers’ experiences and I keep up-to-date from developments in mathematics teaching. In all honesty, I got lots of ideas. For instance, how can a mathematics lesson be taught with drama method? Consequently, it keeps being live in my mind. In the future, as a teacher, I may use the method in my classroom. The second outcome of this study is gaining different experiences, perspectives, and ideas. One participant commented: Discussing on video cases with other experienced teachers and other teacher candidates have contributed significantly to our mathematics teaching knowledge. Why?, because we already share our opinions and thoughts with our classmates in regular classes. In general, we have the same ideas. Different views are essential for professional development. The participants said that the PDC let them confirm their ideas related to practice. They drew lessons from video content where novice teachers made mistakes or when an experienced teacher instructed the participants not to repeat teaching mistakes in videos. One of them observed: We are amateurs and we will gain experience over years. Therefore, it is beneficial to gain experience from negative points of the activities in the videos and thus to think about how we can make them valuable. Furthermore, watching different videos presented an opportunity to visit various teachers’ classrooms, whereas the participants could observe only one or two classrooms during their school practice courses. 160

Prior to this study, the Turkish Elementary Education Curriculum changed; this new, constructivist-based curriculum had been an unknown challenge for teachers. The participants of this study had only started learning about it in undergraduate courses and arranged workshops. They stated that this Internet based oCoP environment served as another source for learning new curriculum. One of the participants said: The digital videos gave us an opportunity of observing application and results of the new mathematics curriculum. We would not observe this approach and discuss on it in another place. Belief modification is an important focus of teacher educators. Studies have shown that preservice teachers develop their beliefs about teaching long before they enroll in undergraduate studies (Cochran-Smith, 1991, cited in Wang & Hartley, 2003). In this study, belief modification was a dominant outcome in the voluntary participation term because the participants found experienced teachers’ ideas more credible than those of their less educated peers. Two of the active members explained: Drama and mathematics! Because I didn’t know drama before the PDC discussions and I did not have any idea about it. In the beginning, I had negative attitudes towards its applicability. But, I understood that there were such things in teaching and I could put it into practice. I thought that it was difficult to prepare such a lesson. But, I understood that it could be. Experienced teachers in the second term (voluntary term) showed how to prepare such a lesson. Finally, the results showed that the participants learned different teaching topics in a cost effective way. Visiting a school to observe a classroom or discussing scenarios with teachers can be very time consuming. In addition, face-toface discussion does not generally include new teaching methods. Therefore, the participants took advantage of the richness of these participation terms to learn new teaching methods. One of the participants said: I learned developments in mathematics education. For instance, how can a lesson be taught with discovery approach?, After being a teacher, when I teach angles in math curriculum I will remember that drama method will be very effective for my students. Or, I learned how to teach capacity of a cube in a constructivist learning environment. And I learned lots of teaching ideas.

Four sub-activity systems Once the two participation terms for teacher education were produced, the activity system was broken down into the following four sub-activity triads: 1. subject-tool-object 2. subject-rules-object 3. subject-community-object 4. subject-division of labor-object

Subject–Tool–Object Digital videos were used during the mandatory participation term. Rather than simply a talking head who presented information directly to viewers, the videos presented complex classroom dynamics. Zooming in and out frequently allowed viewers to see different details in the classroom. In the knowledge creation process, videos can be seen as tools that make the tacit knowledge of the video teachers more explicit. That is, the teachers were externalized knowledge sources. By using videos, the participants observed the video teachers’ classroom experiences but felt that they were in the classroom. The participants said that they absorbed the video teachers’ tacit knowledge and internalized it during the online discussions. The results revealed that the participants emphasized the importance of digital videos in preservice teacher education because digital videos represent knowledge in ways no other medium can (Bieber et al., 2001). Two participants said: While I was watching the video, I felt the students’ enthusiasm. After watching the videos, now I am sure that all of us will teach this topic more effectively. 161

In the videos, there were both traditional teachers and constructivist teachers. Therefore, we observed different and various classroom dynamics. In addition, the videos showed us our own performance as teachers since we compared us with the video teachers. Contrary to these benefits of videos, in some situations, the videos hindered the knowledge sharing and creation process. First of all, despite how much the videos let the participants feel part of a classroom environment, there was a lack of interaction among participants, the video teacher, and students. This factor decreased the benefits that could be obtained from videos since they observed classroom environment behind a screen. The second problem was the limited viewing angles of the video cameras. The zooming in and out was not sufficient to capture all the dynamics of very active lessons. The final problem was related to technological issues. The infrastructure of the universities and the presence of a home computer with an Internet connection were essential. In this study, although the participants had a laboratory hour in their universities to watch the videos, most of them preferred to access them from their homes or Internet cafes. However, watching videos in these locations caused additional problems, such as low connection speed. In addition to existing infrastructure, the technology skill of the participants was another important factor in watching the videos. If they had high technology skills, they could overcome video related problems such as streaming or audio problems. For example, one of the participants said: Please remember. You visited our regular class. You distributed us some headphones to listen video voice. But we did not know how to use it. We thought that we should use them with speakers. So, we brought speakers to the classroom. Finally, through the mid of the term, we give up bringing them to the class. Indeed simply, we can put it behind the computer. In both participation terms, the discussion list served as an essential tool. The reason for using a discussion list during the mandatory participation term was because synchronous scheduling of preservice teachers from three different universities was impossible. In the voluntary participation term, the participants communicated with experienced teachers and academicians through this tool. During the knowledge creation process, a teacher learns to look at the same topic from different viewpoints. Another feature of the discussion list was that messages went directly to private email accounts. This feature had both positive and negative results. As a positive result, discussion list messages were brought to the attention of members, encouraging participants to read them. However, individual messages may inconvenience a participant if he or she is not interested in a specific discussion topic or does not have time to follow emails. Lastly, some participants criticized writing on the computer. Two of the participants pointed out: I do not like to write on the computer. I generally study by writing on coursebooks... and I like to use hand writing, colorful paper and pencil. But, computers limit me to use these tools while studying. We didn’t send anything to the discussion list although we had [some teaching activities to share]. The Internet technology is far from teachers. I think that we do not know it very well. To be able to send something to others we have to transfer our resources to digital format. This process requires additional time. After having digital materials, second problem will be how we send it to the discussion list? All of them are questions in my mind.

Subject–Community–Object In the mandatory participation term, community members were preservice teachers from three different universities and two different departments. If the goal of a participant aligned with the object of the participation term, she or he easily adapted to the system and participated in activities. Participant goals coincided with the system objectives in two possible ways. First, a preservice teacher considered to be a lifelong learner would be open to new opportunities and thus willing to participate in the activities since she or he already searched for an alternative source of knowledge on the Internet. Second, participants seeking credit for graduation recognized that they needed to complete the required undergraduate courses. Even if a participant’s expectations did not coincide with the objective, social relations, or pattern of interaction, the mandatory constitution of the participation term forced participation in the discussions. However, if mandatory participation failed to motivate the preservice teacher to communicate with others, he or she remained a lurker in this participation term. 162

First, I think that mandatory participation is the unique reason to motivate me in the PDC. Indeed I do not interest in to have a good GPA. However, I have to graduate. So, I tried to make my best. Moreover, being from different universities caused polarization among members. This study showed that some preservice teachers assumed a defensive position of their fellow university students against other community members. In addition, one of the interviewees said that some of the participants also tried to benefit by asking questions in private messages because of short discussion duration. In the mandatory term, a sense of community among the participants never completely formed. Therefore, learning was limited to knowledge sharing through responsibility, despite being in a sociable environment. Extended knowledge sharing among community members remained limited. In the voluntary participation term, new community members—experienced teachers, academicians, and other preservice teachers—participated with existing members. In this new participation term, almost all prior community members preferred to lurk. However, 4 out of 28 preservice participants did participate in discussions. In this new environment, these preservice teachers produced and reproduced ideas with the help of this rich community. In the knowledge creation process, sociability played an important role since preservice teachers exchanged their tacit knowledge with others. When a participant asked a question, she or he received answers from the community, showing the empathy among some people in online communities. When they thought themselves in similar situations, they found a reason to help. In both participation terms, conversations extended beyond discussion lists with different aims. In the mandatory participation term, although community members were limited to preservice teachers who participated in the PDC in an undergraduate course frame, they shared the PDC experience with professionals out of these environments. One of them explained: I praised the PDC to my mentor teacher very much. He listened with my ideas, discussed on them and proposed new point of views. I think that talking with him out of the PDC was very helpful for me. And I believed that he also benefited from the PDC. The subject-community-object triad expands to include individuals external to the environments. However, in the mandatory participation term, there were a limited number of private messages between the subject and other community members. In these messages, the subject requested course materials or ideas about how courses were conducted by others. However, in the voluntary participation term, discussions that first sparked in the discussion list frequently and easily shifted to private messages.

Subject–Rules–Object In the mandatory participation term, the first rule was to post at least three messages in each discussion period. The aim of this rule was to build a discussion environment in which the subject and other community members interactively discussed video cases and exchanged knowledge sources. Furthermore, this rule encouraged the participants to think about the dynamics of the video classroom in detail. Two of them commented: Three e-mails rule made the PDC discussions more effective. Although most of my friends found the rule nonsense, in my opinion, it was reasonable. Otherwise, everyone would send only one e-mail and complete their responsibility. Owing to three email rule, I examined the videos from different points. That is, I made a discussion plan. First one was related to classroom management. Second was mathematics teaching and the third was another case from a different class. However, some participants reacted negatively to this rule, as they found it difficult to contribute additional ideas for each video. The discussion list history and interviews showed that some preservice teachers sent messages without reading and considering prior messages. One participant explained:

163

We didn’t have much time to watch the videos and to write comments. So, the quality of our comments decreased. Three messages were too much. Another rule was strict discussion duration and structured discussions. This rule allowed preservice teachers to watch up to four selected videos in the fall term. If the periods were flexible, the discussion might be extended and participants might not watch subsequent videos. By watching more videos, preservice teachers observed more real classroom environments and experienced more teaching activity. One of them pointed out: I want to discuss on more videos. They took only maximum 15 minutes. However, in real environments, I have to participate in 40 minutes lesson to get the same experience. I believed that more video means more teaching practice for me. However, some participants criticized the short length of each period since they could not read all posted messages. Regarding this negative reaction, one of the interviewees said: Some of my friends are not good with computers. They do not know how to solve simple computer problems. And, some have not an Internet connection at home. So, they told that discussion duration is very short to watch the videos and read messages. In the voluntary participation term, rules were emergent and defined by community members. In this term, preservice teachers did not direct any criticism towards the rules. They accepted and adopted them easily. If they felt frustrated by them, they tried to change them or left the community. Community defined norms simplify the process of reaching the objective. Therefore, preservice teachers should determine their own rules. This style of development is also beneficial in motivating unwilling preservice teachers to participate in discussions.

Subject–Division of Labor (DoL)–Object In both participation terms, division of labor affected the format of the preservice teachers’ knowledge creation and sharing. In the mandatory participation term, there were two main duties: comment writing and lesson plan producing. Comment writers externalized the video teachers’ experiences by writing about them. In addition, they had to add their own comments on the videos, making the process more vigorous. For example, the following participant discussed one video: I agree with my friends’ ideas. The video teacher was certainly poor to teach parallelogram which her students first met with. May be, the video teacher did not have time to teach it, but at least she should have asked which geometric figures it could be made up. Lesson plan writers read their colleagues’ messages after watching the videos. Then, they produced an improved lesson plan, joining their experiences with these comments in a combination and socialization process. One participant whose lesson plan was found very successful by the others said: We experienced warm times that transformed into good friendship. We sent e-mails to each other out of discussion list discussions. Especially, in the week when it was our plan sending period, some messages came to me about my lesson plans. I tried to guide them. To be able to help others made me happy. This was very magnificent feeling. I helped the future teachers. In the voluntary participation term, division of labor was an emergent attempt. There were discussants, material sharers, and lurkers in the system. Discussants preferred to be social and participate in discussion. They commented on topics and criticized others’ comments. There is a socialization process in this behavior. Material sharers sent their lesson activities or plans to the discussion list, making their tacit knowledge more explicit. Lastly, the lurkers neither participated in discussions nor shared any material. These members only consumed the benefits of the community, rather than contributing. One lurker said: I could not read regularly but I didn’t delete them, kept them. They remained since one day I may need them. I wanted to follow them but I did not read very much. 164

Conclusion This study provides a foundation for future studies on web based/supported communities. The Activity Theory framework provided a useful theoretical lens for evaluating and comparing designed and built oCoPs with design and implementation processes. Therefore, other researchers may use this theory to compose a framework for their own studies. Similar to the present study, previous research in this field has revealed promising evidence for using web based/supported communities in teacher education (Barnett, 2002; Wang & Hartley, 2003; Davis & Roblyer, 2005; Sprague, 2006; Levin, He, & Robbins, 2006; Simpson, 2006). The results of this study indicate that practitioners may use online communities with four purposes: 1) teaching to apply aspects of learning theories to real classroom environments, 2) creating discussion environments in which teachers can obtain different perspectives and ideas, 3) changing teachers’ beliefs about practice, and 4) uncovering new teaching topics. The primary issue of this study is the importance of obtaining practical knowledge in teacher education. First, this study determined that digital videos recorded in real classrooms are especially outstanding tools for online communities. This rich tacit knowledge source forces teachers to obtain practical knowledge about the teaching profession. In addition, discussion lists provide teachers an opportunity to consider their peers’ perspectives. However, practitioners should take into account some strategies to overcome video related problems. First, they should create a video team. The responsibility of this group would be to record the videos, transfer them to a digital format, and publish them in a portal. Second, because video streaming can pose a problem, arranging a laboratory hour is critical for those students who lack the technical resources to access the Internet. A laboratory hour cannot ensure that preservice teachers watch the videos, so practitioners should investigate their target population’s situation. In addition, to overcome the lack of interaction between the participants and the video teachers, video teachers should be invited to participate in discussions toward the end of the discussion period. These teachers should not participate in discussions too early because preservice teachers may hesitate to discuss the videos in the presence of the teachers. The discussion list is another incentive mediating the relationship between (a) community members and (b) knowledge creation and sharing in both designed (mandatory participation term) and built (voluntary participation term) communities. This tool promotes sociability among members and, thus, effectively prompts knowledge creation and sharing. However, although this tool allows for sociability among community members across long distances, developing robust relationships with this tool is not possible during a short time period. Therefore, community members would also benefit from synchronous chat, face-to-face meetings, or other Web 2.0 social network tools (e.g., Facebook). These tools let community of teachers know one another closer which in turn leads an increase in their sharing of materials in communities owing to their trust of one another (Baran & Cagiltay, 2010). For instance, Facebook, which is the leader of social networking websites, can be used as a tool to increase social presence of teachers in a community. In addition, out-of-field discussion topics on Facebook may assist members in getting to know each other better. The second and third explored issues were proposing examples of using technology in teachers’ professional development and the lack of research studies on voluntary participation in oCoP environments. First, this study showed that mandatory participation resulted in some strict criticism of the PDC. The sense of community among members was especially explicit in the voluntary term, more than in the mandatory term. In the mandatory participation term, separating teachers according to their universities contributed to a decrease in the members’ sense of community. Every preservice teacher felt compelled to support his or her own university in these groups. Therefore, heterogeneous groups of preservice teachers from different universities would be more likely to increase the feeling of community, increasing sociability among members. In contrast to this designed community, in a built community, active preservice teachers could greatly benefit from the other members. As stated before, the most noteworthy disadvantage of the first term was the strict rules of participation in discussions. Therefore, it is not true to say that all preservice teachers benefited from the sociability of the voluntary participation term. Consequently, providing motivation to preservice teachers to continue discussions remains a significant challenge for built online communities. However, in-service teachers have enough intrinsic motivation to be active in a community because they search, find and involve in teacher communities, voluntarily. Therefore, they need an external motivation to be core members in the community. In sum, this study, with its dual design of mandatory and voluntary participation types, will be an example for other researchers, academicians, and practitioners.

165

References Barab, S., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (Eds.) (2004). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Barab, S. A., Evans, M., & Baek, E. (2003). Activity theory as a lens for charactering the participatory unit. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), International handbook on communication technologies (pp. 199-214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities: Characterizing an online professional development community. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 53-90). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Baran, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Motivators and barriers in the development of online Communities of Practice. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 39, 79-96. Barnett, M. (2002, April). 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. Bieber, M., Engelbart, D., Furuta, R., Hiltz, S. R., Noll, J., Preece, J., et al. (2001, January 3), Virtual community knowledge evolution. Paper presented at the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Conference. Abstract retrieved April 14, 2010, from http://www.cis.njit.edu/~bieber/pub/hicss01/hicss01-ckess.pdf. Davis, N. E., & Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Preparing teachers for the “schools that technology built”: Evaluation of a program to train teachers for virtual schooling. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 399-409. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York: Cambridge University Press. Garud, R. (1997). On the distinction between know-how, know-what and know-why. In A. Huff & J. Walsh (Eds.), Advances in strategic management (pp. 81-101). London: JAI Press. Kuutti, K. (1995). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Levin, B., He, Y., & Robbins, H. (2006). Comparative analysis of preservice teachers’ reflective thinking in synchronous versus asynchronous online case discussions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 439-460. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. Schaler, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? Information Society, 19, 203-220. Simpson, M. (2006). Field experience in distance delivered initial teacher education programmes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 241-254. Sprague, D. (2006). Research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 657-661. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, J., & Hartley, K. (2003). Video technology as a support for teacher education reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 11(1), 105-138. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

166