MAKING USE VISIBLE: A TEACHER-CENTERED STUDY OF TECHNOLOGY-ENABLED WORK PRACTICES

ABSTRACT

Many studies have examined the use of technology in education aimed at preparing students for the 21st century. Some studies have emphasized the importance of teacher attributes, such as attitudes, beliefs and self-efficacy, in predicting these professionals‘ use of technology in schools (Dupagne & Krendl (1994), Marcinkiewicz (1994), Milbrath & Kinzie (2000), Vannatta & Fordham, 2004). Other studies have assessed whether technology improves students‘ engagement as well as achievement (Schacter, 1999).  Still others have investigated the development of online communities that may help teachers to become advanced users of technology (Carroll et al., 2003, 2005; Barab et al., 2003; Schlager & Fusco, 2003). In general however, many studies of technology in education consider teacher preparation as a peripheral concern. In contrast, Fullan (1991) suggested that researchers should consider the teachers‘ perspective when studying changes that occur due to technology integration to understand their subjective experiences.  Similarly, Laurillard (2008) argued that by taking into account the teachers‘ concerns, specifically their points of view on whether and how technology can serve education, researchers will be able to first identify and understand the educational problems and then find technology solutions that address these problems.  In this way, it can be ensured that issues are addressed from the teaching community‘s perspective.

This study is grounded in the view that a better understanding of teachers and their daily work-related activities must be a central element in any programs aimed at enhancing the use of technology in teaching. This research begins with a review of literature on teachers‘ professional community, teachers‘ professional development, the opportunities that online communities are providing in the evolution of a professional development community for teachers and the challenges that lie ahead. Then, through qualitative research methodology, this study attempts to (a) better understand the social aspects surrounding the use of information technology in a school setting and (b) analyze barriers and supporting structures for using and learning technology practices among teachers.

The analysis of how the school teachers in a particular school are using and learning to use technological artifacts for their daily work practices has helped uncover useful findings - for policy makers, school leaders, teachers, providers of professional development and designers of information technology innovations for education. The findings from this study contribute to research in the fields of human centered computing, workplace learning and teacher‘s professional development.

Chapter1

Introduction

The dawn of computer networks have brought forth extensive experimentation in bringing together otherwise isolated communities of practice across geographic boundaries. Although teachers in a school are co-located they are traditionally known to work in isolation. Information technology offers great potential to further the development of teachers‘ local community of practice by providing an online platform to share and learn from each other as an additional support for their face-to-face interactions.

From the literature, it is quite evident that attempts to use web technologies to support teachers‘ professional development have been ongoing.

In the last two decades there has been a visible increase in the number of computers and internet access in American schools. However, teaching practices continue to evince only token integration of computers. Inhibiting factors such as lack of effective training, and need for collaboration and involvement in planning for computer use that were found in 1991 continued to exist in 2004 (Shi & Bichelmeyer, 2007).  Earlier studies have also found documented minimal computer integration in schools (Cuban, 2001; Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001; Ertmer, 1999; Peck, 2001; Rogers, 2000).  The many studies of failed technology adoption in classrooms point to a gap between the expectations from the designers of computer hardware and software to the realities of computer use as part of teachers‘ everyday practices. While many factors may contribute to this gap (e.g., lack of resources, insufficient infrastructure, schedules that are already too busy), Fullan (1991) argues that the teachers themselves are one factor that affects technology implementation in education. Most studies treat the role of teachers very peripherally. In contrast to these studies, Fullan suggests that researchers should examine the changes that occur due to technology integration from teachers‘ perspectives and try to understand their subjective experiences in their work context. A better understanding of teachers and their day-to-day activities must be a central element in any programs aimed at enhancing the use of technology in teaching.

In a similar vein, and more recently, Laurillard (2008) argues that researchers must first identify and understand the educational problems and then find technology solutions that address these problems.

Such an approach would make sure that issues are addressed from the teaching community‘s perspective.

The teachers will then be able to make good use of technology by becoming experimental innovators and reflective practitioners. For example, they could become ―action researchers‖ by collaborating and building knowledge about teaching with technology. However, to enable this, the teachers must be able to share that knowledge. Laurillard went on to propose an online learning activity management system for capturing and sharing the pedagogic forms that teachers design. This system relied on a ―Conversational Framework‖ as a theoretical framework. Technology would be harnessed to the needs of education rather than searching for problems to which the latest technology is the solution.

Although a great deal of effort has gone into teacher training projects through online communities of education professionals, they have only succeeded in ―putting the cart before the horse‖ (Schlager & Fusco, 2003). These communities have been created in isolation from the local professional communities in which the teachers practice. They have ignored the greater potential of the internet to help and support the local communities of practice. Brown and Duguid (2000) (as cited in Schlager & Fusco, 2003) state that ―only by engaging in work and talking about the work from inside the practice can one learn to be a competent practitioner‖.

The balance of this chapter is organized as follows. I will first review literature that bears on the issues of teachers learning and sharing work practices, and specifically how community interactions and online tools might facilitate this process. I begin by defining several terms that are used in these areas of research, such as, communities of practice, professional communities, professional learning communities and how these are related with teachers‘ professional development. Against this backdrop, I will review some online communities for teachers‘ professional development and discuss the role of such sites in fostering the development of a teachers‘ professional development community. The equation below is a simplistic way to illustrate the relationship that may emerge between these concepts through the enabling power of information technology.

Teachers’ Professional Community + Teachers’ Professional Development => Teachers’ Professional Development Community

The balance of this chapter is organized as follows. First I describe relevant background research. Working from this analysis, I define the problem I will research as well as its scope, including a statement of research objectives and potential impact. Next I summarize the research methods I plan to use, including some of the details of my research and analysis plan. I close with a projected timeline.

Prior to formulating a set of research objectives and associated questions, I will first review literature that bears on the issues of teachers learning about and integrating technology into their classroom practices, and specifically how community interactions and online tools might facilitate this process. I begin by defining several terms that are used in these areas of research, then, review relevant frameworks, empirical studies, and online systems for community building.

1.1 Key Concepts for Teacher Communities

Several terms have been used to describe professional learning communities and related concepts. According to Grossman et al., (2001), the word community has lost its meaning. Every educational innovation is using the term ―community‖ as an obligatory appendage. For example, it is not clear what features are shared across terms such as communities of learners, discourse communities, epistemic communities, school community, teacher community, or communities of practice. In attempts to replicate the so called ―community‖ on an online space, researchers and virtual community builders have only succeeded in adding to the confusion. For example, in a virtual community, by paying a fee or typing a password, anyone who clicks on a web site automatically becomes a member of the community. In this section, I offer some definitions and relevant concepts from literature.

Communities of Practice (CoP)

In a community of practice, members interact, learn and work through participation in complex networks of shared expectations and norms. A CoP includes structures and roles that induct new members into core practices through legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991). CoPs cannot be designed as they develop according to the needs of their members (Wenger,1998). Hur and Hara (2007) reiterate this in the following words:

―CoPs are viewed as self-organizing, evolving, and self-sustaining entities that are connected by shared problems and specific areas of interest to members‖ 

According to Wenger et al (2002) the basic structure for all CoPs consists of a community of people who care about a domain of knowledge which defines a set of issues; and shared practice that they are developing. The domain provides common ground and common identity such as ―What topics and issues do we really care about?  How is this domain connected to the organization‘s strategy?‖ Community fosters interaction and relationships based on mutual respect and trust such as ―What roles are people going to play?  How often will the community meet?  How will members connect on an ongoing basis?‖  Finally, shared practice consists of the frameworks, ideas, tools, stories, and documents that are shared.

Some examples are ―What knowledge to share, to develop, and to document?  What kinds of learning activities to organize?  How should the knowledge repository be organized to reflect the practice of members?‖ Developing all three elements is a balancing act.

Lave and Wenger (1991) extended the term community of practice (CoP) to underline the importance of activity in linking individuals to communities, and of communities in making individual practices legitimate. Moreover, learning follows a trajectory in which learners start from being legitimate peripheral participants and move on to becoming core participants in a community of practice. Barab et al. (2003) defined a CoP as a

―A persistent, sustained social network of individuals who share and develop an overlapping knowledge base, set of beliefs, values, history and experiences focused on a common practice and/or mutual enterprise‖. 

Many of their ideas are based on the work of Wenger (1998). They (Barab & Duffy, 2000) listed CoP as having the following eight characteristics:

(1) shared knowledge, values, and beliefs; (2) overlapping histories among members; (3) mutual interdependence; and (4) mechanisms for reproduction; (5) a common practice and/or mutual enterprise; (6) opportunities for interactions and participation; (7) meaningful relationships; and (8) respect for diverse perspectives and minority views.

A key idea underlying the concept of CoP is that learning is a social process (Barab, 1999; Barab, Cherkes-Julkowski, Swenson, Garret, Shaw, & Young, 1999; Lave, 1997; Lemke, 1997). A community can start as an informal loose network that gradually becomes more connected. The activities needed also changes as the community develops. The CoP model supports collaborations among learners in working with others towards similar goals of building a community context that can best support the needs of its members and helps them in moving on their learning trajectory (Rogoff, 1990; Roth, 1998; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). According to Westheimer (1998) some anticipated effects of CoP membership for individuals include ―a sense of identity and belonging, affirmation, commitment to the group, strong bonds, and the development of both common purposes and collective responsibility‖ (p. 12). The community-based approach to learning has immense theoretical and practical potential but it is important that these environments be studied empirically. (Barab et al.) The figure below summarizes the key features of a CoP.

Fig 1.1: Communities of Practice

Thinking in terms of the context of my study and how I can draw from the concept of CoP, here are a few reflections. My study is grounded in the school teachers‘ local community of practice. However, even at the local context, there are many networks of community. The teachers may be connected through formal structures such as department and other professional groups that they may be associated with on a longterm or short-term basis. For example, a biology teacher would belong to the biology department network. Some of them may belong to a small network of a group of biology teachers who teach the same subject.

Since I will be following from the teachers‘ perspective, I will be starting from them to see how they view and identify the different networks that they are a part of. Another point to note is that unlike many online communities, local communities of practice already exist even though they may differ in the degree to which they feel a sense of belongingness. Schools as a CoP have evolved over many centuries through a slow and steady self-organizing process culminating in a school system as it exists today with formalized structures. However, formal institutional structures are known to bring about artificial walls and promote a top-down hierarchy that can inhibit and stifle the environment for innovation in teaching practices.  Even though the members of the school may be co-located, they may still lack a sense of community due to these structures. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have brought about a great change in breaking down these boundaries. However, their appropriate use in the school context is still not well understood.

Professional Communities

In this section, I describe from literature the closely related concept of professional community. While the concept of communities of practice is traditionally understood as a self-organizing mechanism and gives ways to recognize it by identifying its characteristics, literature on professional community show how communities of practice can be created by school authorities, and offer some indicators that can be used to build and measure the sense of community. Here I describe professional community from literature in the school teachers‘ context.

According to Louis, Kruse and Bryk (1995), the most important task for school leaders is to create meaningful opportunities for teachers to work together on issues of common interest. Hence, school leaders have been taking steps to create professional communities in schools (Halverson, R. 2003). Halverson, R. (2003) studied the leadership practices of an urban elementary school to show how professional community was developed through the selective design and implementation of artifacts, such as policies, programs and procedures, in order to reshape the local system of practice. In professional communities, teachers have the opportunities to break down the traditional isolation of classroom by participating in collaborative, problem setting and problem solving activities (Halverson, R. 2003). Research findings have established the positive correlation between existence of strong professional communities of teachers and student achievement (Vescio & Adams, 2008).

Based on a literature review of professional and organizational support structures in school settings, Visscher & Witziers (2004) identified six concepts as the important indicators of professional communities: policy and evaluation, consultation and cooperation, consensus, decision- making, school leadership and departmental leadership. The figure below illustrates the key features underlying the concept of a professional community.

The policy and evaluation concept relates to the teaching policy of departments and is measured by variables such as arrangements made by departmental staff about their teaching activities and the number of common tests that the department takes in a school year. Thus this concept has a strong relationship with the ‗standardization‘ concept in organizations (Mintzberg, 1979; as quoted by Visscher & Witziers, 2004). Student achievement can be monitored by cycling the test results to the department for feedback and remedial measures. Communities of practice develop shared practices that guide the articulation of policies and rules leading to standardization.  

The consultation and cooperation concept refers to the frequency of consultation, and the climate of cooperation. For example, how open are the lines of communication; what is the quality and degree of mutual cooperation and feedback among teachers and other staff members; do they develop learning materials cooperatively and engage in classroom observation?

Fig 1.2: Professional Communities

The consensus concept refers to shared values such as to what extent do staff members think and act similarly about the tasks and function of the school, the goals about the subject matter, the teaching practices and the teaching content.

The decision-making concept is measured by two variables that show how far individual teachers can take independent decision on their teaching, and to what extent does the department play a 'collective' role. In professional communities, decision-making about teaching practices is shared among teachers.

The last two concepts, school leadership and departmental leadership, refer to the role of school leaders and heads of department in building professional communities and learning organizations. The literature highlights the benefits of facilitative leadership as opposed to directive leadership (Visscher & Witziers, 2004).

ICT can play a great role in increasing consultation and cooperation among teachers which has a great potential when it comes to disseminating knowledge learnt in offsite professional development programs as well as knowledge created in everyday practices.

Professional Learning Community (PLC)

A teacher professional community is oriented to the support of all aspects of teaching; a professional learning community (PLC) is a community specifically oriented to teachers‘ professional development; such support has long been of central concern within the teaching profession. The concept of PLC is borrowed and modified from the idea of organizational learning from the business circle to suit the educational context (Vescio et al., 2008). The concept of learning organization became a learning community where teachers worked in an environment of collaborative work culture. PLCs are based on the assumption that knowledge is situated in the everyday lived experiences of teachers and that actively engaging the teachers in PLCs will result in an increase in their professional knowledge as well as student learning.

It is important to note that PLC reform currently is exclusively a school based reform and an important next step for schools would be to broaden this framework to the district level. Dufour (2004) highlights the struggles that schools have faced in establishing PLCs.  According to him there is confusion about the concept of PLC. ―PLC‖ has been used to describe every imaginable combination of individuals with an interest in education. It could be a grade-level teaching team, a school committee, a high school department, an entire school district and so on. Its usage is so ubiquitous that it is in danger of losing its meaning. Hence, he offers a proposal aimed at more clearly defining a PLC for teacher development. According to him a PLC consists of three core principles. Firstly, of ensuring that students learn, which brings a shift from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning with profound implications for schools. Secondly, having a culture of collaboration that characterizes a PLC as a systematic process, in which teachers work together in teams to reflect on and improve their classroom practice. Thirdly, a focus on results where an effective PLC judges its performance based on results. Teacher teams can develop common formative assessments throughout the school year, compare how each class performed and call on their colleagues to help them reflect on areas of concern.

Based on a review of others‘ work (Vescio, Ross & Adams, 2008; Halverson, R. 2003), Bolam et al. (2005) expand the analysis of PLCs for teachers. For instance they elaborate the earlier notion of culture to suggest that this should include an orientation toward inquiry learning and a willingness to ―give up‖ their private ownership or control of their own practices and adopt a pervasive sense of collegiality. Such culture can be enhanced if there are clear opportunities for the teachers to have an influence on how the school conducts its activities and builds its policies. They also argue that the shared culture should have characteristics of inclusiveness and openness; this in term implies and reinforces mutual trust, respect and support. Finally, from a more operational standpoint, they argue that effective PLCs require some form of emergent leadership or management that can collect and optimize allocation of shared resources, and that can promote and evaluate sustained individual and collective learning within the PLC.

Newman et al (1996) describe 5 primary characteristics of a PLC (as quoted by Vescio et al., 2008):

1. Shared values and norms about children and their ability to learn, schools priorities for the use of time and space, and the proper roles of parents, teachers and administrators;
2. Clear and consistent focus on student learning;
3. Reflective and continuing dialogue among teachers about curriculum, instruction and student development;
4. Focusing on collaboration;
5. deprivatization of teaching practice;

Bolam et al. (2005) synthesized these characteristics and defined a PLC as

―a community with the capacity to promote and sustain the learning of all professionals in the school community with the collective purpose of enhancing student learning". 

They added three more characteristics to the above:

1. inclusive membership, networks, partnerships
2. openness and
3. mutual trust, respect and support

The figure below is an attempt to illustrate the key features underlying the concept of a PLC.

They also added 4 operational processes:

1. leadership and management,
2. optimising resources and structures,
3. promoting individual and collective professional learning and
4. evaluating and sustaining the PLC.

Bolam et al (2005) have proposed the following provisional model as a useful basis for practice and research. It illustrates ―a professional learning community operating within a school – the outer dotted line – influenced by two sets of inhibitors and facilitators – those which are external (Box A) and internal

(Box B) to the school. The unbroken arrows linking the four processes (Box C) to the eight characteristics (Box D) and the three sets of outcomes (Box E) indicate the presumed broad causal direction of PLC operation.‖

 

Fig 1.4: Provisional Model of a School acting as an effective PLC

For the purpose of this research, I will draw from these ideas to reinterpret the qualitative data I obtain in my field work, using an interpretive lens. For example I will examine the functioning of individual departments to see how they operate as a PLC on these dimensions: (how) does the leadership facilitate a climate of consultation and coordination? How are their activities with respect to the use of technology being directed towards the goal of increasing student achievement? Is technology being used to increase teachers‘ productivity, student achievement or both?  How are they measuring these results?

Teachers’ Professional Development (TPD)

Recently there has been an increase in attention for teacher learning and teacher professional development programs situated in the workplace as compared with off-site programs. Examples of off-site programs include workshops, conference sessions, seminars, lectures, and other short-term training events. The effectiveness of these programs can be enhanced by lengthening their duration, connecting them with teachers‘ work context, focusing on subject matter, and emphasizing analysis and reflection (Smith & Gillespie, 2007).  According to Guskey,

―teachers‘ professional development can be defined as those processes and activities designed to enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of educators so that they might, in turn, improve the learning of students‖. (Guskey, 2000).

Traditional TPD is a top-down hierarchical model of the expert where teachers go to workshops, institutes, or seminars in which ―experts‖ deliver pedagogically sound teaching skills to the teachers (Barnett et al., 2002). In a handbook designed for policy makers for developing countries, TPD is described as

―the tool by which policymakers convey broad visions, disseminate critical information, and provide guidance to teachers. Effective TPD begins with an understanding of teachers‘ needs and their work environments—schools and classrooms. TPD then combines a range of techniques to promote learning; provides teachers with the support they need; engages school leadership; and makes use of evaluation to increase its impact. Essential techniques include mentoring, teamwork, observation, reflection and assessment‖ (Gaible et al., 2005).

Standardized TPD is the most centralized method. It is used to disseminate skills to a large teacher population. Site-based TPD involves intensive learning by groups of teachers to promote long-term changes in instructional methods. Self-directed TPD involves independent learning by teachers and may include computers and the internet. Standardized TPD programs that involve ICTs frequently use the Cascade model (Gaible, 2005). In this model, one or two teachers (champions) at a school attend centralized workshops to learn computer skills and integrating computers into teaching and learning. Once they return, these champion teachers provide TPD to their colleagues. However, site-based TPD address local needs and conditions and as such should become the cornerstone of teacher development across the education system (Gaible et al., 2005).

Many TPD programs start with the assumption that how to use computers is the same as how to teach with computers. While some degree of technical skill is necessary (basic keyboard and mouse skills, familiarity with the operating system and basic software applications), they are not sufficient to increase the teachers‘ use of computers as a teaching tool. Hence most teachers need guidance on how to use them with students. Simply improving teachers‘ computer skills may not necessarily lead to students‘ use of computers as tools for learning. TPD should be learner-centered, designed so that teachers experience the types of instruction that they are asked to provide in their classrooms. In a learner-centered TPD, it is the voices and actions of teachers themselves, not of the TPD provider, that would be the focus.  If teachers don‘t have the books they need, TPD should help them come up with strategies to develop learning materials. If teachers have 40 students and only one computer in the classroom, TPD must model, instead of simply talking about how teachers integrate technology given such a constraint.

Computers raise many concerns among teachers. Technical concerns raise questions like ―How do I use the computer?‖; functional concerns such as ―What can computers help me do?‖; logistical concerns  like

―How can I use so few computers with so many students?‖; affective concerns  such as ―Will these computers replace me as a teacher? Will my students lose respect if they think the computer knows more than me?‖; organizational concerns include questions like ―How do I organize my classroom to support the use of computers? How can they be used as part of what I already do in the classroom?‖; conceptual concerns such as ―How can I learn from and with computers?‖; instructional concerns like ―How can computers help my students learn in different ways? How can they support the curriculum? How can they support my teaching? How should I teach using computers?‖; evaluation concerns as reflected in questions like  ―How do I assess student learning in computer-based projects? How does this new way of learning fit with national exams?‖ (Gaible et al, 2005).

Type	Definition
CoP	A persistent, sustained social network of individuals who share and develop an overlapping knowledge base, set of beliefs, values, history and experiences focused on a common practice and/or mutual enterprise. (Barab et al., 2003)
PLC	Bolam et al. 2005 define a PLC as a community "with the capacity to promote and sustain the learning of all professionals in the school community with the collective purpose of enhancing student learning".
PC  vs PLC	A teacher professional community is oriented to the support of all aspects of teaching; a professional learning community (PLC) is a community specifically oriented to teachers‘ professional development; such support has long been of central concern within the teaching profession. (Mississippi DOE,1996)
TPD	―Teachers‘ professional development can be defined as those processes and activities designed to enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of educators so that they might, in turn, improve the learning of students‖.

 Table 1.1: Relevant Concepts - Definitions

In this section I have described different concepts related to a teachers‘ community of practice from literature. Table 1.1 & Table 1.2 provide a quick list of the definitions and characteristics of these concepts. As is evident, these concepts are broadly defined. So, it is not clear what the differences are. While they all seem to have similar characteristics, perhaps one difference is that they lay emphasis on different aspects. A teachers‘ CoP may be primarily concerned with describing the components of such a community. A teachers‘ professional community (TPC) provides specific indicators to identify the existence and evaluate the strength of teachers‘ professional community. Furthermore, a teachers‘ PLC (TPLC) may be viewed as a subset of a TPC in the sense that it comprises primarily of teachers who are in a small group or network such as a department, a team, or school staff who provide them support from time to time. It lays emphasis on certain aspects such as a culture of collaboration, a focus on increasing student achievement and shifting a teachers‘ approach from teaching to ensuring that students are learning. So the concept of PLC identifies a clear goal. A teachers‘ professional development community

(TPDC) may be viewed as a subset of a teachers‘ CoP but it may or may not be a part of a TPC or a TPLC because it contains teacher educators and researchers who do not practice school classroom teaching but provide support from outside.

 

Table 1.2: Relevant Concepts- Characteristics

The relationship among these concepts, as discussed, is shown below with the help of a diagram (Fig 1.5).

My study will borrow from these various concepts related to CoPs but specifically from the concept of PLC. My intention is to find out how the teachers are learning from their peers about the different ways and goals for using technology in their everyday practice; how current communication and collaboration technologies can help in this process; how other professional development programs are entering and being disseminated through PLCs and how the teachers are voicing their concerns and helping shape the professional development programs. Additionally, ICTs have the potential to break the boundaries between CoPs, TPCs, TPLCs and TPD.

 

Fig 1.5: Professional Development support for Professional Community of Teachers

1.2 Technology in the Classroom

Pedagogical differences result in different learning outcomes for the same content with the same technology. Teaching about technology through professional development programs may not readily transform into teachers‘ practice. Even if it does, the practice may differ from one teacher to another. Information technology is a complex tool and as such, it can be used in a variety of ways. Schrum et al. (2007) note that

―different technologies have unique pedagogical affordances and the effects of these affordances can only be understood in the context of a specific content area, their related learning outcomes, and a specific pedagogy. For example, science teachers can use planetarium software such as Starry Night to teach astronomy concepts in many different ways. Some teachers may take students to the computer lab to use the software, but they assign worksheets guiding students to merely confirm concepts stated in the textbook – still a somewhat traditional pedagogy. Other teachers may employ the same software to facilitate inquiry, engaging students in making and testing predictions and discovering astronomical patterns. Students‘ resulting comprehension of the content may differ based on the teachers‘ pedagogy, even though both groups used the same technology.‖

Perhaps a better approach to learn about technology practices would be to have an ongoing interaction among teachers for sharing practices with each other in their own workplace. They may then be able to readily discover the difference in how each of them is using technology and then converge towards using it in a more uniform way so that the students experience similar learning outcomes. Due to lack of time for face-to-face meetings, an online place may provide just the right support.

Technology offers unique opportunities but at the same time, it also brings about new challenges associated with it. The Learning in Networked Communities (LiNC) project was established to promote collaborative teaching in geographically distributed science classrooms (Dunlap, Neale & Carroll, 2000). A major outcome of this project was The Virtual School, a networked learning environment that linked four middle and high school classrooms. The environment included real-time chat, email, videoconferencing, and shared collaborative notebooks (Isenhour, Carroll, Neale, Rosson & Dunlap, 2000).  While the main goal of the project was to bring together students in different locations to work together on group projects, it brought to attention the new tensions associated with teacher collaborations such as problems related to differences in awareness and assessment of student activities and progress, communication among teachers, scheduling and planning, as well as pedagogical differences. These problems vary according to the local context. One way to address these challenges could be ongoing teachers professional development practice where teachers share their problems routinely. Such knowledge can be discussed, codified and disseminated online from time to time using light-weight communication technologies. Once the teachers‘ voices are heard, the school administration will understand and take some steps to work with the teachers to solve these problems. Another outcome of this study was the gradual development of participating teachers in this project from a peripheral role of practitioner-informant to a more active role as analyst and designer and then becoming skilled enough to coach other teachers/colleagues in their school (Carroll, Chin, Rosson & Neale, 2000). In this study, the participatory design method succeeded not only in developing a learning environment but also in the technology being adapted by the teacher-participants. Thus, a teacher-centered approach resulted in a positive outcome.

It is important to recognize that ―technology‖ is an omnibus term that can support different aspects of teaching practice. Through interviews with the IT staff at the high school, several categories emerged.

Technology productivity tools are those that increase the teachers‘ efficiency. For example, word processing, spreadsheet, graphs, powerpoint, can all be used to simplify construction, sharing, and reuse of materials. Technology communication tools are important for interacting with students, peers, and other staff; examples include, phone, email, IM, text chat, wikis, blogs, audio and video conferencing, Facebook, School 2.0, etc. Technology research tools (e.g, the Internet in general, specific digital libraries) might be used to search and collect information from multiple sources. Educational technology tools are specific to a subject, for example, Math teachers use Geometer‘s Sketchpad while Geography teachers use Google Earth. Finally, there are also course management tools (e.g., Angel, Moodle) that are used to deliver lesson plans and other course materials, broadcast information to students, and so on. As I continue my work, it will be important to distinguish between the different types of technologies and the unique affordances they bring in supporting teachers in a school context.

1.3 Teachers Collaborating about Teaching Practices

Literature points to an increasing trend towards a shift in teachers‘ professional development process from individual to collaborative activities. Grangeat & Gray (2007) state that

―Teaching as a professional activity is in the process of a shift from individual knowledge use to collective knowledge generation where enhancements in teaching are produced through dialogue and collective enquiry within the world of teaching rather than by external research‖. 

In other words, teachers‘ professional activity is shifting from a passive application of knowledge towards the generation of knowledge through the activity itself. Even as early as 1982, Little found that schools with relatively high achievement and extensive staff development had four practices in common. In these schools, teachers talked about their teaching, were observed and critiqued by their peers, designed and planned teaching materials together, and taught each other.

Information technology offers great potential to further the development of teachers‘ professional communities by providing an online platform to share and learn from each other. From the literature, it is quite evident that attempts to use web technologies to support face-to-face professional development have been ongoing (Carroll et al. 2005 & 2003, Barab et al., 2001 & 2003, Dunlap 2004, Hew & Hara, 2007, Hur & Hara, 2007, Isenhour et al., 2000 & 2003, Green & Cifuentes, 2008, Najafi & Clarke, 2008). Some have been successful and some have not achieved the desired goals. These efforts provide us with rich information to gain lessons for the future.

According to Guskey (2000), follow-up to a teachers‘ professional development program can enhance a teacher‘s feeling of competency. With online environments teachers have the convenience of accessing follow-up to professional development in their own time. Green & Cifuentes (2008) have shown that professional development programs alone cannot bring about changes in teaching practices without a follow-up. But it is a big challenge for teachers to find the time for a follow-up meeting during the school day. They are generally not inclined to moving learning to meeting time after school. Moreover, providing substitutes so that teachers can meet during the day is a costly proposition. Information and communication technologies offer professional developers a great opportunity to provide a follow-up to their face-to-face workshops. The results of the study strongly indicate that teacher educators are well advised to provide online follow-up with peer interaction in their professional development programs.

However, Najafi & Clarke (2008) found that a similar attempt was not successful. In a case study conducted in a school board in a western Canadian city, an on-line component called the Online Literacy Project (OLP) was added to a successful professional development program called the Literacy Project. This component was developed based on input from a Literacy Project mentor. The research team developed a resource Web site with a discussion forum for online communications. Later, the site was revised based on reflections and feedback of other mentors. The research team kept close contact with the participants to observe how they used a Web-based structure to further the opportunities for professional development. Unfortunately, it was found that the current form of OLP did not bring any significant enhancement in the professional development of the Literacy Project teachers, even though many of these teachers initially acknowledged the potential of online communications. It would be hard to generalize from this study because the sample of participants was too small. Nevertheless, some of the findings can serve as a useful guide in future attempts.

Teacher continuous professional development, at its core, is all about teachers sharing knowledge with each other to improve their practice (Hew & Hara, 2007). Knowledge sharing approaches can be both formal and informal. However, formal knowledge sharing approaches such as training workshops are criticized because they are removed from the workplace and hard for teachers to transfer or apply to their workplace. On the other hand, informal knowledge sharing approaches such as participation in informal social networks, such as, a community of practice, have been found to be a powerful catalyst for change (Schlager & Fusco, 2003)

In another study (Khe & Hara, 2007) researchers identified some motivators and barriers for teachers‘ online knowledge sharing as an example of a community of practice mediated by computer networks. They conducted an empirical investigation on how teachers on the Literacy Education listserv were using this technology for sharing knowledge. They found that the key motivators for sharing knowledge were collectivism and principlism while the main barriers were a lack of knowledge and competing priority. ―Collectivism is a motive that aims to increase the welfare of a group‖ (Batson et al., 2002) while principlism is a moral feeling for giving back help because one has received help from the community in the past (Cheung et al., 2004). The study also suggests that motivators for knowledge sharing may be practice dependent. For example, in another study (Wasko & Faraj, 2005) on knowledge sharing practices of legal professionals, in an online network supporting a professional legal association, it was found that they  were driven more by egoist motives as they felt that it enhanced their professional reputations. Thus collectivism and reciprocity were hardly the motivators for the legal professionals. Hence, the study suggests that their results may not be generalizable to Math and Science teachers.

According to them the motivating factors were generally internal and related to teachers‘ professional judgment, attitudes and relationships. On the other hand, the restraining factors were generally external and related to the school day, year and lack of time. The authors suggest that in the short term it may be easier to encourage knowledge dissemination by reducing the restraining factors rather than the motivating factors. The full list of motivators and barriers for teachers‘ online sharing behavior is summarized in the table below. The results for this study were derived from data that was obtained in an analysis of online sharing.

Motivators	Barriers
Collectivism	Lack of time
Reciprocity	Lack of knowledge
Personal Gain (reputation)	Risk of being misunderstood
Personal Gain (knowledge)	Not wanting to cause a fight
Personal Gain (support)	Negative attitude of the seeker
Respectful Environment
Altruism
Anonymity
Interest of seeker

Table 1.3: Teachers’ Online Knowledge Sharing

Yuen & Ma (2004) pointed out that many organizations understand the importance of knowledge sharing among their employees. As a key element of organizational learning, knowledge management life cycle comprises: (1) knowledge capture; (2) knowledge sharing; (3) knowledge application, and (4) knowledge creation (Liebowitz, 2001). In order to make sure that knowledge captured through any training program can be applied to the workplace, the actual sharing of the knowledge is a prerequisite step before moving any further in the knowledge management life cycle. An employee can get new knowledge from different sources such as training. However, it is doubtful whether this captured new knowledge can be fully externalized into the workplace.

Thus technology offers great opportunities for continuous professional development by supporting and enhancing communication among teachers for sharing knowledge. However to make this effective, one needs to be aware of the external and internal factors for motivating and restraining the sharing of knowledge. Among other concerns, this study will also attempt to identify the barriers and motivators that currently exist in the school among teachers for sharing teaching practices with respect to technology integration in the curriculum.

1.4 Online Tools for Teacher Knowledge Sharing

It seems clear that online technology can make knowledge sharing easier and more effective. However, the real issue is to choose and implement a suitable technology that provides a good fit between people and organizations. The American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC, 2000) identified four CoP types and their corresponding needs by conducting a study involving 40 companies. In help communities members supported each other on everyday problems and shared ideas on an ad-hoc basis. The best practice communities developed, validated and shared best practices. The innovation communities sought breakthrough ideas and the knowledge stewarding communities maintained the body of knowledge for day-to-day use. The unique requirements for each community provide a guide for identifying the best technology features that support these needs. For example, ―light weight conversational technologies‖ seem to be least suited for the knowledge steward communities. In this context, lightweight conversational technology would include computer-mediated communication (CMC) channels like chats, wikis or blogs. Because a knowledge steward community needs technology that supports document management and portal development and maintenance, these simple CMC tools are not likely to be sufficient. However for other CoP types, conversational technologies might provide a suitable medium for knowledge sharing.

Conversational technologies succeed by leveraging the communal knowledge and social capital of groups by supporting the natural process of conversation and by documenting its results; reducing the negative effects associated with knowledge capture in systems, such as large development time or skill requirements, while amplifying the positive effects, such as knowledge sharing, or knowledge search; being lightweight and relatively inexpensive; satisfying the needs of several types of communities of practice such as daily question answering, access to a diverse group of experts, and incremental knowledge refinement mechanisms (Wagner & Bolloju, 2005).

Wagner & Bolloju (2005) argue for two paradigms that might be used in the sharing and distribution of knowledge: dialog and broadcasting. In the dialog mode knowledge is created by questions and answers among the community members. Tools for the dialog mode are discussion forum and wiki. These can be also considered as many-to-many communication tools. In the broadcasting mode, a single author can post his/her knowledge or information to the entire community. An example tool would be weblogs. This can also be considered as a one-to-many tool.

Carroll & Rosson (2005) investigated the knowledge-sharing practices among public school teachers and identified three levels of knowledge sharing. At the lowest level, teachers shared tangible resources such as pointers to web sites, lego construction kits, lab equipment, etc. At the second level, they shared classroom plans and objectives such as lesson plans for labs, worksheet templates for peer mentoring activities, grading policies, etc. and at the third level, they shared artifacts produced by students (in progress or completed) such as on-line lab reports, web sites with project summaries and photos. Based on these three levels of sharing, the researchers went on to describe four different frameworks for representing and accessing this knowledge - place, time, people, and use. This design vision for teachers‘ knowledge management was realized in the TeacherBridge project (http://teacherbridge.cs.vt.edu) —an online community network for teachers to build websites and other online resources for their class activities (Kim, Isenhour, Carroll & Rosson, 2003; Carroll & Farooq, 2005; Carroll et al., 2003). Teachers in this network can build websites and other online resources for their class activities (http://teacherbridge.cs.vt.edu). In place-based knowledge, a teacher can interact with an online map of a place of interest and browse associated documents. In a use-based knowledge, a teacher may access an object based on usage statistics of that object. An object with a higher usage frequency may suggest more value. Time-based knowledge gives a history of when an object was revised or updated. For example, if a lesson plan was not updated in ten years, a teacher interested in using that object may be prompted to revise it. This study offers a valuable lead in under-standing how knowledge can be visualized and organized in multiple ways for teachers‘ sharing and accessing professional resources. This study will greatly benefit by following this thread and investigating the different rubrics that the teachers in my study are using to organize and access knowledge.

Another study (Asllani, 2008) suggested that knowledge sharing and retention rates can increase by combining blogs and discussion boards with traditional face-to-face communication methods. This comparative study showed that blogs are more successful in communicating tacit knowledge to a general audience whereas discussion boards are more successful in communicating explicit knowledge to a specialized audience. The world-wide web offers a rich resource of online professional development communities. Some examples are described in the following section.

1.5 Online TPD Community Overview

Some teaching PLCs may exist and operate entirely or at least partly through the support of online services and activities. Such a structure has been termed a virtual learning community (VLC; the phrase online learning community or OLC is also used for this same concept). According to Gan & Zhu (2007) a VLC is

―a virtual learning environment in which a group of learners, who join together with common interests and the same learning objective, communicate, interact, discuss, and collaborate on a problem that has arisen from active learning, collaborative learning, and knowledge building, and then share each other‘s opinions, ideas, resources, knowledge, experiences, and collective wisdom. A VLC therefore fosters the advancement of knowledge building and collective wisdom, and learners ultimately achieve learning targets and acquire the abilities of learning how to learn to a higher level (Gan, 2005, p.39).‖

Barab et al., (2003) point to the confusion about the definition of a virtual community. It has been known to include ―anything from a tight-knit group of people who share important parts of their lives on a dayto-day basis to an amorphous chat group that can be joined (and left) by anyone with a valid password‖. In a VLC, people may communicate using text, audio or video. Most literature talks about online learning communities as environments that support and act as communities of practice. Several types of VLCs exist, such as, e-learning where participants interact solely through technology and blended learning where both face-to-face and technology are used as a means of interaction. Whether creating a community for e-learning or one that supports a blended learning approach, when creating an online community, builders must consider a variety of factors related to people, group processes, and technology. Educators are enthusiastic about the possibilities it opens up and are exploring the ―community‖ model for supporting learning.

Online modes for TPD parallel the three methods of TPD listed earlier. These modes can be grouped as online courses, online communities and self-directed learning. However, boundaries between the different types of online TPD are more flexible. For example, a teacher, while browsing an online teacher resource center (self-directed TPD) may discover a course that he/she finds useful. The teacher then completes the online TPD course in several sessions, and then signs up for the course‘s list-server discussion (Gaible et al., 2005).

Based on the different types of online TPD, online professional development sites may be categorized according to features such as online course offerings, online sharing of lesson plans, online community (forums, groups and chats) and offerings for self-directed learning. Online courses refer to the courses that are put on the website for teachers to learn. Online sharing refers to the resources and material shared by other teachers. Online community refers to online forum, chats using which teachers can communicate with each other, sharing their thoughts and proposing new professional development ideas. Self-directed learning involves independent learning by teachers over the internet. About ten professional development sites were analyzed using the above mentioned features. Alexa was also used to get information about their usage. [Refer to Table 1.4]

Teacher focus is an online forum where everyone can participate in the discussion. Teachers can also submit their lesson plans and share them with other members of the forum.  The Inquiry Learning Forum (ILF) give teachers an opportunity to connect with other teachers who have varying degrees of expertise, diverse interests, and who are interested in better understanding the value of inquiry. More specifically, the ILF supports teachers in learning more about student and teacher inquiry through participating in discussions with other teachers, scientists, and educators, gathering and sharing inquiry-based lesson plans and resources, examining videos of other teachers' classrooms, developing their own personalized professional development plan.  Tapped In offers TPD providers and other organizations the latest in online technology, along with the online learning strategies and support needed to use online technology effectively. Through Tapped In, organizations can develop, implement, and manage online courses, workshops, seminars, mentoring programs, and other collaborative activities that supplement, or function in lieu of, face-to-face activities. The goals of Teacher Bridge center on using online tools for supporting teacher professional resource management for Montgomery County and Giles County Public School teachers at Pennsylvania. While the project focuses initially on science and mathematics teachers, it is not limiting participants to these disciplines. The hope is that the resources developed will be usefully disseminated to a wide variety of other teachers in the region and possibly beyond (Kim et al., 2003).

According to its founder Nate, We the Teachers ―it is a website where teachers can share, rate, and discuss their lesson plans, but it is also a place where they can meet, talk, and network. You don't just find a lesson plan you like, you can meet the person who wrote it!‖ The Math Forum is an online community which includes teachers, students, researchers, parents, educators, and citizens at all levels who have an Art Ed project is aimed at helping art teachers develop their lesson plans by offering them Getty Art‘s collections. It also offers workshops and professional development programs (offline) that help teachers incorporate the study of art into your classroom. The Learning Center is NSTA's e-professional development portal to help teachers address their classroom needs and busy schedule. Teachers can gain access to more than 4,000 different resources that cater to their preference for learning. Over 1,200 resources, such as journal articles, science objects and web seminars are available for free. A suite of practical tools such as My Library, My Transcript, and My Professional Development Plan and Portfolio tool help teachers organize, personalize, and document their growth over time. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching focuses on K-12 teacher education through several programs. One of them is Goldman-Carnegie Quest Program, which built a website called ―Inside Teaching‖. It is an online "living archive" of practice, which include a collection of K-12 and teacher educator Web sites; perspectives on the use of K-12 Web sites in teacher education; a "reading room" with related articles and Web sites; and a "workshop" designed to invite others to engage with the archive and make contributions of their own. Some of these sites have been described by Riel & Polin (2004).Table 1.4: Online TPD Community Overview interest in math and math education. Through the growing collection of mailing lists, Web-based discussion areas, and ask-an-expert services, the Math forums give users places to talk, to reach others with similar interests, make math-related web resources more accessible and to find answers to your burning questions. The ENT project at Harvard is more focused on education technology training. It gives users access to thoughtful colleagues, interactive tools, detailed examples of technology-enhanced education, and a valuable collection of on-line resources. The site helps users navigate the expanding territory of new educational technologies with guidance from established principles for teaching and learning (e.g. Teaching for Understanding) through processes for integrating new technologies. The Getty

An analysis of features offered show that online resource sharing is provided on all the TPD communities reviewed here. The resources shared are usually lesson plans, pointers to online documents, and puzzles. Online resource sharing is perhaps the easiest way to build a TPD community. However, the drawbacks of simple sharing are obvious. Such materials are usually collected by the organizer of the TPD community and some of the resources may not be applied to the practices to the teachers in the real world.

Online courses are only provided in two of the TPD communities. The advantages of online courses are that courses are usually well organized and well-structured to deliver knowledge to teachers who want to develop themselves. However, online courses are usually expensive to conduct. It takes much more time and money to open online courses and teachers usually need to pay registration fees in order to access the online courses.

In the TPD sites reviewed here, the concept of ―community‖ is very loose. Although most of the TPDs have some kinds of online community elements in play, like online forums, mail lists and chats, it turns out that there are few residents here and the level of participation is low. From the data collected from Alexa, it shows that most visitors to these TPDs stay for a very short period of time on these sites. For

Tapped In, the average length of time each visitor stays on the website per visit is only 1.6 minutes. The ENT project at Harvard keeps visitors relatively longer, but is still less than 3 minutes. The short length of time visitors spend on these TPDs indicates to a great extent that the attractiveness of these TPDs to teachers is relatively low.

While online TPDs abound and some of them like Tapped In try to emulate all the features of a TPD, designers have been baffled by the lack of ―community‖. They have begun to question their own presumptions about how they had approached the design and development of their web offering. They realize that they should have taken into consideration and tried to understand the local context where the teachers actually practice. Thus research is needed to understand the teachers‘ professional community in their local context to find out how knowledge gained through professional development programs as well as knowledge created in their daily practices are shared among each other; how TPD programs are addressing the concerns that teachers have about technology integration in the classroom; how are the TPD programs being made more learner-centered. In a paper reflecting on their experience in developing Tapped In, Schlager & Fusco (2003) confess that although they have called Tapped In an online education community of practice, they have struggled with the choice of this label. They still question if the users of Tapped In environment constitute a community of practice. They even struggled to define the practice. Based on other studies done on Tapped In, they summize that the members of Tapped In appear to belong to many and sometimes overlapping communities of practice inside and outside of the Tapped In environment. This suggests that Tapped In may be better described as a n

Sharing is caring!