talk in virtual contexts: reflecting on participation and online learning models

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 11 October 2014, At: 05:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Pedagogy, Culture & SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpcs20

Talk in virtual contexts: reflectingon participation and online learningmodelsMary Thorpe a , Robert McCormick a , Chris Kubiak a & PatrickCarmichael ba Open University , UKb University of Cambridge , UKPublished online: 25 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Mary Thorpe , Robert McCormick , Chris Kubiak & Patrick Carmichael (2007)Talk in virtual contexts: reflecting on participation and online learning models, Pedagogy, Culture &Society, 15:3, 349-366, DOI: 10.1080/14681360701602265

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681360701602265

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpcs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14681360701602265

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681360701602265

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Pedagogy, Culture & SocietyVol. 15, No. 3, October 2007, pp. 349–366

ISSN 1468-1366 (print)/ISSN 1747-5104 (online)/07/030349–18© 2007 Pedagogy, Culture & SocietyDOI: 10.1080/14681360701602265

Talk in virtual contexts: reflectingon participation and onlinelearning modelsMary Thorpea*, Robert McCormicka, Chris Kubiaka and Patrick CarmichaelbaOpen University, UK; bUniversity of Cambridge, UKTaylor and FrancisRPCS_A_260078.sgm10.1080/14681360701602265Pedagogy, Culture & Society1468-1366 (print)/1747-5104 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis153000000October 2007MARYTHORPE

Computer-mediated conferencing has been adopted, particularly for purposes of online course provi-sion, as a method that can deliver community. Widespread interest in a communities-of-practiceapproach within both informal and formal learning has strengthened perceptions of the value of creat-ing a community online. A case study of asynchronous computer conferencing for the purposes ofleadership development in schools is the focus for a study of the features and the discursive qualityof the online interaction that occurred. Two analytical approaches are used: discourse analysisand social network analysis. These highlighted different aspects of the case, in terms of the role ofpeers versus the expert moderator (or ‘hotseat guest’), the extent of readership versus contributionand the tone and content of the discussion. Evidence that contributors were learning from the inter-action was identified and strong links with place-based communities of practice were also evident.Nevertheless, the online interaction could not be said to constitute a community or to be evidentlydeveloping in that direction. Its features as a network, where weak links were key to a sharing andknowledge-construction process, were more salient. Networks offer the potential for weak connec-tions that have a particular value for connecting across dispersed practitioners and potentially bridg-ing between communities of practice and other forms of organisation and groupings.

Models of learning in online discussion contexts

Online discussion forums have been dominated—in terms of the research literatureabout them, if not by their practices—by approaches that draw on both a communityperspective and a constructivist perspective on learning (Baym, 1998; Jonassen et al.,1995; Wallace, 2003; Goodfellow, 2005). However, the community perspective mayadopt a very low threshold for what can count as a community, as in Bradshaw et al.(2005, p. 206), who assert that ‘the salient feature is the notion of “community”—a

*Corresponding author. Institute of Educational Technology, Open University, Walton Hall,Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4

350 M. Thorpe et al.

group of people with shared interests and the use of information and communicationtechnologies’.

Other researchers claim that virtual communities can be more than shared interestsalone, and that there are virtual equivalents for much of what happens in place-basedcommunities (Rheingold, 1993). This signals a more demanding set of criteria forwhat ought to count as an instance of online community. Evaluators of online forumshave compared them against the perceived characteristics of face-to-face communi-ties (Wilson, 2001). The communities-of-practice model (Wenger, 1998) has beenparticularly influential. Providers of taught courses, particularly those drawing inpractitioners, often aim to recreate online the dynamics of what is claimed for learningin practice-based communities (Putz & Arnold, 2001). Leach (2001, 2002), forexample, has argued that ICT networks enable teachers to build ‘a shared history oflearning’ and can help overcome the professional isolation which she argues is a majorbarrier against learning in the workplace.

Social-constructivist approaches have led to an emphasis on collaboration as thedefining feature of online interaction (Dillenbourg, 1999), where ideas and attitudesare actively constructed, deconstructed and rebuilt/renewed through group discus-sion processes. Hierarchical schemas have sometimes been constructed to portraysuch learning as moving through initial preparatory stages into more focused and‘higher’ forms of learning (Garrison et al., 2001). This is explicit in Salmon’s (2000)model, for example, where movement is from access and motivation, through onlinesocialisation to information exchange, then knowledge construction, and finallydevelopment. This has been used as a tool to assess depth of learning in an onlinecommunity (Chapman et al., 2005).

The feasibility of using networked communication to foster work-related learninghas worked synergistically with the growth of social models of learning and interest inlearning outside formal institutional contexts for education and training. ComputerMediated Communication (CMC) in this context is seen both as an additionalmedium through which an existing community can communicate, and as a contextwithin which new communities might develop—an enabler of new communities aswell as a sustainer of existing communities (Goodfellow, 2005).

Research into CMC has often taken the communities-of-practice idea as a keymeasure of value for what happens online. Evaluators look for evidence that anonline forum for practitioners has become a community, as the measure of itssuccess. Interaction characteristics signalling community relationship between thoseonline can be used to argue that the virtual space is an effective learning environmentbecause (it is assumed) people learn if they become members of a community ofpractice—whether on- or off-line.

The application of a communities-of-practice approach to online discussion cantherefore be seen as an attempt to harness informal learning as a powerful route topersonal and organisational development. If informal learning happens in communi-ties of practice, and online forums become communities of practice, they can be arguedto deliver important routes to practice-based learning opportunities on a continuingbasis and freed from the space and time limitations of face-to-face meetings.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Participation and online learning models 351

However, the evidence for achievement of these goals is not always convincing.Conferences on assessed courses in higher education could be said to constitutecommunities of discourse about the practice, rather than communities discoursingfrom within the practice for the furtherance of that practice (an important distinctionthat Lave and Wenger, 1991, make). There is also a growing interest in the conceptof networked learning and network interactions (e.g. Hargreaves, 2003), which canbe seen as an alternative to the community-based model. Wenger’s conception of anetwork is as a precursor for the development of a community of practice, locatedtherefore at a different point along the same continuum of participatory connection(Wenger, 2005). This approach may undervalue the potential of networks in theirown right. The importance of weak ties, for example, enabling knowledge exchangethat crosses the boundaries of local communities of practice, is a case in point. Foxet al. (2006) and Jones et al. (2006) draw on Granovetter’s (1973) original conceptionof weak ties between interacting participants, to argue that evidence of informationexchange is marked in networks characterised by weak rather than strong ties.

The purpose of this article is to explore the analytical relevance of both a commu-nity of practice and a network conceptualisation of CMC. We take a specific instance,a ‘hotseat’ interaction from the UK National College for School Leadership’s onlineenvironment, and undertake two forms of analysis. First, discourse analysis is used toexplore the content and quality of participation in terms of rates of contribution,themes, roles and rhetorical devices used by contributors. The role of readers andreadership is also an important dimension in this analysis. The case is then reanalysedusing a form of social network analysis to construct a model of the frequency andpattern of interactions and flows of information.

The opportunity to explore these issues arose in the context of research with theNational College for School Leadership, which has developed an online environmentoperating at scale, with approximately 30,000 teachers involved in its programmes;talk2learn, and other components of the college’s online environment, support arange of activities and collaborative interactions around programmes for the develop-ment of leadership in schools. Data on contributions to most of the forums was anal-ysed to show levels of participation. Open University researchers were given access toa sample of forums crossing different communities, such as school bursars, headteachers learning about ICT, ‘Fast Track’ forums for teachers moving towards head-ship, the consultation forums of NCSL in Dialogue, and so on. Researchers observedparticipation over an agreed period and developed case studies and observationreports on each forum type. An online survey of tutors was also undertaken to elicittheir perspective on the effectiveness of the environment.

The case: A ‘hotseat’ forum for school leaders

talk2learn is a web-based environment providing a discussion forum using differentformats. One such format is the ‘hotseat’, where specialists are invited to take the roleof hotseat guest for a few weeks, during which they respond to questions about theirviews and experiences. Such forums provide access to current policies and issues and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


opportunity to debate with policy leaders, researchers and colleagues online. Thereare many opportunities of this kind for online discussion, and only a minority of thepotential audience chooses to participate in each one. The subject of one of thehotseats observed for research purposes was ‘students’ voices’, the activity of involv-ing students in dialogue about their school, and actions that might improve it. Thishotseat has been selected as the case for analysis in this paper.

The quality of interaction

We did not assume that the forum represented an online community. Rather, weturned to discourse analysis for an approach that would avoid making such assump-tions and would enable us to address the question of what kind of interaction wastaking place. Discourse analysis offered an approach best suited to an open-endedanalysis of this kind, by focusing on the way in which contributions were constructedand the functions they performed. ‘Discourse analysis focuses on talk and texts associal practices and on the resources that are drawn on to enable those practices’(Potter, 1996, p. 129). We produced a ‘reading’ of the text (Gill, 1996) by payingattention to the pattern of contributions, the accounts they constructed of practiceand the rhetorical devices that were used.

This hotseat was one of the forums on NCSL in Dialogue in 2005. It generated 110contributions from 42 contributors over a 17-day period from 3 to 20 June, when itwas officially closed. It involved an expert (the hotseat guest) and a reading groupdropping from 346 to 15 for the last contribution. The hotseat guest made 44 of the110 contributions. Most contributors made only one contribution and tended toaddress each other rather than the guest. There were, on average, about six or sevencontributions a day. Most interactions took the form of a comment or questionfollowed by a single response. Very few contributors responded to the person whocommented on their own contribution. Contributors seemed to be passing throughand not returning, forming a transitory group without a core of regular contributors,other than the hotseat guest. Contributors generally raised issues and concerns arisingfrom their own school experience. The first contributor, for example, starts by ignor-ing the three questions set by the hotseat guest; ‘What are our motivations in seekingstudent perspectives? How can we show that we are listening to the voices of studentswithout privileging their voices over those of other stakeholder? What is the congru-ence between the daily lived experience of children in our schools and mantras advo-cating student voice?’. Instead, she introduces recent activity in her school:

I am an AST at [name] school … and through CSI [Consortium for School Improvement]we have linked with many other schools dealing with School Councils and how to makethem relevant. We have undertaken small research programmes and presented them towhole staff groupings and we are now planning to equip a small number of pupils toobserve lessons. Pupils must have a say in their school.

This account is typical, as contributors tend to locate their identity in terms of theirschool role and the name or type of school in which they work. An account of practiceis presented that portrays the contributor’s school as taking appropriate action in an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


area where there are strong moral convictions. The italics are used to add emphasisand persuasion. Contributors tend to express their views in terms of emotionalconviction about what is right or ought to be the case, even if undermined by the real-ities of the classroom:

I could not agree with you more. I was actually going to start a discussion in relation to theamount of time we as teachers have to devote to our kids in lessons … Sometimes I see tenhands go up for various reasons, and I have to tell them how sorry I am that I will definitelynot be able to see them all in the lesson. How terrible is that? But it is the sad truth…

This glimpse into the contributor’s classroom draws in others with similar views, anda strong sense of shared emotional commitment to pupil voice is built up. Contributorsuse their stories of local practice to drive the agenda and raise issues that have strongpersonal resonance, as in this comment:

Usually teachers start by seeking pupil’s perspectives as a starting point for new topics.I think we often use this to assess what pupils know and understand to then move on withour clearly planned learning outcomes. If pupils feel we aren’t listening, maybe it’s becauseteachers feel they are restricted in what they are ‘supposed’ to teach; and teachers thenrefocus pupils along the planned path.

Here again, there is a tendency to portray teachers as oriented in favour of pupil voice,but prevented from taking the ideal approach by the realities of the curriculum andthe classroom. Several contributors explicitly turn to others for help in finding solu-tions that will fit their local contexts and needs. Responses to such requests elicitfurther accounts from contributors, one of whom became a kind of leading practitio-ner, for a period, witnessing the innovative approach of her school:

The previous head was a great visionary and strived hard to properly listen to the pupils’needs and desires. The school vision and aims were written in conjunction with the chil-dren, and are directed to the children in easily understood language. They are not writtenfor the benefit of the governors, teachers or other stakeholders. As a result of this ethos andbelief in including the pupils in the way in which their school is run, standards dramaticallyimproved, and the school is now a fun and creative place to learn.

This account creates a vision of what is achievable with inspired practitioners, and itgenerates an enthusiastic response. The driving force for contributors appears to befuelled by the spill-over of issues from their place-based schools. They express mutualidentification with barriers that seem to them to weaken or undermine the positiveimpacts that pupil voice can achieve. However, as we shall show, the hotseat guestensures that this tendency to assume that pupil voice is simply a matter of convictionor inspired leadership does not go unchallenged.

The accounts and the role of the hotseat guest

The hotseat guest responds personally to almost all contributors, addressing each byname. She makes several contributions on most days and provides continuity in termsof both her focus and the reflective questioning that she offers. One quickly realisesthat a comment or question will be answered by the hotseat guest and that interesting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


and substantive points will be made, sustaining a clear argument. One of the impactsof this is that even without a core of regular contributors, there is a thematic coher-ence and intelligibility about the interaction.

The hotseat guest is an experienced practitioner and writer in the area of students’voice, but her expertise is never pushed at contributors, whom she addresses as equalpeers. She typically rephrases contributions to emphasise what is generalisable fromthe comments made. This is both confirming and also connects personal experienceto the wider context. She addresses the concerns that contributors raise quite explic-itly, but combines this with strategies that help identify key points from each contri-bution, and lead toward issues she wants to bring to the attention of the readers. Hercontributions often combine both pragmatic advice and help for the individual, withformulations that could be relevant to any reader, as in the following example:

Thanks [contributor X], for sharing this example of your student’s competence whenreporting on his work…. Your experience reminds me that for student voice to be realised,we need to:

– Explicitly teach the skills and dispositions of participation/governance– Ensure there are meaningful opportunities for students to use these skills and

dispositions– Provide clear feedback, so students can reflect on the processes as well as the

outcomes of their participation– Demonstrate trust in the students’ abilities and decisions.

Nevertheless, it is not until five days into the hotseat that a contributor directlyaddresses the hotseat guest by name. Until that point, all contributors were explicitlyeither responding to another contributor or raising their own issues. The hotseatguest has a key issue that she makes in her response to the first contributor and wemight expect this to become the focus:

I wonder how your staff respond to student findings? My experience is that it is sometimesconfronting and therefore challenging for the adults.

However, none of the contributors pick up this issue directly for several days, prefer-ring to focus on local problems or actions. It is only gradually, through questions thatprompt the reader to go beyond first reactions, that the hotseat guest focuses atten-tion on this challenge. This theme is raised in a spirit of shared personal experiencerather than superiority, drawing on her own school experience of implementingstudents’ voice and the challenge this created for even committed staff:

Hi [named contributor], thank you for your example of student initiated action … One ofthe dilemmas we faced at our school was when students expressed extreme dissatisfactionwith the ‘time out’ room … Staff were concerned by the feedback from students that thisdid not work and was unfair. After a lengthy negotiation process, changes were made basedon student feedback. It was a confronting time for staff. Are there aspects of school whichstudents cannot discuss?

While the interaction process observed in this hotseat was influenced by the qualityof the responses of the hotseat guest, most contributors raised independent pointsand did not merely respond to the guest’s comments. Indeed the guest only gradually

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


gains attention for her key point about the discomfort for staff that can sometimesarise from being open to students’ voice. Her interventions function first to movepersonal statements into a more generalisable account of practice, and thus empha-sise analysis of practice rather than emotional commitment to a particular stance.Second, they seek to move contributors beyond their ‘comfort zone’ and to get themto address their taken-for-granted assumptions about what students will choose toraise. There is an implicit challenge, therefore, in the questions she asks. There is noexpectation that contributors should ignore their emotional commitments, but ratherthat they should reflect on the emotional challenges to staff that can be generated bygenuine openness to students’ voice.

Readership and learning

Readership is important in evaluating both what is going on in online conferences andwhat significance such conferences might have as sites for learning. Readers are theinvisible participants in online discussion forums. The early term of ‘lurker’ has influ-enced perceptions in unhelpful ways. Through its association with illegitimateinvolvement—a person who is ‘peering in’ with undefined intent—it has obscured therecognition that reading and readership are legitimate activities and roles. Too often,reading is assumed not to have any intrinsic value by comparison with contribution.

It is typically the case in online forums that readers outnumber contributors.Gudzial and Carroll (2002) cite various sources reflecting low rates of contribution asthe norm—the average discussion is identified as one note and one reply. Even incases of small tutored groups, where all contribute and are assessed on their contri-bution, reading typically happens more often than contributing. The outcomes ofreading are obviously different depending on the reader, their approach to selectingwhat to read, and the content and framework within which they are reading. For thoseparticipating in valued interactions, reading provides access to expertise highly rele-vant to the practitioner and a process of reflecting on and developing key points fromauthentic accounts of practice. The hotseat process creates the possibility for vicari-ous learning (Cox et al., 1999) through the readers being able to identify with contrib-utors and reflect on both the substance of what they say and the comments that othersdevelop from it.

In our study, evidence about learning was sought by contacting three contributors(readers were not identifiable by name, therefore could not be contacted) with ques-tions about their evaluation of the hotseat. All were very positive, had found it infor-mative and interesting, and were more likely to use talk2learn as a result in future.One respondent commented spontaneously on what she had learned from readingthis forum, and incidentally provided evidence that the hotseat guest’s frequentreminders of the challenging nature of students’ voices, when genuinely engagedwith, had been effectively communicated:

This hotseat was excellent for me. The subject is relevant to all schools. I learned that it iseasy to think you are listening to the student voice when in fact it is often only a token…The comments both from [hotseat guest] and other contributors were encouraging and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


informative, and gave lots of food for thought. We are due for inspection from Septemberonwards and I have referred the headteacher and deputy to the comments in the discus-sion. I also learned that we must find ways to reach the minorities in school when accessingthe student voice. I enjoyed reading the hotseat very much, in fact I wrote anotherresponse, which failed for some reason, and by the time I could access it again the hotseatwas closed.

This statement indicates how much has been learned through reading contributionsand participating in a form of distributed expertise. A key aspect of this is the processthrough which this expertise is made explicit and the skill of the hotseat guest inchallenging assumptions, yet fostering openness at the same time. The impact andapplicability of distributed expertise is significantly increased by the process of itsbeing made available through discursive practices. Expertise is embedded in narra-tives of use that convey useful information about the circumstances in which goodpractice has developed. Narratives also provide insights into the judgementsrequired around whether or not to adopt practice from elsewhere, so that the readercan rapidly decide what might be of most value to them in their circumstances. Thehotseat guest, in particular, models this process through very effective summariesthat make explicit the generalisable elements from a personal account. This reinter-prets individual experience in terms that move it into a more public and shareddomain, bridging across the diversity of contexts that contributors and readers bringinto the forum.

Community of practice?

We need to define what counts as a community of practice. We start from Wenger’sown threefold characterisation of such a community as requiring participants who aremutually accountable for a shared task or practice, actively involved in negotiatingaction and meaning, and developing tools and specialist discourse (Wenger, 1998).Activities, tools and discourse mark out the boundary between the immediatecommunity of practice and others.

Analysis of our case shows evidence of distributed expertise and cooperation insharing and reflecting on experience. However, contributors are not mutuallyaccountable for a shared practice, and are free to leave at any point. There is no timefor a core and periphery to develop. The hotseat does not, therefore, constitute acommunity of practice. Nevertheless, there is much evidence of knowledge of prac-tice being refined, elaborated and questioned. Furthermore, whereas the delibera-tions of a true community of practice might be closed to outside view because of theclose interpersonal relations involved, this online forum is open to any teacher onNCSL programmes to read and to learn from, even after the interaction has finished.Observation of this and other forums identified many positive examples of valuedactivities of these kinds:

● getting questions answered;● finding out information about topics that happen to be important to a particular

individual or their school;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


● problem-solving and practical solutions, looking for short cuts and newapproaches;

● socialising—enjoying interaction for its own sake, including the personalities ofother contributors;

● getting moral and emotional support from others facing the same challenges;● being informed about what is going on elsewhere in the world of schools and

educational policy; and● posting comments as an individual response to an activity or task.

The value of these activities can be obscured by being relegated to a ‘lower division’area of learning, or even ignored because they do not fit the dominant community ofpractice model. The place-based communities of practice of the hotseat contributorsfuelled the topics and the emotional energy of the forum discourse, but this does notmean that the online forum itself constituted a community of practice. We need othermodels that offer a better ‘fit’ for this kind of participation. The final section of thispaper takes up this challenge in the form of a reanalysis of our case study, using a socialnetwork approach in order to explore the potential of this conceptual framework.

Analysis of the case study as a form of network

Some of the problems discussed above arise because of the use of a collaborativelearning focus seen through the ‘participation metaphor’ (Sfard, 1998), but onewhich falls short of the community-based model of Lave and Wenger (1991), andlatterly Wenger (1998). It is possible to employ a different metaphor for participatoryinteraction, that of ‘knowledge construction’ (Paavola et al., 2004). This emphasiseshow professionals may share and construct knowledge where there is, as it were, nobody of existing expertise available. The theories that Paavola and his colleagues drawon are quite different in their flavour from those we associate with the participationmetaphor. For example, there is the work of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), whereknowledge construction is seen in terms of moving from implicit to explicit knowl-edge in a series of cycles, with individuals sharing their knowledge in this process. Thework of Paavola et al. (2004) is, however, part of a wider investigation of networks(Hakkarainen et al., 2004). Networks can be taken to be a collection of nodes (e.g.people, organisations, groups, events, places) connected by a number of links (e.g.face-to-face, telephone, email, computer-mediated conferences), with some flowsthrough these links, i.e. between the nodes. This is on the face of it a simple model,but it has been developed in a number of sophisticated ways. Using this model andsome of the theories, particularly social network analysis (SNA) (where there is anexamination of the relationships among nodes), it is possible to create a number ofimportant concepts with which to analyse networks.

Networks: analytical concepts

What follows is a brief account of key concepts from network analysis that we will useto reanalyse the case of the hotseat presented earlier.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


Nodes

The idea of brokerage and the role of a broker is important here. Wenger (1998) hasdeveloped the concept of a broker as someone who can interpret between twocommunities of practice. We have termed this the ‘two-worlds’ perspective of broker.But there are other conceptions of brokerage coming from social network analysis andsocial capital theories that use the idea of ‘bridge-building’ as an active process on thepart of brokers (Burt, 1992, 2000).

In a network there may be certain nodes that link to other parts of the network; thesenodes are described as having a high degree of ‘between-ness’—they characteristicallyact as conduits, and sometimes as filters and interpreters, of information. Here we seean important distinction between ‘position’ in the network and the ‘role’ this allowsthe node to play. An obstructive individual in a network could use a highly ‘between’position to prevent other nodes from accessing each other, while one committed tobrokerage could have a role of bridging or bridge-building (see McCormick &Carmichael, 2005, for more detailed analysis of this concept of broker and examplesof their nature in school networks.)

Links

Many simplistic network analyses tend to concentrate on organisation of nodes andas a result much time and effort has been devoted to exploring the ‘intuitively appeal-ing’ notions such as ‘centrality’ of networks (Watts, 2003). This seems to parallel aview of networked activities in which their prime purpose is to foster close, intensivecollaboration. The brokerage roles described above, however, are concerned withsomething different; they involve establishing a range of types of links ranging fromtemporary bridge-building, through requesting or providing information and advice,to some potentially more long-term practice-oriented activities. In social-networkterms, these represent both ‘weak’ (distal, one way, single-medium, bridging) and‘strong’ (proximal, two-way, multiple-media, bonding) links (Granovetter, 1973).Strong links are associated with close collaboration and the exchange of rich context-specific information. Weak links, in contrast, are where contact might be infrequent,and the knowledge shared is context-free and hence of a general kind. Strength isorthogonal to the perceived ‘value’ of the link, a distinction developed elsewhere(Carmichael et al., 2006; Fox et al., 2006) and a further aspect of effective brokerageor ‘expertise’ may be the recognition of the potential value of a network link, not onlyto oneself but to others. There is room in the social network perspective for bothstrong and weak links to have value—an important point when looking at online inter-action, which may therefore have to support participants with different roles anddiffering informational requirements.

Structure

The representation of the arrangement of nodes is just that: a representation. The waythe structure is shown encapsulates an interpretation of the relationships of the nodes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


through the nature of the links among them. Thus, in the hotseat, with an expertanswering questions from contributors, we would expect some structural representa-tion that put her at the centre. In deriving a representation of structure, the measuresof the links are important, especially to determine quantitative measures such asnetwork ‘centrality’ (which is generally determined by measuring mean ‘path lengths’[numbers of links required to move from each node to every other one on thenetwork—the lower this number, the more central the node]). On the whole, theseanalyses involve looking at whole networks, the membership of which are boundedand known and in which links either exist or they do not, or are easily quantified (onthe face of it, this applies to CMC).

Flow

What flows along the links (and hence between the nodes) of a network can be docu-ments, ideas, equipment, practices, indeed anything that allows the sharing and thecreation of knowledge. This may include simply the recognition that participants arelinked by common experience or ‘affiliations’ that constitute a ‘weak link’, worthremembering for contact at some point in the future. We have borrowed a conceptfrom the computer world: the ‘transaction object’ to distinguish all these flows from‘boundary objects’ that characteristically have material form and content. An objectmay well pass from one school to another, but it forms the basis of a transaction thatgives a sense of agency to the teachers and schools as creators of knowledge, by usinga reified object. So what may ‘travel’ between schools is not necessarily a specificdocument or practice, but rather an expression of the commitment that underpins it(and reflects the ‘affiliation’ to a particular principle). When a teacher describes howthey have used a particular approach to student consultation, it may not be the‘finished article’ that ends up being used in another school, but rather the underpin-ning principle reified and recontextualised appropriately for its new setting (see Jameset al., 2006, for a description of the range of different instantiations of a ‘single’student self-assessment practice introduced as part of a cross-school intervention).

Reanalysis of the case study as a network

Let us then use some of these concepts in an analysis of the hotseat forum. To do thiswe will treat the hotseat exchanges as a network of people, who in this case can linkto each other and can all potentially contribute and read each other’s contributions.This points up a key dilemma for network analysis, namely what proxies are used for‘linkage’ in a network; in our case, we used ‘contribution’ as our definition of ‘link-ing’. We could have used the ‘reading’ as the proxy, but this would have been a majorundertaking, even given the restricted nature of the hotseat forum (some of the contri-butions were read over 300 times). Nevertheless, a network perspective can accom-modate reading in online environments on the grounds that this maybe an effectivemeans by which an individual can draw on the expertise of others and identify poten-tially ‘high value’ weak links.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


What we have in the hotseat forum (and particularly if we restrict our analysis tocontributors) is a closed network; one either contributes or one does not, and theextent and object of one’s contributions can be quantified. Figure 1 represents a seriesof threaded messages started by the hotseat guest (HG) and responded to by variouscontributors A, B, C and D (with an indentation showing a response to the previousmessage).Figure 1. An extract from a threaded discussionA table was created from this threading with the names of all those contributingalong both axes, with the y axis being the contributor of the message, and the x axisthe person to whom it is addressed—bearing in mind, of course, that all these contri-butions may be read by any participant. Table 1 illustrates how the data wererecorded. HG starts off the interactions with a statement, and Contributor Aresponds—or rather makes a counterstatement, since her ‘response’ ignores the state-ment made by the HG. HG responds to A, who then responds directly. Hence 2 is inthe cell of the intersection of row A and HG column, and 1 in row HG and A column.If there were a later exchange between these two participants, this total would thenbe added to. In this case, though, Contributor B responds to A’s contribution.Contributors C and D might then have a separate exchange to which HG responds,and so on.

What is already evident is that we are charting the aggregated contributions ofparticular individuals in response to each other rather than tracking the content of the

HG StatementA Response to HG statement

Response to HG response

Response to D

Response to A

Response to CResponse to D

Response to AHGAB[later in the interaction]D Response to HG statementCDHG

Figure 1. An extract from a threaded discussion

Table 1. Simplified sociomatrix of hotseat forum (hotseat guest and four contributors only)

Addressee

Contributor HG A B C D

Hotseat Guest 1 1Contributor A 2Contributor B 1Contributor C 1Contributor D 1 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


overall ‘thread’ of the discussion. We have evidence of contributors stimulating ‘spin-off’ discussions, with HG creating and responding to different ‘strands’ in the‘thread’. This is in part a reflection of the technology; discussion boards characteris-tically allow participants to initiate new strands and use various techniques to showor allow this threading.

In practice, there were two ways to identify one contributor as ‘responding’ toanother: by following the threading in the conference software, where ‘reply’ to aprevious message is used; and by reading the response to see if a previous contributoris addressed by name or if the topic raised earlier is explicitly referred to. HG alwaysused the name of the person she responded to, and by and large responded to every-one. This informed our choice to use the message content and sequencing, ratherthan the sequencing alone to determine ‘responses’. Figure 2 converts the socioma-trix into a network representation.Figure 2. Pupil voice hotseat represented as a social network using message referencing to contributions along with threadingFigure 2 shows a plot for the interactions in the whole of the hotseat (with HG inthe centre and contributors arranged in concentric circles reflecting the number ofinteractions with the guest, i.e. messages sent or received, and labelled ‘0’, ‘1’, ‘2 etc).Each contributor (shown by a circle and a unique number starting from the first tothe last contributor, i.e. 1–43). (Contributor 40 is shown in between the concentriccircles as this person had a total of seven interactions with HG.) Solid lines show thelinks and the arrow the direction of the link, as indicated in the key. The blank circlerepresents some 20 participants who responded to HG and who then received aresponse from her (they are recorded as having two interactions).

If we look at the 42 participants who made at least one contribution, we notice anumber of key features. First is that the ‘degree’ (the number of links) for most partic-ipants is small (generally a single contribution and response, the latter almost alwayscoming from HG). In some cases, a contribution can be the source of a series of inter-changes. For example, one participant makes two contributions addressed to HG,which in turn lead to eight responses, only one of which comes from HG. The secondfeature is that in this case, the ‘centrality’ is not in doubt. HG is the person who is notonly the recognised focus of the activity as a whole because of their experience in thearea of pupil voice, but the one who ‘links’ to almost all other contributing partici-pants. The plot also reveals that Contributor 10 has an important role in sharing andworking with other’s ideas (without at this point considering just what was said), andContributor 28 does this too, but to a lesser extent. In terms of our earlier concept of‘broker’, Contributor 18 is a bridge for 37, who is otherwise somewhat isolated. Whilethis may not of itself be very significant, it does serve to focus our attention on thesepeople. Contributor 18 is passive much of the time, as she starts off a thread on schoolcouncils and others refer directly to her or to the topic she introduced.

Figure 2 effectively shows the ‘distance’ that contributors are from HG. Some, forexample Contributor 20, did not receive a response from HG, but responded toanother contributor (18). Contributor 10 responded to HG on a number of occasionsand had links to 4 other contributors (23, 12, 12 and 35). Contributors 25 and 24 arelinked together and the latter to 23, as well as to HG. Likewise Contributors 30 and29 are linked to both HG and 28 (who is in turn linked to HG).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


Now let us turn to think about what ‘flows’ in the network. This might seem to bea strange idea in a set of interactions; but using this, and also the idea of a ‘transactionobject’, enables an interesting view to be taken of the hotseat. Starting with Contributor26’s contribution, Table 2 shows how ideas flow through the network in the contri-butions. Contributor 26 introduced an ‘idea’ into the discussion: ‘sharing the schoolvision with pupils’, which in a sense is made explicit from the experience of the Ofsted

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

�

��

��

�

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

Figure 2. Pupil voice hotseat represented as a social network using message referencing to contri-butions along with threading

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


inspection. Let us call this Idea 1. As indicated earlier, ‘ideas’ can be transactionobjects, and this shows something of the sharing and creation or at least transactionof ideas through the discussion.

An important general observation that can be seen in Table 2 is the movement ofimplicit knowledge, as represented by practice, to an explicit formulation, and thenhow this can be shared and made explicit in other’s practice. We see from Contributor28’s implicit belief made explicit (Idea 5 in Contribution 5), related to anotheridea (6) and then shared with Contributor 29, who then develops it into a new idea

Table 2. The flow of ideas as transaction objects through the contributions

Cont Idea Comment

1 C26 Idea 1: sharing the school vision with pupils

From the OFSTED experience (made explicit)

2 HG Idea 2: let [students] into the secret She interprets Idea 1DM Idea 3: students have unique knowledge

and perspectives about their schoolsDM wrote in article, read by HG (treated as a generalisation) indicated by the broken circle

2 HG Idea 4: adults cannot speak on behalf of students

She interprets Idea 3

5 C28 Idea 5: pupils thoughts and views… should be used as precursors of change

A belief made explicit (related to experience with project)

5 C28 Idea 6: children’s ideas may not be truthful if they do not believe that they will be taken seriously

A new idea, that flows from, but is not the same as, Idea 5

6 C29 Idea 7: children [as] providing mouthpieces for their parents’ views

This is a development of Idea 6 (a transaction)

7 HG Idea 8: useful to talk with students about the avenues open to adults

This is development of Idea 7 (seen in a more positive light)

7 HG Idea 9: children who are used to having a say in their classrooms and who are treated respectfully … are more willing to take a risk and share their thoughts…

This is a new creation that flows from the discussion but not directly linked

8 C28 Links Idea 7 to Idea 9 This ‘explanation’ (mouthpieces become avenues) is a creation, but not itself yet formulated as new idea

9 HG Idea 10: enlist the support of a group of students

This is a development of Idea 9

9 HG Idea 11: the bullet points (a strategy for enacting Idea 8)

This is (presumably) based on experience of using students

9 HG Idea 12: I think it is important to keep colleagues informed about the process…

Ditto

10 C28 Idea 13: work with pupils in gathering information

This is how C28 translates Idea 10, giving it a slightly different gloss (they gather the information)

10 C28 Idea 14: children regularly have discussions…

Idea 10 interpreted back to C28’s practice (the earlier explicit knowledge related to implicit).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


(Idea 7 in Contribution 6). There are other observations that can be made about theinteractions in the table. For example, DM’s article (Contribution 2) should bethought of as a Material Resource (which itself is not transacted, though its ideascan be). Such Material Resources are common and something that we have foundlocal authorities (LAs) anxious to use to capture classroom practice for circulation toa wider audience than can be enabled through visits to the schools where the practiceexists (McCormick & Carmichael, 2005). Indeed, in one LA there was been a desireto capture this in video clips and to circulate by email, or to have it on a website.

Reflections on the contribution of two analytical approaches

We have brought together two forms of analysis that have complementary strengths.Each raises methodological cautions. For discourse analysis there is the risk of over-interpreting particular items of discourse, or failing to provide good evidence towarrant the reading (Gill, 1996). In relation to network analysis, we have alreadydrawn attention to the use of threading to indicate links between contributors. Therelationships between contributors are likely to be more complex than this. However,even when the text of messages is examined, it is not always possible to know who andwhat has influenced a contributor.

In terms of strengths, network analysis makes the role of individuals in the processclear, it can help to reveal the stages through which knowledge is shared and createdand it reminds us of the fact that the hotseat forum is not all that exists and that mostof the time these individuals are operating in the world outside, not in the hotseat. Inthe context of teachers concerned about the impact of professional development activ-ity (including electronic ‘community’ interactions) on school improvement and perfor-mance, it might lead to interesting questions about how Contributor 37 (in Figure 2)might work with the ideas picked up in the electronic conference with colleagues.Equally, if Contributor 10 works in school in the same way as was evident in the confer-ence, these patterns of interaction might be useful to the school’s development.

Network analysis complemented the discourse analysis of the case study andcorroborated the inapplicability of a community of practice model in this instance.Discourse analysis of the content and style of interaction provided evidence ofconstruction and elaboration of narratives of practice and skilled modelling of reflec-tive questioning and generalising by the hotseat guest. Experience of offline commu-nities of practice appeared to motivate contributions to the online forum and thesubstance of online interaction was also taken back to these communities to contrib-ute to their thinking and development. The value of readership was emphasised anda small interview study provided positive evidence of learning for some.

Both these analytical approaches provided complementary insights into the valueof a networked form of interaction that could not be characterised as a community ofpractice. They suggest that we should not see networks as merely embryonic versionsof a community of practice. Networks offer the potential for weak connections thathave a particular value for connecting across dispersed practitioners and potentiallybridging between communities of practice and other forms of organisation and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


groupings. In spite of the claimed ubiquity of networking in our digitally connectedsociety (Castells, 2000), there is perhaps a good case for efforts to develop it, includ-ing within the education of young people. Furthermore, if teachers can use networkseffectively for their own professional development (see McCormick et al., 2007), theyenhance their ability to support pupils in developing networking and understandingits importance in their future work in organisations.

References

Baym, N. (1998) The emergence of online community, CyberSociety 2.0, in: S. G. Jones (Ed)Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community (London, Sage), 35–68.

Bradshaw, P., Powell, S. & Terrell, I. (2005) Developing engagement in Ultralab’s online commu-nities of enquiry, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(3), 205–15.

Burt, R. S. (1992) Structural holes: the social structure of competition (Harvard, MA, HarvardUniversity Press).

Burt, R. S. (2000) The network structure of social capital, in: R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds)Research in organizational behaviour (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), 345–423.

Carmichael, P., Fox, A., McCormick, R., Procter, Honour, L. (2006) Teachers’ professionalnetworks in and out of school, Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 217–34.

Castells, M. (2000) The rise of the network society (2nd edition) (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers).Chapman, C. L., Ramondt, L. & Smiley, G. (2005) Strong community, deep learning: exploring

the link, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(3), 217–30.Cox, R., McKendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J. & Mayes, T. (1999) Vicarious learning from dialogue

and discourse: a controlled comparison, Instructional Science, 27(6), 431–58.Dillenbourg, P. (1999) (Ed) Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches

(Amsterdam, Pergamon).Fox, A., Carmichael, P., McCormick, R. & Procter, R. (2006) Teachers’ learning through

networks, paper presented to AERA, San Francisco, April 7–11.Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2001) Critical thinking, cognitive presence and

computer conferencing in distance education, The American Journal of Distance Education,15(1), 7–23.

Gill, R. (1996) Discourse analysis: practical implementation, in: J. Richardson (Ed) Handbook ofqualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (Leicester, British PsychologicalSociety), 141–56.

Goodfellow, R. (2005) Virtuality and the shaping of educational communities, Education,Communication and Information, 5(2), 113–29.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973) The strength of weak ties, The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–80.Gudzial, M. and Carroll, K. (2002) Explaining the lack of dialogue in computer-supported collab-

orative learning, conference paper in Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learn-ing: foundations for a CSCL community. Availale online at: http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/18.html (accessed 5 October 2005).

Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S. & Lehtinen, E. (2004) Communities of Networked Expertise:professional and educational perspectives (Amsterdam, Elsevier).

Hargreaves, D. (2003) Education epidemic: transforming secondary schools through innovation networks(London, DEMOS).

James, M., Black, P., Carmichael, P., Conner, C., Dudley, P., Fox, A., et al. (2006) Learning howto learn: tools for schools (London, Routledge).

Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J. & Bannan Haag, B. (1995) Constructivismand computer-mediated communication in distance education, American Journal of DistanceEducation, 9(2), 7–26.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4


Jones, C., Ferreday, D. & Hodgson, V. (2006) Networked learning: a relational approach—weakand strong ties, in: S. Banks, V. Hodgon, C. Jones, B. Kemp, D. McConnell & C. Smith(Eds) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning 2006, LancasterUniversity. Available online at: http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk (accessed on5 October 2005).

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning—legitimate peripheral participation (New York,Cambridge University Press).

Leach, J. (2001) Teaching’s long revolution: from ivory towers to networked communities of prac-tice, in: F. Banks & A. S. Mayes (Eds) Early professional development for teachers (London,David Fulton).

Leach, J. (2002) The curriculum knowledge of teachers: a review of the potential of large-scale,electronic conference environments for professional development, The Curriculum Journal,13(1), 87–120.

McCormick, R. & Carmichael, P. (2005) Theorizing and researching teacher learning acrossschools, paper presented at the TLRP Seminar Series Knowledge and Skills for Learning to Learn,University of Newcastle, 15 March.

McCormick, R., Fox, A., Procter, R. & Carmichael, P. (2007) Learning through networking, in:M. James, et al. Improving Learning How to Learn – classrooms, schools and networks (London,Routledge), 89–113.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies createthe dynamics of innovation (New York, Oxford University Press).

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004) Models of innovative knowledge communi-ties and three metaphors of learning, Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–76.

Potter, J. (1996) Discourse analysis and constructionist approaches: theoretical background, in: J.Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences(Leicester, British Psychological Society), 125–40.

Putz, P. & Arnold, P. (2001) Communities of practice: guidelines for the design of online seminarsin higher education, Education, Communication and Information, 1(2), 181–195.

Rheingold, H. (1993) The virtual community: homesteading on the electronic frontier (New York,Addison-Wesley).

Salmon, G. (2000) E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online (London, Kogan Page).Sfard, A. (1998) On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one, Educational

Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.Wallace, R. (2003) Online Learning in Higher Education: a review of research on interactions

among teachers and students, Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 241–280.Watts, D. J. (2003) Six degrees: the science of a connected age (New York, Norton).Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity (Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press).Wenger, E. (2005) Personal communication, in seminar, Open University, 5 October.Wilson, B. (2001) Sense of community as a valued outcome for electronic courses, cohorts and programs.

Available online at: http://222.pt3.org/VQ/html/wilson.html (accessed 30 January 2003).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:33

11

Oct

ober

201

4

talk in virtual contexts: reflecting on participation and online learning models

Documents