©Copyright 2016 Mary Slowinski

©Copyright2016

MarySlowinski

ii

FromtheMembers’Perspective:

Participants’PerceptionoftheModeratorRoleinEducatorCommunitiesofPractice

MarySlowinski

Adissertation

submittedinpartialfulfillmentofthe

requirementsforthedegreeof

DoctorofPhilosophy

UniversityofWashington

2016

ReadingCommittee:

StephenKerr,Chair

MichaelEisenberg

StevenOlswang

ProgramAuthorizedtoOfferDegree:

CollegeofEducation,LearningScience

iii

UniversityofWashington

Abstract

From the Members’ Perspective: Participants’ Perceptions of the Moderator Role in Educator Communities of Practice

Mary Theresa Slowinski

Chair of the Supervisory Committee:

Dr. Stephen Kerr College of Education

Thecommunityofpractice(CoP)social/collaborativelearningmodelhasbeenwidely

adoptedsinceitsintroductionbyJeanLaveandEntienneWengerin1991,withgrowth

spurredonaspractitionergroupsincreasinglyleveragetechnologytoovercome

geographicallydispersedmemberships.Thepurposeofthisstudywastoaddressagapin

theliteraturewhichidentifiestheCoPmoderatorroleasanoverarchingsuccessfactorbut

hasnotprovidedresearchresultsintothemoderatorrolefromtheperspectiveofthe

membership.Surveymethodologywasemployedtoidentifytheperceivedvalueasample

of84membersofthreeeducatorCoPsassignedtospecificmoderatoractionsand

characteristicsidentifiedintheliteratureascorrespondingtoCoPsuccess,andtoexamine

theinfluencememberdemographicsmayhaveonthemembervalueperceptions.Findings

indicateCoPmembersuniformlyvaluemoderatoractionsandcharacteristicsthatcultivate

acultureofinquiry,mutualengagement,sustainability,andthatsupportanarchitectureof

participation;theseperceivedvaluationsdonotappeartobeinfluencedbymember

demographics.Thisstudyhassoughttocontributetothebodyofliteratureconcernedwith

thesupportandmanagementofcommunitiesofpracticeparticularlyintheeducation

sectorandcontributestoanewlineofresearchintotheimpactofthemoderatorroleon

CoPeffectivenessandsuccess.

iv

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ListofTables………………………………………………………………………………………………………ix

ListofFigures………………………………………………………………………………………………………x

CHAPTER1:INTRODUCTION

Background…………………………………………………………………………………………………………2

ProblemStatement………………………………………………………………………………………………4

PurposeofStudy…………………………………………………………………………………………………5

SignificanceoftheStudy………………………………………………………………………………………5

TheoreticalFramework………………………………………………………………………………………..6

OrganizationofApproach…………………………………………………………………………………….8

DefinitionofTerms………………………………………………………………………………………………9

OrganizationofthisDissertation…………………………………………………………………………10

CHAPTER2:LITERATUREREVIEW

CommunitiesofPractice……………………………………………………………………………………..13

Foundations…………………………………………………………………………………………………..13

CoreElementsoftheCoPModel………………………………………………………………..……15

OriginsofOnlineCoPs………………………………………………………………………….……..….16

CommunitiesofPracticeinEducation……………………………………………………………..19

FactorsforSuccessfulCommunitiesofPractice………………………………….…………………21

SummativeCategory1:CultivatingaCultureofInquiry……………………………………22

Settingapurpose……………………………………………………………………………………….23

Criticaldiscourse……………………………………………………………………………………….25

Membershipdiversification………………………………………………………………………..26

v

Summary--cultivatingacultureofinquiry…………………………………………………27

SummativeCategory2:CultivatingaCultureofMutualEngagement………...………27

Growingamembership………………………………………………………………………………29

Knowledgesharing…………………………………………………………………………………….30

Trust………………………………………………………………………………………………………….32

Summary--cultivatingacultureofmutualengagement………………………………34

SummativeCategory3:CultivatingaCultureofSustainability……...…………………..34

Leadership…………………………………………………………………………………………………35

Managingcontent……………………………………………………………………………………….38

Summary--cultivatingacultureofsustainability………………………….……………..39

SummativeCategory4:CultivatinganArchitectureforParticipation………...………40

Designconsiderations……………………………………………………………………..………….40

Scaffoldingtechnology………………………………………………………………………………..42

Summary–cultivatinganarchitectureforparticipation………………………………42

SummaryofSuccessFactorCategories…………………………………………………………….43

TheRoleofModerator…………………………………………………………………………………………43

ModeratorRole:CultivatingaCultureofInquiry………………………………………………44

ModeratorRole:CultivatingaCultureofMutualEngagement……………………………45

ModeratorRole:CultivatingaCultureofSustainability…………………………………….46

ModeratorRole:CultivatinganArchitectureforParticipation………………..…………47

Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………….48

SummaryofFactors…………………………………………………………………………………………48

TheroleoftheModeratorandtheneedforfuturestudy……………………………………49

vi

CHAPTER3:METHODOLOGY

ResearchDesign…………………………………………………………………………………………………51

Approach………………………………………………………………………………………………………51

Population,Sample&SamplingProcedures……………………………………………………52

Process……………………………………………………………………….…………………………………56

InstrumentDesign…………………………………………………………………………………………57

InstrumentTesting&Revision……………………………………………………………………….62

ProcessandProcedures……………………………………………………...………………………………64

DataAnalysis……………………...………………………………………………………………………………66

Validity&Reliability…………………………………………………..………………………………….70

Limitations……………………………………………………………………...…………………………….70

CHAPTER4:RESULTS

RespondentDescriptiveStatistics……………………………………………………………………….71

Demographics…………………………………………………………………………………………………..72

Gender………………………………………………………………………………………………………….72

AgeGroup……………………………………………………………………………………………………..73

LengthofMembership…………………………………………………………………………………..73

TechnologyComfortLevel………………………………………...…………………………………..74

ResearchQuestionResults…………………………………………………………………………………75

ResearchQuestion1……………………………………………………………………………………..75

ResearchQuestion1DataSummary…………………………………………………………..75

Moderatoraction1……………………………………………………………………………..……..77

Moderatoraction2…………………………………………………………………………..………..77

vii

Moderatoraction3…………………………………………………………………………………..78





ResearchQuestion2……………………………..........…………………………………………………81

ResearchQuestion2DataSummary………………………………….……………………….82

Moderatorcharacteristic1……………………………………………………………….………..83

Moderatorcharacteristic2………………………………………………………………………..83






ResearchQuestion3…………………………………………………………….………………..………88

ResearchQuestion4………………………………………………………………………………………90

Moderatoractions…………………………………………………………………………………….91

Moderatorcharacteristics…………………………………………………………………………92

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..93

CHAPTER5:DISCUSSION

StudySummary…………………………………………………………………………………………………94

DiscussionofResults…………………………………………………………………………………………96

ResearchQuestion1………………………………………...…………………………………………...97

viii

ResearchQuestion2………………………………………...…………………………………..………...99



Suggestedmoderatoractions……………………………………………………………………104

Suggestedmoderatorcharacteristics……………...…………………………………………106

SummaryofResults………………………………………………………………………………………108

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………108

StudyLimitations…………………………………………………………………………………………108

ImplicationsandRecommendationsforFutureResearch………….……………………109

FinalRemarks………………………………………………………………………………………………110

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………112

APPENDICES

AppendixA:FullSurveyInstrument………………………………………………………………….120

AppendixB:SurveyPilotTestFeedbackForm……………………...……………………………129

AppendixC:SampleEmailInvitation…………………………………………………………………130

AppendixD:ResultsofAnalysisofPairs…………………………………………………………….131

ix

LISTOFTABLES2.1 Summaryofliteraturereviewfindingsandsummative

successfactorcategories………………………………………………………………………….504.1 Summaryofparticipation………………………………………………………………….……....714.2 FrequencyofresponseforitemsrelatedtoModeratorActions1–7……….…….764.3 FrequencyofresponseforitemsrelatedtoModeratorCharacteristics1-7…..824.4 SummaryofKruskal-WallaceTestpairingsthatrejectedthenull

hypothesis……………………………………………………………………….………………………..894.5 Frequencyofresponsebytechnologycomfortlevelgroupto

item“Themoderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin”………………….…….……….904.6 ModeratorAction4-relatedopen-endedresponses……………………….……………915.1 ModeratorActions1–7responseitemsinorderofresponse

medianandmean…………………………………………………………….……………..…………985.2 ModeratorCharacteristics1–7responseitemsinorderof

responsemedianandmean……………………………………………………………..………1005.3 Frequencyofresponsebygendergrouptoitem“Themoderatorkeeps

thecommunityenergized”..……………………………………………………….……………..1025.4 FrequencyofresponsebylengthofCoPmembershipgrouptoitem

“Themoderatordemonstratessocialacumen,understandingandawareness………………………………………………………………………...………………103

x

LISTOFFIGURES

3.1 ExampleofModeratorActionssurveyitem………………………………………………..61

4.1 DistributionofRespondentsbyGender……………………………………………………..72

4.2 DistributionofRespondentsbyAgeGroup……………………….………………..………73

4.3 DistributionofRespondentsbyLengthofCoPMembership……...….…………….74

4.4 DistributionofRespondentsbyTechnologyComfortLevel………...………………74

4.5 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction1:“Themoderatoractivelyguidesthequalityandfocusofthediscussion.”…………………...………..77

4.6 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction2:“Themoderator

createsconnectionsbetweenknowledgeseekersandexperts.”……………...….784.7 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction3:“Themoderator

guidesthecommunitythroughdisruptionsorconflicts.”……………...……………784.8 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction4:“Themoderator

worksatkeepingmembersinvolvedinthecommunity.”..……………….………….794.9 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction5:“Themoderator

keepsthecommunityenergized.”………………………………………………………………804.10 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction6:“Themoderator

drawsinresourcestosupporttheworkofthecommunity.”……………………….804.11 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction7:“Themoderator

supportsmembers’useoftechnology.”…………………………………………...………….814.12 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic1:“The

moderatordemonstratesapassionforlearning.”………………………………………..834.13 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic2:“The

moderatordemonstratessocialacumen,understandingandawareness.”………………………………………………………………………………………..84

4.14 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic3:“The

moderatordemonstratesthats/heistrustworthy.”………………………...………….854.15 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic4:“The

moderatoriswelcoming.”…………………………………………………………………………85

xi

4.16 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic5:“Themoderatorisinnovativeinrespondingtochange.”……………………………………86

4.17 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic6:“The

moderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin.”………………………………………………874.18 DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic7:“The

moderatorisskilledatusingtechnology.”…………………………………..…………….874.19 Commentsinresponsetoopen-endedsurveyitemsoliciting

moderatoractionsnotyetmentionedwithannotation.……………...……………..924.20 Commentsinresponsetoopen-endedsurveyitemsoliciting

moderatorcharacteristicsnotyetmentioned.…………………………………………..93

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mygratitudeextendstoallwhoassistedmeonthisjourney,manyofwhomImay

failtomentionbutwhosesupportisnotforgotten.Thankstomyfamilyforputtingupwith

myabsences,toDaveforsupportingmeandkeepingthehouserunningduringthose

inevitablemarathon“pushes”,toreadingcommitteemembersDrs.MichaelEisenbergand

StevenOlswangfortheirincrediblepatience,trustandguidance,totheDMApalswhotook

onmoresoastoclearmyplate,andtothemanyNSF-ATEfriendsandcolleaguesacrossthe

countrywhocheeredmeonandneverletmegiveup.

Buttheoneperson,aboveallothers,whodeservesacknowledgementismy

incredibleandgraciouscommitteechairandmentor,Dr.StephenKerr.WithoutSteve,this

dissertation-indeedtheentiredoctorate-wouldnothavehappened.Hisunwavering

convictionandfaithinme,coupledwithhisgenerosityinsharinghisquietwisdom,

calmingpresence,anddeepintellectisthenumberonereasonIhavepersistedandamnow

lookingatcompletion.IamintenselygratefulthatDr.Kerrtookmeonandwouldn’tletme

giveup.ThanksSteve.Thisoneisonyou!

xiii

DEDICATION

Thispaper,aswellastheworkintheyearsleadinguptoit,isdedicatedtotwo

peoplewhohaveshapedmyworld.Thefirstismylatefather,Lt.Col.WalterR.Slowinski,

sonofanimmigrantmarblemasonwhotaughtmepersistenceandresilience,wasmybest

palandfavoritepoliticaldiscussionpartner,andwhotaughtmetothrow,catch,ride,putt,

andstaylooseinthepack.IstillhearyourvoicewhenIsitintheSuzzallograduatereading

room,Dad.

Itisalsodedicatedtomyesteemedanddeeplyrespectedmentor,Dr.John

Bransford,oneofthemosthumble,brilliant,anddelightfulintellectsyoucouldhopetofind

inthisworld.Johnignitedmypassionandcuriosityabouthowpeoplelearn,andthenre-

igniteditoverandover.ThankyouJohn,forallyourmanycontributionstothescienceof

learning,andforyourlastinginfluenceonmylifeandwork.

FromtheMembers’Perspective:

Participants’PerceptionsoftheModerator’sRoleinEducatorCommunitiesofPractice

Thecommunityofpractice(CoP)social/collaborativelearningmodelhasmoved

fromtheorytoimplementationinavarietyofsectorsfairlyquicklysincefirstbeing

introducedbyEntienneWenger&JeanLavein1991.TheCoPmodel,whichdescribes

groupsofpractitionerscollaboratingwiththeintentiontolearn,sharepractice,buildsocial

capital,andbenefitfromcommunityknowledgearoundspecifictopicsofcommoninterest

(Brown&Duguid,1991;Fontaine,2001;Iriberri&Leroy,2009;Lesser&Storck,2001;

Wenger&Lave,1991;Wenger,1998),isalsofrequentlycreditedwithpresenting

opportunitiesforknowledge-buildingandinnovationbybringingtogethernewideasand

people(Brown&Duguid,1991;Wenger,McDermott,&Snyder,2002).Additionally,

advancesintechnologyandonlineconnectivityhaveallowedtheuseoftheCoPmodelto

expandbeyonditsoriginsinface-to-faceenvironmentstoonlineormixedmodesettings,

generatingopportunitiestocreatecommunitywhereproximityisnotpossible(Wenger,

White,&Smith,2009)andcontributingtothegrowthinuseoftheCoPmodel.

Astheuseofcommunitiesofpracticeshasincreased,researchregardingmanyof

theaspectsoftheCoPmodelhasalsoincreasedincludingtheliteratureidentifyingfactors

fortheirsuccess.Andwhilethereissomedivergenceastotherankingandimportanceof

thecomponentsreportedassuccessfactorsforCoP,andworkyettobedonetobetter

understandhowtoform,grow,sustainandevolveCoPs,onefactorthatiscitedacrossthe

literatureaskeytosustainable,effectivecommunitiesisthatofaskilledmoderator

2

(Attwell&Elferink,2007;Bourhis&Dube,2010;Gairín-Sallán,Rodríguez-Gómez,&

Armengol-Asparó,2010;Hew&Hara,2006;McDonald&Star,2012;Wengeretal.,2002).

Thisstudy,whichfocusesontechnicaleducatorCoPs,endeavorstoidentifythe

valuethatCoPmembersplaceonvariousmoderatoractionsandcharacteristicspreviously

identifiedfromrelevantliteratureashavingapositiveimpactonCoPeffectivenessandto

determinetheextenttowhichmemberdemographicshaveaninfluenceonhowCoP

membersperceivethesemoderatoractionsandcharacteristics.Asapractitionerwhohas

beencalledupontoassistemergentcommunitiesofpracticeandonewhohasbeentasked

witheitherinitiallytakingontheroleofmoderatororadvisingontherecruitmentand

trainingforsucharole,determiningthevaluemembersplaceonthesemoderatoractivities

andtraitswillbeusefulininformingmypractice.

Background

Thecommunityofpracticeframework,initiallypresentedbyWengerandLave

(1991),hasbeenwidelyutilizedsincethemid-1990sbymultinationalcorporationsand

othersinthebusinesssectortocaptureandmanageknowledge,fosterinnovations,and

developsocialcapital.ExamplesofthisincludeIBM’suseoftheirCommunitiestoolto

connectworkgroups(Muller,Ehrlich,Matthews,Perer,Ronan,Guy,&Street,2012)orthe

useofCoPsbyWorldBankandAmericanManagementSystemsasfoundationsfor

knowledgemanagement(Wenger&Snyder,2000).Thissectorhasalsoledthewayin

combiningweb-basedtechnologiesandtheCoPmodeltocreatesociallysituatedlearning

environmentsforgeographicallydispersedteams(Abd-Elaziz,Ezz,Papazafeiropoulou,

Paul,&Stergioulas,2012;Ardichvili,Page,&Wentling,2002;Jarrahi&Sawyer,2012).

Muchoftheresearchthathasbeendoneinthecorporatesectorhasfocusedonthe

3

relationshipbetweenCoPactivityandorganizationalinnovation,knowledgemanagement,

anddeterminingwhetherornotCoPpresenceresultsinareturnoninvestment.

TheeducationsectorhasalsomadeuseoftheCoPframework,especiallyinthe

serviceofinstructorimprovement(Babinski,Jones,&DeWert,2001;Gareis&Nussbaum-

Beach,2008;Kao&Tsai,2009);examplesofCoPsinthisarenawouldbeincludethose

whoseintentionistoprovidecommunityforeducatorslookingtostaycurrentintheir

discipline-centriccontentknowledge,orCoPswhosememberssharepedagogical

approachessuchasproblem-basedlearningorwhoaddressissuessuchasaccessibilityand

ADAcomplianceinonlinecoursematerials.

Theinterestincommunitiesofpracticeasavehicleforimprovingeducationisalso

evidencedbytherecommendationsandinitiativesissuedfromtheU.S.Departmentof

Education(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2011),andthe“FramingtheFuture”work

recentlycompletedbytheAustralianGovernmentOfficeforLearningandTeaching

(McDonald&Star,2012),bothofwhichencouragethedevelopmentanduseofCoPsfor

educatordevelopmentandinstructionalimprovement.Asaresult,muchoftheresearch

onCoPsintheeducationsectorfocusesontheiruseforcollaborativeeducatorprofessional

developmentandtheelementsthatfostersuccessinthiseffort.

Factorsidentifiedinthisbodyofliteraturethatarenotedascontributingto

successfulCoPscanbecategorizedasthosethat1)fosterandsupportcriticalinquiry,2)

cultivateandencouragemutualengagement,3)supportanddevelopcommunity

sustainability,and4)presentanarchitecturethatsupportsmemberparticipation.Across

thesecategories,onekeyelementisindicatedasessentialthroughouttheliterature:thatof

askilledmoderatororfacilitator,withsomestudiesalludingtospecificactionsor

4

characteristicsofsuccessfulmoderators.Theliteraturereviewforthisstudydrawsupon

thisexistingresearchtodeterminethemostmentionedmoderatoractionsand

characteristicsthatsupportthefactorsofsuccessinthefourcategoriesmentionedabove.

AsurveywasthendevelopedtomeasureCoPmembers’generalperceptionofthevalueof

thesemoderatoractionsandcharacteristics.Additionally,thereappearstobelittletono

researchasofyetthathasinvestigatedhowCoPmemberdemographicsmayinfluence

theirvalueperceptionofmoderatoractionsandcharacteristics.Thisstudyisalsoaninitial

forayintothatterritory.

ProblemStatement

Educatorcommunitiesofpracticeareincreasinglybeingdeployedwithinacademia,

andonline-basedCoPshavebecomepopularasarenasforeducatorprofessional

developmentandasvenuesfordistributedexpertise,collaborativeknowledgebuildingand

professionalsocialnetworking.Theonlineenvironmentinparticularischargedwith

providingpeerconnectivityregardlessofproximity,andtheemergingliteraturepointsto

communitymoderatorsorfacilitatorsaskeytothesuccessofthesecommunities.

However,distinctactivitiesandcharacteristicsofaCoP’smoderator,suchas

“technologicallyadept”or“createsconnections”,haveonlyrecentlybeguntobedelineated

(AustralianLearning&TeachingCouncil,2011;AnneBourhis,Dubé,&Jacob,2005;Gairín-

Sallán,Rodríguez-Gómez,&Armengol-Asparó,2010;Kimball&Ladd,2004;Tarmizi&de

Vreede,2005).Verylittleisknownastotheimpactoftheseactionsandcharacteristics,

especiallyfromtheperspectiveofmembers.

5

PurposeofStudy

Thereviewoftheliteratureindicatesthatthereisstillmuchtobelearnedabout

launching,growing,sustainingandevolvingcommunitiesofpractice,includingtheiruseas

professionaldevelopmentarenasforeducators.Ashortlistofsuccessfactors,groupedinto

fourcategories,hasbeendrawnfromexistingresearchforthepurposesofthisstudy;this

exerciseindicatedthattheroleofmoderatororfacilitatorincommunitiesofpracticeis

persistentlynotedasakeyelementforCoPsuccess.Giventhatresearchaboutthisroleis

limited,thisstudyseekstodeterminethevalueCoPmembersplaceonvariousmoderator

actionsandcharacteristicsassuggestedbytheliterature,andhowselectmember

demographicsmayinfluencethesevalueperceptions;alimitednumberofdemographics

wereselectedforinclusioninthestudyinanefforttolimitrespondentfatigueand

distraction.Thefollowingresearchquestionswillframethestudy:

1. Whatvaluedomembersofeducatorcommunitiesofpracticeplaceonparticular

moderatoractions?


moderatorcharacteristics?

3. Domemberdemographics–age,gender,yearsofCoPmembership,technology

experience-influencethevaluerankingofmoderatoractionsandcharacteristics,

andifso,how?

4. Aretheremoderatoractionsorcharacteristicsnotnotedintheliteraturethatare

valuedbymembers?

6

SignificanceoftheStudy

Theoverarchingresearchquestionthatguidesthisstudyisthatofhowtoimprove

thesupportandmanagementofcommunitiesofpractice.Theproposedstudyisaresponse

tothelackofin-depthknowledgeconcerningtheroleofthemoderator(orfacilitatoror

coordinator,asthesetermsareusedinterchangeably)inaCoPthatexistsatleastinpart

onlineandspecificallyconcernstheperceptionsofmembersaboutactionsand

characteristicsthatmoderatorsbringtotheirwork;theresultsareintendedtoinform

practitionersandfutureresearch.Whileitisoutsidethescopeofthisstudy,thequestion

ofhowmembers’perceivedvaluationsmaycorrelatewiththeeffectivenessofthe

moderator’sworkareanticipatedasanaturalcontinuationofthisresearch.Andwhilethis

studyfocusesontheeducationsectorandintendstoprovideinsightsthatcouldincrease

theeffectivenessofmanagementandmoderationforthissector’sCoPs,theknowledge

gainedmaybebeneficialasappliedtoCoPsinothersectorsaswelland,assuch,maybe

consideredrelevanttotheoverallbodyofCoPresearch.

TheoreticalFramework

TheCommunityofPracticeStructuralFramework,asdevelopedbyEtienneWenger

(Wenger,1998;Wenger,etal.,2002)andusedtodescribethedimensionsofacommunity

ofpractice,providestheprimarytheoreticalframeworkforthisstudy.Thethree

dimensionsthisframeworkdescribesarecommontoallcommunitiesofpractice;infact,

theabsenceofoneormoreofthedimensionsallowsonetosurmisethatthegroupin

questionisnotacommunityofpractice.Thethreedimensionsareasfollows:

• ThedomainoftheCoP,whichdescribesthefundamentalpurpose,topicoractivity

aroundwhichthegroupconvenes.Thedomainprovidesthegroupwithanidentity,

7

setstheproblemspace,distinguishesmembersfromnon-members,andcanserve

asagatekeeperformembershipifthereisaminimumlevelofdomainexpertise

requiredformembership.

• ThecommunityoftheCoPwhichisthemeasureofwhethersignificantsocial

connectednessoccursinthegroupandthenatureofthatconnectedness;itindicates

mutualengagementaroundtheissuesandquestionsaspromptedbythedomain.

• ThepracticeoftheCoPdescribesbothinteractionswithinthegroupandthe

creationofartifactsthatarearesultofthegroup’ssharedinquiryandknowledge

building.

Theuseofthesethreedimensionsallowsonetoexaminethenatureofacommunityof

practicebydeterminingmembership,connectednessandactivity,astheseimpactthe

peoplewithinit.ThesedimensionsalsocanbeusedtomeasurechangesinaCoPdueto

maturityandlongevity.Thus,thisframeworkwaschosenduetothehighlevelofrelevance

itofferstothecentralfocusforthisstudyoncommunitiesofpractice,andforthe

usefulnessofitsdimensionsinascertainingthenatureofagivenCoP.

Asecondarytheoreticalframeworkisthatofsocialcapital,asdefinedbyNahapiet&

Ghoshal(1998)andadaptedbyLesser&Storck(2001)todescribetheevolutionofgroup

connectednessingeneralasopposedtothatfoundwithinaCoP.Ithasthreedimensions:

• Thestructuraldimension,likenedtotheconnectionspeoplemakewhenjust

beginningtoconnectinaCoP.

• Therelationaldimension,whichoccurswhendeeperconnectionsareforged

betweenmembersofthecommunity.

8

• Thecognitivedimension,whichreferstothecreationofacommoncontextorthat

whichLesser&Storckrefertoas“sharedlanguage”.Thisfinaldimensionsignifies

thatthegrouphascongealedtothepointwheretheyareconnectedenoughtohave

asharedvocabulary.

Whilethisframeworkissecondary,itisusefulwhenattemptingtodescribethestagesand

measuresthroughwhichmembersconnectwithinCoPs.

Additionalframeworksandmodelsmaybeusefulwhenexaminingcommunitiesof

practice;forexample,affinitynetworktheory,JamesGee’sconceptuallysimilar“affinity

spaces”,orevensocialnetworkanalysisallprovidejustifiableframeworksforthiswork.

Forthisstudy,however,theseminalworkofLaveandWengerwillprovidetheprimary

theoreticalframework.

OrganizationofApproach

Web-basedsurveymethodologyhasbeenemployedtocarryoutthisstudy.

AccordingtoTuckman(1999),surveymethodology“allowsinvestigatorstomeasurewhat

someoneknows…andthinks.Evenwhenanalternativeisavailable,simplyaskingsubjects

torespondmaybe(andoftenis)themostefficientone.”(p.237)Thisstudyseekstolearn

howmembersofCoPsperceivemoderatoractionsandcharacteristics,thereforethe

intentionisindeedtomeasurewhatthemembersknowand/orthink.Anotherstrengthof

surveymethodologyisthat,withcarefulplanningandattentiveinstrumentconstruction,

thecollectedinformationcanbesystematicallyandefficientlyconvertedintodatatowhich

statisticalanalysiscanthenbeapplied.Additionally,sincethemembersofCoPsthat

operateatleastinpartonlinearewellacclimatedtowebtechnologyandroutinelyusesuch

toolstoconnectwiththecommunity,theriskofcoverageerrorusuallypresentedbythe

9

useofaweb-basedsurveyisdiminished.Lastly,asstatedbyDillman,et.al(2009),“the

remarkablepowerofthesamplesurveyisitsabilitytoestimatecloselythedistributionofa

characteristicinapopulationbyobtaininginformationfromrelativelyfewelementsofthat

population.”(p.54)Acarefullyconstructedsampleframedrawnusingrandomsampling,

combinedwithstrictmethodologytoreduceerrorandbiasandprecisionintermsofdata

analysis,havebeenutilizedtoincreasetheprecisionofthemeasurementsandthevalidity

ofthefindings.

DefinitionofTerms

CommunitiesofPractice(CoPs):“agroupofpeoplewhoshareaconcern,asetof

problems,orapassionaboutatopic,andwhodeepentheirknowledgeandexpertiseinthis

areabyinteractingonanon-goingbasis.”(Wenger,McDermott&Snyder,2002).Thisterm

originatedbeforetheadventofsocialnetworkingtechnologiesanduntilthelate2000’s,

commonlyindicatedagroupthatmetface-to-face.Astheuseofconnectedtechnologies

continuestopermeatesocialrelationships,andmoreandmoreCoPstakeadvantageofthe

onlineenvironment,thetermCoPdoesnotnecessarilyindicategeographicstatusany

longer.Asthisstudywilllookexclusivelyattechnology-mediatedcommunities,the

definitionwillincludeanycommunityofpractice,regardlessofmodality.

Moderator/Facilitator:Forthepurposesofthisstudy,thesetermswillbeused

interchangeablytodesignatethepersonformallyorinformallychargedwithmanagingthe

day-to-dayactivitiesandmembersofacommunityofpracticeoradesignatedsub-group

withinacommunityofpracticethatoccursatleastinpartonline.Alsoreferredtoas

coordinatorinsomeCoPs.

10

Member:Forthepurposesofthisstudy,thetermmemberwillencompassallusers

ofaCoPthatarenotpartoftheleadershiporadministrativeteam.Userswhostartnew

threadsonthediscussionboardorfrequentlyrespondtoquestions,forexample,wouldbe

consideredmembersiftheydonothavetheresponsibilityorclearancetomovethreads,

deletemessages,organizetheboard,etc.Membersarecontributorsbutnotresponsiblefor

themaintenance,organizationorpromotionoftheCoPorothermembers.

Sponsor:ArepresentativeoftheorganizationorinstitutioninwhichtheCoPis

locatedorthatsupportstheCoP.Thisperson,ortheleaderforagroupthatrepresentsthe

sponsoringorganization,alongwiththemoderator(s)oftheCoParecommonlyreferredto

asthe“leadershipteam”.

ModeratorAction/Activity:Somethingamoderatordoes,orhasdone,fora

particularpurpose.Examples:guidingdiscussionstomaintainquality,creating

connectionsbetweengroupmembers.

ModeratorCharacteristic:Atrait,attributeorqualitybelongingtoamoderator.

Examples:innovative,welcoming.

OrganizationofthisDissertation

Chapter1providesanoverviewoftheproblem,thestudy,thetheoretical

frameworkandgeneralterms.Chapter2presentsaliteraturereviewthathighlights

existingresearchintosuccessfactorsforCoPsclusteredintofourcategories(inquiry,

mutualengagement,communitysustainabilityandarchitecture)andtheroleofmoderator

orfacilitatorineachoftheseareas.Chapter3providesinformationaboutthestudy’s

methodology,Chapter4presentstheresultsandfindingsfromthestudy,andChapter5

outlinesimplicationsandareasforfurtherstudy.

11

Chapter2:LiteratureReview

Participationinacommunityofpractice(CoP)characteristicallyinvolvedthe

physicalproximityofitsmembers;forsomegroups,thislimitationhamperedtheuseofthe

CoPframeworkasameansforcollaborativelygrowingknowledgeandimproving

professionalpractice.However,asweb-basedenvironmentsmaturedandstabilized,the

availabilityofviablevirtualgatheringspacesandopportunitiesforprofessionalstoconnect

andshareknowledgebeyondtheirlocalcommunityorinstitutiongrew,andtheinterestin

onlineormixedmode(partiallyonlineandpartiallyface-to-face)communitiesofpractice

increased.Giventhisexpandedinterest,thenumberofstudiesbeingconducted-aswellas

therangeofdisciplinesinvestigatinghowthesecommunitiesfunctionandthevaluethey

maycontributetomembersandsponsorsalike(Iriberri&Gondy,2009)–hasalsogrown.

Asasubsetofthisliterature,researchstudiesontheuseofcommunitiesofpractice

foreducationprofessionalshasfocusedprimarilyonconnectingeducators(Baek&

Schwen,2006;Hanewald&Gesthuizen,2009;Riverin&Stacey,2008),supportingpre-

serviceand1styearteachers(Barab,MaKinster,&Scheckler,2003;Gareis&Nussbaum-

Beach,2008;Goos&Bennison,2007),determiningkeyfactorsforCoPsuccessandbarriers

totheiruseforeducators(Cousin&Deepwell,2005;Gannon-Leary&Fontainha,2007;

Hew&Hara,2007;Hodgkinson-Williams,Slay,&Siebörger,2008),anddetermining

educatorattitudestowardsweb-basedprofessionaldevelopmentofanykind(Kao&Tsai,

2009).Todateonlyafewstudieshavefocusedexplicitlyontheuseoftheeducator

communitiesofpracticeinhighereducation;theonearticlelookingspecificallyatboth

highereducationandcommunitiesofpracticearosefromSouthAfricaandwasconcerned

withassistingteacherswhowerechargedwithlaunchingtheuseoftechnologyinbelow-

12

poverty-levelgradeschoolswithnopriortechnologyexperience(Hodgkinson-Williamset

al.,2008).ResearchstudiesspecificallyinvestigatingtheCoPmoderator’srolewerealso

fewinnumber;mostoftheliteraturefoldedthemoderator’sroleandresponsibilitiesinto

otherfactorsidentifiedasnecessaryforCoPsuccessornotedthisroleonlyinpassing.This

studyseekstoextendtheexistingliteraturebyexaminingthechallengesandfactorsfor

successinassociationwiththeroleofthemoderatorand,inspecific,theperceivedvalueof

CoPmoderatorstotheCoPmembersthemselves.

Thisliteraturesearchandreviewwasconductedthroughtheuseofkeyword

searchesofprofessionalpeer-reviewedjournalsandbooksfromtheacademicpressas

foundwithindatabasesincludingERIC,AcademicSearchComplete,WorldCatandGoogle

Scholar.Initialkeywordsincludedvariationson“communityofpractice”,“online

communityofpractice”,“CoP”,“learningnetwork”,“knowledgesharing”,and“learning

community”whichwerecombinedwithvariationson“education”,“educator”,“college”,

“highereducation”,“teacher”,“successfactors”,“bestpractices”and“successstrategies”.

Keywordssuchas“moderator”,“facilitator”,“coordinator”andsimilarvariationswere

usedalongwiththeinitialtermstouncoverresearchonthemoderatorroleinparticular.

Journalarticleabstractswerereviewedandpromisingstudieswereeitherdownloaded

directlyorrequestedfromthelibraryasanelectronicscan;thebibliographiesand

resourcesofappropriatestudieswereminedforadditionalliteratureonthesetopics.

Booksandchapterswereretrievedinpersonwithreferencestorelevantliterature

pursued.Inaddition,theworkoftheU.S.DepartmentofEducationintheareaofonline

CoPswasreviewedandlarge,professional,commercially-fundededucatorcommunities

suchasConnectedEducatorsandPowerfulLearningPracticeswerevisitedinaneffortto

13

uncoveradditionalqualifiedstudies.Approximately112studieswereselectedand

reviewedwithroughlytwo-thirdspertainingtotheeducationsector.Ofthose112studies,

59rosetothetopasmostrelevantinregardstocommunitiesofpractice,educatorsand

theroleofthemoderator.Mostoftheselectedstudiesdetailedtheuseofonline

communitiesofpracticeasameansforconnectinggeographicallyseparatedprofessionals

andthevarioussuccessfactorsthatsupportthiswork;thetopicsthecommunitieswere

attemptingtocollaboratearoundvaried,andactivitieswithintheCoPsrangedfrom

sharingtroubleshootingstoriestoansweringproceduralquestionstocontributingand

providingresourcesforthegroup.

Thisreviewisbynomeansexhaustiveandthefactthatonlyahandfulofstudies

werefoundthatspecificallylookedattheroleofthemoderatorisaconcern.However,the

finalselectionofliteraturedidallowforafairlybroadlookacrossthisemergentdiscipline.

Itishopedthatmoreliteraturewillbepublishedasthisareadevelops.

Thischapterwillnextpresentanintroductiontothetheoreticaloriginsand

elementsofthecommunityofpracticeframework,thenhighlightexistingandemerging

researchintosuccessfactorsforCoPs,clusteredbytheauthorintofouroverarching

categories(inquiry,mutualengagement,communitysustainabilityandarchitecture).

Finally,theroleoftheCoPmoderatorisexaminedinrelationtothesesuccessfactors.The

chapterconcludeswithasummaryandtherationaleforthestudyasconducted.

CommunitiesofPractice

Foundations

Whilethefocusofthispaperisnotnecessarilyontheunderlyingtheoryorhistory

ofthecommunityofpracticemodel,thereareseveralconceptscentraltoanydiscussionon

14

CoPsthatarenecessarytounderstandbeforemovingon.JeanLaveandEtienneWenger

arecreditedwithcreatingtheterm“communityofpractice”(CoP)duringtheirstudyof

apprenticeshipsasasociallearningenvironment.Inthedecadessince,thedescriptionofa

CoPrarelyincludesareferencetoapprenticeships;morecommonlytheyaredescribedas

“groupsofpeoplewhoshareaconcern,asetofproblems,orapassionaboutatopic,and

whodeepentheirknowledgeandexpertiseinthisareabyinteractingonanon-going

basis.”(Wenger,McDermott&Snyder,2002)Evenso,itisimportanttorecognizehowthe

theoreticalrootsofthecommunityofpracticemodelremainsignificantandinfluentialin

theapplicationofthismodeltothisday.

Oneofthesefundamentalsistherelationshipofthismodeltotheapprenticeship

environmentfromwhenceitarose.Wenger(2006)explainsthat:

thetermcommunityofpracticewascoinedtorefertothecommunitythatactsasa

livingcurriculumfortheapprentice.Oncetheconceptwasarticulated,westartedto

seethesecommunitieseverywhere,evenwhennoformalapprenticeshipsystem

existed.Andofcourse,learninginacommunityofpracticeisnotlimitedtonovices.

Thepracticeofacommunityisdynamicandinvolveslearningonthepartof

everyone.(personalwebsite,theorysection,para.4)

Thisisreinforcedbyanumberofstudiesthathaveanalyzedthelearningrelationship

betweenexpertandnoviceinsubsequentcommunities;onegoodexampleistheresearch

ofGunawardena,Layne&Frechette(2012)whofoundthat“arangeofabilityinaCoP

createsanopportunityforapprenticeshiplearning.Mentorsprovidelearningsupportto

morenovicecommunitymembersbyhelpingthemperformtasks,acclimatetoagroups

socialdynamicsandinteracteffectivelywithmembersofthecommunity”(Gunawardenaet

15

al.,p.372).Thisresearchandthatofothersdemonstrateshowtheapprenticeshipmodel

continuestofunctionwithinthecontemporaryCoPmodel.

AnotherimportanttheoreticalfoundationofLaveandWenger’scommunityof

practice(CoP)modelisthatitisrootedinsociallearningtheory;learninginsucha

communityisfundamentallysocial,a“situated”activityratherthananisolated

individuatedprocess.ThisaspectoftheCoPmodelcanbetracedbacktoearliersocial

learningtheoristssuchasBruner(1966)whoproposedthatlearninginvolvesboth

acquiringknowledgeaboutatopicordisciplineandalsounderstandinghowthis

knowledgefitsintothegreaterstructureofthediscipline’spracticeandculture.Current

sociallearningtheoristsalsosupportthisview:“Incontrasttoviewinglearningas

knowledgetransmissionfromaninstructortoalearner,theconceptofCoPtheorizesthe

meaningandprocessoflearningaspartofsocialactivity”(Zhao&Kemp,2012,p.236).

SociallearningtheorythusprovidesafoundationuponwiththeCoPmodelrests.

CoreElementsoftheCoPModel

Acornerstoneofthecommunityofpracticemodelarethethreeidentifying

dimensionsthatdefineaCoP:domain,communityandpractice.ThedomainofaCoPisthe

areaofinterestorexpertisethatisheldincommonbycommunitymembersandisthefirst

stepincategorizingaCoP;thedomaindifferentiatestheCoPfromoutsidersanddefinesthe

centralfocusofthegroup.ThecommunityofaCoPisnotmerelysocialbutinvolvestheact

oflearning;withinaCoP,members“engageinjointactivitiesanddiscussions,helpeach

other,andshareinformation.Theybuildrelationshipsthatenablethemtolearnfromeach

other.”(Wenger,2006).ThisdifferentiatesthecommunityofaCoPfromagroupformed

aroundjobtitlesorpositionoronethatissimplysocial.Lastly,thepracticeofaCoP

16

involvesasustainedcommunityinteractionthatbuildsa“sharedrepertoireofresources:

experiences,stories,tools,waysofaddressingrecurringproblems—inshortashared

practice”(Wenger,2006).Zhao&Kemp(2012)summarizethiswell:“Membersinthe

domainareinclinedtocommittothecommunityandhaveasharedcompetencethat

distinguishesthemfromothersexternaltothecommunity.Thecommunitysupports

memberinteractionandfacilitateslearningfromeachother.Thepracticemeansthat

membershaveasharedpracticewithintheCoP”(p.236).Itisthroughtheexaminationof

thesethreecharacteristics–domain,communityandpractice–thatonecanestablish

whetherornotagroupcanbeconsideredatruecommunityofpractice.

OriginsofOnlineCoPs

SomeoftheearliestandmostdirectadoptionoftheCoPframeworkhavebeenasa

knowledgemanagementtoolbythebusinesssector.Withtheriseoftheknowledge

economyandtheknowledgeworker,itbecameincreasinglynecessaryfororganizationsto

manageandretaintheircollectiveknowledgeinordertobecompetitiveandinnovative.

ExamplesofthisincludecommunitiesofpracticeMovingintothenewmillennium,it

becomecommontoreadintheorganizationalindustryliteraturestatementssuchas“those

organizationsthatmethodically,passionately,andproactivelyfindoutandtransferwhat

theyknow,anduseittoincreaseefficiency,sharpenproduct-developmentedgeandget

closertotheircustomerswillnotonlysurvivebutexcel”(Lee&Kim,2005,p.1).

Asbusinesseslookedtowaystomanageandretaintheirorganizationalknowledge,

onestrategytheyincreasinglyturnedtowasthecommunityofpracticemodel.CoPswere

“broughttotheforewiththedisseminationoftheknowledgemanagementparadigmdue

tothenatureofknowledge…knowledgelivesinthehumanactofknowing,knowledgeis

17

tacitaswellasexplicit,knowledgeissocialaswellasindividualandknowledgeisdynamic”

(Lee&Young,2005,p.6).Additionally,CoPswereseenasameansto“overcomethe

inherentproblemsofaslow-movingtraditionalhierarchyinafast-movingvirtual

economy…andtoshareknowledgeoutsidethetraditionalstructuralboundaries”(Lesser&

Storck,2001,p.832).AgoodexamplesofthistypeofimplementationoftheCoPmodel

arethecommunitiesofpracticeformedbyHewlett-Packardinthelate1990’stoconnect

productdeliveryconsultantsacrossNorthAmerica;oncetheseemployeeswereconnected,

theyfoundtheyhad“theyhadmanyproblemsincommonandthattheycouldlearnagreat

dealfromoneanother”(Wenger&Snyder,2000);thegroupwentontostandardize

processesandestablishpricingconsistencynationwideasaresultoftheworkdone

collaborativelywithintheirCoP.Otherexamplesofglobalcorporationsthatwereearly

adoptersoftheCoPmodelasameansforknowledgemanagementincludedAmerican

ManagementSystems(AMS),ShellOilandWorldBank(Wenger&Snyder,2000).The

domainforthesebusiness-sectorCoPsisusuallydictatedbyjobtitleorfunction,the

communityfunctionoftenstimulatedbytasksassignedtothegroupsandthepracticea

resultofaccomplishingthesetasks.Thiswasavariationoftheoriginalcommunityof

practicemodel,inwhichmostactionswereorganizedbymembersratherthanorganized

bymanagement,buttheyremainedtruetothebasictenetsoftheCoPmodelnonetheless.

Itinnotsurprising,giventheparallelgrowthininternet-basedtoolsforconnectivity

duringthissameperiodoftime,thattechnologywasbroughttobearonthiseffort.Bythe

early2000’s,CoPsanchoredinorganizationswere“increasinglyinterestedinexploiting

thecapabilitiesofinformationandcommunicationtechnologies”(Dube,Bouhis&Jacob,

2006,p.69).WhiletheseCoPsdidnotnecessarilyshiftwholesaletoanentirelyonline

18

environment,moreandmorebegantotakeadvantageoftheaffordancesoftheemerging

andexpandingtechnologiestomaintainconnections,fostercommunityandshare

expertise,newsandinquiries.Thiswasespeciallytrueforbusinessesandcorporations

withaglobalworkforce;theseorganizationsquicklymovedintothevirtualspacetodothis

work.Wengernotesthat“virtualCoPs(VcoPs)werewidelyusedasaknowledge

managementtoolinanumberofmultinationalcorporationswheretheyarethenorm

ratherthentheexception”(Wenger,McDermott&Snyder,2002,p.306);tenyearslater,

Annabi,McGann,Pels,Arnold&Rivinus(2012)reportsthatthistrendhasonly

strengthened:“CommunitiesofPractice(CoP)areincreasingbecomingapowerful

KnowledgeManagement(KM)mechanismforgeographicallydistributedorganizations

[which]faceKMchallengesarisingfromthedifficultyorganizationshaveindisparate

sourcesofknowledgenecessaryforadaptingandinnovatingforanyparticular

organizationalgoal,protectingagainstknowledgelossfromturnover,andcreatingan

environmenttodevelopsharedunderstandingbysharingknowledge”(p.3869).Tools

suchasdiscussionboards,wikis,blogs,microblogs,virtualobjectrepositories,webinars,

virtualmeetingspace–inshort,“web2.0”or“socialmedia”tools–havehelpedtocreate

environmentsinwhichtheseonlineCoPsmeet,share,discussandengage.

Whilethemeansbywhichtheseonlinecommunitiesconnectandpracticecandiffer

fromthatofaphysicallysituatedcommunityofpractice,therearesimilaritiesthatremain

despitethischangeofmodalityincludingthecoreelementsasestablishedbyWenger

(2006).Gunawardenaetal.(2009)observesthat,invirtualspaces,“technologiespresenta

forumfordiscussionandinteractionsandprovidecommongroundwheremembersshare

theirideas,knowledgeandstories…toolssuchaswikisandblogscanhelpbuildthe

19

communitythroughdialogandconversationamongparticipantswhosharethesame

interests.Thepracticeisthespecificknowledgethecommunitydevelops,sharesand

maintains”(p.10).Annabietal.(2012)foundthesameinastudyoftheuseofsocialmedia

toolsinthecorporatesetting,statingthat“themostinnatelocationtomaximizethe

benefitsofsocialmediaiswithinexistingCoP.CoPinherentlyemphasizestrong

relationshipsandrequiresocialinteractions.Intakingadvantageofthehighlysocial

natureofCoP,socialmediatoolsofferimmediateimprovementtoCoP”(p.3869)

CommunitiesofPracticeinEducation

Whilethereasonsbehindtheemergenceorformationofacommunityofpracticeof

educatorsareasnumerousasthecommunitiesthemselves,thereareseveralcommon

scenarios;theuseofweb-basedtechnologytosupporttheseendeavorsparallelsthatfound

inthebusinesssector.Themostprevalentrationaleforcreatingsuchanexchangeisthe

improvementofteaching;Grossman,Wineburg&Woolworth(2001)notethatthe

“improvementofprofessionalpracticeisthemostcommonrationalefortheformationof

teachercommunity”(p.951).Thisargumentisfairlystraightforward:sharingquestions,

solutionsandpracticesinapeerenvironmentprovideseducatorswithexposuretonew

waysofthinkinganddoingthings.Theneedforthisisacceleratedbydatafromthe

NationalCommissiononTeachingandAmerica’sFuture(2010)thatshowsteachersspend

“anaverageof93%oftheirworkdayworkinginisolationfromtheircolleagues”and

“rarelyhavetheopportunitytosharetheirpractice,reflectonwhatworksordoesn’twork

withcolleaguesandotherknowledgeableexperts”(p.4).Notably,muchofthecurrent

researchanddataconcerningCoPsintheeducationsectorconcentratesontheiruseinthe

20

supportandcoachingofpre-serviceandnewteacherswhichalsocanbesaidtosharethis

domainofpedagogicalimprovement.

Anotherimpetusfortheemergenceofaneducatorcommunityofpracticeisthe

desirebyteachersforfirst-handexperience,aslearnersthemselves,ofhowcollaborative

learningoccursinaconnectedlearningenvironment.Indeed,asGrossman,Wineburg&

Woolworthpointout,“wecannotexpectteacherstocreateavigorouscommunityof

learnersamongstudentsiftheyhavenoparallelcommunitytonourishthemselves”(2001,

p.993).Whilethismaybesimilartothepreviousoriginatingfactor,thedomainofa

communityformedforthispurposehasamorenarrowfocus;insteadifthebroadintentof

pedagogicalimprovementthegroupconcentratesontheexperience,processesand

practicesofonlinecollaborativelearningandhowitworks.

Thethirdoriginatingpurposethatregularlysurfacesforthecreationofteacher

CoPsistosupporteducatorsastheyworktostaycurrentintheirareaofdisciplineand

howtoteachit;thedomainforthesegroupscouldbethusbedescribedas“pedagogical

contentknowledge”(Shulman,1987).Thisisclearlynecessarytoensurethequalityof

instruction,especiallyinfieldsmarkedbyrapidchangeintechnologiesandpractices,and

canalsoprovideopportunitiesforparticipationinone’sareaofscholarship,behaviorthat

isoftentiedtoadvancementorrequiredforrecertification.Wearealsoremindedfromthe

businesssectorthat“asaccountsofsocialnetworksandoccupationalcommunities

indicate,(participants)arelikelytohavemoreincommonwiththeirpeersinother

organizationsthanwithmanyoftheotheremployeesintheirown”(Brown&Duguid,

2001,p.201).Placedintothearenaofacademia,discipline-specificlearningcommunities,

whilepotentiallyexternaltotheinstructor’sinstitution,maybebeneficialtoeducatorsin

21

growingandmaintainingtheircurrencybyconnectingthemwithothereducatorswhoare

teachingsimilartopics.

FactorsforSuccessfulCommunitiesofPractice

Whenenteringadiscussionaboutthefactorsnecessaryforcreatingand

maintainingasuccessfulCoP,itwouldseemnecessarytofirstdeterminewhatdefines

success.However,giventhatnotwocommunitiesareidenticalandthatthenatureofaCoP

isoneofcontinuousevolutionandchange,ameasureofsuccessthatmayservewellata

certainstageofdevelopmentmaynotapplyatanotherormaynotapplytoanothergroup

atall.Thishasledmostresearchersinthisareatodeclare,ashaveIbiberri&Leroy,that

“thereisnowidespreadconsensusonadefinitionofCoPsuccess”(2009,p.11:10).Indeed,

Preece(2001),whoconductedacomprehensivereviewofsuccessmetricsforcommunities

ofpractice,foundmeasuresthatrangedfromthevolumeofpostings(measuring

interactivity)toratingsschemes(measuringqualityofcontribution)tousersatisfaction

surveys(measuringmembersupportandsitedesign)andultimatelyconcludedthat“no

twocommunitiesarethesame…therefore,itisessentialtorecognizetheuniquenessof

eachcommunitywhenidentifyingdeterminantsofsuccessanddevisingmeasures.”(p.

354).Thisismadeallthemoreevidentasonereviewstheliterature;whilethereisvery

littlepointingtowardsaglobalmeasureofCoPsuccess,therearemanystudiesthatseekto

identifysuccessfactorsorisolateelementsthatleadtotheuseandvitalityofaCoP.

Duringthecourseofreviewingthecommunityofpracticeresearchliterature,

groupingsofCoPsuccessfactorsbecameevidenttothisresearcher.Reflectiveofthe

literatureandsubsequentlyusefulfororganizingmoderatoractivitiesandcharacteristics,

fourcategoriesemergedthataccommodatedthemostfrequentlycitedsuccessfactors.The

22

firstthreecategoriesborrowheavilyfromWenger’scommunityofpracticetheoretical

frameworkanditsfundamentalstructuralelementsofdomain,communityandpracticeas

describedearlierinthispaper;thefourthaddressesthetechnologicalaspectsrequiredfor

operatingasanonlinecommunity.Thesecategoriesincludethecultivationand

maintenanceof1)acultureofinquirythatfostersandsupportscriticaldialogue,2)a

cultureofmutualengagementinwhichmemberstrustandshareknowledgefreely,3)a

cultureofsustainabilitythatsupportscommunitypersistenceandorganization,and4)an

architectureforparticipationthatsupportsaccessibilityforcommunityconnectionsand

accesstosharedresources.Aselaborateduponinsubsequentsectionsofthispaper,these

categoriesareeffectivefororganizingCoPsuccessfactors,yetitshouldbenotedthatoneof

themostfrequentlyandemphaticallycitedelementsforsuccess–thatofaskilled

moderatororfacilitator-defiessuchcategorizationasitappearsinall.

SummativeCategory1:CultivatingaCultureofInquiry

CultivatingandmaintainingacultureofinquirydifferentiatesavibrantCoPfroman

onlinerepositoryorsimplequestionandanswerforum;withoutaculturethatspurs

memberstopersevereintheirsharedexplorationofideasandinnovationsandtopursue

deeper,criticalthinkingaroundproblemsintheirfieldofinterest,thegroupisunlikelyto

embodytheelementsnecessarytobeconsideredaCoP.Thiscanbeseenasareflectionof

Wenger’smodelwhichdescribestheneedforacommunityto“exploreboththeexisting

bodyofknowledgeandthelatestadvancesinthefield”(Wenger,2002p.38)whilefocusing

onadistinctareaofinterest.Thefactorsdescribedbelow–CoPpurpose,criticaldialogue

andmembershipdiversification–aredrawnfromtheliteratureaselementsthatsupport

thecultivationofsuchacultureofinquiry;challengesandstrategiesforimplementation

23

arealsobrieflydiscussed.

Settingapurpose.ThemostnotedandmostprominentlyrankedCoPsuccess

factoracrosstheliteratureisthatofaclearlydelineatedpurposeforthegrouparound

whichthecommunitycomestogetherandinteracts(Cousin&Deepwell,2005;Gray,2005;

Hew&Hara,2006;Wubbels,2007;Preece,2004).Thisisestablishedeitherinternallyby

themembersorexternallybytheorganizationwithinwhichthecommunityexistsand

designatesthe“sharedareaofinteresttowhichmembersarecommittedandinwhichthey

haveasharedcompetencethatdistinguishesthemfromotherpeople”(U.S.Dept.ofEduc.

OfficeofEducationalTechnology,2011).Preece(2004)describesthisasa“clear,short

statementofpurposeandawell-chosenname,prominentlydisplayedonthecommunity’s

homepageandrepeatedonotherapplications,signalsthecommunity’sintentionsandcan

contributepositivelytowardssuccess”(p.300).

Withoutsuchapurpose,agroupcannotaspiretobeacommunityofpracticebutis

insteadsimplyasocialnetworkorcircleoffriends;itisinthesettingofthepurposeforthe

CoPthatthegroupisreadiedforinquirywithintheproblemspace,thatthefoundationfor

inquiryisestablished,andbywhichfocusisobtained.Italsoestablishestheplaceinthe

worldforthecommunityanditswork,andthevaluetobehadforitsachievements

(McLure,Wasko&Faraj,2000;Wenger,McDermott,&Snyder,2002).Thenecessityofthis

factormapsdirectlyontothe“domain”elementfoundinWenger’sCoPframeworkandas

suchisvitaltotheestablishmentofatruecommunityofpractice.Itisalsothemeansby

whichmembers–thosewhohavedevelopedtherequiredbaselinecompetencyinthe

domainareaorotherwisemetmembershipcriteria–canbedeterminedandagainstwhich

theirexpertisewillbemeasured.

24

Ofcourse,withinanyCoPinanydomainorareaofexpertise,particularissuesand

currenttopicswill“arise,besolved,dissipateorotherwisebedismissedwithnewissuesor

topicstakingtheirplace”(Johnson,2001);thisisanaturalfunctionofgrowthandchange

andevendesirableastheveryactofraisinganddismissingissuesandtopicscanbean

indicatorofanactivemembershipandanimpetustothecommunitytorevisitwhatitis

about.Indeed,indiscussingthedomain,Wengerpointsoutis“notafixedsetofproblems

(but)evolvesalongwiththeworldandthecommunity”(Wenger,2002,p.31).

Andsoarisestheprimarychallengewithsettingagroup’spurposeordomain:that

ofbalancingbetweenbeingtoogeneralandtoospecific.Asnotedabove,thepurpose

shouldbedefinedinamannerthatwillprovideadeepsenseofidentityfortheCoPyet

shouldpermitandsupportfluctuationsinthetopicsandquestionsaddressedbythe

community.ThepurposefortheCoPmustbebroadenoughtoencompasstheseshiftsyet

notsobroadastolacktheabilitytoinspirethepassionandinterestofitsmemberswithan

overlydilutefocus.Anditmusttocontain“complexandlong-standingissuesthatrequire

sustainedlearning”(Wenger,p.32)butnotbesonarrowastorepresstheevolutionofthe

veryquestionsitraises.Theliteraturesuggestsscantfewstrategiestoensurethisbalance,

andthosesuggestionsalmostentirelydependuponthedevelopmentalstageoftheCoP.In

thebeginning,findinga“sharedsenseofpurpose”(Gannon-Leary&Fontainha,2007)that

raisesinterestandpassioninthemembership–andpotentialmembership-isdeemed

criticalandismuchcommentedupon.Lessisofferedintermsofreassertingorresetting

thedomain,althoughWengerdoesindicatethatrefiningtherelationshiptootherdomains

andmaintainingtherelevanceofthedomainmaybenecessarytorejuvenateandrevitalize

along-standingCoP(2002,p.97).Butwhetherperfectornot,andwhethersetbythe

25

membersthemselvesorbytheorganizationsponsoringthecommunity,itisclearthatby

establishingaCoP’spurpose,thefoundationforacultureofinquiryisalsoset.

Criticaldiscourse.Asnotedintheintroductiontothissection,atrulyfunctioning

CoPismorethanasocialgroupthatentertainsquestionsandanswersorawebsitethat

featuresarepositoryofmaterials(Baek&Schwen,2006;Barab,MaKinster,&Scheckler,

2003;Goos&Bennison,2007;Wenger,1998).Yetwhilewehaveseenthatestablishingthe

purposeordomainofaCoPisbestaccomplishedintheverybeginningoftheCoPslifecycle,

criticaldiscoursewithinacommunitytakestime.Forexample,Barab,etal.(2003),note

thatevenafterseveralyearsofonlineactivityinaparticularCoP,“therehasbeenverylittle

criticaldialogue…mostofthediscussionpostsareeithercomplementaryoraresimply

peoplestatingtheirideasandopinions.Itisveryseldomthatamemberchallengesthe

opinionsofanotherperson,orgivescriticalfeedback”(p.251).Themajorityof

researchersaccountforthisnon-discourseasafunctionofsocio-culturalbarriersthatmust

beremovedorpassedbypriortotruecriticaldialogueappearingwithinthecommunity;

someofthesearebarriersexperiencedbyindividualmemberssuchasalackoffamiliarity

withthecommunityortrustintheonlineenvironment,elementswewillreviewinlater

segmentsofthispaper.Butthisgapindiscoursealsomaybeattributedtothematuration

levelofthecommunityitself.

Wenger(2002)positsthattherearefivestagesofgrowthexperiencedbyaCoP:

potential,coalescing,maturing,stewardshipandtransformation(p.68-69).Intheearly

stagesofgrowth,relationshipsandgroupnormshavenotyetbeenfirmlyestablished;core

membersarestillbeingrecruited,theonlinespaceisbeinginitiated,moderatorsare

emergingorbeingsought.Inessence,thesocialscaffoldingforsupportingrisktakingand

26

honestdiscourseisnotyetinplace.Duringthesestagesofgrowth,themembersare

unlikelytoenterintoacriticaldiscoursegiventheunfamiliarityoftheenvironmentand

populace.OnceaCoPhasenteredthematurationphaseofgrowth,however,theliterature

focusesonremovingbarriersfacedbyindividualsratherthanthecommunityasawhole

andreiteratesthethemethat,overall,timeiswhatisneededtoallowmemberstogarner

trust,becomeawareofgroupnormsandventureintothearenaofcriticaldiscourseat

whichpoint“aperson’sintentionstolearnareengagedandthemeaningoflearningis

configuredthroughtheprocessofbecomingafullparticipantinasocio-culturalpractice“

(Attwell&Elferink,2007).Strategiestoincreasecriticaldiscourse,then,relyprimarilyon

removingbarriersforsuchparticipationbyindividualmembers.Wewillturntothis

shortly.

Membershipdiversification.Portrayedasadualityortensioninherentinthe

buildingofanycommunity,thedegreetowhichacommunityishomogeneousordiversein

relationtoitsmemberexpertise,experienceorinterestfocusdirectlyimpactsitsabilityto

fosteracultureofinquiryfor“asthelevelofdiversitywithinacommunityincreases,so

doestheopportunityforcollectiveandindividualdevelopment”(Barab,et.al.,2003).And

whilecoherence–intermsofactivity,environmentandartifact–ismoreeasily

accomplishedinagroupthatcloselyalignswithitself,itisthroughthesupportofmultiple

anddiverseviewsthatcriticaldialogueisfostered(Barabet.al.,2003).WhileWenger

(2002)concedesthat“itisofteneasiertostartacommunityamongpeoplewithsimilar

backgrounds”(p.25),adiversemembershipbringsfreshperspectivesandcanassistwith

displacingstagnationandcodificationintermsofideasandapproachestoproblem-solving.

InattemptingtocultivateadiversemembershipinaeducatorCoP–intermsof

27

experience,expertise,yearsofassociation,disciplineareaorsocio-culturalbackground–

theliteraturesuggestsitisimportantthatthecommunityattendstothesedifferences;for

example,whenattemptingtodiversifymembershipintermsoflevelsofparticipation,Zhao

&Bishop(2011)foundthatsettingnormsthatallwererequiredtoadheretowerenotthe

answer,insteadsuggestingthatthekeywas“distinguishingbetweenperipheralandcore

participantsandaddressingtheirneedsdifferently.SuccessfulCoPsfulfilltheneedsof

bothgroupswhilefacilitatingthetransitionfromperipheraltocentralparticipation”(p.

725).

Summary–cultivatingacultureofinquiry.Thissegmenthasexaminedthree

factorsessentialtothecultivationofthecultureofinquirythatsupportsasuccessful

communityofpracticeandreflectsstructuralelementsoftheCoPframeworkestablished

byWenger,mostnotablythatof“domain”.Determiningawell-definedpurposefortheCoP

duringitsearlystagesofgrowth,facilitatingcriticaldiscoursethroughtheremovalof

barriersforsuchparticipationbyindividualmembers,andencouragingandrecruitinga

diversemembershipsoastoincreasetheopportunityforfreshideas,innovationsand

viewpointstoemergeallarepartincreatingacultureofinquiryinaCoP.Wewillnowturn

ourattentiontothenextcategoryoffactors,thatofcultivatingacultureofmutual

engagement.

SummativeCategory2:CultivatingaCultureofMutualEngagement

Aswe’veseen,communitiesofpracticeareintentionalsocialgroupsthatbuild,

shareandcreateknowledgearoundaspecifiedinterestorpassionwhilealso“building

relationships,andintheprocess,developingasenseofbelongingandmutualcommitment”

(Wenger,2002,p.34).ThisisinclosealignmentwiththecommunityelementinWenger’s

28

CoPframeworkandbecause“knowledgesharingactivitiescannotbesuccessfulwithout

theactiveparticipationofonlinemembers”(Chiu,Hsu,&Wang,2006),itisdeemedcritical

thatacultureofmutualengagementiscultivatedthroughwhichmeaningfulandfrequent

memberparticipationisencouraged,supportedandsustained(Brown&Duguid,2001;

Farooq,Schank,Harris,Fusco,&Schlager,2007;Gannon-Leary&Fontainha,2007;Goos&

Bennison,2007;Wenger,McDermott,&Snyder,2002;Wenger&Lave,1991).

Threesuccessfactorsareexaminedinthissectionascontributingtothecultivation

ofmutualengagement–growingmembership,knowledgesharing,andtrust.Thesefactors

arecommentedonheavilyintheliterature;forexample,Bourhis&Dube(2010)identify

the“twomostimportantsuccessfactorsforacommunityofpracticetobeknowledge

sharingandtrust”(p.177).Thesethreeelementsdistinctlyinfluenceoneanother;theyare

furtherinfluencedbythestageofmaturationofaparticularCoP(Barabetal.,2003;Iriberri

&Leroy,2009;EntienneWengeretal.,2002).Thissectionwilllookateachindividually

notonlyastheypertaintothecommunityelementoftheCoPmodelbutalsothroughthe

lensofanadaptedsocialcapitalmodel.

Interestedingainingabetterunderstandingofthesociallyconnectedprofessional

environment,Nahapiet&Ghoshal(1998)appliedtheprinciplesofsocialcapitalasamodel

whichtheydescribedashavingthreeprimarydimensions:theabilityofmembersto

connectwitheachother(structuraldimension),thedeepeningoftheseconnectionsinto

relationships(relationaldimension)andthedevelopmentofasharedcontextorlanguage

(inthebroadestsenseoftheword)betweenmemberstothebusinessworld(p.258-260).

Theuseofthismodelhasbeencarriedforwardintotheanalysisofcommunitiesofpractice

(Chang&Chuang,2011;Lesser&Storck,2001;Wasko&Faraj,2005;Chiuetal.,2006)and

29

providesahelpfulbackdropagainstwhichwewillexamineseveralkeyfactorsfeaturedin

theliteratureascriticalineffortstocultivateacultureofmutualengagement.

Growingamembership.Thelistsofmotivatingfactorsforjoiningaprofessional

communityofpracticearefairlystableandstandardizedacrosstheliterature,differing

onlyinfocusandbreadth.Lesser&Storck(2001)statethat“communitieshelpmembers

locateindividualswithexpertise,discoverotherswithsimilarexperiences,locatetoolsand

artifactsthathavebeenpreviouslydevelopedandidentifyoutsideinfluencesthatcanhelp

sparknewideas”(p.840)Gray(2004)indicatessimilarmotivatorsandaddsthat

communitymembershipadds“ameansofsocialandprofessionalconnectiontocolleagues,

andamechanismtoreducetheisolationthatwasinherentinthejobfunctionand

geographicallocation”(p.23).Jarrahi&Sawyer(2012),intheirstudyoftheusesofsocial

mediaforknowledgenetworking,identifyfive“knowledgepractices”thatdriveindividuals

toCoPs:expertiselocating,expertlocating,reachingout,socializing,andhorizon

broadening(p.12-13).Inanexhaustivereviewoftheliterature,Iriberri&Leroy(2009)

listedinformationexchange,socialsupport,socialinteraction,timeandlocationflexibility

andpermanencyasthebenefitsofonlineCoPsforindividuals(p.11:8).

Thesefourexamplesillustratewhatresearchhasconfirmed:mostpeoplejoinCoPs

inordertoconnect,learn,shareandexpandtheirprofessionalnetwork.Whilethis

representsthereasonsforbecomingandstayingamember,itrepresentsonlythe

structuraldimensionofthesocialcapitalframework,inthatthesedescribeonlywhy

membersareconnectingratherthandescribingthedeepeningoftheirconnectionstothat

ofrelationships.

Strategiesforbuildingmembershipasdelineatedbythestageofmaturationofa

30

CoParesummarizedwellbyWenger(2002);intheearlystagesofCoPgrowth,finding

existingnetworksorindividualswhoarealreadyalignedwiththepurposeoftheCoP,

buildingacaseformembership,spreadingtheword,hostingeventsandothertypical

membership-buildingactivitiescommontomostmembership-basedgroups(p.71-75).

Theissueofmembershipdiversityasdiscussedearlierwouldalsobewellsuitedtoshaping

recruitmenteffortsatthispointintime.On-goingresponsibilitiesforgrowingand

sustainingmembershipinvolvestheintegrationofnewmembers,trustbuilding,the

recognitionofcontributionsandmembersatisfactionmanagement(Wenger,2002;Ibiberri

&Leroy,2009).

Knowledgesharing.Asnotedpreviously,anactiveandengagedmembershipis

criticaltothesuccessofaCoPandwhilejoiningaCoPisthefirststeptoconnecting

members,itisthroughtheprocessofbuildingrelationshipsandmovingtowardsfull

participationthattherelationaldimensionofsocialcapitalisactualized.Andwhilemuch

oftheresearchdoneinthebusinesscontextconcernstheinfluenceoftheorganizational

culture,managementsupportandotherfactorsthatwewillnotconsiderhere,individual

motivationsforknowledgesharingacrosscontextshavebeenwelldocumented.Oneofthe

mostcommonpersonalmotivatortowardsknowledgesharingappearedtobethedesireto

buildone’sprofessionalreputationorstatusasanexpert,bothforpersonaladvancement

andforstatusinthecommunityitself(Ardichvili,2008;Ardichvili,Page,&Wentling,2003;

Cheung,Lee,&Lee,2013;Kao&Tsai,2009).LesserandStorck(2001)describesimilar

findings,concludingthat“communitiesofpracticehelpedindividualsbuildreputations

bothassubjectmatterexpertsandasindividualsthatwerewillingtohelpothers.This

reputationdevelopmentwascitedasanimportantbenefitfromparticipatingincommunity

31

activities”(p.838).

Somewhatconversely,researchersalsofoundthatforsomecommunitymembers,

themotivationtosupportthecommunityasawholeoutpacedthedesireforself-

advancement(Chiuetal.,2006;McLureWasko&Faraj,2000;Wasko&Faraj,2005).

Anotherreasoncitedforon-goingactivitywasthe“friendlybondingandbanter”thatwas

experiencedasamemberofthecommunity(Gareis&Nussbaum-Beach,2008;Riverin&

Stacey,2008).

Barrierstoon-goingparticipationarealsofairlywelldocumented.Studiescitea

lackofavailabletime(AlexanderArdichvilietal.,2003;Baek&Schwen,2006;Hew&Hara,

2006;Johnson,2001;Riverin&Stacey,2008),alackofsocialconnectednesswiththe

community(Gannon-Leary&Fontainha,2007;Goos&Bennison,2007;Riverin&Stacey,

2008)andthefearofprovidinginadequateorinaccurateinformationorknowledge(Gray,

2005;Hew&Hara,2006;Hsu,Chang,&Yen,2011).Interestingly,thereappearedtosome

disagreementwhenitcametothequestionofwhetheranonymityisapositiveornegative

influenceonknowledgesharing;forexample,Ardichviliet.al.(2003)foundthatmembers

weremorelikelytoshareifaskedbypeopletheyknew(p.72)yettheoptiontoremain

anonymoustookawaythefearofbeingberatedifaresponsewasdeemedinsufficientas

foundbyGray(2005).Alsointerestingwasthefindingaboutreciprocity,whichwas

identifiedasacatalystforknowledgesharinginface-to-facecommunitiesofpractice

(Wenger,Etienne,1998),butdidnotpersistasamotivatororbarrierforparticipationin

theonlineenvironment(Chiuetal.,2006;Wasko&Faraj,2005).Theresearchers

postulatedthatthismightbeduetothe“generalizedreciprocity”thatoccursintheonline

environmentinwhichthereislessexpectationthatreciprocitywouldbeasdirectinface-

32

to-faceencountersandwideacceptancethataresponseislikelytocomefromathirdparty

(Wasko&Faraj,2005,p.51).

Suggestedstrategiesforovercomingthemorecommonbarrierstoparticipation

wereofferedthroughouttheliteraturewiththeexceptionofthehurdleposedbyalackof

time;althoughthisappearedfrequentlyandacrossanumberofstudiesasnotedabove,

thiswasgenerallyleftonthetableasasituationalorpersonalissue.Oneresearcherdid

suggest,however,thatthisbarrierbereframedasataskprioritizationissueandaddressed

throughbettermanagementsupportandencouragementconcerningCoPinvolvement

(Hew&Hara,2006).Therewasnofollowupastowhetherthiswasattempted.

Thereluctancetoparticipatebasedonalackofsocialconnectivitywiththe

community,aswellasthefearthatonemightcontributeill-formedorincorrect

information,werebothtiedtoneophytestatusinalmostallthestudiesreviewed.Asmany

ofthestrategiesforoffsettingthesenseofdisconnectednessexperiencedbynewcomersto

theCoParestrategiesforbuildingtrust,theywillbeaddressedinthenextsegment.

Trust.Thereismuchintheliteraturethatdescribestrustasafundamental

requirementforcreatingacultureofmutualengagementinaCoP(Abd-Elazizetal.,2012;

A.Ardichvili,2008;Dzunic,Zeljiko,Stoimenov,Leonid,&Dzunic,Marija,2011;Hsuetal.,

2011;J.Preece,2004;Wasko&Faraj,2005).ThisisreiteratedevenbytheU.S.Department

ofEducation,inits2011reportononlinecommunitiesofpracticeineducation,withthe

statementthat“asenseoftrustisparamountinonlinecommunities.Peopleneedtofeel

comfortableadmittingwhattheydon’tknow,askingofhelp,sharingtheirthoughts,

exposingtheirpracticeasaworkinprogressandtakingrisks—ofteninfullviewofalarge

group(U.S.Dept.ofEducation,p.15).Andwhilealackoftrustisoftenapartofbeingnew

33

toacommunity,aswasnotedabove,itcanalsobearesultofbeingunfamiliarwithonline

environments(Gannon-Leary&Fontainha,2007)ortechnologies(Attwell&Elferink,

2007)orreflectalackoftrustintheCoP’ssponsoringinstitutionororganization

(Ardichvilietal.,2003).

Onecommonlysuggestedstrategyforbuildingtrustisthecreationofshared

guidelinesbywhichthemembersabide;Ardichvili(2003)describestheseas“asetof

clearlycommunicatednormsandstandardsforsharingknowledge,whichwouldreduce

theanxietyassociatedwiththeuncertaintyaboutwhatconstitutesacceptablepostings,

etc”((p.74).Usingasimilarargument,Preece(2004)pointsoutthatitisimportantto

“identifyandestablishacceptable,stablenorms,becausewithoutthemempathyandtrust

arethreatened”(p.299).

Anotherstrategyistoscaffoldtheonlineenvironmentwithin-personmeetingsor

socialevents,particularlyfornewcomers;Young&Tseng(2008)aptlydescribethe

difficultiesofbuildingtrustonline,where,theysay“thesenseofsocialdistanceandthe

lackofsocialcuesmakeithardforpeopletoidentifywitheachotherandtoassessmutual

ability,integrity,andbenevolence”(p.60).Toovercomethesedifficulties,andasameans

tobuildingrapportandbridgingsaiddistances,itissuggestedthatface-to-facemeetingsof

theCoParescheduledeitherinitially,asareoccurringeventorincoordinationwithother

professionalmeetingsorconferences(Attwell&Elferink,2007;Goos&Bennison,2007;

Johnson,2001;Riverin&Stacey,2008).Bourhis&Dube(2010)statethat“live

interactionsseemtobeusedtocreatetemporalrhythmwhichhelpskeepthevirtual

communityalive”(p.186)andBabinskietal.(2001)addthatsuchmeetingsallowfor

“opportunitiesformemberstogettoknowoneanotheranddevelopasenseoftrustand

34

belongingness”(p.167).Thesuggestiontostageface-to-facemeetingsforonline

communitiesofpracticeisrepeatedthroughouttheliterature.

Bourhis&Dube(2010)alsopointoutthatacultureofmutualengagementcanbe

supportedby“devotingtimetounderstandingthemembers’needsinordertomakesure

thatthecommunitykeepsinlinewiththem”isnecessary(p.177).Thisincludesattending

toanydifficultiesfacedbymemberwiththetechnologyoronlineenvironment.

WhilethesearebutthreeratherglobalstrategiesforbuildingtrustinCoPs,there

areothers-dependentonthegrowthstage,themembershipconstituency,thepracticeand

purposeoftheCoP–thatexistintheliterature.OnceaCoPhasbeenanalyzedandits

particularattributesandcharacteristicsestablished,itissuggestedthatcommunity

stewardsavailthemselvesofthebreadthofthisresearch.

Summary–cultivatingacultureofmutualengagement.Thissegmenthas

examinedthreefactorsessentialtothecultivationofacultureofmutualengagement

withinaCoP:growingamembership,knowledgesharing,andtrust.Thesefactors,which

mirrorthestructuralelementof“community”inWenger’sCoPframework,alsosupport

thedevelopmentofsocialcapitalbyfosteringmemberconnections(structuraldimension)

andthedeepeningofthoseconnectionsintorelationships(relationaldimension).Inthe

nextsegment,wewilllookatcultivatingacultureofsustainability,whichembodiesboth

thefinaldimensionofsocialcapitaldevelopment–thatofsharedcontextorlanguage–and

thethirdstructuralelementofWenger’sframework,thatofpractice.

SummativeCategory3:CultivatingaCultureofSustainability

Acultureofsustainability,asdescribedhere,isnotanefforttowardsextendingthe

lifespanofaCoPorrepurposingitswork.Insteadthefactorswithinthiscategoryfocuson

35

thenotionthat“thesustainabilityofanonlinecommunity,particularlyanonline

communityofpractice,dependslargelyonwhethermembersarewillingtoinitiallyand

continuallyshare”(Cheung,et.al.20013).Wewillbreakthatdownintotwofactorsfor

success:leadership/governanceforsustainabilityandcontentmanagement.

Acultureofsustainabilityalsodescribesthesupportnecessaryforthedevelopment

ofthethirddimensionofsocialcapital,thatofacommoncontextorlanguage,andalsofor

actualizingWenger’sconceptofpractice.

InthecaseofWenger,hisdescriptionofpractice-thethirdstructuralelementofhis

CoPframework-isbroad.It“establishesabaselineofcommonknowledgethatcanbe

assumedonthepartofeachfullmember”,thussettingtheboundariesforcentral

membership.Italso“exploresboththeexistingbodyofknowledgeandthelatestadvances

inthefield”,“embodiesthehistoryofthecommunityandtheknowledgeithasdeveloped”,

and“providesresourcesthatenablememberstohandlenewsituationsandcreatenew

knowledge”.Anditalso“denotesasetofsociallydefinedwaysofdoingthingsinaspecific

domain”(Wenger,2002,p.38).Itistheoutputofthecommunity,thesocialmoresofthe

community,theexplorationofideasbythecommunityand“anongoinginterplayof

codificationandinteractions,oftheexplicitandthetacit”(p.39).Inotherwords,itisthe

activitiesandoutcomesofacommunityofpracticeatwork.

However,tobesuccessful,theseendeavorsneedtobesustainedandsointhis

section,wewillexplorethechallengesandstrategiesforleadership,andforcontent

management,thatappearintheliteratureaskeyfactorsinthesuccessfulcultivationofa

cultureofsustainability.

Leadership.Communitiesofpractice,likeanygroupenterprise,requireoversight

36

andleadershiptoflourish(Bourhis,Dubé,&Jacob,2005;J.S.Brown&Duguid,1991;Dubé,

Bourhis,&Jacob,2006;Farooqetal.,2007;Wengeretal.,2002;Wenger,White,&Smith,

2009)withtheliteraturesuggestingleadershippracticesbasedontheCoP’sstageof

growth.Wenger(2002)describesfivestagesofcommunitydevelopment:potential,

coalescing,maturing,stewardshipandtransformation;eachofthesestagesshifttheduties

ofleadershipprogressivelyawayfrombuildingtowardsmaintenance,categorizingcontent

andrefiningactivitiesandmemberconnections(p.68).Ibiberri&Leroy(2009)also

proposefivedistinctstagesofdevelopment-inception,creation,growth,maturity,death-

althoughthemodelcyclesiterativelythroughthefirstfourstagesuntilitentersthefinal

stage(p.11:18)andJohnson(2001)outlinesthreeadditionalmodels,allofwhichfollowa

similartime-basedprogression(p.51)frompre-topost-existence.Suggested

managementandleadershipactivitiesmimicthosefoundwithinWenger’smodel;inthe

earlystages,theemphasisisoncoalescingthemembership,establishingnorms,confirming

thepurposeofthegroupandbuildingconnections.Laterstagesfocusonmonitoringfor

decreasedactivityandstrategiesforreversingsuchtrends,redefiningthescopeofthe

group,cyclingleadershipduties,catalogingcontentandmaterialsgeneratedbytheCoP

andexpandingfromboundingsocialcapital,orthedevelopmentofsocialcapitalwithinthe

group,tothedevelopmentofbridgingsocialcapitalwhichextendsconnectionstoother

groups(Iriberri&Leroy,2009).

Thequestionofoptimalleadershipisalsoinvestigatedintheliteratureand,incases

wherethereisasponsoringinstitutionororganization,thestyleandhierarchical

organizationofthesponsordoesinfluencetheeffectivemanagementandultimatelythe

successoftheCoP(Wenger,2009).Forcommunitiesthatdonothaveaninfluential

37

organizationoverseeingthem,theliteratureisclearthatthemosteffectiveleadershipwill

mostlikelycomefromthecommunityitself(Barabetal.,2003;Dubéetal.,2006;Iriberri&

Leroy,2009).Infact,Farooqetal.(2007)makesthisquiteclearafterareviewofthe

variables,instating:“leadershipbycommunitymembers,whoareintrinsicallymotivated

togivebacktothecommunity,entailsbetterlong-termsustainableconsequencesthan

designingcontrivedandpossiblyconstrainingleadershiproles”(p.422).Evenmember-

basedleaders,however,arecautionedthatthe“linebetweencontrollingandmonitoring

thecommunitymaysometimesbethin(but)VCoPsshouldbemonitoredinorderto

encouragequalityinteractionsandtohelpbuildlegitimacy”(BourhisandDube,2010,p.

179).Thissuggeststhatleadershipusealighthandinoverseeingtheactionsofthe

communityofpractice.

Anothersuggestedbestpracticefortheleadershipistoensurethatthereare

pathwaysformemberstoprogressfromnovicetoparticipantandalsotoleadership.Zhao

&Bishop(2011)maketheclaimthat“theevolutionofaCoPrequiresdistinguishing

betweenperipheralandcoreparticipantsandaddressingtheirneedsdifferently.

SuccessfulCoPsfulfilltheneedsofbothgroupswhilefacilitatingthetransitionfrom

peripheraltocentralparticipation”(p.731).ThisisechoedbyLesser&Storck(2001),who

acknowledgeboththenecessityofattendingtoexistingmembersandtocultivatingthe

potentialfoundinperipheralmembersbyobserving:“thenatureofparticipationmustbe

engagingalthoughthereisclearlyroomforwhatiscalledlegitimateperipheral

participation.Indeed,peripheralmembersbringingnewideascancatalyzeinnovation”(p.

832).AndtheU.S.DepartmentofEducation,initsreportontheuseofonlinecommunities

ineducation(2011),makesaparallelstatementconcerningthevarioustypesofusersthat

38

needtobeservedwithinasinglecommunity:“Itisimportantforcommunitiesto

understandtheneedsoftheirreaders,notjusttheirmostactiveusers—evenastheymake

everyefforttoencouragedeeperformsofparticipation,rolesandresponsibilitiestowhich

educatorscanaspire”(p.23).Balancingtheneedofamixedmembershipsurelyisoneof

thecriticaltasksfacedbytheleadershipofaCoP.

Whilethereareundoubtedlymanyfactorsatplaywhenconsideringbestpractices

forleadingtheshifting,multifacetedentitythatisacommunityofpractice,thereisonelast

successelementthatbearsmentioninginthisbriefoverview:thatoffunding.The

knowledgemanagementliteraturecomingoutofthebusinesssectorusuallyoverlooksthis

asmostcorporate-basedCoPsfunctionsaspartoftheorganization.However,the

literatureofnon-corporateCoPsdoesnotlistthisasfrequentlyasonemightexpect.

Indeed,Bourhis&Dubé(2010)claimthat“providingfinancialresourcesseemstobe

particularlyvital”andgoontoexplainhowsuchfundingcanbeusedto“sustaintheir

virtualexistenceandface-to-facemeetingsformemberstodeveloprelationshipsthatlead

tofruitfulvirtualinteractions”(p.187).Resourceallocationordevelopmentiscertainly

somethingaleadershipteamshouldconsiderifseekingtosustainahealthyCoP.

Managingcontent.Inthecourseofpursuingitspractice,acommunitygenerates

content;Wenger(2002)confirmsthiswithhisobservationthat“successfulpractice

developmentdependsonabalancebetweenjointactivitiesinwhichmembersexplore

ideastogether,andtheproductionof‘things’,likedocumentsandtools”(p.39).However,

Wenger’scommentreferencesaface-to-facecommunity;inanonlinecommunity,eventhe

actofexploringideascreatesartifactsandtrailsofdocuments.Wengeraddressesthislater

inanoteaboutdistributedcommunities,stating“thisinfocaneasilybecomeajunkyardof

39

disorganizedinsights,particularlyiftheyareorganizedaccordingtoonlyone

taxonomy…organizingtherepositoryappropriatelyisacrucialobjective”(p.102).

Whilethisiscertainlytrue,andamattertobetakenupwithagoodsitedesigner,

thesamesentimentresonatesinthestatementbyFarzanetal.(2009)that“the

sustainabilityofonlinecommunitiesdependsontwomainfactors:thecreationofquality

contentandthecontinuinginteractionofusersaroundthiscontent”(p.31).AnonlineCoP,

“baseduponuser-producedcontent”(Atwell,2007,p.11)becomestheembodimentofthe

community’sworkbutevenifitiswellorganized,howisonetoknowwhatisimportantto

view?Whichresourcesarenottomiss?Whilerankingschemessuchasthoseononline

shoppingsitesarementionedinpassingintheliterature,Farzan,DiMicco,&Brownholtz

(2009)deployedasystemthatrotatedthedutiesofcuratingandpromotingresources

throughoutthemembership.Inadditiontobringingintocirculationresourcesthatmay

havenotbeenviewedbythemembership,thisactivityalso“encouragedasocialdialogue

betweenuserswhowouldnototherwisecommunicate”(Farzan,DiMicco,etal.,2009,p.

39).Thistypeofmutuallybeneficialmemberactivitiesisawonderfulillustrationofhowa

communitycanfosteracultureofsustainability.

Summary–cultivatingacultureofsustainability.Inthissegment,wehave

lookedasjusttwofactorsthatcanleadtoacultureofsustainabilityforacommunityof

practice:governanceandleadershipforsustainabilityandmanagingthecontentcreated

bythecommunity.Bothofthesefactorscanbeleveragedassupportforthecommunity’s

practiceanditsdevelopmentofcognitivesocialcapital.Next,weturnourattentiontothe

craftingofanenvironmentinwhichtheworkofanonlinecommunitycannotonlytake

placebutthrive.

40

SummativeCategory4:CultivatinganArchitectureforParticipation

Thisfourthcategoryofconsiderationsforcommunityofpracticesuccessisunique

tothetechnology-mediatedcommunityofpracticeastheyconcerntheonlineenvironment.

Inusingtheterm“architectureforparticipation”wearecallingforsomethingthatismore

thanthesumofitsparts.Notonlydoesitentailfunctionaldesign–andorganize“the

repositoryappropriately”asWengeradmonished(2002,p.102)-butitshouldalsoinclude

propersupportssoastoeliminateasmuchaspossiblethebarriersthattechnologymight

presentforanygivenmemberorforthewhole.Wewillthusdividethisconstructintotwo

factors,1)designand2)technologysupport,andlookbrieflyatwhattheliterature

recommendsinorderfortheseelementstosupportasuccessfulcommunityofpractice.

Designconsiderations.Thefirstconsiderationwhenlookingatdesigninthe

contextofanonlineCoPistoacknowledge,ashasBarabetal.(2003),that“thetechnology

determinestheepistemology.Bythiswemeanthattheprogrammingthatcreatesthe

designedtechnologicalinterfaceiscomposedofdecisionsthatincorporatecertain

ideologies.Attheleast,theylimitsometypesofexchangeandencourageothers”(p.249).

Thissimplestatementdoesindeedsumuptherealitywhenworkingwithanykindof

technologyinthepursuitoflearning;therearelimitstowhatcanbedonegiventhe

boundariesimposedbyachosentechnology.Italsoillustratestheprimarytensionwhenit

comestodesigninganenvironmentforaCoP:howdoesonesimultaneouslysupportthe

self-designinherentintheCoPmodel,bywhichacommunityshapesitsownexperience,

yetalsopre-createafixedsetofconstructsinwhichthisworkistohappen?

Theliteraturehassuggestionsinhowtoresolvethisduality.Atwellsuggeststhat“a

41

virtualcommunity-oranytraditionalorganization-isthedesignedcommunity,whereas

thecommunityofpracticeiswhatemergesfromthedesignedcommunity.Thebestone

candoissetupadesign(e.g.avirtualcommunity)andhopetheemergingcommunityof

practicecanachieveitsgoalsoflearningandgrowthwithinandaroundit”(p.9).Barabet

al.(2003)isalittlemoreoptimisticandoffersthepracticeof“minimalistdesign”:“theidea

istocreateatentativeplatformandthenfacilitatethecommunityingrowingandevolving

itsownspace,aprocessthatinvolveswalkingthetightropebetweendesigningthe

communityandallowingittoemergeformtheneedsandagendasofitsmembers”(p.242).

Thismethodofminimalistdesignrequires“co-evolutionary”design(ratherthan

participatory)asitmustcontinuetobeshapedthroughcollaborativeworkbetweenthe

designteamandthecommunityitselfastimeprogresses.Farooqetal.(2007)supports

thisasasolutionbyfindingthat“designinterventionsthatenhanceenduserparticipation

andinteractionwiththedesignersofthecommunityinfrastructurecanleadto

sustainability”(p.400).Whatremainstobeseenisifthistimeandresourceintensive

methodissustainableoverthelifespanofacommunityorifthemaintenanceofthe

environmentcanslowlybeshiftedtotheCoPitself.

Beyondthisbalanceofexternalandinternalenvironmentaldesign,anygiven

communitywouldneedtoundergoathoroughanalysisinordertodeterminetheexactset

oftoolsandfunctionsthatwouldbestsupporttheirefforts.Lesser&Storck(2001)

recommendthattheonlinecommunityatleastleverage“theinformationtechnologyto

makeiteasierforindividualstolocateandcontactfellowcommunitymembers(andto)

identifyexperts…whocouldbevaluableinaddressingquestionsposedbycommunity

members”(p.834).Thiswouldprovideameansforfacilitatinganddeepeningmember

42

connectionsandalsosupportthecommunitydimensioninWenger’sCoPmodelandthe

relationaldimensionofthesocialcapitalframework,thusbuildingtheoverallcommunity.

Thisisagoodexampleofafeaturetobefoundinthedesignofanarchitecturefor

participation.

Scaffoldingtechnology.Intermsofsupportingasuccessfulcommunity,the

variouscombinationsofpossibletechnologiesareseeminglyendlessandagain,theneeds

andcharacteristicsofagivencommunityshoulddrivealltechnologicalchoices.However,

thereisoneareathatisrepeatedmentionedintheliteratureandsomustbeincludedhere

andthatistheimportanceofsupportandscaffoldingfortheuseofwhichevertechnologies

acommunitychoosestouse.Guldberg&Mackness(2009)indicate“researchhighlights

theimportanceofassessingthetechnicalexpertiseofparticipants,particularlywhena

numberofdifferenttechnologicaltoolsareused”(p.536);almostallthestudiesreviewed

urgedaplanofactiontosupportmembersastheygainthetechnologicalskillsnecessary

forpracticaluseoftheonlineenvironment.Johnson(2001)addstothisthat“theseskills

includenotonlyoperationofthetechnologybutskillsinasynchronousandsynchronous

discussionaswellasonlinecollaboration”(p.53).Evenastechnologybecomesmoreand

moreubiquitous,itisstillworthwhiletoprovidethesesupportsandseekthisinputto

avoidisolatingmembersduetotechnologicalissues.

Summary–cultivatinganarchitectureforparticipation.Itisimportantthatthe

useoftechnologynotovershadowthecalltoactionthatconstitutesthecreationofan

onlinecommunityofpractice.Choosingasitedesignthatisshapedbyandreactivetothe

needsofthecommunity,andtakingthetimetoplanintentionalsupportsandscaffolding

fortheuseofwhatevertechnologiestheCoPchoosestousetosupportitsworkaretwo

43

waysthatacommunitycancultivateanarchitectureforparticipation.

SummaryofSuccessFactorCategories

TheanalysisofthemostfrequentlycitedCoPsuccessfactorsinthecommunityof

practiceresearchliteratureproducedfourcategoriesofsuccessfactors.Thesefour

categoriesinvolvethecultivationandmaintenanceof1)acultureofinquirythatfosters

andsupportscriticaldialogue,2)acultureofmutualengagementinwhichmemberstrust

andshareknowledgefreely,3)acultureofsustainabilitythatsupportscommunity

persistenceandorganization,and4)anarchitectureforparticipationthatsupports

accessibilitytoboththecommunityandsharedresources.Whilethesecategoriesare

effectivefororganizingandanalyzingCoPsuccessfactors,oneofthemostfrequentlyand

emphaticallycitedelementsforsuccess–thatofaskilledmoderatororfacilitator-defied

suchcategorizationastheliteratureindicateitasrelevanttoall.Giventhattheliterature

pointstothepresenceofamoderatoraskeytosuccessinalltheseareas,thenextsection

focusesonthisoverarchingsuccessfactorandestablishesthebasisforthisstudy.

TheRoleofModerator

Thestewardshipprovidedbyacapablemoderatorshowsuphighonalmostevery

listofsuccessfactorsforonlinecommunitiesofpractice.Accordingtotheliterature,the

workofthemoderatoristhatof“anunsunghero”(Wenger,2009);Atwell(2007)praises

MagdaBalica’sdepictionoftheCoPmoderatoras“ashepherd,akeeperofthepurpose,a

guardianofthecommunity,atimekeeper,aco-explorerofmeaning,aco-explorerof

contexts,amoverofinquiry,ahostatabanquet”asanaccuraterepresentationofthemany

servicesprovidedtothecommunitybyagoodmoderator(p.13).

Wenger(2002)makesthisalittlemoreconcrete;hestatesthatthejobofthe

44

moderatoris“tofosterhorizontalrelationships,nottocreateahierarchicalchannelof

informationthoughwhichmembersmustnavigate.Coordinatorsconnectpeople;theydo

notconveyinformation.Theybrokerrelationships,notknowledge”(p.128).Indeed,given

thatthemembershipofanonlineCoPcanbeputoffbyissueswithtechnologyorbynot

feelingconnectedtothegroup,someonehastobetheretoassist.Guldbergmakesthis

pointevenmoredirectly,notingthat“whenlearnersfailtounderstandculture,normsand

learningtensions,donothavethenecessarytechnicalskillsandthusexperiencenegative

emotion,theyareunabletoestablisheffectiveconnectionsandmayfindthemselvesin

isolationfromthecommunity(p.536).Theliteraturesuggeststhatthesearethegapsinto

whichthemoderatorstepsso,inordertobetterunderstandthisrole,wewilllookat

examplesofhowthemoderatorsupportstheworkinthesummativecategoriesestablished

previously.

ModeratorRole:CultivatingaCultureofInquiry

Cultivatingacultureofinquiryincludescraftingastrongandinclusivepurposefor

thegroup,encouragingcriticaldiscourseanddevelopingadiversemembershipintermsof

experiencelevels,expertiseandareasoffocusorinterest.

Oneofthemoredifficultelementsinthiscategoryforthemoderatortoachieveis

thatoffosteringcriticaldiscourse;Gray(2005)describesashelping“thecommunityevolve

fromaforumforsharinginformationtoacommunityofpracticewhereknowledgeis

constructedthroughsharedlearning”(p.27).McDermott(2001)reflectsthatthe

moderator’s“primaryroleislinkingpeople,notgivinganswers”and“buildinga

communitythattrusteachotherenoughtoaskforhelpandsharehalf-bakedideas“(p.12).

Intruth,communitiesfrequentlystruggletogetbeyondpoliteandinnocuousbanter,andit

45

iseasytounderstandhowaneffectivemoderatormightbenecessarytoprodthe

membershipbeyondthiscomfortabledialogueandintocriticaldiscussions.Wenger,who

hasadopted“socialartist”asadescriptivetermforagroup’smoderator,pointsoutthat

“socialartistshelpusexperienceourselvesaslearningcitizens.Theyknowhowtobring

outourpassions.Theymakeuscaretothepointofengagingourwholepersoninasocial

learningspace”(2009,p.10)andinthisway,moderatorscanopenupdialoguewhereit

mightnotexist.

Barabetal.(2003)indicatesthatcriticaldiscoursecanalsosufferwhencoreor

seniormembersofthecommunityaretootightlyalignedwithoneanotherandalienated

fromnewcomers;hereportsthatagoodmoderatorcanmixthingsupinordertoreverse

trendsthatmayresultin“newmembershavingfeweropportunitiesfornegotiation

becausetheidentityofthecommunityappearsalreadyestablished”(p.248).Fontaine

(2001)describesasimilarmoderatoractivityandstates“theyencourageandenergize

participationbyinteractingwiththecommunity,byendorsingideas,andbydirecting

knowledgetotheappropriateexperts.”(p.129).Itisthismixingupoftheoldandnew,the

unknownandtheknownthatseemscriticaltoinspiretruecriticaldiscourse.

ModeratorRole:CultivatingaCultureofMutualEngagement

Cultivatingacultureofmutualengagementinvolvesgrowingamembership,

fosteringknowledgesharingingeneralandbuildingtrust.Naturally,moderatorsoften

playacriticalpartingrowingandsustainingthemembershipofaCoP.Theyworkwith

managementorthegroupitselftosolicitnewmembers,theywelcomenewcomers,they

“energizethecommunityandserveaschiefmotivator”(Fontaine,2001)andthey“keep

peopleinformedofwhateachotherisdoingandcreateopportunitiesforpeopletoget

46

togethertoshareideas”(McDermott,2001).Asifthiswerenotsufficient,Fontaine(2001)

echoeswhatisnotedinmuchofthegroupleadershipliterature(Gairín-Sallán,Rodríguez-

Gómez,&Armengol-Asparó,2010;Garavan,Carbery,&Murphy,2007;Tarmizi&de

Vreede,2005;Tarmizi,2007)whenhegoesontosaythat“facilitatorsareresponsiblefor

brokering,networking,andconnectingcommunitymembers”butmustalso“provide

closurewhennecessaryandgiveconstructivefeedback“(p.129).Asnoted,thetasks

associatedwithmanagingthemembershiparebroadandrequireagreatamountoftime

andenergyonbehalfofthemoderator.

Themoderatoralsomustleadthecommunityingeneratingtrust,oftenbymodeling

behaviorsandnormsforparticipationwithinthecommunity.Babinskietal.(2001),in

describinghowaparticularcommunitydesiredproblemsolvingwouldoccurinitsforums,

notedthatthemoderatorwould“modelthisprocessormakeitmoreexplicitbydiscussing

itwithinthecontextofa‘real’discussiononline”(p.168).McDermott(2001)tellsofeven

manipulatingthesocialorderdirectly,describingtimeswhenthemoderator“orchestrated

communityinthebeginningsothatasenior,well-respectedcommunitymemberasksfor

help”(p.11),allowingthecommunityitselftodemonstratenormsandtrust.Thesearebut

twoexamplesfromtheliteraturedescribingstrategiesforencouragingmutualengagement

forthosewhomaybeontheperipheryofthecommunity.

ModeratorRole:CultivatingaCultureofSustainability

Cultivatingacultureofsustainabilityforacommunityofpracticeinvolves

developingthegroup’ssenseofcontinuityinanumberofways;wefocushereongrowing

resourcesandleadership,twokeystosustainingaCoP.Wenger(2002)notesthat

“communitiesoftenbeginwithaspikeofinterestandenergy…however,afterthefirst

47

event,therealityofthecommunitywork—networking,sharingideas,maintaintheweb

site,typicallysetsinandpeople’senergyforthecommunitycanfalloffsharply”(p.84).

Stuckey&Smith(2005)whosescholarshipiscenteredonstrategiesforthisparticularlife

phaseofaCoP,referthistotheperiodafterthe“firstblush”isgone(p.4)butrefertoall

stagesofacommunity’sdevelopmentinsayingthat“sustainingacommunityofpractice

involvesdeliberatelyrespondingtochangeinacommunity’slifetogetheraswell”.Theygo

ontotellthestoryofthemoderatorwhoheld“a10-yearbirthdaybashforthe

community…wherecommunitymembersingeneralcancelebrateandreflectontheirtime

together,reconnectsthecommunity,sustainsit,andmovesitforward”(p.4).Creatingan

environmentthathonorstheon-goingchangesthatinevitablyarefacedbyanevolving

communityisanotherchallengefacedbyagroup’smoderator.

Ofcourse,sustainabilityalsomeansthatacommunitymustfindthenecessary

resourcestocontinuetoexist.Stuckey&Smith(2005)refertothisinstatingthatthe

abilityofthemoderator(andthesponsor,ifthereisone)todraw“appropriate

nourishment(i.e.newtopicsornewbloodandprobablynewmoney)fromthe

environmentisakeyconsideration”(p.6).

ModeratorRole:CultivatinganArchitectureforParticipation

Theprevalenceandusefulnessofconnectivetechnologyinsupportinga

geographicallydispersedCoPhasbeenstatedandrealized;itisfurthersuggestedbythe

literaturethatchoosingasitedesignshapedby,andreactiveto,theneedsoftheonlineCoP

isimportantforfosteringparticipation.McDermott(2001),forexample,pointsoutthatany

technologicaldesign“shouldreflectthenaturalwaycommunitymembersthinkabouttheir

fieldoftopic…thekeytomakinginformationeasytofindistoorganizeitaccordingtoa

48

schemethattellsastoryaboutthedisciplineinthelanguageofthediscipline”(p.11).

Determiningthenatureoftheonlineenvironmentmaybeoutsidethescopeofthe

moderator’sdutiesbutitisworthnotingthatincaseswheretheyareinvolved,attention

shouldbepaidtothisfactorforsuccess.

Givenanonlinecommunity’srelianceontechnology,“adequatescaffoldinginthe

formofbothtechnicalsupportandusageofthetechnologyforcommunicationand

collaborationisnecessary”(Johnson,2001,p.56).Thisthenisanotheraspectof

cultivatinganarchitectureforsuccessandonewhichoftendoesfallwithintherangeof

supportofferedbythemoderator,especiallyforsmallercommunities.Indeed,Bourhiset

al.(2010)foundthat“theleaderplaysacriticalroleinenablingmemberstoparticipateby

givingthemindividualhelpandremovingobstaclestotheirinput”(p.186)sowhilesuch

supportisclearlyanadvantageinsupportingtheoverallsuccessofthecommunity,itisthe

moderatorisoftencastintheroleoftechnological“firstresponder”.

Conclusions

SummaryofFactors

Wehavelookedatanumberofelementsidentifiedbytheliteratureascriticalfor

growingandsustaininganonlinecommunityofpractice.Cultivatingacultureofinquiry

includescraftingastrongandinclusivepurposeforthegroup,encouragingcritical

discourseandmaintainingamembershipthatisdiverseintermsofexpertise,experience

andfocusofinterest;theseelementsmapontoWenger’sdimensionof“domain”andthe

socialcapitalstructuraldimensionorconnectivity.Cultivatingacultureofmutual

engagementinvolvesgrowingamembership,fosteringknowledgesharingandbuilding

trust;theseactivitiesaretiedtoWenger’scommunitydimensionandthesocialcapital

49

dimensionsidentifiedasstructuralandrelationalbutwhichagainreferenceconnectivity.

Incultivatingacultureofsustainability,aCoPrequiresleadershipfromwithinandavital

growingbodyofresourcesandartifactstoshare;thisisWenger’spracticedimensionand

thesocialcapitalcognitiveorsharedlanguagedimension.Andfinally,inthecaseof

technologymediatedcommunitiesofpractice,creatingandsustaininganarchitecturethat

fostersmemberparticipationthroughparticipatoryandco-evolutionarydesignand

scaffoldingfortechnologyuseaidsinensuringthatmembersdonotexperiencebarriers

duetotheonlinenatureofthecommunity.Andinalltheseareas,wehaveseenhowa

designatedmoderatorcanfillingaps,assist,supportandotherwisegentlydrivethe

communitymakingthatroleacriticalneedindeed.Table2.1summarizesthefindingsof

thisliteraturereviewandthefoursuccessfactorsummativecategories.

TheroleoftheModeratorandtheneedforfurtherstudy

Asmentionedpreviously,thisisnotanexhaustiveliteraturereviewanditisentirely

possiblethatsomevaluablestudiesweremissed.However,asBourhiset.al(2010)report:

“Amongthecommunitiesinoursample,thosewhosesuccessexceededinitialexpectations

hadveryinvolvedleaderswhopossessedtheabilitytobuildpoliticalalliances,tofoster

trust,andtofindinnovativewaystoencourageparticipation.Thesepeopleendedupin

thisimportantpositionbecauseamemberoftheorganization’smanagementteamorthe

sponsorhaddecidedthattheyhadtherightsetofabilitiesandshouldbe

selected…However,tohelporganizationschoosethebestperson,moreresearchneedsto

bedonetoinvestigatetheprofileofsuccessfulleaders”(p.33).Withthisthoughtinmind,

weturnnowtoChapter3,Methodology.

50

Table2.1Summaryofliteraturereviewfindingsandsummativesuccessfactorcategories

Factors Cultivation ModeratorRole

CultureofInquiryRelatedtodomain(Wenger)&structural(socialcapital)dimensions

PurposeCriticalDiscourseDiversification

Craftingastrongandinclusivepurposeforgroup,encouragingcriticaldiscourse,embracingandencouragingdiverselevelsofexpertise,experienceandinterestsinmembership.

FacilitatesdevelopmentandevolutionofCoPpurpose;fosterscriticaldiscoursebymoderatingqualityandfocusofdiscussions;createsconnectionsbetweendissimilarmembers;demonstratesapassionforlearning;issociallyandpoliticallyadept.

Factors Cultivation ModeratorRoleCultureofMutualEngagementrelatedtocommunity(Wenger)&structural,relational(socialcapital)dimensions

MembershipKnowledgeSharingTrust

Growingandcultivatingamembership,fosteringknowledgesharing,buildingtrust

Solicitsandwelcomesmembers;modelsandbuildstrust;providesguidanceforresolvingissues;createsandpromotesopportunitiesforinfoandknowledgesharingacrossthegroup.


CultureofSustainabilityrelatedtopractice(Wenger)&cognitive(socialcapital)dimensions

LeadershipManagingContent

Developingleadershipfromwithin,cultivatingabodyofknowledgeartifactstoshare

Sustainscommunitymomentum;stimulatesmemberactivityandinterest;locatesandprocuresresources;fostersanddevelopsemergentleaders;manageschange;providesinnovativesolutions.


ArchitectureforParticipation

DesignTechnology

Participatoryandco-evolutionarydesign;scaffoldingfortechnologyuse

Supportsmemberuseoftechnology;solicitsmemberinput;leadsandmodelstechnologyuse.

51

CHAPTER3:METHODOLOGY

ThisstudyseekstobetterunderstandthevalueplacedbyCoPmembersofpractice

onmoderatoractionsandcharacteristicsthathavesurfacedintheemergingliteratureas

supportiveofcommunitiesofpractice,specificallythoseCoPthatsupporttheprofessional

developmentofeducators.Thefollowingresearchquestionswillframethestudy:

1. Whatvaluedomembersofeducatoronlinecommunitiesofpracticeplaceon

particularmoderatoractions?


particularmoderatorcharacteristics?



andifso,how?

4. Aretheremoderatoractionsorcharacteristicsthatarenotprevalentinthe

literaturebutvaluedbymembers?

ResearchDesign

Approach

Asurveymethodologywasemployedforthisresearch.Giventheresearch

questions,whichseektolearnaboutthevalueperceptionsofmembersinregardsto

moderatoractionsandcharacteristics,surveymethodologywasdeterminedtobethemost

expedientanddirectmethodtoreachtheresearchgoalsafterconsultingtheliterature.For

example,accordingtoTuckman(1999),surveymethodology“allowsinvestigatorsto

measurewhatsomeoneknows…andthinks.Evenwhenanalternativeisavailable,simply

askingsubjectstorespondmaybe(andoftenis)themostefficientone.”(p.237).Another

52

strengthofsurveymethodologyisthat,withcarefulplanningandattentiveinstrument

construction,thecollectedinformationcanbesystematicallyandefficientlyconvertedinto

datatowhichstatisticalanalysiscanthenbeapplied.Additionally,sincethemembersof

onlineCoPsarewellacclimatedtowebtechnologyandroutinelyusesuchtoolstoconnect

withthecommunity,theriskofcoverageerrorduetosubjectunfamiliaritywithweb

technologyisdiminished.Lastly,asstatedbyDillman,et.al(2009),“theremarkablepower

ofthesamplesurveyisitsabilitytoestimatecloselythedistributionofacharacteristicina

populationbyobtaininginformationfromrelativelyfewelementsofthatpopulation.”(p.

54)Acarefullyconstructedsampleframecombinedwithrandomsampling,strict

methodologytoreduceerrorandbias,andprecisionintermsofdataanalysiswilladdrigor

and,takentogether,willincreasetheprecisionofthemeasurementsandthevalidityofthe

findings.

Population,Sample&SamplingProcedures

ThetargetpopulationforthisresearchisUnitedStates-basedtechnicalworkforce

educatorswhoaremembersofCoPswhosedomainisthatofeducatorprofessional

developmentandthedevelopmentofpedagogicalcontentknowledge.Itwasanarduous

tasktofindasetofcommunitieswhoseorganizationpermittedthereleaseofcontact

informationofitsmembers;severalmonthsandalmosttwentygroupswereapproached

priortosecuringthreeCoPsthatmettheabovecriteriawhilealsoprovidingvariationin

thenumberofmembers,thegeographicaldistributionoftheirmembers,andamixof

membersintermsofage,gender,andlengthofassociationwiththeCoP.Thefirstofthe

threeCoPsisacommunityofeducatorsfocusedontheadoptionandadaptionof

informationtechnology-relatedcurricularmaterials,approachesandpedagogy;the

53

membersaregeographicallydispersedacrosstheUnitedStateswiththecoordinatingoffice

locatedinTexas.Thesecondisanoutgrowthofworkdonebyanationalcenterfor

biotechnologyeducationheadquarteredinSanFrancisco.TheCoPmembersinthiscase

wereeducatorsdistributednationallywhoareinvolvedwitha“bridgetocollege”program

whichprovidesmodels,curriculumandsupportforinstitutionsinterestedincreatingand

promotingstudentpathwaystocareersinbiotech,especiallyamongstunderrepresented

populations.ThelastofthethreeCoPsisaCoPofrenewableenergyandenergyefficiency

educators,distributednationally,thatareworkingcollaborativelytobroadentheavailable

curriculuminthisareaandalsotoincorporateinternationalpracticesinthisincreasingly

globalsector;thisCoPiscoordinatedbyaregionalengineeringandrenewable

energy/energyefficiencyeducationcenterlocatedinCalifornia.

Thesamplingframe,orlistfromwhichthesamplewasdrawn,wascreatedby

combiningthelistofCoPparticipantsidentifiedbythecoordinatorsoftheCoPsashaving

theroleofmember,participant,user,orasimilartitle;thecombinedlistconsistedof108

uniqueemailaddresses.Permissionandaccesstothesemembersandtheiremail

addresseswasprovidedbythesponsoringorganizationwhoreviewedtheirlistsfor

currencyandcompletionpriortoprovidingthemtotheresearcher.Toreinforcethe

appropriatenessofthesubjectsforthisparticularstudy,initialsurveyitemsrequestthat

respondentsconfirmthattheyareeducatorsandalsorequestconfirmationofCoProleto

ensurerespondentswhoself-identifyinaroleotherthanmember–moderator,facilitator,

sponsor,administrator,etc.–arescreenedoutasthisstudyseekstomeasurethe

perceptionofthemembershipratherthanthatoftheleadership.

54

Aprioripoweranalysiswasusedtoestimateasufficientsamplesizetoachieve

adequatepower;basedoncalculationsassuminga50%responserate,adesired95%

confidencelimitandadesired5%marginoferrorasamplesizeof84wascalculatedgiven

thepopulationof108CoPmembers.Inpreparationfordrawingthesample,thethreelists

–representing108uniqueelements-werecombinedintoasinglelistusinganExcel

spreadsheetandthenrandomizedbyassigningeachelementarandom,non-sequential

identifyingnumber,andsortingnumerically.Theidentifierswerethenremoved,newnon-

sequentialrandomnumberswereassignedtoeachelement,andtheelementlistwasagain

sortednumerically.Thisprocesswasrepeatedatotalofthreetimes.Attheconclusionof

thisprocess,theemailaddresseswerescrambledtothepointthattherewasnolongeran

identifiableordertothesequenceinwhichtheywerelisted.Asystemicrandomsample

wasthendrawnusingafixedsamplingintervalof3untilasamplesizeof84wasachieved.

Theemailaddressesofthe84elementsselectedforthestudywereenteredintothe

surveyingsoftwarewhichwasthenusedtotracksubmissionsandeliminaterepeat

submissions.TheconcernthatoneormoreoftheCoPsmaybeover-orunder-represented

isnotconsideredcriticalduetothenatureoftheinformationsought:therespondentsare

reportingonlythevaluetheyattachtoaparticularmoderatoractionorcharacteristic,and

werenotaskedtoevaluatetheirparticularmoderatororCoP.Iftheydidnotwitnessor

experienceaparticularactionorcharacteristic,“didnotobserve”wasavailableasa

response.

Otherconsiderationstakenintoaccountwhendeterminingsamplesizeand

samplingprocedurecenteredonconcernsaboutresponseratewhichinturninfluencesthe

potentialforcoverageerror.Researchonwhatmightbeexpectedintermsofaweb-based

55

surveyresponseraterangedfromcautiouslypositivetoquitenegativehoweverthe

primarybarrierreportedbytheseresearchersappearedtobetiedtorespondent

unfamiliaritywithweb-basedtechnologies.Forexample,inoneoft-quotedmeta-analysis

paper,Manfredaetal.(2008)notedthatthe“increasedburdenwhenrespondingthrough

non-traditionalmethods”bythosewith“limitedwebliteracyandlow-frequencyuseofthe

Internet”(p.81)createdameasurablebarriertoparticipationandcompletion.Conversely

yetinagreementwiththisfinding,areviewofwebsurveyresponserateliteratureby

Schonlauetal.(2002)foundthatweb-basedsurveysadministeredtosubjectswithsome

technologicalexperiencehadrelativelystrongresponseratesthatrangedfrom19%to

39%(p.84).GiventheonlinenatureoftheCoPsthatmakeupthisstudy’starget

population,andthefrequencyofweb-basedactivityonthepartoftheirmembers,alackof

webliteracywasnotseenasasignificantbarrierforthisparticularpopulation.Indeed,the

finalresponserateforthissurveywasarobust54.7%sowhilethecautionsareworth

mentioning,itwouldseemthatthisstudyconfirmsthatafamiliaritywithweb-based

technologyminimizesatleastoneperceivedissuewithweb-basedsurveyresponserates

andpotentiallymayreducecoverageerror.

Alowresponserateisalsosometimesperceivedasincreasingtheriskofnon-

responseerror;thiswasalsoconsideredwhendeterminingsamplingprocedures.

However,Manfredaetal.(2008)pointsoutthat“non-responsedoesnotnecessarilyleadto

non-responseerror,whichisafunctionofthepercentageofthesamplenotrespondingto

thesurveyandthedifferencesinthestatisticsbetweenrespondentsandnon-respondent”

(p.99).Inresponse,thesamplingprocedureutilizedwasdesignedtocreateas

representativeasampleaspossibleinanefforttocombatbothsampleerrorandalsonon-

56

responseerror.Aremainingconcernwasthatofmeasurementerror,whichisrepresented

inthesurveymethodologyliteratureasbeinginfluencedbysurveydesignand

implementationmethodology;thesearefullyaddressedinthenextsegment.

Process

Asnotedpreviously,thisstudywasconductedasaweb-basedsurvey.Theuseofa

websurveyisparticularlywellsuitedtothispopulationgiventheirconnectiontoaweb-

basedcommunity;thisensuressomefamiliaritywithweb-basedtechnologyandreduces

theriskforcoverageerrorwhichisnormallyassociatedwithtechnology-mediatedsurveys.

ThisrationaleissupportedbytheliteratureasnotedaboveandalsobyAoki&Elasmar

(2000),whostatethat“thoughtherearestilllimitationstobeovercomeiftheWebisused

forgeneralpopulationsurvey,theWebwillpresentadvantagesovertraditionalmodesof

datacollectionifitisusedforspecificpopulationsthatareknowntobeInternetsavvy”

(p.3).

ThesurveywashostedonlineandadministeredthroughtheuseofSurveyMonkey,

anonlineweb-surveyservice.SurveyMonkeywasprimarilychosenfortheeaseitbringsto

therespondent:itallowsforfastandfamiliaraccessviaURLandisplatformandbrowser

agnosticwhichminimizesthepotentialfortechnologicalinterruptions.Additionally,it

supportssophisticatedandintelligentsurveydesign,isextremelyrobustintermsofdata

management,andallowsforreminderstonon-responderstobesentbasedonsurveydata.

Inaddition,SurveyMonkeyiscurrentlyacommonchoiceforeducationalandsocialscience

researchandhasalsobeenusedextensivelyinavarietyofcapacitiesbytheauthorfor

sevenyears.

57

InstrumentDesign

Thesurveyinstrumentcontained25items;thefirstsegmentsecuredconsent,the

nextsetofitemsscreenedforparticipantappropriatenessforthisparticularstudy

(educator,CoPmember,activeinaCoP)afterwhichsevenitemspresentedmoderator

actionsandsevenitemspresentedmoderatorcharacteristicsasdrawnfromtheliterature.

Thesurveyconcludedwithfivedemographicitemsandanoptiontobekeptinformedof

thestudyresults.Thefollowingshortdiscussionwilldescribetheprocessbywhichthe

moderatoractionsandcharacteristicsurveyitemswereselected,afterwhichadetailed

descriptionofthesurveyinstrumentwillcommence.Thefullinstrumentisavailableas

AppendixA.

Theitemsthatrelatedtomoderatorcharacteristicsandactionswereselectedto

representthefoursummativecategoriesofsuccessfactors:cultureofinquiry,cultureof

mutualengagement,cultureofsustainabilityandarchitectureofparticipation.The

moderatoractionsdrawnfromtheliteraturearound“cultivatingacultureofinquiry”

focusedonthoseactivitiesthatguidethequalityandfocusofthediscussionandthatcreate

connectionsbetweendissimilarmembersinthegroup;therelatedsurveyitemsread:“The

moderatoractivelyguidesthequalityandfocusofdiscussions”and“Themoderatorcreates

connectionsbetweenknowledgeseekersandexperts”.Thetwomoderatorcharacteristics

drawnfromthiscategoryfocusedonthemoderator’spassionforlearningandskillful

navigationofgrouppolitics;theresultingsurveyitemsread:“Themoderatordemonstrates

apassionforlearning”and“Themoderatordemonstratessocialacumen,understanding

andawareness”.Futureresearchmayminethiscategoryofsuccessfactorsmore

thoroughlyforattributesandactionsbutforthisinitialstudy,thesestatementswereused

58

toreflectthatwhichtheliteraturesuggestedintermsofamoderator’sroleincultivatinga

cultureofinquiry.

Withinthecategoryofcultivatingacultureofmutualengagement,thepredominant

focusintheliteraturesuggeststhattheeffectivemoderatorguidesthecommunitywhen

issuesarise,andfosterstrustwithinthegroupbymodelingtrustworthybehavior;the

relatedsurveyitemsread:“Themoderatorguidesthecommunitythroughdisruptionsor

conflicts”and“Themoderatorworksatkeepingmembersinvolvedinthecommunity.”The

twomoderatorcharacteristicsfromthiscategoryreflectedthattheeffectivemoderator

shouldbeapersonthatengenderstrustthemselvesandworksatwelcomingandkeeping

membersinvolvedincommunity.Therelatedsurveyitemsread:“Themoderator

demonstratesthats/heistrustworthy”and“Themoderatoriswelcoming”.Again,these

elementswereassignedasindicatorsofmoderatorattributesandactionsthatthe

literaturesuggestedforthiscategoryofsuccessfactors;furtherresearchissuggestedto

fullyinvestigatethevariousmoderatoractionsandcharacteristicsthatsupportthe

cultivationofacultureofmutualengagement.

Inthesummativecategorythatfocusesoncultivatingacultureofsustainability,the

twoactionsselectedtoreflectactionstakenbythemoderatorfocusonthemoderator’s

roleinkeepingthecommunityenergizedandbeingactiveinfindingresourcestosupport

theworkofthecommunity;therelatedsurveyitemsread:“Themoderatorkeepsthe

communityenergizedandactive”and“Themoderatordrawsinresourcestosupportthe

workofthecommunity”.Thetwomoderatorcharacteristicsdrawnfromtheliteraturethat

reflectedfactorsofsuccessinthiscategoryread:“Themoderatorisinnovativein

respondingtochange”and“Themoderatorfostersleadershipwithinthecommunity.”As

59

withthepreviouscategories,thesearebutafewofthepossiblemoderatoractionsand

characteristicswhoseperceivedvaluebymembersthatmaybeinvestigatedinfurther

studies.

Lastly,instrumentitemswereselectedtoreflecttheliteraturefindingsintheareaof

creatingandmaintaininganarchitecturethatsupportsparticipation.Inthiscategory,given

thatsomemoderatorsplayalimitedrole–ornoroleatall--inshapinghowtechnologyis

usedanddesignedforthecommunity,onlyonemoderatoractivityandonecharacteristic

wereusedasinstrumentitems.Thesurveyitemformoderatoractionsinthisareareads:

“Themoderatorsupportsmemberuseoftechnology”;theitemregardingthemoderator

characteristicforthiscategoryreads:“Themoderatorisskilledatusingtechnology”.

Thesurveybeganwithabriefstatementdescribingthestudyandanoutlineofany

potentialriskstorespondents,followedbyaninformedconsentcheckbox.Participants

wereunabletoadvancewithoutfirstprovidingconsent.

Onceconsentwassecured,threepre-questionsscreenedforvalidityofthe

respondent’sstatus(educator,member/participantofeducatorCoP,currencyof

membership);theseweretheonlysurveyitemsthatrequiredaresponse.Ifarespondent

wasnotaneducator,ordidnotself-identifyprimarilyasCoPmember-ratherthanan

administratorormoderator-theywereredirectedtoanexitfromthesurvey.This

measureintendedtoensurethatthesurveycollecteddataonlyfromthetargeted

population,thatofCoPmembers.

Thenextpageofthesurveydidnotcontainanysurveyitemsbutinsteadprovideda

quickintroductiontothefollowingpagesanddefinedkeyterms.Theinstructionsread:

60

Thenexttwopageswillpresentsevenactionsandthensevencharacteristicsthat

researchhasidentifiedasrelevantwhenanalyzingtheworkofonlinecommunityof

practice(CoP)moderators.‘Moderator’referstothepersonwhoactsasthe

primaryfacilitatorforthegroup.Alternatetitlesincludecoordinator,facilitator

and/ororganizer;‘Actions’areobservableactivitiesperformedbythemoderatorin

theirroleasonlinefacilitator;‘Characteristics’aretraitsorbehaviorsdemonstrated

bythemoderatorintheirinteractionswiththegroup.(seeAppendixAforthefull

surveyinstrument)

Afterreviewingthisinformation,subjectsclicked“next”toproceedtoapageentitled

“ModeratorActions”;thispagecontainedsevenitemsthatemployedLikert-likeresponse

itemsmeasuringthevaluesubjectsplaceonsevenmoderatoractionsasdrawnfrom

categorizationoftheCoPsuccessfactorliterature.Thesevenitemswere:“Themoderator

activelyguidesthequalityandfocusofdiscussions”,“Themoderatorcreatesconnections

betweenknowledgeseekersandexpertsinthegroup”,“Themoderatorguidesthe

communitythroughdisruptionsorconflicts”,“Themoderatorworksatkeepingmembers

involvedincommunity”,“Themoderatorkeepsthecommunityenergizedandactive”,“The

moderatordrawsinresourcestosupporttheworkofthecommunity”,and“Themoderator

supportsthemembers'useofthetechnology.”Likert-likeresponseitemsareappropriate

forthiseffortastheycan“dealwithattitudesofmorethanonedimension,andtendtohave

highreliabilities”(Vogt,2005).Responseoptionswere“VeryImportanttome”,“Somewhat

Importanttome”,“Somewhatunimportanttome”,“Notimportanttome”,“DidNot

Observe”and“PreferNottoAnswer”(seeFig.3.1).

61

Figure3.1:ExampleofModeratorActionssurveyitemThefinalitemontheModeratorActionpagewasanopen-endedtextresponseitemwhich

permittedrespondentstocontributeadditionalmoderatoractionstheyhavefoundtobe

importanttothem;thisopenitemprovideddataforfutureconsiderationandalsoreduced

cognitivedissonancemovingforwardshouldthesubjectfeelanimportantactionhadnot

beenincludedinthesurvey.

ThenextpageinthesurveyistheModeratorCharacteristicspagewhichcontained

sevenitemsthatcollectedrespondents’perceivedvalueofsevenmoderatorcharacteristics

drawnfromthesummativecategoriesofCoPsuccessfactorliteratureasdetailed

previously.ThispagelookedandfunctionedidenticallytotheModeratorActionspageand

usedthesameLikert-likeresponses.Thesevenitemsonthispageare:“Themoderator

demonstratesapassionforlearning”,“Themoderatordemonstratessocial

acumen,understandingandawareness”,“Themoderatordemonstratesthats/heis

trustworthy”,“Themoderatoriswelcoming”,“Themoderatorisinnovativeinresponseto

change”,“Themoderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin”,and“Themoderatorisskilledat

usingtechnology.”Thefinalquestiononthispagewasanotheropen-endedtextresponse

itemwhichpermittedrespondentstocontributeadditionalmoderatorcharacteristicsthey

foundtobeimportant.

62

Followingthemoderatoractionandcharacteristicspageswasapagewithfive

demographicitemsthatrequestedinformationabouttherespondent’sCoPmembership

duration,theircomfortwithtechnology,theirage(inranges),andtheirgender.The

respondentsalsoindicatedoneoffivedisciplineareas;thisinformationwasnotusedand

deletedfromtheresults.Uponcompletion,respondentsweregiventheopportunityto

indicatetheirinterestinbeingcontactedwithstudyresultsandupdates,ortoindicate

willingnesstoparticipateinfollow-upinterviewsshouldthatstepbetakeninthefutureby

theresearcher.Ifasubjectexpressedinterestineitherorboth,theycouldwriteintheir

nameandemailaddress.

Perceivedfearofdisclosureorsecurityriskonthepartofrespondentswas

mitigatedbyprovidingassurancesofconfidentialityofresponsesininvitationsto

participateandontheinformedconsentpageofthesurveyitself.Thesurveycollectedno

descriptivedataabouttheCoPsormoderatorsnorwasanyidentifyingdataberequested

oftherespondent.Completingthesurveyviaemailattachmentwasnotanoptiontofurther

protecttheconfidentialityoftherespondents.

InstrumentTesting&Revision

Inordertodiminishtheriskofmeasurementerror(inaccurateorincomplete

responses)andto“identifywording,questionorder,visualdesignandnavigation

problems”(Dillman,Smyth,&Christian,2008),thesurveyinstrumentwasrefinedthrough

pre-testingandcognitiveinterviewswithseveneducatorssimilartothestudysubjectsas

wellastwoeducationalresearchers.Initialtestingwasperformedbyfoureducatorsand

thetworesearchers;thisgroupwassentaweblinktothesurveywhichallowedthemto

accessthepilotversionofthestudy.Oncerevisionsweremadebasedontheirfeedback,a

63

secondgroupofthreeeducatorsweresentadraftoftheactualinvitethatthesurvey

populationwouldreceivewhichincludedalinktothesurveyinthebodyoftheemail.This

secondgroupwasaskedforfeedbackontheinvitationtextandprocessaswellasthe

survey.

Inbothcases,thesurveysettingsallowedreviewerstorevisitthesurveymultiple

timesandchangetheiranswersinordertotestallaspectsofthesurvey.Forbothphases

oftesting,reviewerswerealsoprovidedwithaWorddocumentwhichsolicitedtheir

writtenfeedbackonaccessingthesurvey,theintro/consentprocess,thescreening

questions,thesurveyitemsthatrelatedtomoderatoractionsandcharacteristics,the

demographicquestionsandtheoverallexperience(seeAppendixBforinstrument

reviewerinstructions).

Feedbackfromtheinitialgroupofreviewerswasmostlypositive;theyfoundthe

language,directions,processandoverallexperiencetobe“clear,directedand

unambiguous”and“easilyunderstoodandfollowed”.Suggestedchangedresultedina

revisionoftheLikert-likescaleontheModeratorActionsandModeratorCharacteristics

pagesfromsevenchoicestofour,theinclusionoftwoadditionalresponsesforgender

(“prefernottoanswer”and“identifyasneitherorother”),theadditionoftheinstruction

anddefinitionspagethatappearsjustbeforetheratingspages,andsimplifyingtheconsent

pagetext.

Inadditiontothewrittenfeedback,thethreeeducatorsinthesecondtestgroup

wereaskedto“thinkaloud”andrecordtheirthoughtsfromthetimetheyopenedthe

invitationuntiltheycompletedtheirexplorationofthesurveyinstrumentitself.The

feedbackcollectedfromthesecondgroupresultedinonlyonedesignrevisiontothesurvey

64

itself:thequestionsfortheModeratorActionsandModeratorCharacteristicspageswere

brokenintoseparatequestionstoreduceaslightamountofvisualoverloadreportedby

twoofthereviewerswhenthequestionappearedasasingleblock.Otherwise,thesecond

groupalsofoundthattheinstructionswereclear,thattheyunderstoodthequestionsand

intent,andalsoreportedthattheemailinvitewasconciseyetprovidedenoughinformation

tobecompelling.Oncethechangeswereincorporatedbasedonthefeedbackofthesecond

group,thesurveyinstrumentwasfinalizedwiththeonlyadditionalchangeoccurring

duringthereviewbytheHumanSubjectsofficewhorequestedtheadditionofa“prefernot

toanswer”responsetoallquestionsonthesurveyoutsideofthoseusedforscreeningor

forindicatingconsent.Nomonetarycompensationwasofferedforcompletion.Instead,a

combinationoflanguageoninitialinvitationandonsubsequentremindersemphasizedthe

valueandpotentialbenefitsofparticipationforboththeindividualandthecollectiveinan

efforttoencourageparticipation.

ProcessandProcedures

ThesurveylaunchedonMay3,2016andwasavailabletorespondentsthroughMay

20,2016,atotalof18days.Practicesforincreasingreturnrates,assuggestedbythe

literatureanddetailedbelow,wereemployedtoencourageparticipationandcompletion

andtominimizecoverageerror.

Initialcontactwithsamplegroupmembersoccurredviaanemailmessagefrom

theirCoPmoderatororadministrator.Thisinitialmessageintroducedthestudy,endorsed

theresearcher,andencouragedparticipation(seeAppendixCforasampleinitialemail).

Whilethismadepracticalsenseinthatitexplainedtothesamplegrouphowtheyhadcome

tobepartofthestudyandalsopreparedthesubjectsfortheformalinvitationto

65

participate,surveymethodologyliteraturealsoindicatesthat“creatingmultiplecontact

opportunitieswithselectedparticipants“(Perkins,2011)andusingmultiplemeansto

connectwithpotentialrespondents(Cooketal.,2000)alsoincreasesresponserates,so

askingtheCoPsthemselvestointroducethestudywasalsoseenasameanstoincrease

participation.

ThenoticefromtheCoPmoderatororadministratorwasfollowedbythe

researcher’sinitialrequestforparticipationlaterthesameday.Aswithallcorrespondence

regardingthesurvey,themessageincludedaconcisedescriptionofthepurposeanddates

ofthesurveyalongwithappreciationextendedfortheparticipant’sassistance;thetone

andthelengthwerecarefullytailoredandincludedanindicationoftheamountoftime

necessarytocompletethesurveyasadvisedbytheliterature(Clarkberg&Einarson,

2008).Thesurveylaunchedinparalleltotheinvitationasthereappearstobe

contradictorydataintermsoftheeffectivenessofapre-noticeemail(Cook,Heath,&

Thompson,2000;Dillmanetal.,2008;Fan&Yan,2010).Inaddition,theintroductory

messagefromtheCoPmoderatororadministratorintroducingthestudywasreferenced

in,andpastedbelow,theresearcher’sinvitetext.Twenty-fourresponseswerereceived

betweenMay3andMay9.

AreminderemailwassentonMay10,sevendaysaftertheinitiallaunchtothose

whohadnotyetresponded.Thismessagewasconstructedtobeslightlymoreconcisethen

theinitialinvitationbutagainincludedandreferencedtheoriginalmessagefromtheCoP

moderatororadministrator.TwelveadditionalresponseswererecordedbetweenMay10

andMay15bringingthetotalresponsecounttothirty-six.

66

InreviewingtheresponsedataonMay15,itappearedthataportionofthe

recipientswerenotopeningtheemailinvitation;onepotentialrationaleforthiswasthat

theinvitewassentfromanunfamiliaremailaddress(thatoftheresearcher).Tocounter

thispossibility,onMay18theCoPmoderatororadministratorsentabriefreminderto

theirmembership,highlightingtheresearcher’semailaddressandencouraging

participation.Thiswasfollowedbya“lastchance”messagefromtheresearcheronMay

19,thedaybeforethesurveywastoclose.Andadditionaltenresponseswererecorded

priortothecloseofthesurvey,bringingtheinitialtotalresponsecounttoforty-sixwhich

represented54.7%ofthesamplepopulation.

TheprocedureforthisplanreflectsthefindingsofArcher(2007)whoseresearchon

web-basedresponseratevariablesreportsthat“increasingthetotaldaysaquestionnaireis

leftopen,withtworeminders,maysignificantlyincreaseresponserates.Itmaybewiseto

launchinoneweek,remindinthenextweek,andthensendthefinalreminderinthethird

week”(p.8).Clearlythisworkedwellwiththestudypopulationastheresultingresponse

rateeliminatesomeriskofcoverageorsamplingerror.

DataAnalysis

Thisstudyisframedbyfourresearchquestions:


particularmoderatoractions?


particularmoderatorcharacteristics?

67



andifso,how?

4. Aretheremoderatoractionsorcharacteristicsthatarenotprevalentinthe

literaturebutvaluedbymembers?

Thedataanalysisforresearchquestions1and2focusedonLikertresponseitemsas

relatedtomoderatoractionsandcharacteristics.Indeterminingthebestapproachforthe

analysisoftheseresponseshowever,itbecameclearthatalong-standingcontroversy

existsamongststatisticiansconcerningtheproperwaytotreatsuchdata.Thispolarizing

discord,arisingprimarilyfromdisagreementastothetypeofdatageneratedbysuch

items,callsforsomecommentsonassumptionsanddecisionsmadewhendescribingthe

resultsofastudythatincludessuchitems.

Ononesideofthisdebate,theargumentismadefortreatingthedataascontinuous

andinterval-level;thesestatisticiansrecommendassigningnumericcodingtothe

responses,generatingdescriptivestatisticssuchasthemeanandstandarddeviation,and

thenutilizingparametricinferentialstatisticmethodssuchast-tests,analysisofvariance,

andcorrelationanalysis(Carifio&Perla,2008;Norman,2010;Sullivan&Artino,2013).

OtherstatisticiansarguethatthedatageneratedfromaLikert-likeitemsshouldbe

consideredordinalorevennominal(Clegg,1998;Jamieson,2004;Shadish,et.al.,2002);

oneargumentforthisisthatanintervalscaleassumesthatresponsesareequidistantfrom

eachotherwhichisdifficulttoestablishwithmostLikert-likeresponsescales(Allen&

Seaman,2007).Butperhapsthemostpracticalargumentforthelatterposition,andthe

onemostrelevanttothisstudy,isthatusingthemeanasameasureofcentraltendencyhas

68

littletonopracticalmeaning;asJamieson(2004)notes“theaverageoffairandgoodisnot

‘fairandahalf’;thisistrueevenwhenoneassignsintegersto‘fair’and‘good’.”(p.1217).

Whilebothsidesofthisdebateofferbalancedand,attimes,passionateargumentsin

supportoftheirposition,onethingtheydoagreeon–asdomoststatistictextsand

tutorials–isthattheprimaryconsiderationwhenchoosinganalysismethodsistotakeinto

accounttheresearchquestionsbeingaskedandthestatisticalanalysisthatwillbest

answerthosequestions.

Giventhatthefirsttworesearchquestionscanberespondedtoappropriatelyusing

themeasureoffrequencyofresponse,analysiswillfollowtherecommendationtotreatthis

dataasordinalratherthaninterval,andwillemploy“distributionfreemethodssuchas

tabulationsandfrequencies”alongwithgraphicaidssuchasbargraphstoexamineand

describeresults.However,toprovideasecondlayerofanalysis,thefrequency

distributionswillalsobeconvertedtonumericaldatasothatmeansandmediansofthe

frequenciesandChi-squaretestcanbeusedtocompareresultsacrossresponseselections.

Giventhedeterminationofasufficientsamplesize,andwithgoodsurveydesignand

administration,externalvaliditymaypermittheseresultstobegeneralizedwithan

acceptabledegreeofconfidencetorepresentthesurveypopulation.

InapproachingResearchQuestion3,itisclearthatfrequencytableswillnotsuffice

indeterminingifarelationshipexistsbetweenrespondentdemographicsandvalue

perceptionstatements.InrevisitingtheLikert-styleitemanalysisdebateinorderto

ensurethatthechosenmethodforgroupanalysisismostlikelytoproduce“true”results,

oneagainfindsstatisticianswhoinsistthatparametricanalysisisappropriatehere;infact,

Carifio&Perla(2007,2008)makeastrongcasefortherobustnessofitemlevelF-testsasa

69

prioritestingofLikertresponseformatteditems.Asfrequently,ifnotmoreso,

recommendationscallforemployingnonparametricproceduresaswithallotherordinal

datewhenperforminggroupanalysis;Kruskal-WallaceandMann-WhitneyUtestsare

oftenmentionedinthisliterature.OnesuggestionmadebyAllen&Seaman(2007)that

appearstobridgethisdividewasofparticularinterest;theymakethesuggestionthat

“giventhatthesescalesarerepresentativeofanunderlyingcontinuousmeasure,one

recommendationistoanalyzethemasintervaldataasapilotpriortogatheringthe

continuousmeasure.”Itisthisfinalsuggestionthatwasfollowedinanalyzingthedatain

responsetoResearchQuestion3;one-wayANOVAs(F-tests)wererunoneach

demographic/valueperceptionpairing,followedbyaKruskal-Wallacetest.All56pairs

wereevaluatedusingthistwo-stepprocedure.

InresponsetoResearchQuestion4,textresponsestothetwoopen-endedsurvey

items(“Arethereothermoderatoractionsthathavebeenimportanttoyouasacommunity

member?”and“Arethereothermoderatorcharacteristicsthathavebeenimportanttoyouas

acommunitymember?”)wereanalyzedforpatternsbothmanuallyandthoroughtheuseof

SurveyMonkey’stextanalysistoolwhichdisplaysthemostimportantdistinguishingwords

andphrasesacrossresponses;simplefrequencyofuseisnotconsideredtobeofprimary

relevancesocommonphrasesorwords(suchas“Ilike”or“and”)arenothighlightedby

thistool.Thistextanalysistoolalsoallowsfordisplayofanordinallistwiththemost

frequentimportantwordslistedatthetop.Finally,tocompletetheanalysis,thetext

analysistoolwasusedtocreatecategoriesthatcorrespondedtoexistingvalueperception

items.Actionsorcharacteristicssuggestedbyrespondentswerethenanalyzedto

determineiftheyfitwithinexistingsurveyitemsorwithinthesummativesuccessfactor

70

categoriesdevelopedearlier;ifso,commentsweretaggedandsortedintotheappropriate

category.TheresultsofthisanalysiswillbediscussedinChapter5.

Validity&Reliability

Internalvalidityreferstowhetherornotthestudymeasureswhatitintendsto

measures.Theuseofthoroughpre-testingandespeciallyofcognitiveinterviewing–which

involvedstrategiessuchas“thinkaloud”–wasbeneficialinobtainingfeedbackfrom

educatorsmuchlikethestudy’ssamplegroupandassistedwithensuringthatthe

instrumentandsurvey-takingprocesswasconstructedinsuchawayastoaccurately

capturethethoughtsoftherespondents.Externalvalidityisameasureofhowwellthe

findingscanbeextrapolatedoutfromthesampletothetargetpopulation.While

generalizingtoapopulationfromasampleisneveragiven,thecaretakentocreateand

executeawell-designedsamplingprocedurewasintendedtoincreasetheexternalvalidity

asmuchaspossible,aswastheadditionofinitialscreeningquestionsatthestartofthe

surveyinstrument.Asforreliability,ameasureofwhetherornottheinstrumentwould

producesimilarresultsifre-administered,thisisdifficulttodetermineespeciallygiventhat

theanalysisofrelationshipsbetweenCoPmemberdemographicsandthevalueplacedon

moderatoractionsandcharacteristicshadnotbeenpreviouslyexaminedinaquantifiable

mannerhowevertheuseofLikert-likescalesintroducessomemeasureofreliability

Limitations

Themajorlimitationofthisstudyistherelativelysmallsamplesize.Threeeducator

CoPswereselectedforthisstudyandthoseCoPswerefocusedontechnicalworkforce

education.ThismakesitdifficulttogeneralizethefindingstoothereducatorCoPsorto

CoPsfoundinothersectors.Lastly,thelimitationsofthisstudyarethatofanysurvey–did

71

thesampletrulyrepresentthepopulation?Anddidthenon-respondersvaryfromthe

respondersinasignificantway,oneunperceivedbytheresearchers?Theseare

methodologicallimitationsthatareimpossibletoerase.

CHAPTER4:RESULTS

Dataanalysisinthischapterwillbeginwithadiscussionofrespondent

demographicsusingdescriptivestatistics.Followingthis,eachofthestudy’sresearch

questionswillbepresentedwithanaccompanyingdiscussionofthestatisticalanalysisof

therelatedsurveyitemsandtheresultsforeach.Thechapterconcludeswithasummary

oftheresults.

RespondentDescriptiveStatistics

Ofthe84subjectscontacted,46(54.8%)respondedandparticipatedinthestudy.

Twentyofthe46respondentswerescreenedoutbyinitialsurveyitemsdesignedtoensure

thatdatacollectionwaslimitedtothetargetpopulationofeducatorCoPmemberswhoare

currentlyactiveinaCoPorhavebeenwithinthepastfiveyears.Oftheremaining26

respondents,23fullycompletedthesurveyandonerespondentcompletedallbutthe

demographicsurveyitems.SeeTable4.1foradepictionofparticipationresults.

Table4.1SummaryofparticipationTotalsurveyssent 84

Responsesreceived 46

ScreeningQuestions Q2Notaneducator -6Q4NotactiveinaCoPin5years -9Q5Roleotherthanmember -5

72

Totaladvancedafterscreeningquestions 26RespondentsthatdidnotproceedtoQ6 2RespondentscompletingitemsQ1-Q20 24Respondentswhocompletedthesurveyanddemographicsection

23

Demographics

Fourdemographicitemswereemployedtoobtainthedatarequiredforanalyzing

ResearchQuestion3:“Domemberdemographics–age,gender,yearsofCoPmembership,

technologyexperience-influencethevaluerankingofmoderatoractionsand

characteristics,andifso,how?”Thefollowingdiscussionpresentsthedescriptivestatistics

foreachofthefourdemographicsurveyitems.

Gender

Ofthe23respondentswhocompletedthedemographicportionofthesurvey,

sixteenidentifiedasmale(69.6%),fiveidentifiedasfemale(21.7%)andtwosubjects

declinedtoanswer.Thisdistributionwasskewedwhichincreasedthepreferencefor

nonparametricanalysiswhenapproachingResearchQuestion3giventhenon-normal

distribution.Figure4.1representstherespondentdistributionbygender.

Figure4.1:DistributionofRespondentsbyGender

73

AgeGroup

Fiveresponseswereprovidedforrespondentstoindicatetheiragegroup:under

18,18-30,31-50,51-70,and71+.Elevenoftherespondents(47.8%)reportedtobe

between31and50yearsofage,nine(39.1%)werebetween51and70yearsofage,and

onerespondent(4.3%)reportedanageof71+.Tworespondentsdeclinedtogivetheirage

groupandnoresponsesindicatedanagelessthan30.Figure4.2depictsthedistributionof

respondentsbyage.

Figure4.2:DistributionofRespondentsbyAgeGroup

LengthofMembership

Respondentswerealsoaskedtoidentifythelengthoftimetheyhavebeenmembers

ofaCoPandprovidedwiththefollowingoptionsforresponse:lessthan6months,6

months–1year,1-2yearsor2-3yearsandmorethan3years.Fourteenrespondents

(60.9%)reportedthattheyhavebeenmembersofaCoPformorethan3years,four

(17.4%)reportedthattheyhavebeenmembersfor2-3years,andfive(21.7%)reported

thattheyhavebeenmembersfor1-2years.Norespondentsindicatedthattheyhavebeen

amemberofaCoPforlessthanayear.Figure4.3illustratesthedistributionofparticipants

74

bylengthofCoPmembership.Againweseeaskeweddistributionthat,whenresponding

toResearchQuestion3,favorsnonparametricanalysis.

Figure4.3:DistributionofRespondentsbyLengthofCoPMembership

TechnologyComfortLevel

Technologycomfortlevelwasreportedusingoneoffiveresponses.Nine

respondents(39.1%)indicatedthat“Iseekoutnewtechnologiestolearn”,thirteen

respondents(56.5%)reported“Ifeelcomfortablelearningnewtechnologies”,andone

(4.3%)indicatedthattheyfelt“neitheruncomfortablenorcomfortablewithnew

technologies”.Norespondentschosetheresponse“Idon’tparticularlylikelearningnew

technologies…”or“Iprefernottolearnnewtechnologies”.Figure4.4representsthe

distributionofrespondentsintermsoftechnologycomfortlevel.

Figure4.4:DistributionofRespondentsbyTechnologyComfortLevel

75

ResearchQuestionResults

Thesurveyinstrumentfeaturedsevenitemsregardingrespondents’perceived

valueofmoderatoractionsfollowedbysevenitemsregardingrespondents’perceived

valueofmoderatorcharacteristics;bothsetsofquestionsutilizedLikert-likescalesto

obtainthisdata.Theavailableresponseswereidenticalforallfourteenitems,listedas:

VeryImportanttome,SomewhatImportanttome,SomewhatUnimportanttome,Not

Importanttome,andDidNotObserve.Additionally,achoiceof“PreferNottoRespond”

wasincludedasrequiredbythesponsoringinstitution’sHumanSubjectsBoardoffice.

However,asnorespondentschosethisresponseforanyitem,the“prefernottorespond”

responseisnotincludedintheanalysisgoingforward.

ResearchQuestion1:Whatvaluedomembersofeducatorcommunitiesofpractice

placeonparticularmoderatoractions?

Todeterminethevaluemembersplaceonmoderatoractions,sevenstatements

weredrawnfromtheCoPsuccessfactorliterature;thesewerethenusedtocreateseven

surveyitems.Asnotedabove,theseitemsusedaLikert-likescaletodetermineperception

ofvalueofeachofthesevenmoderatoractionsandofferedsixpossibleresponses:Very

Importanttome,SomewhatImportanttome,SomewhatUnimportanttome,Not

Importanttome,DidNotObserveandPreferNottoAnswer.

ResearchQuestion1DataSummary.Thefrequencyofresponsesacrossthe

sevenmoderatoractionsurveyitemsarepresentedinTable4.2,alongwiththepercentage

oftotalresponsesineachresponsecolumnandthepercentageofveryandsomewhat

importantresponsesversusthepercentageofsomewhatunimportantandnotimportant

76

responses.Theresultsforeachmoderatoractionsurveyitemaredescribedinthe

followingsection.Adiscussionoftheresultswilloccurinthenextchapter.

Table4.2FrequencyofresponseforitemsrelatedtoModeratorActions1-7

VeryImportant

SomewhatImportant

SomewhatUnimportant

NotImportant

DidNotObserve

Action1:Moderatoractivelyguidesthequalityandfocusofdiscussions

12 12 0 0 0

Action2:Moderatorcreatesconnectionsbetweenknowledgeseekersandexperts

13 10 0 0 1

Action3:Moderatorguidesthecommunitythroughdisruptionsorconflicts

10 7 2 2 3

Action4:Moderatorworksatkeepingmembersinvolvedinthecommunity

9 11 4 0 0

Action5:Moderatorkeepscommunityenergized

14 9 1 0 0

Action6:Moderatordrawsinresourcestosupporttheworkofthecommunity

12 10 2 0 0

Action7:Moderatorsupportsthemembers’useoftechnology

4 16 2 2 0

TotalResponses 74 75 11 4 4

%TotalResponses 44.0% 44.6% 6.6% 2.4% 2.4%

%Important/Unimportant 88.6% 9.0%

77

Moderatoraction1.Responsestothisfirstvalueperceptionitemreferringto

moderatoractions,“Themoderatoractivelyguidesthequalityandfocusofdiscussions”,

indicatedthattwelverespondents(50.0%)feltthistobeveryimportantandtwelve

(50.0%)valuedthisassomewhatimportant.Norespondentsreportedthatthismoderator

actionwaseithermoderatelyunimportantornotimportant.Themedianforthis

distributionwas3.5,themeanwasalso3.5.Figure4.5presentsthedistributionforthis

surveyitemaswellasdescriptivestatisticsprovidedforfurtheranalysisofthis

distribution.

Figure4.5:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction1:“Themoderatoractivelyguidesthequalityandfocusofthediscussion.”

Moderatoraction2.Responsestothenextitem,“Themoderatorcreates

connectionsbetweenknowledgeseekersandexperts”,indicatedthatthirteenrespondents

(54.2%)feltthistobeveryimportant,ten(41.7%)reporteditassomewhatimportant,and

one(4.2%)didnotobservethismoderatoraction.Norespondentsreportedthatthis

moderatoractionwaseithermoderatelyunimportantornotimportant.Themedianfor

thisdistributionwas4,themeanwas3.56.Figure4.6presentsthedistributionforthis

surveyitem.

78

Figure4.6:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction2:“Themoderatorcreatesconnectionsbetweenknowledgeseekersandexperts.”

Moderatoraction3.Thethirdsurveyitemrelatedtomoderatoractions,“The

moderatorguidesthecommunitythroughdisruptionsorconflicts”,indicatedthatten

respondents(41.7%)feltthismoderatoractiontobeveryimportant,seven(29.2%)found

ittobesomewhatimportant,two(8.3%)foundittobesomewhatunimportant,two(8.3%)

foundittobenotimportantandthree(12.5%)didnotobservethisactiononbehalfofthe

moderator.Themedianforthisdistributionwas3,themeanwas3.19.Figure4.7presents

thedistributionforthissurveyitem.

Figure4.7:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction3:“Themoderatorguidesthecommunitythroughdisruptionsorconflicts.”

79

Moderatoraction4.Thefourthsurveyitem,“Themoderatorworksatkeeping

membersinvolvedinthecommunity”,indicatedthatninerespondents(37.5%)feltthis

moderatoractiontobeveryimportant,eleven(45.8%)foundittobesomewhatimportant,

andfour(16.7%)foundittobesomewhatunimportant.Norespondentsfoundthis

moderatoractiontobenotimportantandnorespondentsreportedthattheydidnot

observethismoderatoraction.Themedianforthisdistributionwas3,themeanwas3.2.

Figure4.8presentsthedistributionforthissurveyitem.

Figure4.8:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction4:“Themoderatorworksatkeepingmembersinvolvedinthecommunity.”

Moderatoraction5.Responsestothenextmoderatoractionitem,“Themoderator

keepsthecommunityenergized”,indicatedthatfourteenrespondents(58.3%)feltthistobe

veryimportant,nine(37.5%)reporteditassomewhatimportant,andone(4.2%)found

thismoderatoractiontobesomewhatunimportant.Norespondentsreportedthatthis

moderatoractionwasnotimportantandnonereportedthattheydidnotobservethis

action.Themedianforthisdistributionwas4,themeanwas3.54.Figure4.9presentsthe

distributionforthissurveyitem.

80

Figure4.9:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction5:“Themoderatorkeepsthecommunityenergized.”

Moderatoraction6.Thesixthsurveyitemrelatedtomoderatoractions,“The

moderatordrawsinresourcestosupporttheworkofthecommunity”,indicatedthattwelve

respondents(50.0%)feltthismoderatoractiontobeveryimportant,ten(41.7%)foundit

tobesomewhatimportant,andtwo(8.3%)foundittobesomewhatunimportant.No

respondentsindicatedthatthisactionwasnotimportantandnorespondentsreportedthat

theydidnotobservethismoderatoraction.Themedianforthisdistributionwas3.5,the

meanwas3.42.Figure4.10presentsthedistributionforthissurveyitem.

Figure4.10:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction6:“Themoderatordrawsinresourcestosupporttheworkofthecommunity.”

81

Moderatoraction7.Thefinalsurveyitemrelatedtomoderatoractions,“The

moderatorsupportsthemembers’useoftechnology”,indicatedthatfourrespondents

(16.7%)feltthismoderatoractiontobeveryimportant,sixteen(66.7%)foundittobe

somewhatimportant,two(8.3%)foundittobesomewhatunimportant,andtwo(8.3%)

foundittobenotimportant.Norespondentsreportedthattheydidnotobservethis

moderatoraction.Themedianforthisdistributionwas3,themeanwas2.92.Figure4.11

presentsthedistributionforthissurveyitem.

Figure4.11:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorAction7:“Themoderatorsupportsmembers’useoftechnology.”

ResearchQuestion2:Whatvaluedomembersofeducatorcommunitiesofpractice

placeonparticularmoderatorcharacteristics?

Usingthesameprocessdescribedintheprevioussectiontodeterminethevalue

membersplaceonmoderatoractions,sevenstatementsweredrawnfromtheCoPsuccess

factorliteratureandusedtoconstructsurveyitemstiedtomoderatorcharacteristicsor

traits.TheseitemsusedthesameLikert-likescalethatwasemployedforthemoderator

actionsurveyitemsinordertodetermineperceptionofvalueofeachoftheseven

82

moderatorcharacteristicswithresponseoptionsof:VeryImportanttome,Somewhat

Importanttome,SomewhatUnimportanttome,NotImportanttomeandDidNotObserve.

ResearchQuestion2DataSummary.Thefrequencyofresponsesacrossthe

sevenmoderatorcharacteristicsurveyitemsarepresentedinTable4.3,alongwiththe

percentageoftotalresponsesineachresponsecolumnandthepercentageofveryand

somewhatimportantresponsesversusthepercentageofsomewhatunimportantandnot

importantresponses.Theresultsforeachmoderatoractionsurveyitemaredescribed

below.Adiscussionoftheresultswilloccurinthenextchapter.

Table4.3FrequencyofresponseforitemsrelatedtoModeratorCharacteristics1-7

VeryImportant

SomewhatImportant

SomewhatUnimportant

NotImportant

DidNotObserve

Characteristic.1:Moderatordemonstratesapassionforlearning

13 10 0 1 0

Characteristic2:Moderatordemonstratessocialacumen,understanding&awareness

14 8 1 0 1

Characteristic3:Moderatordemonstratesthats/heistrustworthy

16 6 1 1 0

Characteristic4:Moderatoriswelcoming

14 9 0 1 0

Characteristic5:Moderatorisinnovativeinrespondingtochange

10 12 1 1 0

Characteristic6:Moderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin

8 12 2 2 0

83

Moderatorcharacteristic1.Responsestothefirstvalueperceptionitemreferring

tomoderatorcharacteristics,“Themoderatordemonstratesapassionforlearning”,

indicatedthatthirteenrespondents(54.2%)feltthistobeveryimportantandten(41.7%)

valuedthisassomewhatimportant.Norespondentsreportedthatthismoderator

characteristicwasmoderatelyunimportant,andone(4.2%)foundittobenotimportant.

Norespondentsreporteditasunobserved.Themedianforthisdistributionwas4,the

meanwas3.46.Figure4.12presentsthedistributionforthissurveyitem.

Figure4.12:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic1:“Themoderatordemonstratesapassionforlearning.”

Moderatorcharacteristic2.Thesecondsurveyitemrelatedtomoderator

characteristics,“Themoderatordemonstratessocialacumen,understandingandawareness”,

Characteristic7:Moderatorisskilledatusingtechnology

7 13 2 2 0

TotalResponses 82 70 7 8 1

%TotalResponses 48.8% 41.7% 4.2% 4.8% 0.5%

%Important/Unimportant 90.5% 9.0%

84

indicatedthatfourteenrespondents(58.3%)feltthismoderatorcharacteristictobevery

important,eight(33.3%)foundittobesomewhatimportant,one(4.2%)foundittobe

somewhatunimportant,nonefoundittobenotimportantandone(4.2%)didnotobserve

thismoderatorcharacteristicatall.Themedianforthisdistributionwas4,themeanwas

3.42.Figure4.13presentsthedistributionforthissurveyitem.

Figure4.13:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic2:“Themoderatordemonstratessocialacumen,understandingandawareness.”

Moderatorcharacteristic3.Thethirdsurveyitemrelatedtomoderator

characteristics,“Themoderatordemonstratesthats/heistrustworthy”,indicatedthat

sixteenrespondents(66.7%)feltthismoderatorcharacteristictobeveryimportant,six

(25.0%)foundittobesomewhatimportant,one(4.2%)foundittobesomewhat

unimportant,andone(4.2%)foundittobenotimportant.Norespondentsindicatedthat

theydidnotobservethismoderatorcharacteristic.Themedianforthisdistributionwas4,

themeanwas3.54.Figure4.14presentsthedistributionforthissurveyitem.

85

Figure4.14:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic3:“Themoderatordemonstratesthats/heistrustworthy.”

Moderatorcharacteristic4.Responsestothenextvalueperceptionitemreferring

tomoderatorcharacteristics,“Themoderatoriswelcoming”,indicatedthatfourteen

respondents(58.3%)feltthistobeveryimportantandnine(37.5%)valuedthisas

somewhatimportant.Norespondentsreportedthatthismoderatorcharacteristicwas

moderatelyunimportant,andone(4.2%)foundittobenotimportant.Norespondents

reporteditasunobserved.Themedianforthisdistributionwas4,themeanwas3.5.

Figure4.15presentsthedistributionforthissurveyitem.

Figure4.15:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic4:“Themoderatoriswelcoming.”

86

Moderatorcharacteristic5.Thefifthsurveyitemrelatedtomoderator

characteristics,“Themoderatorisinnovativeinrespondingtochange”,indicatedthatten

respondents(41.7%)feltthismoderatorcharacteristictobeveryimportant,twelve

(50.0%)foundittobesomewhatimportant,one(4.2%)foundittobesomewhat

unimportant,andone(4.2%)foundittobenotimportant.Norespondentsreportedthat

thischaracteristicwasunobserved.Themedianforthisdistributionwas3,themeanwas

3.29.Figure4.16presentsthedistributionforthissurveyitem.

Figure4.16:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic5:“Themoderatorisinnovativeinrespondingtochange.”

Moderatorcharacteristic6.Thesixthsurveyitemrelatedtomoderator

characteristics,“Themoderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin”,indicatedthateight

respondents(33.3%)feltthismoderatorcharacteristictobeveryimportant,twelve

(50.0%)foundittobesomewhatimportant,two(8.3%)foundittobesomewhat

unimportant,andtwo(8.3%)foundittobenotimportant.Norespondentsreportedthat

theydidnotobservethismoderatorcharacteristic.Themedianforthisdistributionwas3,

themeanwas3.08.Figure4.17presentsthedistributionforthissurveyitem.

87

Figure4.17:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic6:“Themoderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin.”

Moderatorcharacteristic7.Thefinalsurveyitemrelatedtomoderator

characteristics,“Themoderatorisskilledatusingtechnology”,indicatedthatseven

respondents(29.2%)feltthismoderatoractiontobeveryimportant,thirteen(54.2%)

foundittobesomewhatimportant,two(8.3%)foundittobesomewhatunimportant,and

two(8.3%)foundittobenotimportant.Norespondentsreportedthattheydidnot

observethismoderatorcharacteristic.Themedianforthisdistributionwas3,themean

was3.04.Figure4.18presentsthedistributionforthissurveyitem.

Figure4.18:DistributionofresponsestoModeratorCharacteristic7:“Themoderatorisskilledatusingtechnology.”

88

ResearchQuestion3:Domemberdemographics–age,gender,yearsofCoP

membership,technologyexperience-influencethevaluerankingofmoderator

actionsandcharacteristics,andifso,how?

ToanalyzewhetherornotdemographicsinfluencedCoPmembers’perceived

valueofmoderatoractionsorcharacteristics,statisticaltestswereruncomparingthe

mediansandmeansofresponsestoamoderatoractionorcharacteristicwithresponsesto

ademographicitem.Asnotedearlier,afterconsultingtheliteratureandreviewingthe

researchquestions,theresearcherwasinclinedtoanalyzethedatageneratedbythe

Likert-likescalesasasordinalratherthantreatthedataasinterval/continuous.However,

asrecommendedbyAllen&Seaman(2007)andCarifio&Perla(2007,2008),one-way

ANOVAtestsbasedoncalculatedmeanswereinitiallyrunforeachpairedset(the

responsestoademographicitemandoneactionorcharacteristic)toexplorewhetheror

notdifferenceswouldappearintheparametricanalysis.Thenextlevelofanalysiswas

performedusingKruskal-WallisTests,characterizedas“nonparametric,one-wayANOVA

forrank-ordereddatathatarebasedonmediansratherthanmeans”(Vogt,2005)and

suggestedbythestatisticalanalysisliteratureasappropriateforanalyzingordinaldatain

threeormoregroups.Thenullhypothesisforeachtestheldthattherewasnostatistically

significantdifferencebetweentheresponsestotheitemsbeingtestedwithasignificance

levelsetat0.05.Rejectionofthenullhypothesisthereforewouldindicateasignificant

differencebetweenthepaireditemsintermsofmeanormedian.

Afteranalyzingthe56paireditems(fourdemographicitemsby14perceivedvalue

items)usingtheone-wayANOVAtestwithasignificancelevelof0.05,onlyoneitem

pairingwasfoundtorejectthenullhypothesis,thatcomparingthemeansofsurveyitem

89

ModeratorCharacteristic6“Themoderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin”anddependent

variabletechnologycomfortlevel(F=4.81,df=2,p=.0198).

Thecomparisonofthemediansofthe56paireditemsusingKruskal-Wallisalso

failedtorejectthenullhypothesesforallbutthreepairs(seeTable4.6);oneofthesethree

wasthesamepairingthatrejectedthenullhypothesiswhentestedusingtheone-way

ANOVAandwhichpaired“themoderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin”withtechnology

comfortlevel.TheresponsefrequencydistributionforthispairingispresentedinTable

4.7toillustratethedetailedresponsefrequenciesinthisgroup;thisillustrationwillbe

usefulwhendiscussingtheseresultsinthenextchapter.

Theothertwopairingsthatshowedstatisticalsignificanceinthedifferencebetween

mediansusingKruskal-Wallacetestingwas“Themoderatorkeepsthecommunityenergized”

andthedemographicitemofgender,and“Themoderatordemonstratessocialacumen,

understandingandawareness”andtheresponsestothedemographicitemmeasuring

member’slengthofmembership.Bothoftheseresultswillbediscussedinthediscussion

chapterthatfollows.Pleasenotethatchi-squaredgoodness-of-fitwasnotappliedtothese

tablesduetothenumberofcellswithexpectedfrequenciesoflessthanone.Pleasealso

seeAppendixDforfulltablesofgroupANOVAandKruskal-Wallaceanalysisresults.

Table4.4SummaryofKruskal-WallaceTestpairingsthatrejectedthenullhypothesisIndependentvariable DependentVariable H df pGender A5:Themoderatorkeepsthecommunity

energized 6.04 2 0.0489

LengthofMembership C2:Themoderatordemonstratessocial

acumen,understandingandawareness 6.70 2 0.0352

TechnologyComfortlevel

C6:Themoderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin 6.66 2 0.0357

90

Notes:.05significancelevel,adjustedforties(higheraccuracy)

Table4.5Frequencyofresponsebytechnologycomfortlevelgrouptoitem“Themoderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin”TechnologyComfortLevel

VeryImportant

SomewhatImportant

SomewhatUnimportant

NotImportant

DidNotObserve

Seeksoutnewtechnologies 1 4 2 2 0

Comfortablelearningnewtechnologies

6 7 0 0 0

Neithercomfortablenoruncomfortablewithnewtechnologies

0 1 0 0 0

Donotlikelearningnewtechnology

0 0 0 0 0

Prefernottolearnnewtechnologies

0 0 0 0 0

ResearchQuestion4:Aretheremoderatoractionsorcharacteristicsnotnotedinthe

literaturethatarevaluedbymembers?

Twoopen-endedquestionsonthesurveywereusedtocaptureanymoderator

actionsorcharacteristicsthatmayhavebeenofvaluetotheCoPmembers.Attheendof

themoderatoractionssectionofthesurvey,therespondentswereasked“Arethereother

moderator/coordinatoractionsthathavebeenimportanttoyouasacommunitymember?

Ifso,pleasenotethembelow.”Thesamelanguagewasusedattheendofthe

characteristicssectiontosolicitanyadditionalcharacteristicsthatrespondentsmaywish

91

tohavenoted.Thissectionwillpresentabriefanalysisofthesetwoopen-endedsurvey

items.

Moderatoractions.Theopen-endeditemconcerningmoderatoractionscaptured

sevenresponsesintotal.Ofthose,threecommentswerefoundtobecloselyrelatedto

ModeratorAction4:“Themoderatorworksatkeepingmembersinvolvedincommunity”

(seeTable4.8).Thisgroupofcommentsincludedonethatnotedtheimportanceof

keepingthemembersawareoftheCoPactivities(“scheduleremindersareextremely

important”),onethatspoketokeepingmembersengaged(“agoodmoderatorhassmooth

peopleskills,andisabletoconnectwiththevariousparticipantstoencouragethemandhelp

keepthemengaged”andonethatspoketobothpoints(“itisimportanttoschedule,send

reminders,andfosterpersistentparticipation”).

Table4.6ModeratorAction4-relatedopen-endedresponses

Action4 RelatedComments

Themoderatorworksatkeepingmembersinvolvedincommunity

scheduleremindersareextremelyimportantagoodmoderatorhassmoothpeopleskills,andisabletoconnectwiththevariousparticipantstoencouragethemandhelpkeepthemengageditisimportanttoschedule,sendreminders,andfosterpersistentparticipation

Oneresponserelatedtosurveyitem6;thecommentstated“moderatorkeepsthings

flowingandgoaloriented”whichwasfoundtobeinalignmentwithAction2:“The

moderatoractivelyguidesthequalityandfocusofthediscussions.”

Threeremainingresponseswerenotcategorized;onecommentedthatthe

moderatormayneedto“leveragetheCoPsothattheupperadminisawareofwhatgoeson

92

toimprovestudentlearning”,anotherspoketotheneedforthemoderatortobeasubject

matterexpertonimplementingandmanagingaspecificeducationalprogram,andone

notedthatthemoderatormightsuggest“nextsteps.”Figure4.19presentsthefullsetof

responsesannotatedtoillustraterelationshipstoexistingsurveyitems.

Figure4.19:Commentsinresponsetoopen-endedsurveyitemsolicitingmoderatoractionsnotyetmentionedwithannotation.

Moderatorcharacteristics.Theopen-endeditemcapturingpotentiallymissing

moderatorcharacteristicsrecordedfourcommentsfromrespondents(seeFigure4.20).

Twooftheresponsesweredeterminedtobecloseinintenttoitemsonthesurvey.The

firstofthesecommentsnotedadesirablemoderatorcharacteristicmightbean

“encouraging,positivementality”;thisisseenasanextensionofModeratorCharacteristic

4,“themoderatoriswelcoming”whichisderivedfromtheCoPliterature.Thesecond

comment,“themoderatormustbecomefamiliarwiththemembers’interestsand

93

applicationofthecommunity”,mightalsofitunderCharacteristic4butforthepurposeof

thisanalysisisconsideredanextensionofModeratorCharacteristic2,“themoderator

demonstratessocialacumen,understandingandawareness”.Theothertwocomments,

“Themoderator…presentsevidencebasedresearchinthebestpracticesofCoP”,and“the

moderatorhasthestature/reputationtoattractknowledgeableenthusiasticpeopleas

memberofthecommunity”willbediscussedinChapter5.

Figure4.20:Commentsinresponsetoopen-endedsurveyitemsolicitingmoderatorcharacteristicsnotyetmentioned.

Summary

Thischapterhaspresentedtheresultsofthestatisticalanalysisofthedatacollected

inresponsetothesurveyinstrument.Chapter5willdiscussthesefindings,present

recommendationsandconclusions,andprovideanoverallsummaryofthestudy.

CHAPTER5:DISCUSSION

Thecommunityofpractice(CoP)social/collaborativelearningmodelhasbeenwidely

adoptedsinceitsintroductionbyJeanLaveandEntienneWengerin1991,withgrowth

spurredonaspractitionergroupsincreasinglyleveragetechnologytoovercome

geographicallydispersedmemberships.Thisstudyhassoughttocontributetothebodyof

literatureconcernedwiththesupportandmanagementofcommunitiesofpracticeinthe

94

educationsectorinparticularbyexaminingtheroleofthemoderatorfromtheperspective

ofthemembershipinsuchgroups.

Thisfinalchapterpresentsasummaryofthestudyalongwithconclusionsdrawn

fromthedataanalysisdetailedinthepreviouschapter.Summarystatementsforeach

researchquestionarethenfollowedbyadiscussionofimplicationsforactionand

recommendationsforfuturestudy.Aformalconclusionbringsthechapter,andpaper,toa

close.

StudySummary

Educatorcommunitiesofpracticehavebecomepopularasarenasforeducator

professionaldevelopmentandasvenuesfordevelopingdistributedexpertise,collaborative

knowledgebuildingandprofessionalsocialnetworking.Theonlineenvironmentin

particularischargedwithprovidingpeerconnectivityregardlessofproximityyetthe

literatureindicatesthatthereisstillmuchtobelearnedaboutlaunching,growing,

sustainingandevolvingcommunitiesofpracticethatoccuratleastinpartonline.

InreviewingtheliteratureonCoPsuccessfactors,theresearcherfoundthefactorsto

bewelldescribedusingfoursummativecategoriesthatalsofitwithinthestudy’s

theoreticalframeworkasdefinedbytheCommunityofPracticeStructuralFrameworkand

thesocialcapitalframeworkadaptedbyLesserandStorck(2001);thesecategoriesgroup

togetherfactorsthat1)fosterandsupportcriticalinquiry,2)cultivateandencourage

mutualengagement,3)developandsupportcommunitysustainabilityand4)presentan

architecturethatsupportsmemberparticipation.

Theliteraturealsopersistentlyindicatedtheroleofmoderatororfacilitatorin

communitiesofpracticeasacrucialelementforCoPsuccess;thisfactorfitwithinand

95

acrossallfoursummativecategories.However,distinctactionsandcharacteristicsofthe

CoPmoderatorhaveonlyrecentlybeguntobedefinedandverylittleissuggested

concerningtheimpactoftheseactionsandcharacteristicsontheCoP,especiallyfromthe

perspectiveofmembers.Asaresult,thisstudysoughttodeterminethevalueCoP

membersplaceonvariousmoderatoractionsandcharacteristics,drawnfromthe

literatureandrepresentingthefourcategoriesofsuccessfactors,andhowmember

demographicsmayinfluencethesevalueperceptions.

Thefollowingresearchquestionshaveframedthisstudy:


moderatoractions?


moderatorcharacteristics?



andifso,how?

4. Aretheremoderatoractionsorcharacteristicsnotnotedintheliteraturethatare

valuedbymembers?

Surveymethodologywasdeterminedtobethemostexpedientanddirectmethodto

reachtheresearchgoalsafterconsultingtheliterature;web-basedsurveymethodologyin

particularwasselectedgiventheonlinenatureofthesecommunities.Thetarget

populationwasdefinedasUnitedStates-basedtechnicalworkforceeducatorswhoare

membersofCoPswhosedomainisthatofeducatorprofessionaldevelopmentandthe

developmentofpedagogicalcontentknowledge.Thesurveypopulationwasdrawnfroma

96

setofthreeeducatorCoPsthatmettheabovecriteriainadditiontoprovidingvariationin

thenumberofmembers,geographicaldistributionofmembers,anddiversityintermsof

age,gender,andlengthofassociationwiththecommunityofpractice.

Thesurveyinstrumentconsistedofanintroductorysectionthroughwhichinformed

consentwassecured,followedbyscreeningquestionsthatensuredthatrespondentsfitthe

criteriaforthestudy(educator,member/participantofeducatorCoP,currencyof

membership).“Moderatoraction”and“moderatorcharacteristic”pagesfollowedthe

introductorysection,eachpresentingaseriesofsevenitemsconcerningmoderatoractions

orcharacteristics,respectively,asdrawnfromCoPsuccessfactorliterature.Response

optionsforallvalueperceptionitemswereLikert-formattedresponsesof“Veryimportant

tome”,“Somewhatimportanttome”,“Somewhatunimportanttome”,“Notimportantto

me”,“DidNotObserve”and“PreferNottoAnswer.”Thefinalitemoneachpageprovided

anopen-endedtextresponseareatoallowrespondentstonoteadditionalmoderator

actionsorcharacteristicstheyfoundimportantandtoreducecognitivedissonancedueto

missingoptions.Followingthemoderatoractionandcharacteristicspages,demographic

itemscollectedinformationnecessaryforanalyzingtheinfluencethesevariablesmayhave

hadonthesubjects’perceivedvalueresponses.

DiscussionofResults

Oftheeighty-foursubjectsinitiallyinvitedtoparticipateinthisstudy,forty-six

responded.Aftertwentyrespondentswerescreenedoutasnon-educatorsoras

performingarolewithintheCoPotherthanthatofmember,twenty-threeparticipants

completedthesurveyinfullwithoneadditionalrespondentcompletingallbutthe

demographicitems

97

Theresponserateof54.8%andcompletionrateof50%metthecriteriainitiallyset

whenestablishingthesamplesize;theresponserateinparticularwasconsideredgenerous

giventhatweb-basedsurveystraditionallyexperiencemuchlowerresponseand

completionrates.However,atN=24,thiswasasmallstudywithsomechallengesinterms

ofgeneralizingresultsbutthedatacollecteddoesappeartosupportinitialfindings.The

nextsegmentwillexamineresultsastheypertaintoeachofthefourresearchquestions.

ResearchQuestion1

Thefirstresearchquestionasks:Whatvaluedomembersofeducatorcommunities

ofpracticeplaceonparticularmoderatoractions?Likertresponseformatteditems

collectedthisinformationonsevenmoderatoractions;resultswereexaminedusing

frequencyofresponseastheprimarymeasure.Thedataclearlyindicatedthatrespondents

self-reportedallsevenofthemoderatoractionsasimportant;overall,88.6%ofthe

responsesrecordedinthe“veryimportant”and“somewhatimportant”categoriesandonly

8.9%recordedinthe“somewhatunimportant”or“notimportant”categories.

Descriptivestatistics(median,mean)werealsocalculatedbasedontheseresponse

frequencies.Table5.1presentsthesevenitemsrelatedtomoderatoractionsindescending

rankorderofresponsemedianandmean.Giventhatnoneofthemediansarebelowa3,

andonlyonemeandipsbelowthatmark,thedataindicatesthatalloftheactionsareof

importancetorespondents.

98

Table5.1ModeratorActions1–7responseitemsinorderofresponsemedianandmean

TheresponseitemwiththelowestmeanisAction7whichasksaboutthe

importanceoftechnologysupportofferedbythemoderatortomembers.Theslightly

reducedimportanceratingofthisitemmayberelatedtotherelativeeasewithadopting

andusingtechnologythatisself-reportedbythisparticularsamplegroup.Theresponse

frequenciestothedemographicitem“howcomfortableareyouwithlearningnew

technologies?“indicatedthat95.6%oftherespondentsfeltateasewithtechnologyandin

particularlearningtousenewtechnologies;56.5%reported“Iamcomfortablelearning

newtechnologies”and39.1%reported“Iseekoutnewtechnologiestolearn.”Whilethere

maybeotherfactorsatplay,itwouldmakesensethatarespondentwhoiscomfortable

withtechnologyandperhapsevenpursuesnewtechnologieswouldratetechnology

supportasalittlelessimportantthanothermoderatoractions.Itwouldbeinterestingto

seeiftheresponsefrequenciesforthisparticularmoderatoractionwouldchangeifthe

Median MeanAction2 Moderatorcreatesconnectionsbetween

knowledgeseekersandexperts4 3.56

Action5 Moderatorkeepscommunityenergized 4 3.54

Action1 Moderatoractivelyguidesthequalityandfocusofdiscussions

3.5 3.5

Action6 Moderatordrawsinresourcestosupporttheworkofthecommunity

3.5 3.42

Action4 Moderatorworksatkeepingmembersinvolvedinthecommunity

3 3.2

Action3 Moderatorguidesthecommunitythroughdisruptionsorconflicts

3 3.19

Action7 Moderatorsupportsthemembers’useoftechnology

3 2.92

99

membersinsteadreportedthattheyfindtechnologychallengingorsomethingwithwhich

theyprefernottoengage.

Theresultsofthissmallstudyindicatenostatisticaldifferencebetweentheitems

andthussuggestthatmembersfindallprovidedmoderatoractionsacrossthecategoriesas

informedbytheliteraturetobeimportantandofvalue.Futurestudiesinthisareamay

seektoidentifyactionsthatarenotviewedasfavorablyasthese,ormightpursuethe

relationshipbetweenthesemoderatoractionsandtheoverallsuccessandeffectivenessof

theCoP.

ResearchQuestion2

Thesecondresearchquestionissimilartothefirstbutasks:Whatvaluedo

membersofeducatorcommunitiesofpracticeplaceonparticularmoderator

characteristics?Likertresponseformatteditemswereagainemployedtocollectsubjects’

responsesregardingsevenmoderatorcharacteristics;aswiththemoderatoractions,

resultswereexaminedusingfrequencyofresponseastheprimarymeasure.Thedata

againclearlyindicatedthatallsevenofthemoderatorcharacteristicswereimportantto

therespondentswith90.5%oftheresponsesrecordedinthe“veryimportant”and

“somewhatimportant”categoriesandonly9.0%recordedinthe“somewhatunimportant”

or“notimportant”categories.

Descriptivestatistics(median,mean)werealsocalculatedbasedontheseresponse

frequencies.Table5.2presentsthesevenitemsrelatedtomoderatorcharacteristicsagain

indescendingrankorderofresponsemedianandmean.Aswiththemoderatoractions,we

seethatnoneofthemediansarebelowa3yet,inthiscase,noneofthemeansdropbelow3

either,whichindicatesthatallofthecharacteristicsareofimportancetorespondents.

100

Table5.2ModeratorCharacteristics1–7responseitemsinorderofresponsemedianandmean

Thetopfourresponseitemsrelatetothestructuralandrelationaldimensionsof

socialcapitalinthattheyconcerncharacteristicsthatbringmemberstogetheranddeepen

theirconnections;thebottomthreecharacteristicsappeartobemorecloselyrelatedtothe

administrationoftheCoP.Thesetwogroups,characteristics1-4and5-7,wereanalyzedto

determineifastatisticallysignificantdifferencemightexistbetweenthesetwohowever,

thecomparisonofthepooledmeansandstandarddeviationsdidnotrejectthenull

hypothesisthatnodifferenceexisted.Characteristic7,muchlikeAction7,concernsthe

moderator’sskillwithtechnologyhoweverinthiscasethequestionisconcernedwith

whetherhavingatechnologicallyadeptmoderatorisofimportanceratherthanwhetheror

nottheyareabletosupportmemberswithtechnology.Again,itmaybethatthesurvey

population’srelativelyhighlevelsofself-reportedtechnologyaptitudehaveresultedinless

Median MeanCharacteristic3 Moderatordemonstratesthats/heis

trustworthy.4 3.54

Characteristic4 Moderatoriswelcoming. 4 3.50

Characteristic1 Moderatordemonstratesapassionforlearning.

4 3.46

Characteristic2 Moderatordemonstratessocialacumen,understandingandawareness.

4 3.42

Characteristic5 Moderatorisinnovativeinrespondingtochange.

3 3.29

Characteristic6 Moderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin.

3 3.08

Characteristic7 Moderatorskilledatusingtechnology 3 3.04

101

emphasisbeingplacedonmoderatortechnologicalacumen.Interestingly,theimportance

ratingfortheactionofthemoderatorprovidingtechnologicalsupportreceivedslightlyless

importancethanhavingamoderatorwhoisgenerallyskilledattechnology;furtherstudies

wouldbenecessarytoteaseoutwhythisisso.

Aswiththequestionaboutmoderatoractions,theresultsofthisportionofthe

surveyindicatenostatisticalsignificancebetweentheitemsandthatmembersfindallthe

listedmoderatorcharacteristics,whichrepresentthesummativecategoriesofsuccess

factorsforCoPs,tobeimportantandofvalue.

ResearchQuestion3

Thethirdresearchquestionasks:Domemberdemographics–age,gender,yearsof

CoPmembership,technologyexperience-influencethevaluerankingofmoderatoractions

andcharacteristics,andifso,how?Frequencytableswillnotsufficeindeterminingifa

relationshipexistsbetweenrespondentdemographicsandvalueperceptionstatementsso

afterconsultingtheliterature,one-wayANOVAs(F-tests)wererunoneachdemographic-

valueperceptionitempairings,followedbyaKruskal-Wallacetest.All56pairswere

evaluatedusingthistwo-stepprocedure;asignificancelevelof0.05wasassumedandthe

nullhypothesisforeachtestheldthattherewasnostatisticallysignificantdifferenceinthe

means(ANOVA)ormedians(Kruskal-Wallace)betweenthegroupsbeingtested.

Onlyonegrouprejectedthenullhypothesisunderbothparametricand

nonparametrictesting:thiswasthegrouppairingthevalueperceptionitemfor

characteristicC6,“Themoderatorfostersleadershipfromwithin,”withself-reported

technologycomfortlevel.Itisuncleartotheresearcherwhythisgroupwouldshow

significanceastheamountofself-reportedeasewithtechnologyseemsunrelatedtoa

102

measurerelatedtothemoderator’sinvolvementwithgroup’sevolutionofgovernance.

Furtherstudy,includinginterviewsofsubjects,wouldlikelyberequiredtodetermineif

thiswasafalsepositiveandifnot,tobetterunderstandthisstatisticallysignificant

differencebetweenmeansandmedians.

TwoothergroupsrejectedthenullhypothesiswhenanalyzedusingtheKruskal-

Wallacetest.ThefirstgrouppairedmoderatoractionA5“Themoderatorkeepsthe

communityenergized”,withthegenderdemographic;thefrequencydistributionof

responsesisillustratedinTable5.3.Itisclearfromthetablethatfiveofthefemale-

identifiedrespondersrankedthisactionas“veryimportant”whileslightlylessthanhalf

themalerespondentsreportedthistobe“veryimportant.”Itwouldbetemptingto

concludethatitismoreimportanttofemaleCoPmembersthenmaleCoPmembersthat

themoderatorenergizethegroupbutwithsuchasmallgroupsize,suchaconclusion

wouldbedifficulttodefend.

Table5.3Frequencyofresponsebygendergrouptoitem“Themoderatorkeepsthecommunityenergized”

GenderVery

ImportantSomewhatImportant

SomewhatUnimportant

NotImportant

DidNotObserve

Female 5 0 2 0

Male 7 8 2 0

Prefernottoanswer 2 0 2 0

Anadditionalpointofinterestwiththisparticulargroupistheamountofinfluence

thetworespondentswhodeclinedtoindicatetheirgender-andwhobothrankedthis

moderatoractionas“somewhatunimportant”-wouldhavehadonfindingsofsignificance

103

shouldtheirgenderbeknown.Assigningafemalegendertothetwogender-undeclared

respondentsandre-runningtheKruskal-Wallacetestlowersthep-valueandsustainsthe

rejectionofthenullhypothesis;nodifferenceintheoutcome.However,assigningamale

gendertothegender-undeclaredrespondentsresultsintherejectionofthenullhypothesis

andafindingthatthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthemediansofthetwogroups

inrelationshiptoA5.Whilethisisofcourseanacademicexerciseandnosuggestionis

beingmadethatdatabereplacedormanipulatedinsuchaway,itdoesillustratehowthe

smallsizeofthesampleandtheevensmallernumbersinsub-setsofthesamplecanbe

greatlyinfluencedbyverysmallchanges.Thisisaconcernthroughoutthestudy.

ThelastgroupthatrejectedthenullaftertheKruskal-Wallacetestingisthegroup

thatpairedmoderatorcharacteristicC2,“Themoderatordemonstratessocialacumen,

understandingandawareness”,withthelengthofCoPmembershipdemographic.Inthis

case,11outof14responses(78.6%)of“veryimportant”werereceivedfromrespondents

whohad3+yearsofmembershipintheirCoPsandwhorepresented11outofthe23

(47.8%)responsesreceivedoverall(seeTable5.4).Forthissample,itisclearthatthose

respondentswithlongertermsofinvolvementwithCoPsfeltthatsocialacumenina

moderatorwasquiteimportantandvaluable.

Table5.4FrequencyofresponsebylengthofCoPmembershipgrouptoitem“Themoderatordemonstratessocialacumen,understandingandawareness”LengthofCopMembership

VeryImportant

SomewhatImportant

SomewhatUnimportant

NotImportant

DidNotObserve

3+years 11 1 1 0 1

2-3years 3 1 0 0 0

1-2years 0 5 0 0 0

6months–1year 0 0 0 0 0

104

0–6months 0 0 0 0 0

Didnotobserve 0 0 0 0 0

Insummary,statisticallysignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenthemeansand

mediansofonegroup,andthemediansoftwoothers,howevergiventhesmallNforeach

test,theresultswouldneedtoberepeatedwithlargergroupspriortoconcludingthat

theseeffectswerereportableorthatdemographicsinfluencedthevalueplacedby

membersonmoderatoractionsandcharacteristics.Theonlypossibleexceptiontothis

wouldbethegroupthatpairedmoderatorsocialacumenandlengthofCoPmembership

butagain,andunfortunately,thesmallsamplesizelimitsthegeneralizabilityofthisresult.

ResearchQuestion4

Thefourthresearchquestionasks:Aretheremoderatoractionsorcharacteristics

notnotedintheliteraturethatarevaluedbymembers?Giventhatthesurvey’svalue

perceptionitemswerederivedfromtheliterature,thisquestionwasinvestigatedby

addingopen-endedtextquestionstocaptureanymoderatoractionsorcharacteristicsthat

mayhavebeenofvaluetotheCoPmembers.Becausethesewereopentextitems,text

analysisprocedureswereusedtoanalyze,categorizeandsummarizethecomments.

Suggestedmoderatoractions.Sevencommentswerereceivedregarding

moderatoractionsbytheopen-endedsurveyitem.Uponanalysis,asdetailedinChapter4,

threewerefoundtobecloseenoughinintenttofitwithinModeratorAction4:“The

moderatorworksatkeepingmembersinvolvedincommunity”andonewasdeterminedto

berelatedtosurveyitem6:“Themoderatoractivelyguidesthequalityandfocusofthe

105

discussions”.Thisleftthreeresponsesthatwerenotcategorizedintoexistingitemsonthe

surveywhichwewillnowexaminetoseeiftheymaypointtonewdirectionsorfitintothe

summativecategoriesofsuccessfactorsdiscussedearlier.

Thefirstcommentwasthatthemoderatormayneedto“leveragetheCoPsothatthe

upperadminisawareofwhatgoesontoimprovestudentlearning”.ThetaskofCoP

advocacyconcerninggainsinstudentachievementdoesnotappearintheliteratureasa

usualdutyforaCoPmoderator.Whilethismaybetrueforamoderatorservingmultiple

roles,forexampleactingalsoasCoPinstitutionalsponsorand/oradministrator,this

responsibilitywouldnotnecessarilyfitgloballyunderthemoderatorduties.Itcouldalso

bearguedthattheinstructionalstaffthemselvesmayhaveaccesstomoreexamples,in

additiontoaneducatorCoP,ofwhat“goesontoimprovestudentlearning”thatmightbe

sharedwiththeirupperadministrationandperhapsthisiswhatismeantby“leverage”,

howeverthisisunclear.Ontheotherhand,withinthecategoryofcultivatingacultureof

sustainability,amoderatormaywellneedtoadvocateonbehalfoftheCoPtosecure

resources,forexample,ortorecruitmembers,butthisisseenasquitedifferentfrom

takingonthejobofcommunicatingtheeffortsbeingmadetoimprovelearning.While

clearlyvaluabletothisrespondent,thisactionisnotnecessarilyagoodfitforthe

moderatorrole.

Thesecondcommentspoketotheneedforthemoderatortobeasubjectmatter

expertonimplementingandmanagingaspecificeducationalprogram.Thismightbe

expandedtosaythatitisbeneficialifthemoderatorisasubjectmatterexpertinthe

domainoftheCoP,astatementtowhichanumberofCoPresearcherswouldagree,

includingtheauthorofthisstudy.Therehasbeenlittleresearchintothisclaim,however,

106

andstudiesexaminingtheimpactofdomainexpertiseonmoderatoreffectivenesswould

helpdetermineifthisindeedwouldbeamoderatorstrength.Whilethismoderator

characteristic(foritismoreacharacteristicthananaction)isnotedinsomeofthe

literature,thisisindeedgoodfeedbackfromthememberperspectiveonsomethingthey

value.

Lastly,onerespondentnotedthatthemoderatormight“suggestionsfornextsteps.”

Asthisisarathervaguesuggestion,itwasdifficulttotellwhetherornotthisactionmight

fitunderoneofthesurveyitems;conceivablyitmightbeincludedin“themoderator

activelyguidesthequalityandfocusofdiscussions”,or”themoderatorguidesthe

communitythroughdisruptionsorconflicts”oreven“themoderatordrawsinresourcesto

supporttheworkofthecommunity.”Suggestingnextstepsmightalsobepartoffostering

mutualengagement,criticalinquiryorcommunitysustainability.Asstatedhowever,the

commentwasnotmadeclearenoughtobeconsideredasastand-alonemoderatoraction.

Suggestedmoderatorcharacteristics.Fourcommentswererecordedbythe

open-endeditemthatsoughttocapturemoderatorcharacteristicsthatrespondentsfelt

wereimportanttothemandnotrepresentedonthesurvey.Twooftheresponseswere

determinedtobecloseenoughinintenttoitemsonthesurveythattheyfitwithintwoof

theexistingmoderatorcharacteristics.Adiscussionoftheremainingtwocommentswill

nowcommence.

Thefirstcomment,“themoderatorisawareofandpresentsevidencebased

researchinthebestpracticesofCoP”isinterestinginthatitevokesametaroleforthe

moderatorasCoPexpertinadditiontootherdutiesandtasks.Whiletheliteratureappears

toassumethatthemoderatorwouldindeedbeknowledgeableaboutCoPbestpractices,

107

thischaracteristicisveryrarelypresentedasanattributeofamoderator;thiscomment

thereforepresentssomethingnewinitsapproach.Thereisalsoamoderatoraction

embeddedintherespondent’scomment(“presents…research”)thatfitslesseasilyintoa

categoryandmaynotbeagoodcandidateforanoverarchingmoderatoraction.

PresentingresearchonCoPpracticesmaywellencouragememberstobettersupportthe

CoPandevenadoptleadershiproles;thiswouldfitwellwithinthesummativesuccess

factorcategoryofsupportinganddevelopingcommunitysustainability.However,CoP

membersmayprefertofocusonthedomain-basedinteractionsandresourcesharingthat

broughtthemtotheCoPinthefirstplaceandtakeumbrageattimeandenergybeingspent

bytheCoPmoderatoronpresentingthe“bestpracticesofCoP”.Therefore,theusefulness

oftheactionaspectofthiscommentwouldlikelydependontheCoPanditsmembers.

Thesecondcommentrelatestocommunitybuildingandassuchfitswellwithinthe

categoryofcultivatingacultureofmutualengagement,whichhasasacomponent“building

amembership”.Thecommentreads“themoderatorhasthestature/reputationtoattract

knowledgeableenthusiasticpeopleasmembersofthecommunity”.Whilethesurveyitems

didnotreflectthiscriticalmoderatortaskduetospacelimitationsandconcernsfor

respondentoverload,theliteratureandsummativesuccessfactorcategoriescertainlydo.

Insummary,oftheelevencommentscontributedbyrespondents,sixwere

consideredtoberelatedcloselytosurveyitemsand,byextension,alreadypresent.Five

remained;onewasdeemedtobeoutsidetheroleofmoderatorandmoreinkeepingwith

theroleofCoPadministratororeventheinstructionalstaffthemselves.Onewastoovague

tobeanalyzed,andonefitcleanlyintoasummativecategoryandsuccessfactorheading

(cultureofmutualengagement/buildingamembership)butwasnotonthesurveydueto

108

limitationsandconcernsforsurveyfatigue.Theremainingtwocommentsilluminated

moderatorconsiderationsmissingintheliterature,thesummativecategories,andthe

surveyitems:thefirstbysuggestingthatthemoderatorshouldbeadomain-related

subjectmatterexpertandtheotherbyrecommendingthatthemoderatorexplicitlyplay

theroleofCoPexpert.Thesetwocommentsprovidedirectionforfurtherstudyinaddition

tonewperspectiveastowhatisimportanttomembers.

SummaryofResults

Thestudyresultsappeartoindicatethat,intermsofthemoderatoractionsand

characteristicsthatwerepresentedtothesurveyrespondents,allwereimportanttothe

surveyparticipants.Inaddition,theremaybearelationshipbetweenlongevityofCoP

membershipandperceivedvalueofsocialacumenonthepartofthemoderator,and

betweengenderandthemoderator’seffortstokeepthecommunityenergized.However,

astheseresultswerebasedonasmallsamplepopulation,furtherresearchwouldbe

neededbeforetheseresultscouldbegeneralized.Lastly,atleastonerespondentnoted

thatitwasimportantthatthemoderatorhavecontent-specificexpertiseandanother

commentedthatthemoderatorshouldembracetheroleofCoPexpertforthegroup.These

twocharacteristicswerenotincludedinthesuccessfactorsorsummativecategoriesof

successfactorssopresentanopportunityforfurtherresearch.

Conclusions

StudyLimitations

Clearlythegreatestlimitationforthisstudywasthesmallnumberofcompletions;

theresponseratewasstrongbutthelackofpre-screeningbythelistprovidersclearlydid

109

noteliminatethoseinviteeswhodidnotfitthestudytargetpopulationhencearatherlarge

numberofpotentialrespondentswerescreenedoutwithinthefirstseveralitemsofthe

survey.Whilethefinalresponsefrequenciesdidindicatepreferencesandtrends,thelow

numberscompromisedthecalculationsrequiredforanalysis.Additionally,theresponses

forResearchQuestion4(Aretheremoderatoractionsorcharacteristicsnotnotedinthe

literaturethatarevaluedbymembers?)wereespeciallylimitedandmaybebetter

investigatedusingamixedmethodsapproachthatcouldincorporatefocusgroupsand/or

follow-upinterviewstoteaseoutgreatervarietyanddepthinresponses.

AnotherlimitationwastheuseofLikert-typeresponseitemswhichresultedindata

thatwasessentiallyordinalratherthancontinuous,whichinturnlimitedthetypeofdata

analysisthatcouldbeperformed.FuturesurveydesignshouldincorporatetrueLikert

scales,whichrequiretheintegrationofmultiplelikeitemsthat,uponanalysis,are

combinedintocompositeitems;thesecompositescanthenbetreatedasintervaldataand

analyzedassuch.

Lastly,thestudypresentedaverylimitedsetofmoderatorcharacteristicsand

actions;inaddition,mostofthesewereframedinapositivemanner.Itmayhavebeen

usefultoincorporateagreaternumberofactionsandcharacteristicsandtoreversesome

ofthesurveyitemstoavoidaresponsebiasofreportingonlypositiveresponses.

ImplicationsandRecommendationsforFutureResearch

Theresultsofthisstudyare,firstandforemost,usefultocommunityofpractice

practitioners.Administratorsandmoderatorscanreviewthemoderatoractionsand

characteristicsthatthestudyhaspresented,beassuredthattheywerefoundtobe

110

importantandvaluablebythestudyrespondents,anddevelopplanstoimplement,

incorporate,ormodifytheirownlistofactionsandcharacteristicsthatcanbetterthework

theyaredoingwiththeircommunities.MembersofCoPscanalsousetheresultstoopena

dialogueamongstthemselvesandwiththeirmoderator(s);whatontheactionsor

characteristicslistsmightbeusefultothemasmembersandhowmighttheybe

implemented?

Intermsoffutureresearch,thisstudywillhopefullyspuroncontinuedinvestigation

intothearenaofcommunityofpracticemoderation.Theopen-endeditemswhichallowed

CoPmemberstocommentonactionsandcharacteristicsthattheyfoundtobeimportant

andvaluableturnedupvitalquestionsaboutthemoderator’sroleasCoPexpertand

whetherornotitwasnecessaryforthemoderatortobeadomain-subjectexpert.More

researchisneededonthesetopicsaswellasdeeperresearchintotheactualworkthat

moderatorsdo,andtheimpactthisworkhasonCoPeffectivenessandoutcomes.

Inaddition,thisstudysuggestsanumberofrelatedresearchquestionswhose

investigationmaybebeneficialtothefield,forexample:Isthereadistinctionbetween

memberperceptionofvaluetothecommunityandrealizedvaluetothecommunity?Are

theremoderatoractivitiesthatarepredictiveofcommunitysuccessthatcommunity

membersdonotvalue?Aretheremoderatoractivitiesthatarehighlyvaluedbythe

communitybutthatarealsopredictiveofcommunityfailure?Thesearebutafewofthe

avenuesopenedforfutureresearchasaresultofthisinitialstudy.

FinalRemarks

ThisstudyhasattemptedtoidentifytheperceivedvalueCoPmembersassignto

specificmoderatoractionsandcharacteristicsidentifiedascorrespondingtoCoPsuccess,

111

andtoexaminetheinfluencememberdemographicsmayhaveonthemembervalue

perceptions.Theresults,whichindicatethatmembersappeartovalueallpresented

moderatoractionsandcharacteristics,willbeappliedtomyownworkinsupporting

groupsthatseektoestablishacommunityofpracticeandwillalsoinformtheconstruction

ofaconcise“jobaid”formoderatorswithwhomIwork.Futureinvestigationsintotherole

ofthemoderatorasCoPexpertandsubject/contentmatterexpertwillalsoshapethe

implementationofsupportsgoingforward.Andwhilethesmallcompletionnumbersin

thisstudyhamperedtheanalysisofthedatasomewhat,enoughconsistencywasobserved

toinformthispracticeandfuturestudies.

Itwillalsobeinterestingtoseehowtheevolutionandadoptionofsynchronous

web-basedconnectiveplatformsandsoftwaremayimpacttheworkofacommunityof

practicethatdoessomeormostofitsworkonlineand,subsequently,impacttheroleofthe

moderator.MighttheactionsandcharacteristicsgleanedfromtheCoPsuccessfactor

literaturebeeclipsedbynewordifferentmoderatoractionsorcharacteristicsneededfor

synchronouslyconnectingmembersacrossdistances?Thismayalsoprovetobearich

areaforfutureresearch.

112

REFERENCES

Abd-Elaziz,A.,Ezz,I.,Papazafeiropoulou,A.,Paul,R.,&Stergioulas,L.(2012).Investigating

theCriticalSuccessFactorsandInfrastructureofKnowledgeManagementforOpen

InnovationAdoption:TheCaseofGlaxoSmithKline(GSK)inEgypt(pp.4022–4031).

IEEE.doi:10.1109/HICSS.2012.384

Annabi,H.,McGann,S.T.,Pels,S.,Arnold,P.,&Rivinus,C.(2012).GuidelinestoAlign

CommunitiesofPracticewithBusinessObjectives:AnApplicationofSocialMedia.

201245thHawaiiInternationalConferenceonSystemSciences,3869–3878.

doi:10.1109/HICSS.2012.297

Ardichvili,A.(2008).LearningandKnowledgeSharinginVirtualCommunitiesofPractice:

Motivators,Barriers,andEnablers.AdvancesinDevelopingHumanResources,10(4),

541–554.doi:10.1177/1523422308319536

Ardichvili,Alexander,Page,V.,&Wentling,T.(2002).VirtualKnowledge-Sharing

CommunitiesofPracticeatCaterpillar:SuccessFactorsandBarriers.Performance

ImprovementQuarterly,15(3),94–113.

Ardichvili,Alexander,Page,V.,&Wentling,T.(2003).Motivationandbarriersto

participationinvirtualknowledge-sharingcommunitiesofpractice.Journalof

KnowledgeManagement,7(1),64–77.doi:10.1108/13673270310463626

Allen,I.&Seaman,C.(2007).Likertscalesanddataanalysis.Retrievedfrom:

113

http://asq.org/quatlity-progress/2007/07/statistics/liker-scales-and-data-

analysis.html

Attwell,G.,&Elferink,R.(2007).DevelopinganArchitectureofParticipation.In

ProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceof’Interactivecomputeraided

learning’ICL2007:EPortofolioandQualityine-Learning(p.14–pages).Retrieved

fromhttp://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/72/55/PDF/111_Final_Paper.pdf

Babinski,L.M.,Jones,B.D.,&DeWert,M.H.(2001).Therolesoffacilitatorsandpeersinan

onlinesupportcommunityforfirst-yearteachers.JournalofEducationaland

PsychologicalConsultation,12(2),151–169.

Baek,E.-O.,&Schwen,T.M.(2006).HowtoBuildaBetterOnlineCommunity.Performance

ImprovementQuarterly,19(2),51–68.

Barab,S.A.,MaKinster,J.G.,&Scheckler,R.(2003).Designingsystemdualities:

Characterizingaweb-supportedprofessionaldevelopmentcommunity.The

InformationSociety,19(3),237–256.

Bourhis,A.,&Dube,L.(2010).“Structuringspontaneity”:investigatingtheimpactof

managementpracticesonthesuccessofvirtualcommunitiesofpractice.Journalof

InformationScience,36(2),175–193.doi:10.1177/0165551509357861

Bourhis,Anne,Dubé,L.,&Jacob,R.(2005).Thesuccessofvirtualcommunitiesofpractice:

Theleadershipfactor.TheElectronicJournalofKnowledgeManagement,3(1),23–

34.

Brenner,M.E.(2006).InterviewinginEducationalResearch.InHandbookof

ComplementaryMethodsinEdcuationResearch(pp.357–370).Mahwah,NJ:

AmericanEducationalReserachAssociation.

114

Brown,J.S.,&Duguid,P.(1991).Themanagementofinnovation.OrganizationScience,

2(1),40–51.

Brown,JohnSeely,&Duguid,P.(2001).Knowledgeandorganization:Asocial-practice

perspective.Organizationscience,12(2),198–213.

Carifio,J.&Perla,R.(2007).Tencommonmisunderstandings,misconceptions,persistent

mythsandurbanlegendsaboutLikertscalesandLikertresponseformatsandtheir

antidotes.JournalofSocialSciences,3(3),106-116.

Carifio,J.&Perla,R.(2008).Resolvingthe50-yeardebatearoundusingandmisusing

Likert

scales.MedicalEducation,42(12),1150-1152.

Chang,H.H.,&Chuang,S.-S.(2011).Socialcapitalandindividualmotivationsonknowledge

sharing:Participantinvolvementasamoderator.Information&Management,48(1),

9–18.doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.11.001

Cheung,C.M.K.,Lee,M.K.O.,&Lee,Z.W.Y.(2013).Understandingthecontinuance

intentionofknowledgesharinginonlinecommunitiesofpracticethroughthepost-

knowledge-sharingevaluationprocesses.JournaloftheAmericanSocietyfor

InformationScienceandTechnology,64(7),1357–1374.doi:10.1002/asi.22854

Chiu,C.-M.,Hsu,M.-H.,&Wang,E.T.G.(2006).Understandingknowledgesharinginvirtual

communities:Anintegrationofsocialcapitalandsocialcognitivetheories.Decision

SupportSystems,42(3),1872–1888.doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001

Clegg,F.(1998).SimpleStatistics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

115

Cousin,G.,&Deepwell,F.(2005).Designsfornetworklearning:acommunitiesofpractice

perspective.StudiesinHigherEducation,30(1),57–66.

doi:10.1080/0307507052000307795

Dubé,L.,Bourhis,A.,&Jacob,R.(2006).Towardsatypologyofvirtualcommunitiesof

practice.InterdisciplinaryJournalofInformation,Knowledge,andManagement,1(1),

69–93.

Dzunic,Zeljiko,Stoimenov,Leonid,&Dzunic,Marija.(2011).TrustineLearningSystems

BasedonVirtualCommunityofPractice.TechnicsTechnologiesEducation

Management,6(4),1235–1245.

Farooq,U.,Schank,P.,Harris,A.,Fusco,J.,&Schlager,M.(2007).SustainingaCommunity

ComputingInfrastructureforOnlineTeacherProfessionalDevelopment:ACase

StudyofDesigningTappedIn.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),16(4-

5),397–429.doi:10.1007/s10606-007-9049-0

Farzan,R.,DiMicco,B.,&Brownholtz,B.(2009).SrepadingtheHoney:Asystemfor

MaintaininganOnlineCommunity.PresentedattheGROUP’09,SanibelIsland,FL:

IBMResearch.

Gannon-Leary,P.,&Fontainha,E.(2007).CommunitiesofPracticeandvirtuallearning

communities:benefits,barriersandsuccessfactors.Elearningpapers.Retrieved

fromhttp://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/2147/

Gareis,C.R.,&Nussbaum-Beach,S.(2008).ElectronicallyMentoringtoDevelop

AccomplishedProfessionalTeachers.JournalofPersonnelEvaluationinEducation,

20(3-4),227–246.doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9060-0

116

Goos,M.E.,&Bennison,A.(2007).Developingacommunalidentityasbeginningteachers

ofmathematics:Emergenceofanonlinecommunityofpractice.Journalof

MathematicsTeacherEducation,11(1),41–60.doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9061-9

Gray,B.(2005).Informallearninginanonlinecommunityofpractice.TheJournalof

DistanceEducation/Revuedel’ÉducationàDistance,19(1).Retrievedfrom

http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/viewArticle/103

Guldberg,K.,&Mackness,J.(2009).Foundationsofcommunitiesofpractice:enablersand

barrierstoparticipation:Foundationsofcommunitiesofpractice.Journalof

ComputerAssistedLearning,25(6),528–538.doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2729.2009.00327.x

Gunawardena,C.,Layne,L.,&Frechette,C.(2012).Designingwisecommunitiesthat

engageincreativeproblemsolving:Ananalysisofanonlinedesignmodel.In

Proceedingsofthe62ndAnnualConferenceoftheInternationalCouncilofEducational

Media(p369-379).

Hanewald,R.,&Gesthuizen,R.(2009).SustainabilityinanOnlineCommunityofPractice:

theCaseStudyofaGroupofSecondarySchoolEducatorsinVictoria.Australian

journalofteachereducation,34(5),3.

Hew,K.F.,&Hara,N.(2006).Identifyingfactorsthatencourageandhinderknowledge

sharinginalongstandingonlinecommunityofpractice.JournalofInteractiveOnline

Learning,5(3),297–316.

Hew,K.F.,&Hara,N.(2007).Empiricalstudyofmotivatorsandbarriersofteacheronline

knowledgesharing.EducationalTechnologyResearchandDevelopment,55(6),573–

595.doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9049-2

117

Hodgkinson-Williams,C.,Slay,H.,&Siebörger,I.(2008).Developingcommunitiesof

practicewithinandoutsidehighereducationinstitutions.BritishJournalof

EducationalTechnology,39(3),433–442.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00841.x

Hsu,M.-H.,Chang,C.-M.,&Yen,C.-H.(2011).Exploringtheantecedentsoftrustinvirtual

communities.Behaviour&InformationTechnology,30(5),587–601.

doi:10.1080/0144929X.2010.549513

Iriberri,A.,&Leroy,G.(2009).Alife-cycleperspectiveononlinecommunitysuccess.ACM

ComputingSurveys(CSUR),41(2),11.

Jamieson,Susan.(2004).Likertscales:Howto(ab)usethem.MedicalEducation,38(12),

1217-1218.

Jarrahi,M.H.,&Sawyer,S.(2012).SocialTechnologies,InformalKnowledgePractices,and

theEnterprise.JournalofOrganizationalComputingandElectronicCommerce,

121115075642003.doi:10.1080/10919392.2013.748613

Johnson,C.M.(2001).Asurveyofcurrentresearchononlinecommunitiesofpractice.The

internetandhighereducation,4(1),45–60.

Kao,C.-P.,&Tsai,C.-C.(2009).Teachers’attitudestowardweb-basedprofessional

development,withrelationtoInternetself-efficacyandbeliefsaboutweb-based

learning.Computers&Education,53(1),66–73.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.019

Koch,M.,&Fusco,J.(2008).Designingforgrowth:Enablingcommunitiesofpracticeto

developandextendtheirworkonline.InC.Kimble&P.Hildreth(Eds.),Communities

ofPracticeCreatingLearningEnvironmentsforEducators(Vol.2,pp.1–23).

Lesser,E.L.,&Storck,J.(2001).Communitiesofpracticeandorganizationalperformance.

IBMsystemsjournal,40(4),831–841.

118

McLureWasko,M.,&Faraj,S.(2000).“Itiswhatonedoes”:whypeopleparticipateand

helpothersinelectroniccommunitiesofpractice.TheJournalofStrategic

InformationSystems,9(2),155–173.

Muller,M.,Ehrlich,K.,Matthews,T.,Perer,A.,Ronen,I.,Guy,I.,Street,O.R.,etal.(2012).

DiversityamongEnterpriseOnlineCommunities :Collaborating,Teaming,and

InnovatingthroughSocialMedia.ProceedingsofACMSIGCHIConferenceonHuman

FactorsinComputingSystemsCHI2012,2815–2824.

Nahapiet,J.,&Ghoshal,S.(1998).SocialCapital,IntellectualCapital,andtheOrganizational

Advantage.AcademyofManagementReview,23(2),242–266.

Norman,G.(2010).Likertscales,levelsofmeasurementandthe"laws"ofstatistics.

AdvancesinHealthSciencesEducation,15(5),625-632.

Preece,J.(2004).Ettiquette,empathyandtrustincommunitiesofpractice:stepping-stones

tosocialcapital.JournalofUniversalComputerScience,10(3),294–302.

Preece,Jenny.(2001).Sociabilityandusabilityinonlinecommunities:determiningand

measuringsuccess.Behaviour&InformationTechnology,20(5),347–356.

Riverin,S.,&Stacey,E.(2008).Sustaininganonlinecommunityofpractice:Acasestudy.

TheJournalofDistanceEducation/Revuedel’ÉducationàDistance,22(2).Retrieved

fromhttp://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/viewArticle/3

Shadish,W.,Cook,T.&Campbell,D.(2002).Experimentalandquasi-experimentaldesigns

forgeneralizedcausalinference.Bostom:Houghton-Mifflin.

Sullivan,G.&Artino,A.(2013).AnalyzingandinterpretingdatafromLikert-typescales.

JournalofGraduateMedicalEducation,5(4),541-542.

119

U.S.DepartmentofEducation.(2011).ConnectandInspire:OnlineCommunitiesofPractice

inEducation.

Wasko,M.M.,&Faraj,S.(2005).WhyshouldIshare?Examiningsocialcapitaland

knowledgecontributioninelectronicnetworksofpractice.MISquarterly,35–57.

Wenger,E.,McDermott,R.,&Snyder,W.(2002).CultivatingCommunitiesofPractice:A

guidetomanangingknowledge.HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Wenger,E.,&Snyder,W.(2000).Communitiesofpractice:Theorganizationalfrontier.

HarvardBusinessReview,78(1),139–145.

Wenger,Etienne,&Lave,J.(1991).SituatedLearning:LegitimatePeripheralParticipation

(1sted.).NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Wenger,E.,White,N.,&Smith,J.D.(2009).DigitalHabitats;stewardingtechnologyfor

communities.Portland,OR:CPSquare.

Wenger,Etienne.(1998).CommunitiesofPractice:Learning,meaningandidentity.

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Wubbels,T.(2007).Doweknowacommunityofpracticewhenweseeone?Technology,

PedagogyandEducation,16(2),225–233.doi:10.1080/14759390701406851

Young,M.L.,&Tseng,F.C.(2008).Interplaybetweenphysicalandonlinesettingsfor

onlineinterpersonaltrustformationinknowledge-sharingpractice.

CyberPsychology&Behavior,11(1),55–64.

Zhao,X.,&Bishop,M.J.(2011).Understandingandsupportingonlinecommunitiesof

practice:lessonslearnedfromWikipedia.EducationalTechnologyResearchand

Development,59(5),711–735.doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9204-7

120

121

APPENDIXA:FULLSURVEYINSTRUMENT

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

APPENDIXB:SURVEYPILOTTESTFEEDBACKFORM1) Access:Howeasywasittoaccessthesurvey?DidtheURLmakesense?2) Intro/consent:Wastheinitialinstruction/consentpageeasytocomprehend?Wasittoo

longortobrief?Wasthereanyinformationmissingthatshouldhavebeenincluded,ortoomuchinformation?Doyouhaveanyotherinputregardingtheinitialinformation/consentpage?

3) Screeningquestions:Werethescreeningquestionsclearandeasytoanswer?Ifyouwere

forwardedtoanexitpage,didyoufindtheexplanationsatisfactory?Doyouhaveanyothercommentsregardingthescreeningquestions?

4) Moderatoractionsandcharacteristics:Werethepageswiththesevenquestionsregarding

moderatoractionsandcharacteristicsclearandeasytoadvancethrough?Wereanyelementsconfusing?Howmightthesepagesbebetterconstructed?Anyothercomments?

5) Demographicinfo:Didthedemographicquestionsdemonstratesensitivityandclarity?Do

youhaveanysuggestionsaboutthesequestions?6) Overall:Wastheexperiencesmoothorwerethereissues?Howlongdoyouthinkthis

surveymighttaketocomplete?Doyouhaveanysuggestionsorcommentsaboutthesurveyoverall?

131

APPENDIXC:SAMPLEEMAILINVITATION

Hello Fellow Educator -- In follow-up to an earlier email from xx xxx, Director of the xx xxx, I am writing to ask if you might take a few moments to complete a brief survey that will help increase understanding of the moderator or coordinator role in educator communities of practice. Communities of practice (CoPs) are groups of individuals who connect around a shared topic of interest and who collaborate to grow knowledge and improve their practice. You were selected to participate based on your involvement in the xxx community; your contact information was provided in the interest of improving the community experience for all. The survey should take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. Your responses will be kept completely confidential and your email address will be used only to track completions. Once the survey is completed, you will not be contacted again unless you indicate your interest in survey results or follow-up interviews. Please click the "Begin Survey" button below to get started. The survey will remain open until Friday May 20th. We hope you will share your experiences to better inform moderator best practices and, in turn, help support educator communities of practice. Please don't hesitate to contact me with questions or concerns. Mary Slowinski, University of Washington [email protected]

Begin Survey

132

APPENDIXD:RESULTSOFANALYSISOFPAIRS

MODERATORACTIONS/GENDERNullHypothesesH0A1-H0A7:ThereisnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenrankingsofModeratorAction1-7bygender-basedgroupsKuskal-WallisTest

Notes:.05significancelevel,adjustedforties(higheraccuracy)One-WayANOVA

Note:0.05significancelevel

H0A1 H0A2 H0A3 H0A4 H0A5 H0A6 H0A7H-value 0.39 3.58 0.70 0.55 6.04 0.97 1.93

df 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

P-value 0.8230 0.1672 0.7040 0.7607 0.0489 0.6163 0.3816

Greaterorlessthan.05levelofsignificance

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Less

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis

Accept Accept Accept Accept Reject Accept Accept

Finding Differenceisnotstatisticallysignificant

Differenceisnotstatisticallysignificant



DifferencebetweenmediansISstatisticallysignificant



H0A1 HoA2 H0A3 H0A4 H0A5 H0A6 H0A7F-value 0.18 1.17 0.16 0.32 3.31 0.21 1.78

df 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

P-value 0.8364 0.3301 0.8562 0.7273 0.0574 0.8092 0.1944

Greaterorlessthan.05levelofsignificance?

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis

Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept








133

MODERATORACTIONS/AGEGROUPNullHypothesesH0A1-H0A7:ThereisnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenrankingsofModeratorAction1-7byagegroupKuskal-WallisTest




df 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

P-value 0.4472 0.4217 0.3508 0.6886 0.3810 0.3574 0.1795


Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis









H0A1 HoA2 H0A3 H0A4 H0A5 H0A6 H0A7F-value 0.87 0.72 1.88 0.46 1.07 1.18 1.71

DF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3P-value 0.4735 0.5544 0.1680 0.7163 0.3850 0.3433 0.1991


Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis









134

MODERATORACTIONS/LENGTHOFCOPMEMBERSHIPNullHypothesesH0A1-H0A7:ThereisnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenrankingsofModeratorAction1-7bygroupsbasedonlengthofCoPmembership.Kuskal-WallisTest



df 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

P-value 0.9277 0.1723 0.0977 0.4452 0.9296 0.6776 0.0853


Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis









H0A1 HoA2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7F-value 0.07 0.99 2.36 0.55 0.03 1.18 2.71DF 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

P-value 0.9339 0.3879 0.1202 0.5850 0.3850 0.9696 0.0909


Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis


Finding Differenceisnot

Differenceisnot

Differenceisnot

Differenceisnot

Differenceisnot

Differenceisnot

Differenceisnot

135


MODERATORACTIONS/TECHNOLOGYCOMFORTLEVELNullHypothesesH0A1-H0A7:ThereisnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenrankingsofModeratorAction1-7bygroupsbasedontechnologycomfortlevels.Kuskal-WallisTest


statisticallysignificant








df 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

P-value 0.5779 0.2622 0.6516 0.2506 0.6575 0.4705 0.7733


Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis









H0A1 H0A2 H0A3 H0A4 H0A5 AH0A6 H0A7F-value 0.52 0.24 0.13 1.70 0.48 0.46 0.69

DF 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

P-value 0.5996 0.7854 0.8786 0.2072 0.6236 0.6399 0.5135


Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

136


MODERATORCHARACTERISTICS/GENDERNullHypothesesH0C1-H0C7:ThereisnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenrankingsofModeratorCharacteristics1-7bygender-basedgroupsKuskal-WallisTest


Nullhypothesis









H0A1 HoA2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7H-value 1.80 1.39 0.34 1.80 0.57 2.58 2.07df 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

P-value 0.4063 0.4988 0.8430 0.4063 0.7534 0.2574 0.3552


Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis









H0C1 HoC2 HoC3 HoC4 HoC5 HoC6 HoC7F-value 0.54 0.54 0.03 0.54 0.11 1.99 0.44

DF 2 2 2 2 2 2 2P-value 0.5909 0.5885 0.9719 0.590 0.8967 0.1623 0.6484

137


MODERATORCHARACTERISTICS/AGEGROUPS

NullHypothesesH0C1-H0C7:ThereisnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenrankingsofModeratorCharacteristics1-7byage-basedgroupsKuskal-WallisTest



Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis









H0C1 HoC2 HoC3 HoC4 HoC5 HoC6 HoC7H-value 2.86 2.47 0.60 2.51 3.93 3.64 1.74

df 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

P-value 0.4142 0.4799 0.8975 0.4739 0.2687 0.3034 0.6273


Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis









H0C1 HoC2 HoC3 HoC4 HoC5 HoC6 HoC7F-value 0.90 0.43 0.14 0.60 1.10 1.66 0.432

138


MODERATORCHARACTERISTICS/LENGTHOFCoPMEMBERSHIPNullHypothesesH0C1-H0C7:ThereisnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenrankingsofModeratorCharacteristics1-7basedonlengthofCoPmembership.Kuskal-WallisTest


DF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3P-value 0.4609 0.7342 0.9371 0.6245 0.3752 0.2091 0.8094


Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis









H0C1 HoC2 HoC3 HoC4 HoC5 HoC6 HoC7H-value 0.60 6.70 3.44 1.17 2.98 3.64 0.96

df 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

P-value 0.7414 0.0352 0.1795 0.5557 0.2254 0.8581 0.6194


Greater

LessThan

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis

Accept Reject Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept








139


MODERATORCHARACTERISTICS/TECHNOLOGYCOMFORTLEVEL

NullHypothesesH0C1-H0C7:ThereisnostatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenrankingsofModeratorCharacteristics1-7bytechnologycomfortlevelgroups.Kruskal-WallisTest

Notes:.05significancelevel,adjustedforties(higheraccuracy)

H0C1 HoC2 HoC3 HoC4 HoC5 HoC6 HoC7F-value 0.03 0.77 3.33 1.27 2.13 0.29 0.63DF 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

P-value 0.9672 0.4770 0.0565 0.3020 0.1448 0.7513 0.5423Greaterorlessthan.05levelofsignificance?

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis









H0C1 H0C2 H0C3 H0C4 H0C5 H0C6 H0C7H-value 1.65 1.03 2.36 2.91 1.44 6.66 1.68df 2 2 2 2 2 2 2P-value 0.4386 0.5988 0.3069 0.2339 0.4880 0.0357 0.4323Greaterorlessthan.05levelofsignificance?

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

LessThan

Greater

Nullhypothesis

Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Reject Accept








140

One-WayANOVA


H0C1 H0C2 H0C3 H0C4 H0C5 AH0C6 H0C7F-value 1.04 0.94 0.76 0.39 0.64 4.81 0.69

DF 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

P-value 0.3714 0.4077 0.4809 0.6825 0.5403 0.0198 0.5135Greaterorlessthan.05levelofsignificance?

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Greater

Nullhypothesis

Accept Accept Accept Accept Accept Reject Accept








©Copyright 2016 Mary Slowinski

Documents