Meeting New People - CoP's & Feedback

Collaboration & Communities of Practice (CoP's)

One of the best parts of traveling is meeting and interacting new and interesting people and cultures.  Similarly, one of the best parts of my MET journey has been meeting new people from across the globe while learning with and from them all through the natural community of practice (CoP) that evolved during each course!

Vygotskian principles of social-constructivism come to mind when discussing CoP’s.  Vygotsky, a Russian scientist, was involved in researching and observing learning at the same time as Piaget.  He gave particular attention to the role of community in social development which included language and culture as well as social interaction. 

Like Vygotsky, Bandura and other Social Learning Theorists and Constructivists, I believe that learning is a highly social process that can be distributed among individuals, time, artifacts, tools, and one’s environment.  Learning is most effective when learners actively engage with content in various contexts multiple times, negotiate new information in social settings both collaboratively and (especially) in debate and are challenged to make connections and apply knowledge (Miller, 2002).  Similarly, Palloff and Pratt indicate that “students need to gather in cyberspace, just as they do on a campus of a university” (1999, p.11). 

Likewise, I enjoyed collaborating using forums, Wimba, chat, Google Docs, Moodle, Wiki's, blogs and Skype.  Bonding through a common interest of Education and Technology, we meaningfully participated together and created some amazing projects that would not have been possible without group collaboration!  My group members were instrumental in guiding me through many projects and the learning curve involved.   

Scardamalia & Bereiter refer to Communities of Practice as:  “From the perspective of social interaction, there is an expectation of constructive response to one another’s work, ideas, thoughts, responses and posts.   In a decentralized knowledge-building environment (such as blog and wiki), the “more knowledgeable others” do not stand outside the learning process (as teachers often do), but rather participate actively. Further, the knowledge of the most advanced participant does not circumscribe what is to be learned or investigated… Less knowledgeable participants in the discourse play an important role, pointing out what is difficult to understand and, in turn, inadequacies in explanations. To the extent that novices can be engaged in pushing the discourse toward definition and clarification, their role is as important as that of those more knowledgeable” (1994, p. 274-275).  

Similarly, Driscoll (2005, p. 177) describes “the function of a community of practice is to work with knowledge.”  Good pedagogy is good pedagogy. The relationship between teaching and learning is key with or without technology.  That being said, the MET program and its variety of on-line courses, most definitely, are a knowledge-building Community of Practice (CoP)!  The great thing about the MET program is that the backgrounds of people are so varied that you get amazing insights. The “bar is raised” daily in our MET CoP.  I have learned so much from seeing the way different people approach things, and I have been able to raise the bar for myself.  I truly believe that we learn so much from each other that our thinking transforms. The bar also raises not only in content and thought process but in presentation as well.  Working together we could create a much more comprehensive and polished product.  In my opinion, from everything we learn in the MET Program and from each other, group presentations kept getting better as we inspired and supported each other! 

An article from 510 by Barab & Duffy (2000) list three characteristics of a CoP which are very much inherent in our MET program:

1. A Common Goal, Cultural and Historical Heritage – Primarily, we share the same goal and passion of education and learning (Educational Technology – we’re all in MET).  But within a few weeks, after we get to know each other better, we find other similarities with each other even though we may be all from different heritage, backgrounds and cultures.

2. An Interdependent System – We all posted and valued each other’s contributions by engaging in discussions of concepts, ideas, reflections, etc. The affordances available through WebCT-Vista such as: synchronous and asynchronous communication, discussions, web tools, videos, graphics, etc. that we, learners, have had contribute to the knowledge-building CoP.  To name a few, I believe our MET CoP - Community of Practice  fostered:

a. Pervasive Knowledge building - There was always someone posting new ideas and new information for building upon.

b. Idea diversity - As MET participants, we all come from a variety of occupations, cultures etc., and each of us in our MET CoP approached situations and problems from different perspectives.

c. Community knowledge & collective responsibility - Group Presentations & Collaboration

d. Constructive uses of authoritative sources - We all learned in the MET program to source and be able to defend our opinions and arguments.

3. A Reproduction Cycle – We all responded to each others posts, ideas, thoughts, etc. and engage in discussion. I believe that the self-directed reflection and the review/feedback discourse loop created by the class often lead to deeper discussions of the issue itself and often deeper understanding, meta- cognition and critical thinking.  Our various CoP’s functioned in a sort of rhythm, that changed as the topics and courses changed.  

My Australia CoP - My Bus Tour Group - March 1999

The Power of Feedback

In all of the learning theories I’ve been introduced to, feedback is acknowledged by all as an important element in the learning process.  Social Learning Theorists like Vygotsky & Bruner would agree that feedback is key to learning, especially self-regulated feedback from personal reflection (Miller, 2002)!  There are different types of feedback that I have been able to engage in throughout my MET journey.  I have participated in self- regulated personal reflection assessments, peer & group reviews and assessments as well as instructor feedback.  I can honestly say that I have experienced the growth that I have in this program largely in part due to the excellent feedback I’ve received from my MET CoP!  This amazing group of individuals had helped me gain confidence in my skills as I have progressed through the program course to course.  The individual projects and assignments I have created are a direct result of the feedback received from my peers.  I tried to keep in mind and continue to share all their ‘mini-lessons’ and tips.  That being said, the collaboration and feedback that I’ve been engaged in in various group projects have shaped our final products.  It was always very interested in how others viewed our work (our project) or my individual projects.  The differences in perspectives of how others interpret our work are very helpful in their peer reviews of our work.  These different perspectives, suggestions, comments and tips always improved our final projects and broadened my awareness.  As the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, we, individually, would not have been able to create the same type of polished product had we not collaborated together.  Likewise, the constructive feedback I have received throughout my MET journey has been extremely significant and instrumental in shaping the skills I currently attain! 

One of the ways I’ve received instant feedback is working with technology!  In the beginning, I was a novice and nervous to fully immerse myself in and explore many of the technology tools.  I soon began to use a few tools, wikis, blogs and such more regularly and soon enough I was editing wikis & blogs, making short videos, screencast tutorials and answering other peoples’ questions.  I was gaining efficacy and confidence in my newly acquired technology knowledge and skills! By my fourth course I was giving pointers it seemed effortlessly!  I was thoroughly engaged and wanted to share what I had learned with everyone. 

Another instant feedback is discussion posts.  When we post our thoughts and ideas it is very rewarding and satisfying to have others respond.  I knew that the minute I logged-in to my course and saw that I had new replies I got excited.  I was curious to read what someone has thought of my post and whether they found it relative to the topic.  In the beginning I was a fish out of water posting – I wasn’t quite sure how to do it correctly, I mean what are the protocols for replying etc.  I was intimidated and a little freaked out so I started out by observing and reading a few of the discussion posts before I would formulate my final idea to post – always afraid to be one of the first in the discussions.  However, this tepidness didn’t last long.  By my third or fourth course I couldn’t wait to be one of the first to post my ideas on the outlined discussion topics.  My whole perspective had changed by that point.  From then on, I aimed to work ahead, complete the readings early to have a few days to think about and formulate my response before I posted my response but always aiming to be the first to post when the new week’s discussion thread was opened!   The dynamic discussions that could develop and evolve over the week was thrilling and ultimately engaging.  The instant gratification from the simple feedback of seeing replies to my posts inspired me to be a first responder!

MET Mentors

When I first started the program I felt quite intimidated, overwhelmed and unprepared for the level of discourse and expertise of the class.  One of the features of the MET program is that one is not forced into a specific schedule or tailored order of courses to follow.  There are four core courses that must be taken, then one must choose 6 electives for a total of 10 courses but the order of completion is entirely a personal choice.  As each participant has a different starting point, there are many different skill levels in each course.  At first, the more experienced ‘veteran’ MET students were like celebrities to me with their wealth of knowledge.  I didn’t realize how important these MET Mentors would become until there was a family crisis and I had very little online time available, they were understanding, compassionate, very helpful and very patient with my access time and learning curve.  They taught me how to manage my way through creating my first wiki for our group and even explained web design to me in ‘beginner terms’.  The consistent reassurance from these amazing MET mentors gave me the confidence to realize and believe that I could first of all complete the MET program but also that I could be very successful in the MET program.  I realized how important such mentorship is for new MET members.

Naturally, I quickly learned that having a variety of individuals with a mix of different skill levels at various stages along their MET path, from all walks of life actually enriched the group work. In future courses, I was amazed at how quickly one merged roles and soon became a MET Mentor.  Due to my excellent experience learning from MET Mentors, I have sought every opportunity since to 'pay it forward' and help out other MET beginners.

Lastly, Thank You!

Thank You … to all of my former CoPs & group members! 

You were all amazing to work with! 

Thank You for: what you all contributed,

what you all taught me, all your guidance, feedback and hard work!

References

Anderson, T.  (2008). “Towards the Theory of Online Learning.”  In Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F.  Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University.

Barab, S. & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Johassen and S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bates and Poole. (2003) “A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology.”  In Effective Teaching with Technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pages 75-105.

            Driscoll. M.P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (pp. 153-182; Ch. 5

           – Situated Cognition). Toronto, ON:Pearson.

           Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Periperal Participation.   

           Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Miller, P. H. (2002). Theories of Developmental Psychology, 4th Ed. (pp. 367-396; Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Approach). New York: Worth.

Palloff and Pratt (1999). When teaching and learning leave the classroom. Building Learning

 Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom. Chapters 1 & 2,

 pp. 3-32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Websites

Communities of practice - http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm

Constructivism - http://www.learning-theories.com/constructivism.html

Vygotsky’s ZPD – http://www.learning-theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html

http://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html

Social Learning Theories - http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~Lynda_abbot/Social.html

http://www.learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html

Back: Luggage-Tech Tools                 Next: Travel Diary

                                                             Final MET Reflections