Name: Premela Maruthamuthu

Assignment 1 HMLC5303 : Discuss the similarities and differences between communities of practice and network learning and show how they are related to social constructivist theory of learning. Also illustrate how they can be used to improve pedagogic practices. Submission Date : 20th October 2013

Introduction Technology has improved over the years where we are able to see almost everyone in possession of a mobile technology equipped with web 2.0 tools. Students will be holding an electronic item with them even during class that it could cause a distraction during lectures. Students use these electronic gadgets to access and update social networking sites such as Facebook, Tweeter and etc. where they log in these sites frequently to ensure their profiles are updated. Lecturers have found this to be a distraction during the face to face classrooms lessons and lose students attention during classroom lectures. Instead of using the technology as a disadvantage to learning, an approach has been taken to use the technology to the lecturers advantage thus, embedding technology apart of the learning process. Lecturers, however, do face the challenge of utilizing technology and web 2.0 tools as mechanism to ensure students are constantly engaged in the learning process.

Students are constantly updating their status and profiles in social network sites and they use these sites to ensure they constantly stay connected with their friends and families thus creating a network that provides access to certain information. Looking at this benefit as an advantage,

students and adults have taken social network sites a step further. The network established within the social sites provides the opportunity to access a wide selection of information where it naturally expands when more connections are made. With the flow of information that takes place, participants within the network take this as a learning opportunity thus, forming a learning community (Hsu, Hwang, Chuang & Chang, 2012). The learning community holds the purpose of sharing experiences, knowledge and resources that promote connections with one another, where they are able to share common interest among them. However, the question arises to what extent learning community would benefit the participants in terms of their learning process and its contribution towards pedagogic practice? In this assignment, I will be looking at two different types of learning communities; community of practice (CoP) and network learning; their similarities and differences and how they relate to social constructivist theory of learning and pedagogic practices.

Community of Practice and Network Learning Learning communities such as community of practice and network learning works hand in hand but do have their similarities and differences. These learning communities can be looked at with relation to social constructivist and connectivism theory. Social constructivist theory, as mentioned by social constructivist Lev Vygotsky, learning takes place in an informal learning environment where new knowledge is constructed through social interaction and collaboration among participants thus developing critical and problem solving skills (Bay, Bagceci, & Cetin , 2012). Meanwhile Siemens and Downes introduced a new theory, connectivism theory that addresses the constraints faced in learning due to web 2.0 tools. In the work of Clar & Barber (2013), they mentioned connectivism theory connects the vast information available

technologically with nodes; however, there is a question on whether connectivism theory falls under the learning theory category. How are these theories related to network learning and community of practice?

Enhanced technology provides participants the opportunity to socially connect with each other. Participants are able to use the new technology and available tools online to interact with one another regardless of their location and time, thus, creating a network among them. There are various web 2.0 tools that support social connectedness among participants such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Edmodo, Ning site and etc. These sites not only encourage social networking among friends, colleagues, peers and even families where communication among them takes place regularly, these sites supports the connectivism theory by creating a pipeline that allows flow of knowledge within the network. These software tools support the pedagogic values of sharing information, communication and information sharing (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008). Pedagogic practices use such network as a platform where professionals of various fields meet and communicate. Clar, & Barber (2013) mentioned that information that is available and used within any network learning and community of practice is similar but what differs is the redistribution of the information among the network via technology. Communication takes place in the form of exchanging knowledge, experiences, information and etc. which forms a database of information that can be used by others within the learning communities for decision making purpose.

In a study conducted by Hsu, Hwang, Chuang & Chang (2012), it showed that open ended network resources provides access to information that will provides assistance in problem

solving activities. This similarity does not only exist within network learning but within community of practice. Network learning and community of practice provide participants the platform to access information that is available technologically. Community of practice and network learning acts as a platform to store references, learning materials, additional reading materials and relevant articles. These materials act as supporting documents for participants to read and analyse the contents, thus, constructing new knowledge when discussing these points in the community of practice. In addition to community of practice, network learning is also used as a platform to host and organize necessary reading materials and references.

Although community of practice and network learning has similar characteristics in terms of creating a network of participants that enhances knowledge sharing, there is a difference in participant type and participation level between a community of practice and network learning. Network learning is participated by those with common interest but not necessarily have similar professional background. Clar & Barber (2013) and Hsu, Hwang, Chuang & Chang (2012) stated that participants within network learning are connected with one another due to the ability to share and have access to vast knowledge and information that is available electronically. This saves their time in searching for information on their own. Although participants within the network learning come from different professional background but due to their interest in the relevant topics, participants will share their experiences and knowledge. Situations may arise where their participation level is less active due to their lack of experience, thus, not contributing or commenting but observing on what is being discussed.

-Cady & Sosulski (2012) emphasized that participants may face anxiety in contributing to the learning environment which is a factor to less social interaction due to behaviour reasons. Furthermore, contributions made by these individuals in network learning are dependent on their personal learning goal. Based on the participants personal learning goal, they will make their own perception on the level of informal learning that is to be achieved in a network learning (Sie, Pataraia, Boursinou, Rajagopal, Margaryan, Falconer, -Rijpkema, Littejohn & Sloep, 2013; Tu, Montes, Yen, Chan, & Blocher, 2012). Like mentioned previously, participants within the network are connected with one another due to the accessibility of information that is available within this network and once they have obtained the required information, participants will proceed with the next step of making their own decisions.

Community of practice, on the other hand, is participated by those with similar professional background, interest and relevant professional experience. With this, participants are able to actively contribute to discussions that are taking place. Participants in community of practice see this platform as a learning platform rather than a networking platform. Their common professional background will be able to bridge the gap of socially connecting with the other participants as they will be able to contribute and comment on common topics. Cornelius, Gordon & Ackland (2011) stated that adult learners are filled with various experiences that can be used as learning tool to disseminate knowledge to others and this can be done through community of practice. Although community of practice links participants with unlimited knowledge which is similar to network learning, participants share knowledge and experiences with the basis of achieving a common learning goal and learning objectives and also, sharing the same passion of achieving similar learning outcome. However, the passion to learn in this

informal environment comes from within the participant which is relevant to the level intrinsic motivation of each participant (Sie, Pataraia, Boursinou, Rajagopal, Margaryan, Falconer, Littejohn & Sloep, 2013).

Social interaction takes place within both network learning and community of practice and a contributing factor to sharing experiences and knowledge. Increased social interaction is key to a successful community of practice as oppose to network learning. Within network learning, interaction of monological discussion where mediator of the network creates a one way communication with other participants (Lambropoulos, Faulkner & Culwin, 2012). This means the discussion takes place when the participant states a statement rather than creating a discussion that engages everyone. Monological discussion do take place in the form of dissemination of resources and materials through the network where less active interaction and no follow up discussions take place. This method will not assist to improve the current pedagogic practices within organizations.

As mentioned by Clar, & Barber (2013), interaction and dialogue is key to enhancing an individuals learning process. Similarly stated by Tu, -Montes, Yen, Chan, & Blocher (2012) and Boehm & Cnaan (2012) that through social interaction, ideas and experiences can be shared with other participants where it supports the community of practice on dialogical discussions. Within community of practice, dialogical discussions engage participants not only with the flow of experiences and knowledge but with debatable comments, critiques and analyzed facts. It creates an open and informal learning environment for the participants of the community of practice to learn collaboratively (Pham, Derntl & Klamma, 2012). Collaborative learning allows

participants to not only share experiences, knowledge, needs, values and beliefs, it provides participants the opportunity to socially construct own knowledge. An active social interaction is important to a successful community of practice, as mentioned by Vygotsky. Vygotsky stated that social interaction is one of the important factors in learning collaboratively within a community of practice (Lock & Strong, 2010). It is stated that through active social interaction, participants are able to exchange knowledge, views, ideas and etc. Tu, -Montes, Yen, Chan, & Blocher (2012) further emphasized that social collaboration within an informal and open learning environment develops individuals with improved pedagogic values such developing ideas, sharing experiences, analyzing information, constructing and creating knowledge and developing problem solving skills. Humphries & Martin (2000) also highlighted that communication and social interaction helps to improve pedagogy learning and practices. Lambropoulos, Faulkner & Culwin (2012) further stated that pedagogical values can be measured with relevant attributes such as inform (suggestion), question (reflection), explain (elaboration), explore (elaboration), idea (co-construction), agree (judgment), evaluate (estimation) and etc. These values are in line with the key functionalities of social constructivist theory that exist within the community of practice. These pedagogic values and practices are improved through social interaction across different culture and values and with peers where teamwork is involved. An effective interaction and communication will be the determining factor of a successful discussion.

Creating community of practice in organizations will be beneficial where personnel of different departments within the same profession or field constantly meet and discuss ongoing issues and problems instead of holding face to face meetings that be pose a constraint to others. Face to face

meetings are held by working adults in organizations to discuss common problems and new initiatives, however there are constraints such as not everyone will be able to attend as per the time proposed, monological discussions taking place, face to face meetings within a short period of time does not provide room for construction of knowledge and new ideas for decision making purposes. Community of practice has the ability to function outside of normal working hours will be able to create efficiency and values where effective discussions among peers take place and simultaneously save the time spent for meetings because such discussions can take place anytime. This is evident in the study done by Linder, Post, & Calabrese (2012) where community of practice plays a part in the long term professional development of participants within the community of practice without having to spend too much time with face to face meetings.

Community of practice creates a platform where participants are able to construct new knowledge where it is achieved with sharing of knowledge and active inter-organizational communication. However, maintaining active participation and constant social engagement within a community of practice could be challenging. Therefore, Vygotsky introduced the second theme of his social constructivist theory; More Knowledgeable Other (MKO). More knowledgeable others are tutors, coaches, guides and also other participants with higher knowledge, higher experience and higher learning capacity of the specific topic within a community of practice. More knowledgeable other holds the role in ensuring participants are constantly contributing views and experiences to maintain social engagement within the community of practice. Learning with the assistance of the more knowledgeable other (MKO) guides the participants to actively contribute by raising questions and debates that leads participants to further discuss similar issues. This is supported with the work Boehm & Cnaan

(2012) where tutors assist with discussions leaving participants with guidance and questions that will lead them to further discuss on relevant issues. This encourages participants to relate such discussions back to their experiences and knowledge while constructing new knowledge.

As we are aware, active social engagement is key to a successful community of practice. If less participation takes place, less contributions and exchange of experiences, needs and knowledge will occur. Participants will be less motivated to contribute and share experiences within the community of practice, thus, disrupting effective construction of new knowledge. When construction of new knowledge does not take place, it makes community of practice no different from network learning as learning process is initiated based on links to resources and materials. It becomes a platform for information dissemination rather than knowledge building (Lambropoulos, Faulkner & Culwin, 2012). Therefore the role of more knowledgeable other (MKO) is essential in ensuring participants are constantly engaged in the discussions that encourages continuous flow of knowledge within the community of practice which is lacking in a network learning.

Companies should see the advantages of community of practice where peers with similar professional background from various departments could socially collaborate and share experiences, discuss on common issues faced with proposed solutions and recommend enhancements and improvements that are aligned with the organizations goals and objectives. Benefits of the community of practice has been seen to develop critical pedagogy learning with improved self learning, independent learning, critical thinking and problem solving skills of participants (Mulcahy, 2011; Tu, Montes, Yen, Chan, & Blocher, 2012; Linder, Post, &

Calabrese, 2012). Such community of practice should have a more knowledgeable other to act as tutor or mentor to the other participants in the group that ensures continuous contributions from all relevant parties. Such contributions will add value to the discussions that take place and at the same time assist with decision making process. This is to ensure the community of practice remains as an open learning environment where participants are able to construct new knowledge based on discussions and experiences as oppose to being network learning.

The connection between the role of more knowledgeable other and social interaction has been demonstrated in the few paragraphs earlier. There is another theme from the social constructivist theory, that is the third theme, differentiates community of practice from network learning. It is the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Lock & Strong, 2010). The zone of proximal development is achieved when a participant is able to apply critical thinking and problem solving skills with the assistance of a more knowledgeable other and through synergy of knowledge acquired. At this point, participants are able to provide solutions and constructive feedback to issues and questions posted. -Cady & Sosulski (2012) stated that participants do go through critical learning moments when socially collaborating in a community of practice that enables them to apply critical thinking skills during discussions. Such critical thinking skills are developed through self and independent learning, thus able to apply them when solving problems. Such skills are therefore critical for a successful community of practice (Mulcahy, 2011).

In a network learning, zone of proximal development is achieved at the participants own pace. They use the distributed and collective intelligence that is obtained through the network as support in making own decisions unlike community of practice. Within the work of Hsu, Hwang,

Chuang & Chang (2012), it is stated that open resources network provides access to information that students are able to use for make their own decisions. Required information is obtained from the network by which is strategically filtered, organized, analyzed and finally used for decision making purposes. However, such decisions are made based on their own personal goal. As we are aware, community of practice assist in improving critical thinking and problem solving skills. Access to information and knowledge; similar to the process that takes place within network learning, the information obtained is discussed and presented within the community of practice. Leader or mentor of the community of practice will hold the responsibility to mentor the participants construct new knowledge that will provide solutions to a common issue faced within the community of practice. Such criteria would improve current pedagogic practice. Cornelius, Gordon & Ackland (2011) supports collaborative learning among pedagogy where its tasks encourages interactions among participants and instills teamwork to achieve a solution to a common issue.

Conclusion The similarities and differences of community of practice and network learning have been identified in this assignment and linked to the social constructivist theory. Network learning and community of practice are platforms that host and organize materials that are obtained through technology and web 2.0 tools. These platforms use the existing web 2.0 tools to connect people with common interest to share their knowledge and experiences with each other. This is further supported with connectivism theory where information and knowledge is shared and linked with users through the use of technology. This similar criteria is further narrowed down with the establishment of community of practice, where it networks people with similar profession to

connect and share knowledge and experience with the intention of constructing new knowledge. Community of practice works around the social constructivist theory where it encourages social interaction among participants with the assistance of more knowledgeable other to be able to achieve a common learning goal. This is in contrast to network learning where social interaction but with the motive of achieving their personal goal. With this I would like to conclude that community of practice is a subset of network learning.

Another difference between network learning and community of practice is community of practice develops critical thinking and problem solving skills within the zone of proximal development. It is important for participants to be able to interpret discussions and experiences that take place and reproduce this information as knowledge. The construction of new knowledge takes place in a community of practice when participants learn, evaluate, apply and analyze information that is available, thus, developing the ability to solve problems innovatively. With the criteria stated of community of practice, it plays a part in improving pedagogic practices. Pedagogic values have the attributes of social constructivist theory and that these attributes can be further enhanced to improve current pedagogic values. Additionally, the community of practice being used for students will develop future pedagogy with social interaction and problem solving skills.

References Bay, E., Bagceci, B. & Cetin, B. (2012).The effects of social constructivist approach on the learners problem solving and metacognitive levels.Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 343349. Boehm, A. &Cnaan, R. A. (2012).Towards a practice-based model for community practice: linking theory and practice.Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 39(1), 141-168. -Cady, C. E. & Sosulski, M. R. (2012).Applications of situated learning to foster communities of practice.Journal of Social Work Education, 48(1), 45-64. Clar, M & Barber, E. (2013).Learning online : massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology.Distance Education, 34(1), 129-136. Cornelius, S., Gordon, C., &Ackland, A. (2011).Towards flexible learning for adult learners in professional contexts: an activity-focused course design.Interactive Learning Environments, 19(4), 381-393. Golding, B. G. (2011).Social, local and situated: recent findings about the effectiveness of older mens informal learning in community context.Adult Education Quarterly, 61(2), 103120. Humphries, B. &Martin, M. (2000).Unsettling the 'learning community': from 'dialogue to 'difference'?.Community, Work & Family, 3(3), 279-295. Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., Chuang, C. W. &Chang, C. K. (2012).Effects on learners performance of using selected and open network resources in a problem-based learning activity.British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 606-623. Kelly, C. (2012). Building a learning community : the Brimbank libraries strategy.Aplis, 25(4), 181-187.

Lambropoulos, N., Faulkner, X. &Culwin, F. (2012). Supporting social awareness in collaborative e-learning.British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 295-306 Linder, R. A., Post, G, &Calabrese, K. (2012).Professional learning communities : practices for successful implementation.The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 13-22. Lock, A. &Strong, T.(2010).Social contructionism:sources and stirrings in theory and practice.Cambridge University Press, 104-117. Mathieson, S. (2011). Disciplinary cultures of teaching and learning as socially situated practice: rethinking the space between social constructivism and epistemological essentialism from the South African experience.High Educ., 63, 549-564. Matthews, D. (2013).The community context for education.National Civic Review, 13-16. Mulcahy, D. (2011).Between work and learning : on pedagogic practice and interstitial space.Studies in Continuing Education, 33(3), 203-217. McLoughlin, C. &Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The three Ps of pedagogy for the networked society: personalization, participation, and productivity.International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10-27. Pham, M. C., Derntl, M., & Klamma, R. (2012). Development patterns of scientific communities in technology enhanced learning.Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 323335. Sie, R. L. L., Pataraia, N., Boursinou, E., Rajagopal, K., Margaryan, A., Falconer, I., -Rijpkema, M. B., Littejohn, A., &Sloep, P. B. (2013). Goals, motivation for, and outcomes of personal learning through networks: results of a tweetstorm. EducationalTechnology & Society, 16 (3), 5975. Tu, C.-H., -Montes, L. S., Yen, C, -J, Chan, J, -Y, &Blocher, M. (2012). The integration of

personal learning environments & open network learning environments. TechTrends, 56(3), 13-19. Zhu, C., Valcke, M. &Schellens, T. (2009).Cultural differences in the perception of a socialconstructivist e-learning environment.British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 164-168.