I recently spent some time re-reading Ulises Mejias’ post on "Socialist" Software  for a professional development assignment on hot-button issues surrounding teaching, learning, and technology.

Mejias’ post got me thinking about democracy, agency, and the idea of “open-ness” afforded by many Web technologies. I then began to reflect on current issues surrounding Net Neutrality and the DOPA Act , which triggered a series of thoughts about the future of the Internet and our collective society.

The Internet is a public (social) space and as such a necessarily political one.

Mejias notes:

Technology can facilitate more than one type of technological civilization, and each generation must struggle to define which type of civilization it wants, or have someone else's desires imposed on them. There is no point in waiting for the democratic technologies of the future, because they have always been at our reach.

This got me wondering -- will succeeding generations work towards defining the type of civilization they want, or will they unconsciously accept the imposed desires of others?

I started a cursory search of age demographics and young voter trends. I wanted to see if there was any data about the number of younger voters and how they see themselves. Are they registered? Do they vote? What are the issues that concern them or motivate them?


The Youth Vote Coalition  offers the following statistics concerning young voters in the U.S.:

• 18-25 year olds make up 14.4% of the total eligible voters
  
  
• 18-30 year olds make up 24% of total eligible voters
  
  
• 42% of 18-24 year olds cast a ballot in 2000
  
  
• Four out of every five students report following current events - with 26% indicating that they follow current events "very closely."
  
  
• In focus groups, young adults express that the best way to increase voter participation is to have candidates speak about the issues that concern young adults.
  
  
• 45% say that the economy will be the most important factor they consider when deciding which candidate to support for President.
  
  
• 54% support affirmative action programs for minorities and women for admissions to colleges and universities.
  
  
• 61% of college students oppose legalizing marijuana.
  
  
• 26% believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstances, 53% in some circumstances and 20% believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
  
  
• 81% agree that the government should take steps to prevent additional acts of terrorism but not if those steps would affect some of your basic civil liberties such a personal privacy or free speech.
  
  
• When all 73.3 million of the 0-18 year old come of voting age, they will be larger than the Baby Boomers (71.8 million)
  
  
• 45% of young people say that other young people are most likely to convince them to vote.

The last two statistics stood out for me. Given that the current majority of voters are older Baby Boomers whose political and social identities were formed before the existence of the Internet, the Millennials will eventually become the voice of the U.S., a demographic who has never known life without it.

The last statistic on the list also stands out in my mind. Almost half of the eligible young voters polled are most likely to take their positions based on what a friend tells them. Is this really true? Does this seem right to you? Will MySpace and Facebook become the battleground states in a national or even local election?

This leads me back to the question of what role government and society plays in mediating Internet commons. Ulises points to an essay by Feenberg that describes the Internet as “a scene of social struggle,” and as such, the space it provides requires a certain level of negotiation and interpretation.

Will the sociopolitical situation of those involved in it lead us to a state of open-ness and transparency or will it evolve into a larger black box mirroring the U.S.’s current executive policies of secrecy and hegemonic agency and control?

If “81% agree that the government should take steps to prevent additional acts of terrorism but not if those steps would affect some of your basic civil liberties such a personal privacy or free speech,” then what does that really mean? What are the consequences of preventing additional acts of terrorism? Doesn’t that necessarily imply a certain level of compromised privacy?  (This also leads to the question of who decided terrorism should be a concern?)

The reality is the Internet and Web technologies are actors in a network of complex associations and situations.  And as Mejias notes, this space “can be used for different purposes according to different political agendas, and evolve accordingly”.

What will the social attitude of future generations accept? How will they define issues of security, freedom, open-ness, democracy? Will they accept the status quo or will they struggle against it? Will social software afford more autonomy, openness and diversity or will it become co-modified and commercialized serving larger monied interests?

This would be a good conversation to start with teenagers, no?

Stay tuned...

References:

Mejias, U.A. (2206). "Socialist" Software. Ideant. Retrieved  07 July 2006 from http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2006/05/socialist_softw.html.

 

Picture credit: Claude Monet, Impression, soleil levant 1873
 

Introduction

Teacher education is an enormously complex enterprise. Educational researchers Putnam & Borko (2000) note that “[t]eacher educators have long struggled with how to create learning experiences powerful enough to transform teachers’ classroom practice” (pp. 5-6). Others like Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1996) argue that “[w]hat is missing from the knowledge base for teaching are the voices of teachers themselves, the questions teachers ask, the ways teachers use writing and intentional talk in their work lives, and the interpretive frames teachers use to understand and improve their own classroom practices” (p. 93).

It is important to note that a school (i.e., the teaching and learning environment) is more than a collection of students, educators, administrators and learning materials. It is in fact a community, with the potential of being what Senge (1990) calls a learning organization -- a place where people learn how to learn together.

To make this environment an actual learning organization where teacher inquiry and research are indeed possible, new mental models must be developed for schools to respond creatively and adaptive to changes in education and society. However, agreement in terms of a specific way to create conditions that best support teacher research is still lacking.

In exploring the issues that encompass a learning organization and teacher education, it is clear that a school must be more than a place of instruction or a “knowledge distribution center;” it must also be a community of practice where members negotiate their own enterprise and shape their own boundaries while remaining congruent with larger institutional policies and procedures.

In this essay, the notions of communities of practice and teacher inquiry are explored in an attempt to address the question of how learning organizations can support the professional development of teachers.

Defining a community of practice

According to Wenger (1998), schools or institutions devoted explicitly to teaching and learning, “are based largely on the assumption that learning is an individualized process, that it has a beginning and an end, that it is best separated from the rest of our activities, and that it is the result of teaching” (p.3). Alternatively, Wenger argues for adopting a different approach in terms of how to perceive teaching and learning. He suggests that learning is essentially a situated and social phenomenon. By this Wenger and others (e.g., Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989), Greeno (1997), Lave (1988), and Lave & Wenger (1991)) argue that how, where, and with whom a person acquires a specific set of skills and knowledge serves as the basis for what is learned. This situative perspective implies that individual learners are actually participants that interact with other learners, other educators, learning materials and representational systems in both formal and informal settings. In this regard, Wegner (1998, p.5) contends that learning is a matter of social participation, and as such requires four “deeply connected and mutually defining” elements that allow us to define a social theory of learning that is the basis for a community of practice. These elements include:

Meaning: the way in which we make sense of the world both individually and collectively;

Practice: the exercise of a profession and the socio-historical frameworks (i.e., resources and perspectives) that “sustain mutual engagement” in how we learn and what we do;

Community: the social configurations of a group of people sharing a common element or interest that can be defined as “worth pursuing,” wherein participation is recognized as “competence;” and

Identity: the characteristics by which an individual is recognized or known in the context of our particular communities.

For Wenger, any learning organization or community of practice involves integrating these four elements in situ to a particular experience. In this sense, communities of practice are informal, pervasive, and often taken for granted in terms of their composition, activity, and intentionality. However, in a more formal sense, communities of practice involve the negotiation of meanings. For example, when we associate a specific practice (e.g., teaching) with a community, there are three particular dimensions that hold the community together, namely, a sense of mutual engagement, i.e., interactivity and engagement among community members; a joint enterprise negotiated by participants based on the conditions, demands and resources that shape practice; and a shared repertoire or the resources used to negotiate meaning. A joint enterprise like teaching creates and supports relations of mutual accountability, i.e., participants are responsible for their actions and may be required to explain them to others. Teachers can define what is important, what is not important, what to talk about, what to ignore, etc. Standards, rules, policies and such are reified to a large degree, yet how they are employed, carried out, or ignored is a function of the joint enterprise of teachers in a particular situation.

In this regard, Wegner (1998, p. 85) notes:

Communities of practice are not intrinsically beneficial or harmful. They are not privileged in terms of positive and negative effects. Yet they are a force to be reckoned with, for better or for worse. As a locus of engagement in action, interpersonal relations, shared knowledge, and negotiation of enterprises, such communities hold the key to real transformation – the kind that has real effects on peoples’ lives.

In this sense, the forces that affect a community of practice (e.g., participant members, institutional policies, or an individual authority figure) are mediated through the community’s negotiated practice. Growth and development within a particular practice involves “evolving forms of mutual engagement,” “understanding and tuning the enterprise” (i.e., the activities involved in teaching and learning and participating in the learning organization), and developing and refining the various skills, styles, knowledge, and discourses that are an intrinsic part of a particular community (Wenger, 1998, p. 95). In other words, such learning involves more than mental processing; it involves the ability to grow and develop individual practices and a capacity to negotiate meaning. Participation in a community of practice impacts how an individual’s and organization’s identity is formed. Thus, a teacher’s experiences and membership within a community (or learning organization) informs and transforms the other; an individual’s participation helps to create what their practice is and affects what it will become.

Ultimately, what makes Wenger’s notion of community of practice appealing in a teacher professional development sense is that it presents a theory of learning that begins with the belief that learning is a social phenomenon in which we learn not only about others but also about ourselves. The intersection of the notions of community, practice, meaning, and identity results in a useful framework or cognitive tool for thinking about learning organizations as a social, participatory process capable of meaningful transformation of teaching professionals within schools.

Defining an inquiry stance

In the preceding discussion about communities of practice, the notion of community members engaging one another, understanding and tuning their activities, and refining various skills should not be underrated. “The vision of practice underlying the nation’s reform agenda requires most teachers to reconceptualize their practice, to construct new classroom roles and expectations about student outcomes, and to teach in ways they have never taught before and probably never have experienced” (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1996).

In terms of creating affective learning organizations and communities of practice, teachers need to become active participants in their professional development; they must become producers of knowledge as well as transmitters and facilitators. In this regard, the notion of “systematic, intentional inquiry by teachers” into their own professional practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, p.5) can play a significant and transformative role.

An inquiry stance places educators in a position that invites examination and reflection on their teaching practices (i.e., intentions) with an eye towards improving or changing them. Similar to the notions of teacher research (Lewin, 1948) or action research (Carr & Kemmis, 1986), an inquiry stance places prospective and practicing educators in charge of their own professional growth and development. Essentially, an inquiry stance is one that teaches educators “to identify the complexities and problems inherent in teaching and [to] tease these complexities apart to gain insights” into one’s work (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003, p. 9).

Reflection plays an important part in an inquiry stance. What makes inquiry different than mere reflection or contemplation is what Dewey (1933) and Zeichner (1996) refer to as intentionality. An inquiry stance requires a level of action and engagement on behalf of the educator that leads toward empirical change.

In terms of professional growth, Dana & Yendol-Silva (2003) suggest that the process involved in adopting an inquiry stance serve as a powerful means for learning and transformation:

Inquiring professionals seek out change by reflecting on their practice. They do this by posing questions or “wonderings,” collect data to gain insights into their wonderings, analyzing the data along with reading relevant literature, making changes in practice based on new understandings developed during inquiry, and sharing findings with others (p. 5).

Perhaps, what makes an inquiry stance a more powerful teacher professional development methodology is its intentionality and its insistence on sharing results with others. An inquiry stance “invites intentional, planned reflection” (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003, p. 7) that raises an educator’s focus on questions within their practice. Here reflection serves as a tangible process documenting both wondering and analysis and making it public for others to consider, reflect on, and debate in purposive manner.

Contexts that support teacher inquiry

If we assume teaching and learning is by nature a social activity, adopting an educational inquiry stance necessarily requires connectivity to other inquiring educators or perhaps what can be defined as a community of practice within a learning organization. Researchers Putnam & Borko (2000) note that “interactions with the people in one’s environment are major determinants of both what is learned and how learning takes place” (p.5).  In this sense, an effective inquiry stance is built on a dialogic community of practice where educators share a common identity. These communities of practice serve to provide the cognitive tools – ideas, feedback, models, and concepts – that educators can adopt as their own through their efforts at making sense of their experiences and understanding. It is also worth noting that most K-12 schools do not operate under the same research umbrella associated with many colleges and universities. Therefore it seems that a certain level of outside support from a research-based institution might be helpful on a number of levels in terms of sharing research standards and models and providing critical feedback.

For a school to become a true learning organization, i.e., a real community of practice, teacher inquiry needs to be considered “as an integral part of the activity of teaching and as a critical basis for decisions about practice” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, p. 63). When classrooms and schools become active research communities they become sources of knowledge that foster meaningful practices and identities. What is required of teacher education programs “are processes that prompt teachers and teacher educators to construct their own questions and develop courses of action that are valid in their local contexts and communities” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, p. 63).

In terms of organizational design, a community of practice that has an inquiry focus must be negotiated between the immediate members of the learning community. As such, several questions arise that include:

 

•    How are communities of practice established and sustained within a school?
•    What are the obstacles in creating an inquiry community?
•    How will administration support an inquiry stance?
•    How will communities of practice that focus on teacher inquiry feed their learning back into the organization?
•    Are there provisions for renegotiating the design (i.e., the school as a learning organization) under new circumstances?
•    How is inquiry time defined and allotted?
•    Who defines success and failure, and how are these definitions negotiated among those involved?
•    How are standards of evaluation and “methodological rigor” defined?
•    How do communities of practice work with outside agencies (college and university researchers, accreditation bodies, etc.) to insure multiple perspectives and receive meaningful feedback and input?

These questions represent a cursory attempt at addressing the larger concept of implementing an inquiry-based community within a particular learning organization. Further exploration and research is indeed warranted.

Conclusion

Teacher inquiry is a situated and social activity involving elements of meaning, practice, community, and identity that impact the effectiveness of both the individual teacher and the learning organization as a whole. How such a community of practice comes into being and is structured is largely a function of the forms of mutual engagement that take place between participants, the availability and adaptability of resources used to negotiate meaning, and the extent to which codified policies and procedures govern the schooling enterprise. As such, the notion of a community of practice as defined by Wenger (1998) and the notion of teacher inquiry serve as potentially valuable lens’ in terms of the addressing the question of how learning organizations can support the professional development of teachers.



References:

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Knowing through action research. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1996). Communities for teacher research: Fringe or forefront? In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 92-114). New York: Teachers College Press.

Dana, N. & Yendol-Silva, D. (2003). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1996). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 202-218). New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). Democracy and education. New York: Free Company.

Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Row.

Putnam, R.T & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, (29)1, pp. 4-15.

Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. London: Random House.

Stenhouse, L. (1985). Research as a basis for teaching. London: Heinemann.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zeichner, K. (1996). Teachers as reflective practitioners and the democratization of school reform. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M.L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 199-214). New York: Teachers College Press.

I have been hosting a workshop with a handful of secondary teachers at my local research development school for the last few weeks on “Blogs, Bloggers, Blogging.” One of the topics covered in the workshop is how blogs, bloggers, and blogging can support teacher professional development. As I was looking over participants’ posts the other day, I ran across this gem from Courtney Shannon :

I have been challenged to discuss (in the most persuasive manner possible) the necessity of blogs as a professional development setting. First in order to make the notion of including weblogs (that may appear to be more of a hinderance than a help to some of my colleagues) as a part of professional development more friendly, I would like to call it "PERSONAL(IZED) DEVELOPMENT" instead of "PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT." As seen in Jeff Scofer's Thinking Stick Blog, if "personal development" can be individually mapped and completed in planning time or free time it is much more likely to be beneficial and carried out in practice. When teachers are forced to attend a "generic" professional development seminar there will be undoubtedly a point in time where information that is being presented will not apply to some content area teachers. Be careful to not take the latter statement as a broad generalization or condemnation of "generic" professional development, I am sure that in some instances a general professional development session cannot be avoided...it may even be appropriate at times; but it (generic PD) should be supplemented (heavily) with personalized personal development.

Needless to say I was overcome with delight at the notion of professional development being supplanted by the notion of personal development. This simple yet elegant semantic shift puts the notion of learning in a more appropriate light. Personal teacher development embodies notions of motivation, relevance, connection, meaning, and satisfaction. Personalized development also fits quite well with the ideas of lifelong “informal” learning offered by Jay Cross and George Siemens .

Those of you employed in a school system that requires a certain amount of “professional development” can appreciate where Courtney comment is coming from. Indeed some professional development is helpful, but more often than not it is a major waste of time. By creating learning opportunities that are perhaps more informal and personalized, perhaps educators would enjoy spending additional time focusing on topics that could have a potentially positive impact on their practice.

Introduction
This essay offers a brief exploration of information and communication technologies (ICT) known as social software as they relate to supporting teacher research and professional learning. Since social software is about connections -- people connecting to other people via computer-mediated communication -- it would appear to be a rich arena for exploring how learning enterprises can utilize such technologies to support the professional development of teachers (Laferrière et al., 2006).

The use of social software in education and teacher professional development is relatively nascent, thus the formal research literature in this area is scant at best. However, theories and research into teacher inquiry, professional learning communities (PLC), and communities of practice are pertinent to the study of social software in teacher professional learning/development are used as a framework to analyze several emergent themes in this essay.

Towards a definition of Social Software
Shirky (2003) defines social software as programs that run on a computer that support a wide range of communication and interaction among groups of people in a computer-mediated environment. Shirky (2003) suggests that social software is unique to the Internet in that it supports both directed (e.g., task-oriented) and undirected (e.g., communal) communication, and, in general, is designed to be easy to use by participants.

Common social software applications include email, discussion forums, and social network services which permit people to come together online around shared interests and causes (e.g., Friendster and Classmates).  Other computer applications like virtual worlds, massively multiplayer online games, instant messaging, and teleconferencing (e.g., Skype) can also be defined as social software as they support interaction among groups of people online. In terms of the education sector, online course management systems (CMS), learning management systems (LMS) and virtual learning environments (VLE) (e.g., WebCT, Blackboard, Moodle) offer tools and applications that also support interaction and collaboration designed specifically for formal learning enterprises. Other text-based applications like weblogs (online personal Web publishing systems, e.g., Blogger, MySpace, Elgg), wikis (“collaborative content management systems that allow any user to create or edit pages instantaneously” (Mejias, 2006), e.g., PBWiki, Jot, Wikispaces), social bookmarking sites (“software that allows individual users to classify items by associating them with any number of keywords known as tags, which are then aggregated by the software for the benefit of the whole community” (Mejias, 2006), e.g., del.icio.us, Furl), and online collaborative real-time text and spreadsheet editing tools (e.g., Writely and EditGrid) allow individuals and groups to communicate, collaborate, reflect, share resources, knowledge, and information virtually.

Social software, teacher inquiry, teaching and learning
Teacher inquiry, also known as teacher research, places educators in a position that invites self-examination and reflection of their teaching practices (i.e., intentions) with an eye towards improving or changing them (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1996). Employing social software within a community of teacher inquiry permits educators to work cooperatively utilizing online applications that not only “facilitate the aggregation and organization of knowledge,” but also allows the “diversity of individual research interests” to enhance learning for the entire community (Mejias, 2006). Social software like blogs and wikis provide the ability to support knowledge building networks by serving as a space to record and document individual research as well as foster collaboration and interactivity between members of an inquiry community.

Social software has two key attributes that could be considered meaningful to educators:

Permits communication between groups and individuals – In this sense, social software serves as a medium or channel that supports an exchange, or an ecology where people, practices, and values connect, interact, and evolve (Suter et al., 2005).

Enables the aggregation and sharing of resources -- Social software not only allows people to collect, communicate, and collaborate online, it allows data, information, and objects to be combined and consolidated, serving as a place where both ideas and people can converge.

In terms of social software’s impact on teaching and learning, Mejias (2005) suggests that social software’s

true potential lies in helping us figure out how to integrate our online and offline social experiences. Thus, social software must live up to its name by relating to the individual's everyday social practices, which include interacting with people online as well as people without access to these technologies…. [S]ocial software can positively impact pedagogy by inculcating a desire to reconnect to the world as a whole, not just the social parts that exist online.

Mejias’ (2005) definition of social software adds an important variation compared to the definition (Shirky, 2003) cited earlier. Mejias suggests that social software affords the potential to connect virtual practice to physical practice, i.e., to support everyday practice beyond that which exists online. Educators who are researching, reflecting, and discussing issues and practice online have the ability to enact what they are researching and discussing in their daily practice. In this sense social software can serve as a conduit between virtual and physical realities.

Social Software and Communities of Practice
If we consider learning as a process of social participation, Wenger’s notion of communities of practice (1998) can serve as a helpful framework for thinking about supporting professional development within a learning enterprise. Given that learning serves as nexus for all educational activity, the following diagram allows us to see how community or sociality connects vertically with meaning and horizontally with identity and practice.  

 

Each of these major elements of learning defined by Wenger (1998), i.e., community, identity, meaning, and practice, are clearly interconnected and mutually significant. With the advent of the Internet, the World Wide Web, and computer-mediated communication (CMC), social software affords the opportunity for many people to "congregate in virtual spaces and develop shared ways of pursuing common interests" (Wenger, 1998, p. 7).

In terms of creating an affective learning organization that supports an educator community of inquiry and practice, teachers must be active participants in their professional learning as articulated by professional learning community advocates DuFour (2004) and Hord (2004); they must become producers of knowledge as well as transmitters and facilitators. In this regard, using social software like blogs and wikis offers a space wherein the notion of “systematic, intentional inquiry by teachers” into their own professional practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, p.5) can become actualized.

Given that a community of practice organizational design must be negotiated between immediate members of a learning community, Mejias (2006) suggests that social software provides an ability for educators to engage “in learning to learn by having them assume some of the responsibility for integrating and maintaining the social software systems that allow learning to happen” (Mejias, 2006). In order for this to occur, it would seem that school administrators, i.e., those responsible for assigning teaching loads and organizing teacher time and development, would need to adhere to a philosophy embodied within the philosophie of a community of practice and professional learning communities (PLC). As such according to Hord (2004, p.7), PLCs advocate the following five themes:

•    Supportive and shared leadership
•    Shared values and vision
•    Collective learning and application of learning
•    Supportive conditions
•    Shared practice

Clearly there is overlap between Wenger’s communities of practice framework, the PLC model, and the notion of teacher inquiry. However, what is worth noting is the notion of supportive conditions and leadership that must exist in order to foster and facilitate a learning ecology. It is critical for school administrators to understand and support inquiry communities and practice. This idea cannot be overstated. Without such support and advocacy, teacher learning and research is nearly impossible to imagine, much less actualize.

Social software can also play a role in bridging a fundamental transactional distance (Moore, 1973) associated with computer-mediated communication. For example, a blogging network and wiki designed by a group of teacher researchers could be employed affording them the ability to collaborate regardless of time and space; participants would not required to be at the same place at the same time in order for the collaboration and communication to take place. Blogs provide a space for individual research, reflection, and peer feedback, while the wiki and social bookmarking site could be used to capture and share key research findings, suggested readings, formalized processes, lesson plans, and other pertinent information. As such, new sets of social patterns and practices begin to emerge. Yet, how these new practices serve teacher professional learning and development as well as student achievement will require additional research and experimentation.

Conclusion
Social software has spread rapidly in use in a relatively short amount of time (Owen et al., 2006). This rapid dissemination has not allowed researchers much time to consider the variety of applications afforded by these technologies. This essay provides a cursory examination of the affordances of social software and the wider context of teacher professional learning/development offering grist for further research into the potential of using technology to support teacher inquiry.

An effective inquiry stance is built on a dialogic community of practice where educators share a common identity. These communities of practice serve to provide the cognitive tools – ideas, feedback, models, and concepts – that educators can adopt as their own through their efforts at making sense of their experiences and understanding. Social software like blogs, wikis, and social bookmarking sites provides a situated ecology where a community of inquiring educators can collaborate, communicate, aggregate actions, and enhance individual and collective knowledge in a Web-supported environment. In this sense, social software allows for a certain level of knowledge co-creation that can be drawn from, reflected upon, and further refined by individuals and other community members and applied directly to one’s daily practice. Further more, Mejias (2006) notes that social software allows educators “to participate in distributed research communities that extend spatially beyond their classroom and school, temporally beyond a particular class session or term, and technologically beyond the tools and resources that the school makes available” to teachers (Mejias, 2006). Given the social and pedagogical changes afforded by these new technologies, “teachers need to play a key roles as owners and designers of their learning” (LaFerrière et al., 2006). 


References:

Dana, N. & Yendol-Silva, D. (2003). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hord, S. M. (2004). Professional learning communities: An overview. In S.S. Hord (Ed.), Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities (pp. 5-14). New York: Teachers College Press.

LaFerrière, T., Lamon, M., Chan, C.K.K. (2006). Emerging e-trends and models in teacher education and professional development. Teaching Education, 17(1) 75-90.

Mejias, U. A. (2005).  A nomad’s guide to learning and social software. The Knowledge Tree: An e-journal of learning innovation. Retrieved 16 July 2006 from http://knowledgetree.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition07/html/la_mejias.html.

Mejias, U. A. (2006). Teaching social software. Innovate, 2(5), June/July 2006. Retrieved 14 July 2006 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=260&a

Moore, M.G. (1973). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 44(9), 661-679

Owen, M., Grant, L., Sayers, S., & Facer, K. (2006). Social software and learning. An Opening Education report from Futurelab. Retrieved 26 June 2006 from  http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/opening_education.htm.

Shirky, C. (2003). Social software and the politics of groups. Clay Shirky's Writings About the Internet: Economics & Culture, Media & Community, Open Source. Retrieved 16 July 2006 from http://shirky.com/writings/group_politics.html.

Suter, V., Alexander, B., & Kaplan, P. (2005). Social software and the future of conferences—Right now. EDUCAUSE Review 40(1): 46–59. Retrieved 16 July 2006 from http://www.educause.edu/er/erm05/erm0513.asp?bhcp=1.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

eSchool News online (membership is free but is required to access articles) published a report with the headline Teacher development key to tech success: Survey confirms importance of professional development to tech integration.

The article is based on a report sponsored by CDW-G, a reseller of hardware tools to schools and governments, and administered by education research firm Quality Education Data (QED). The study, called Teachers Talk Tech 2006: Fulfilling Technology's Promise of Improved Student Performance, polled “some 1,000 K-12 public school teachers on technology's role in the classroom.”

The poll (read: not a formal scientific investigation) attempts to shed light on educators' opinions regarding the use of computers in their classrooms and “attempts to gauge the effectiveness of computers in preparing students for the 21st-century workplace.”

If it’s not obvious, CDW commissioned the poll to support its business of selling hardware/software to schools. “CDW-G said its findings support the need for more federal ed-tech spending, including continued support for the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) block-grant program, the largest single source of ed-tech funding in the federal budget--and a program that President Bush has asked Congress to eliminate in 2007.”

Here are some of the findings cited:

• 60 percent of the teachers polled said their tech skills were at least "somewhat advanced."
  
  
• 80 percent of the teachers polled think technology in the classroom engages students, and 2 out of 3 believe it can improve performance.
  
  
• 20 percent of the teachers polled still receive no professional training in the use of computing.
  
  
• In 2004, 40 percent of teachers said their teaching environment had changed. By 2006, 54 percent reported such a shift.
  
  
• 80 percent of the teachers polled indicated that technology is very or somewhat important to teaching.
  
  
• 88 percent of those surveyed said technology is important to administrative functions such as attendance and grading.
  
  
• 86 percent agreed it was important to communications with other teachers, administrators, parents, and students.
  
  
• 81 percent of those surveyed said they use technology for research purposes when preparing lessons.
  
  
• 79 percent use technology as a teaching tool in the classroom.
  
  
• 63 percent of teachers characterize their classroom technology skills as "somewhat advanced" or "advanced."
  
  
• 79 percent of teachers say they are either "competent" or "highly competent" in using instructional software.
  
  
• 76 percent chose either "competent" or "highly competent" designations for their ability to integrate computing into lessons.
  
  
• 66 percent of respondents said they were "competent" or "highly competent" in using technology to develop critical-thinking skills in their students.
  
  
• 70 percent of teachers indicated competence in using data analysis tools to gauge student performance.
  
  
• 64 percent = The number of teachers using technology to teach writing skills in 2005.
  
  
• 71 percent = The number of teachers using technology to teach writing skills in 2006.
  
  
• 51 percent = The number of teachers using technology to teach scientific concepts in 2005.
  
  
• 60 percent = The number of teachers using technology to teach scientific concepts in 2006.
  
  
• 36 percent = The number of teachers using technology for "performing artistic activities" in 2005.
  
  
• 42 percent = The number of teachers using technology for "performing artistic activities" in 2006.
  
  
• 64 percent of teachers surveyed noted that computers have been found to help students think more creatively and more independently, if those computers are in the classroom.
  
  
• 47 percent of teachers surveyed noted that computers have been found to help students think more creatively.
  
  
• 82 percent of teachers surveyed said students are more engaged when technology is being employed in classroom activities.
  
  
• 65 percent of teachers surveyed said students' academic performance improves with the use of classroom computers.
  
  
• 55 percent of survey respondents believe the biggest impediment to effective technology integration is access to computers.
  
  
• 48 percent believe they lack sufficient time to properly integrate technology into lessons.
  
  
• 48 percent say district budgets do not allow the level of technology integration they would like to see in their classrooms.
  
  
• 19 percent of teachers interviewed said they did not have any professional development training in the past 12 months (a drop of 12 percentage points from 2005 to 2006).
  
  
• 78 percent of teachers who have had at least 16 hours of professional development in technology say they incorporate 21st-century skills into their curriculum.
  
  
• 66 percent believe teaching those skills strengthens skills for standardized testing.
  
  
• 74 percent of teachers who have had at least 16 hours of professional development believe students' academic performance is enhanced with the use of classroom computers.

Although teachers report they are using technology more frequently for both instructional and administrative tasks, they also worry that obstacles such as a lack of access, time, and money are keeping them from integrating technology effectively into the curriculum.

Quotes from CDW-G’s senior director for [sales] K-12 education:

"I think the biggest 'aha' of the study is that we are starting to see a direct correlation between hours of professional development and how thoroughly technology is being integrated into the classroom.”
 
“These are things we've always suspected, but now we have some actual statistics through the surveys that validate the correlations."

“Technology is becoming integral to the teaching process, and we're finding it makes the overall process that much better.”

"Without technology, it would be impossible to meet the requirements of NCLB," the study said.

Polling, scientific research, and sources of error

I was both impressed and depressed by the above findings: Impressed with the number of teacher who reportedly see the value of properly integrating technology into their classrooms and who feel comfortable using technology, and depressed by the lack of scientific rigor associated with the results.

A poll is often defined as an “inquiry into public opinion conducted by interviewing a random sample of people” and should not be confused with a scientifically based research study.

However, polls are a handy way to gauge opinion. You can get a sense of what items are resonating in peoples’ minds.

The report does not provide the reader with any evidence for sampling error. There’s also an issue of selection bias (i.e., the characteristics of those who agree to be interviewed may be markedly different from those who decline).

Survey results may be affected by response bias, where the answers given by respondents do not reflect their true beliefs.

Respondents may also feel under social pressure not to give an unpopular answer. If the results of surveys are widely publicized this effect may be magnified.

There’s also the issue of the wording of the questions. I quickly headed over to Wikipedia and searched under “opinion polling” and found the following:

"It is well established that the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked and the number and form of alternative answers offered can influence results of polls. Thus comparisons between polls often boil down to the wording of the question. One way in which pollsters attempt to minimize this effect is to ask the same set of questions over time, in order to track changes in opinion. The most effective controls, used by attitude researchers, are:

    * asking enough questions to allow all aspects of an issue to be covered and to control effects due to the form of the question (such as positive or negative wording), the adequacy of the number being established quantitatively with psychometric measures such as reliability coefficients, and

    * analyzing the results with psychometric techniques which synthesize the answers into a few reliable scores and detect ineffective questions.

These controls are not widely used in the polling industry.”

The Wikipedia entry also mentioned the issue of coverage bias. Coverage bias is caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others or when samples that are not representative of the population are used. For example, we don’t know on what basis or how the teachers cited in the polling results were actually chosen. To be fair, “polling organizations have developed many weighting techniques to help overcome these deficiencies, to varying degrees of success.”

I believe the CDW-G report is worth considering and points to some interesting data regarding a sample of teachers’ use of technology in their classrooms and the lack of professional development associated with technology integration.

As an educational researcher, I am skeptical of the results in that the poll’s methodology is not clear about which teachers were chosen for these results, how they were chosen, the questions that were asked, the validity and reliability of the poll, etc.

Yet, the legislators who will effect grants like the Enhancing Education Through Technology block-grant program, the largest single source of ed-tech funding in the federal budget, at $272 million, might not look so closely. Which might be a good thing. Especially for CDW-G.

 

Note: You may recognize some recurring themes in this essay from here and here. It attempts to provide a justification for my likely dissertation study. I've attempted to integrate existing literature on the topic, potential research question outlines, and possible research methods. Any words of advice, additional references, or questions are welcome.

 

Background

According to Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993), over the past two decades there has existed a growing effort “to provide organizational structures that enable groups of teachers to come together to talk about their work, learn from one another, and address curricular and instructional issues” (p. 89). These structures include teacher reading groups, critical friends groups, writing projects, as well as on- and off-site courses and seminars. Theses structures are designed to encourage teachers to actively reflect on their practice, with some designed specifically to foster teacher inquiry/teacher research.

In recent years, new information and communication technologies (ICT) are making possible new structures that could potentially enhance teacher professional learning and development. Through computers and social software (i.e., programs that run on a computer that support a wide range of communication and interaction among groups of people), users are able to construct virtual social worlds that are in many ways comparable to the world of face-to-face communication (Feenberg & Bakardjieva, 2004). Users are able to create social relations within this virtual space and experience meaningful thoughts, feelings, and activities that contribute to both their personal and professional development. Yet, whether these Internet based technologies contribute to teacher learning or undermine it remains an open question.

When considering social software affordances and teacher education, the notion of sociality is crucial. Given that learning is inherently a situated and social phenomenon, how, where, and with whom an individual acquires a specific set of skills and knowledge serves as the basis for what is learned (Wenger, 1998). In thinking about social software as it applies to education, researchers regularly cite the importance of creating learning environments that are “learner, knowledge, assessment, and community centered” (Bransford, et al., 2000). There are many ways to create such environments, yet there are also many questions that go along with it:

• What do educators and students need to know about the learning process?
• What do educators and students need to know about social software?
• What kinds of training are most effective for assisting educators in adopting using technologies like social software?
• What is the best way to use social software to facilitate learning?

McDonald et al. (2003), Weinbaum et al. (2004), and Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1993) note that educators are part of a larger enterprise that serves as a learning environment for both students and educators. Teacher professional learning and development is a collective action; all educational efforts, for better or worse, are mediated through the efforts of the other members of the teaching and learning community within a school setting. The principles, standards and processes within a school are necessarily shared ones. Participation in such a community of practice impacts not only the formation of an individual educator’s identity, it also impacts the identity formation of colleagues as well as the school’s itself. Thus, a teacher’s experiences and membership within a community informs and transforms the other; an individual’s participation helps to create what his or her practice is and affects what it will become (Wenger, 1998).

In this regard, the notion of collaborative teacher inquiry is particularly significant. Teacher inquiry, also known as teacher research, places educators in a position that invites self-examination and reflection of their teaching practices (i.e., intentions) with an eye towards improving or changing them (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1996). Since educators conduct their research with a community of other inquiring teachers, an inquiry stance provides a model for professional learning and development that is mutually engaging wherein a diversity of individual research interests can enhance learning for the entire community (Mejias, 2006).

Given a collaborative professional learning and development environment based on intentional teacher inquiry, the foundation for additional research shifts towards investigating how social software might contribute to teacher professional learning. As such, the following cursory set of questions rise to the surface as potential areas for deeper analysis:

• What does inquiry using social software look like?
• How does social software integrate into the inquiry process?
• What can social software like blogs and wikis make possible?
• What social software or combinations of software make a difference?
• How often are inquiring teachers expected to negotiate meaning using social software?
• How do we assess the social software effectiveness in assisting educators meet their inquiry goals?
• Can social software accelerate the pace of building a culture of inquiry?
• Does social software assist inquiring educators go broader (expansive) and deeper (profound) in meaningful ways within their inquiry?
• Does the use of social software and teacher inquiry redefine the image of the teacher?
• Can using social software enrich the quality of thought and practice of inquiring teachers in terms of their own education and development?
• Can social software be used to establish and maintain communities for teacher research within and across schools and universities?
• How can social software be used to organize time, activities, and information that support collaborative teacher inquiry?
• What are instructors inquiring about?
• What value does social software provide teachers in their inquiry process?

Protocols and Teacher Inquiry

In inquiry-based teacher professional learning, protocols serve as methodological “templates” for observations, the frameworks for carefully planned inspection and examination of one’s practice. McDonald et al. (2003) argue that “protocols segment elements of a conversation whose boundaries otherwise blur. They make clear the crucial differences between talking and listening, between describing and judging, or between proposing and giving feedback. In the process, they call attention to the role and value of each of these in learning, and make the steps of our learning visible and replicable” (p. 5). Since inquiry-based teacher learning is social in nature, protocols provide a mechanism that fosters transparency in the negotiation of meaning and communication between community members. Protocols do not insure that educators are not telling the whole truth or concealing hunches, thoughts, or real experiences. However, like any foray into scientific research, what a teacher chooses to include or exclude will ultimately affect their results and analysis (i.e., garbage in – garbage out).

Protocols come in a variety of shapes and sizes and have specific uses and purposes depending on the research context. There are protocols that promote participation, ensure equity, and build trust. They can serve as a means for “tuning” participants, establishing group norms that prepare community members for working together that set the stage for advanced collaboration and exploration. Protocols not only serve as scaffolds for unlocking and framing teacher concerns, they serve as guidelines for interaction, reflection, and further action. Given the unique nature of individual teaching and learning situations, protocols are also open to adjustment and modification depending on a particular context or research focus.

What makes protocols powerful agents in teacher inquiry is that protocols place an educator’s or a community of educators’ research agenda within their own control. In The Power of Protocols: An Educators Guide to better Practice (2003) McDonald et al., recognize that educators need to be responsible for their own learning. Educators are in the best position to direct their own learning. Specifically, they know where they are having issues, and they know where students are having issues. Having this “insider perspective” makes them fundamentally aware and best suited to address and manage any required transformation. Outside perspectives are still important, yet outside expertise is only effective in concert with an individual educator’s intimate knowledge of his or her own practice (McDonald, et al. 2003).

Perhaps because much of what passes as the knowledge of an educator’s practice is unspoken or unconscious, Donald Schon (1983) suggests meaningful critique and analysis is better facilitated when educators reflect upon it in with peers. Colleagues are often in a better position to assist us with our problems that are often overlooked. Yet in order for this to occur, a formal structure or methodology (i.e., protocols) is necessary to facilitate open and honest discussions.


The role of Social Software in Teacher Inquiry

Teacher inquiry is a situated and social activity involving elements of meaning, practice, community, and identity that impact the effectiveness of both the individual teacher and the learning organization as a whole. How such a community of practice comes into being and is structured is largely a function of the forms of mutual engagement that take place between participants, the availability and adaptability of resources used to negotiate meaning, and the extent to which codified policies and procedures govern the schooling enterprise (Wenger, 1998).

As with most research projects in general, teacher inquiry and protocols involve documenting processes that include the recording of meeting minutes, questions under discussion, student data, individual reflection and feedback, individual and group journals and portfolios, as well as audio and video artifacts. Documentation itself can also serve as data for inquiry and provide a base for shaping presentations about inquiry to others both in- and outside the school community (Weinbaum, et al., 2004).

Employing social software within a community of teacher inquiry permits educators to work cooperatively utilizing online applications that not only “facilitate the aggregation and organization of knowledge” and data, but also allows the “diversity of individual research interests” to enhance learning for the entire community (Mejias, 2006). Social software like blogs and wikis provide the ability to support knowledge building networks by serving as a space to record and document individual research as well as foster cooperation, collaboration, and interactivity between members of an inquiry community.

Social software has two key attributes that could be considered meaningful for teacher inquiry:

Permits communication between groups and individuals – In this sense, social software serves as a medium or channel that supports an exchange, or an ecology where people, practices, and values connect, interact, and evolve (Suter et al., 2005).

Enables the aggregation and sharing of resources -- Social software not only allows people to collect, communicate, and collaborate online, it allows data, information, and objects to be combined and consolidated, serving as a place where both ideas and people can converge.

In terms of social software’s impact on teaching and learning, Mejias (2005) suggests that social software’s

true potential lies in helping us figure out how to integrate our online and offline social experiences. Thus, social software must live up to its name by relating to the individual's everyday social practices, which include interacting with people online as well as people without access to these technologies…. [S]ocial software can positively impact pedagogy by inculcating a desire to reconnect to the world as a whole, not just the social parts that exist online.

Mejias’ definition of social software presents a critical point that leads me to this proposal for research. Mejias suggests that social software affords the potential to connect virtual practice to physical practice, i.e., to support everyday practice beyond that which exists online. Educators who are researching, reflecting, comparing, collaborating and discussing issues and practice online have the ability to enact what they are researching and discussing in their daily practice. In this sense social software can serve as a conduit between virtual and physical realities.

Given the inquiry/protocol methodology for teacher research and action, how might social software affect this process? Are there certain protocols where social software is proven beneficial? Can student work be successfully analyzed and securely shared between inquiry group members?  How might teachers in the same school who are used to face-to-face discussion and analysis use social software like blogs and wikis? Will using social software in such a context be seen as adding an additional or unnecessary layer of work? Are there contexts for inquiry where social software is better suited? Will social software be perceived as contributing or undermining teacher learning?

To study these questions, I am proposing an empirical, interpretivist study of social softwares’ affect on a community of teacher inquiry. Using a quasi-experimental, qualitative approach, I will examine the products and processes of a set of educators who will use social software to support their inquiry and another group of educators who will not. The aim is not to make oversimplified generalizations about social software in the context of teacher collaborative inquiry, but instead to observe and record patterns of behavior and use given specific contextualizations. This research approach is more inductive in nature where the goal is the understanding and interpretation of events as opposed causal explanations and predictions.


Summary

Teacher education is an enormously complex enterprise. Putnam & Borko (2000) note that “[t]eacher educators have long struggled with how to create learning experiences powerful enough to transform teachers’ classroom practice” (pp. 5-6). Others like Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1996) argue that “[w]hat is missing from the knowledge base for teaching are the voices of teachers themselves, the questions teachers ask, the ways teachers use writing and intentional talk in their work lives, and the interpretive frames teachers use to understand and improve their own classroom practices” (p. 93).

To make the teaching and learning environment an actual learning organization where teacher inquiry and research are indeed possible, new mental models must be developed for schools to respond creatively and adaptive to changes in education and society. However, agreement in terms of a specific way to create conditions that best support teacher research is still being debated.

Perhaps if the teaching profession is to grow and develop as other recognized skilled professions (e.g., engineering, medicine, law), teachers need a forum, a shared knowledge base, for the critical evaluation and explanation of their individual actions (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). This professional knowledge base needs to be established by teachers themselves, not externally mandated.

Can social software like blogs, wikis, and social bookmarking sites provide a situated ecology where a community of inquiring educators can cooperate, collaborate, communicate, aggregate actions, and enhance individual and collective knowledge in a Web-supported environment? Can social software permit a certain level of knowledge co-creation that can be drawn from, reflected upon, and further refined by individuals and other community members and applied directly to one’s daily practice? This précis offers a research proposal that will hopefully bring us closer to understanding the possibilities.


References:

Bransford, J.D., et al. (eds). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1996). Communities for teacher research: Fringe or forefront? In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 92-114). New York: Teachers College Press.

Feenberg, A. & Bakardjieva, M. (2004). Consumers or citizens? The online community debate. Community in the digital age: philosophy and practice. (Eds. A. Feenberg & D. Barney). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Dana, N. & Yendol-Silva, D. (2003). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

McDonald, J.P, Mohr, N., Dichter, A., & McDonald, E.C. (2003). The power of protocols: An educator’s guide to better practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Mejias, U. A. (2005).  A nomad’s guide to learning and social software. The Knowledge Tree: An e-journal of learning innovation. Retrieved 16 July 2006 from http://knowledgetree.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition07/html/la_mejias.html.

Mejias, U. A. (2006). Teaching social software. Innovate, 2(5), June/July 2006. Retrieved 14 July 2006 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=260&a

Putnam, R.T & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, (29)1, pp. 4-15.

Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Suter, V., Alexander, B., & Kaplan, P. (2005). Social software and the future of conferences—Right now. EDUCAUSE Review 40(1): 46–59. Retrieved 16 July 2006 from http://www.educause.edu/er/erm05/erm0513.asp?bhcp=1.

Weinbaum, A., Allen, D., Blythe, T., Simon, K., Seidel, S., & Rubin, C. (2004). Teaching as inquiry: Asking hard questions to improve practice and student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.