Literature Review<\/p>\n
Building Learning Community<\/p>\n
A learning community is a group of autonomous, independent individuals who are drawn together by shared values, goals, and interests and committed to knowledge construction through intensive dialogues, interaction, and collaboration (Harmon & Jones, 2001; Kowch & Schwier, 1997; Rovai, 2000). The concept of community of learners originated from a democratic, student-centered, inquiry-based philosophical perspective grounded in the works of Dewey, Vygotsky, and Bruner (Mintrop, 2001). Vygotsky\u2019s work on knowledge construction through social interactions in situated and meaningful sociocultural contexts is especially relevant to building learning communities in which learners engage in critical thinking under the scaffolding provided through peer interactions and from the instructor (Bonk, Malikowski, Angeli, & East, 1998; Dykes & Schwier, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978).<\/p>\n
Learning communities do not have to be built through face-to-face interactions. They can be realized using nontraditional electronic communication. These virtual learning communities can be built in two forms, synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous communication technology allows live, real-time interactions between the instructors and learners and among the learners themselves. Asynchronous communication technology supports nonreal-time interactions between instructors and learners and among learners themselves. Compared to synchronous communication, asynchronous communities allow learners more time to engage in higher order, in-depth knowledge building and to organize and compose their written responses (Huang, 2000; Moller, 1998; Schwier & Balbar, 2002). In addition, asynchronous communication allows participants to communicate at different times and places and is more flexible to use than synchronous communication. Moller (1998) stated that asynchronous learning communities are especially relevant to training environments since adult trainees are often located in different places yet sometimes demand instant and constant help from their trainers. Blogging is a type of asynchronous communication and, therefore, considered more appropriate for this project.<\/p>\n
Asynchronous learning has been widely used in preservice and in-service training programs (Bonk et al., 1998; Cavanaugh, 2003; Eick & Dias, 2005; Fey & Sisson, 1996; Khine, Yeap, & Lok, 2003; Li, 2003; Maor, 2003; Prestera & Moller, 2001). For example, Eick and Dias (2005) used asynchronous learning in a preservice science teacher training program aimed at promoting inquiry-based instruction in real-life classrooms. They found that this approach serves as an effective medium to foster teachers\u2019 reflections on issues of concern related to constructivist pedagogy. Eick and Dias found that technology brought novice teachers, their mentors, and course instructors closer. They found a shift of teachers\u2019 attitudes toward reform-based teaching methods toward the end of their program.<\/p>\n
Li (2003), a professor in mathematics education, found that teachers talked more frankly about sensitive issues with which they may not feel comfortable in face-to-face situations. In this case, online asynchronous communication enhanced critical thinking skills and produced more diverse viewpoints.<\/p>\n
Contrary to the findings of the previous studies, Khine at al. (2003) and Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2002) found low participation rate, low degree of collaboration and low learner satisfaction concerning online asynchronous communication. Several reasons may contribute to the disappointing results: lack of sociocultural cues in online environments (Dietz-Uhler & Bishop-Clark, 2001; Vonderwell, 2002), time-consuming, extra work (Belcher, 1999; Vonderwell, 2002), and technological difficulties such as slow downloading time, lack of storage of information, and no access to computers (Harmon & Jones, 2001; Maor, 2003). The mixed results generated from previous studies point to the need for further investigations of the effects of asynchronous learning on teacher training programs and for insights about the approaches having the potential to maximize the learning outcomes of teacher trainees.<\/p>\n
Research suggests that in order for busy teachers to use an asynchronous learning environment they must feel part of a shared vision, have a sense of ownership of some part of the site, and benefit from the shared perspectives of others (Robertson, 2007).\u00a0 Providing the kind of scaffolding that has these features is challenging.\u00a0 Teachers are not typically given the time or the venue to share, discuss, or see examples of pedagogical alternatives for their classroom on any kind of regular basis (Darling-Hammond, 1997). One attempt at providing unique scaffolds for such online support comes from the sociotechnical community created by Barab, MaKinster, Moore, Cunningham, and the ILF Team (2001).\u00a0 Their framework has three features:\u00a0 \u201cvisiting the classroom, \u201d knowledge networking, and community building.<\/p>\n
The centerpiece of the online project for preservice mathematics and science teachers is a set of videotapes of teaching by participants, who have agreed to be evaluated using a rubric developed and used by a panel of university and school faculty members. Videotaped teachers not only share their classrooms with viewers, but provide artifacts, plans, and commentary before and after the lesson. A discussion board allows any who view the tape to comment or ask questions. The authors are realistic about success so far, noting that while the use of videos allows teachers to \u201ctranscend the systemic constraints that make it difficult to visit other classrooms,\u201d they are sometimes challenged to appreciate the particular context of what they are viewing.<\/p>\n
Previous research also suggests that face-to-face and online learning can complement each other. For example, Li (2003) argued that face-to-face settings are more suitable for demonstrating hands-on activities and are, therefore, an indispensable component of teacher training using computer-mediated instruction. Dietz-Uhler and Bishop-Clark (2001) and Rovail (2001) both found that teacher-training programs with mixed face-to-face sessions and asynchronous online discussions generated better results than those with face-to-face sessions alone. This mixed format produced more enjoyable and fruitful face-to-face discussions after online conversations and developed a stronger sense of community. These studies guided the design of our own project.<\/p>\n
Blogging\u2019s Role in Building Online Learning Community<\/p>\n
The idea of building online community through blogging is based on the constructivist theory of learning, which emphasizes a social or situated process of learning and personal construction of knowledge, including \u201cmodeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and exploration\u201d (Collins et al., 1989, p. 476 as cited in Kunz, Dewstow, & Moodie, 2003). Blogging can be used to build a\u00a0 \u201ccommunity diary\u201d around a large project in which a group of learners can establish and maintain thoughts and share their insights (Oravec, 2003).<\/p>\n
Bonnstetter (1998) described three phases of teacher involvement in education reform: (a) the effort phase, (b) attempt to use a teaching strategy that was learned in a half- to whole-day professional development workshop, and (c) the reflective phase for what is working and how to integrate new ideas into their established teaching tools. Unfortunately, teachers who attempt Phase II without success and therefore do not progress to Phase III may become frustrated and see innovation as simply \u201canother short term educational trend\u201d (Bonnstetter, 1998, p. 1). Using blogs is one way to encourage teachers to reflect with others about what is working and why.<\/p>\n
Participants in PLC-MAP were provided access to a blogging site specifically for them to post asynchronous reflections and interactions with other participants (http:\/\/plcmap.blogspot.com<\/a>), allowing the potential for peer support, as well as for the researchers and other administrators to interact with participants. In sum, blogs serve as a means for educators to share ideas and air frustrations (Toner, 2004), a tool for combining socially situated learning among teachers and students with content, in the production of subject-matter experts (Ferdig & Trammel, 2004), and as powerful tools that promote knowledge-building through reflective journal entry evaluation (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003).<\/p>\n Method<\/p>\n Participants<\/p>\n The participants of this study include 15 alternative certification interns and induction year teachers, 11 mentor teachers, and 9 community college faculty members. Three TAMU science and science education faculty members and one graduate student moderated the blogging conversations during the semester. Their blogging transcripts were also included in the analysis. The instructions to participants, once given the essentials of entering the blog, were simply to converse about themselves, their work, their concerns and how the project could help them be better teachers. They were encouraged to ask questions and to respond to each other\u2019s blogs.<\/p>\n Data Sources<\/p>\n Three types of data were analyzed in this study. The first data source was the end-of-first-session survey question concerning the value of blogging. Participants\u2019 responses were categorized, and sample responses were analyzed. The second source of data is a pre- and posttest technology survey that includes five questions regarding technology use in classrooms. A longer version of this survey was used over a 5-year period with over 150 veteran teachers in a sponsored project, Information Technology in Science (http:\/\/www.its.tamu.edu<\/a>).<\/p>\n Nonparametric statistics, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, was applied because of the small sample size employed in this study and the highly skewed distribution of the data. The third data sources were the blogging transcripts. Two researchers coded them using O\u2019Neill\u2019s (2001) model of \u201cdialogue moves\u201d (p. 241) and Khineet al.\u2019s (2003) Framework of Evaluating the Quality of Thinking and Information Processing (p. 121). The interrater reliabilities for coding the transcripts using these two frameworks were 0.90 and 0.80, respectively.<\/p>\n Conceptual Frameworks<\/p>\n O\u2019 Neill\u2019s model was mainly used to examine the content of the participants\u2019 blogging. In other words, what topics or subjects caught most of the participants\u2019 attention? Before examining the quality of the students\u2019 postings, O\u2019Neill classified them into three broad categories: conceptual, procedural\/advice, and relationship and more subcategories in order to achieve a comprehensive picture of the diversity of content involved in the discussions. O\u2019Neill applied these categories to both the students and their mentors but separately in order to gain insights into what he called the \u201cdialogue moves\u201d between students and mentors.<\/p>\n In this study, we adopted the three broad categories provided by O\u2019Neill and developed our own subcategories that fit the contexts of this study. We analyzed the transcripts of the two university faculty members and the graduate student separately from those of the three other groups of participants (community college faculty, mentors, and interns\/induction year teacher). We also followed Hernandez-Ramos Pedro (2004), employing word counts as an additional measure of willingness to articulate in some detail.<\/p>\n Khine et al.\u2019s (2003) framework was used to investigate the quality of participants\u2019 blogging. According to this framework, quality of thinking is demonstrated through three major cognitive processes: (a) clarification and understanding: using collected information to verify, explain, and elaborate and gain insight into problems; (b) creative thinking: generating new ideas or problem solutions; (c) critical thinking: determining the feasibility and validity of alternative solutions using collected evidence and making decisions on accepting or rejecting the solutions. In addition, the framework states that information processing can be realized at both surface and deep levels. Surface level of information processing involves little evidence, elaboration, or justification. In-depth level of information processing requires a critical evaluation of choices.<\/p>\n Findings<\/p>\n End-of-First-Session Survey: To What Extent Did You Find Blogging Helpful?<\/p>\n Eight community college faculty members, 8 mentor teachers, and 10 intern teachers filled out this survey, which contains eight questions. The responses to the question (Q6) regarding the helpfulness of blogging are discussed here.<\/p>\n The eight community college faculty members expressed divided opinions about blogging. In particular, four of them had positive opinions; three of them had negative opinions; and one person made a comment unrelated to blogging. The responses of the mentor and intern teachers shared similar patterns. The majority of them expressed somewhat mixed feelings about blogging. Table 1 displays a summary of these findings.<\/p>\n Table 1
\n<\/strong>Summary of the Results of the End-of-First-Session Survey<\/i><\/p>\n
![\"table](\"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/v7i3sciScience_table5.gif\")
<\/p>\n