Empowering Teachers for Innovations: The Case of Online Teacher Learning Communities

Onno De Jong

Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden; Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2012.38B026                

Abstract

Implementing innovations in classrooms often evokes a variety of recurrent difficulties, especially feelings of resistance among experienced teachers. Modern teacher education aims at reducing their opposition by empowering these teachers for developing new knowledge, beliefs, and skills. A growing number of these teacher courses is designed as teacher learning communities (TLC-s). A specific category of them, online networks, is the scope of the present paper. Main values and attributes of these communities are addressed. This is followed by presenting some leading principles for designing TLC-s. Important principles are: (i) creating subcommunities within large-scale online networks, (ii) combining online activities with face-to-face meetings, and, (iii) facilitating more equality in online group participation. These principles are illustrated by examples of real practices. Finally, main conditions for successful new online TLC-s are presented. Prospects for advanced studies of practices of these communities are also given.

Keywords

Teacher Learning; Online Communities; Network Design Principles; Network Practices

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Adams, J. E. (2000). Taking charge of curriculum: Teacher networks and curriculum implementation. New York: Teacher College Press.
[2]	Baek, R., & Barab, S. A. (2005). A study of dynamic design du-alities in a web-supported community of practice of teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 8, 161-177.
[3]	Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities: Characterizing and online professional development community. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, and J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the ser-vice of learning (pp. 53-90). Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press.
[4]	Bliss, J., Askew, M., & Macrae, S. (1996). Effective teaching and learning: scaffolding revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 22, 37-61.
[5]	Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Franscisco: Jossey Bass.
[6]	Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9-13.
[7]	Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
[8]	Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York: Car-negie Cooperation.
[9]	Day, C. (1987). Profession-al learning through collaborative inservice activity. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Educating teachers: Changing the nature of pedagogical knowledge (pp. 207-222). New York: Falmer Press.
[10]	De Jong, O. (2007). Trends in Western science curricula and science education research: a bird’s eye view. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6, 15-22.
[11]	Dori, Y. J., & Barnea, N. (1997). In-service vhemistry teachers’ training: The impact of introducting computer tech-nology on teachers’ attitudes and classroom imple-mentation. International Journal of Science Educa-tion, 19, 577-592.
[12]	Fine, C. S. (1993). CAWP On-Line: Enhancing collacoration through technol-ogy. In G. Davies and B. Samways (Eds.), Tele-teaching (pp. 239-248). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishers.
[13]	Galanouli, D. C., & Murphy, A. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competence training. Computers and Education, 43, 63-79.
[14]	Heller, J., Daehler, K., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., & Miratrix, L. (2012). Differential effects of three professional developments models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 333-362.
[15]	Jones, D. (1997). A conceptual framework for studying the relevance of context to mathematics teachers’ change. In E. Fen-nema and B. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics Teachers in Transition (pp. 131-154). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum.
[16]	McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve stu-dent achievement. New York: Teacher College Press.
[17]	Putman, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4-15.
[18]	Richardson, V. (1992). The agenda-setting dilemma in a constructivist staff development process. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 287-300.
[19]	Rodrigues, S. (2006). Pedagogic practice integrating primary science and elearning: The need for relevance, recognition, resource, reflection, readiness and risk. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15, 175-189.
[20]	Ruopp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B., & Pfister, A. (1993). LabNet: Towards a community of practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[21]	Smith, M., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systematic school reform. In S. Fuhrman and B. Malen (Eds.), The Politics of Curriculum and Testing (pp. 233-268). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
[22]	Stolk, M., De Jong, O., Bulte, A., & Pilot, A. (2011). Exploring a framework for professional development in curriculum innovation: Empowering teachers for designing context-based chemistry education. Research in Science Education, 41, 369-388.
[23]	Tekerek, M., & Ercan, O. (2012). Analysis of teachers’ attitude towards Internet use: Example of chemistry teachers. Creative Education, 3, 296-303.
[24]	US Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics (2000). Internet access in US public schools and class-rooms:1994-1999. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
[25]	Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.