Online Practice and Pedagogy: Evans, M. A. and Powell, A. (2007). Conceptual and practical issues related to the design for and sustainability of communities of practice: the case of e-portfolio use in preservice teacher training

Evans, M. A. and Powell, A. (2007). Conceptual and practical issues related to the design for and sustainability of communities of practice: the case of e-portfolio use in preservice teacher training. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(2), pp. 199 - 214. Retrieved on October 10, 2010 from http://ejscontent.ebsco.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/ContentServer.aspx?target=http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface%3Fcontent%3Da779355880%26format%3Dpdf%26magic%3Debscohostejs||AA3D3EFB68C36A3B40C78D54581474B7%26ft%3D.pdf%26userIP%3D139.86.13.152

Evans and Powell discuss the value of eportfolios as a means by which we can share knowledge and preserve authentic practice. They suggest a healthy critique of the practical aspects to online teaching that supports and maintains additive training for holistic attributes of nextgen learning.

Introduction

As communities of practice are integrated networks that sustain culture, knowledge and objectives, Evans and Powell propose that COPs nurture preservice teachers as a means to develop and archive an expanding knowledge base. In creating and archiving artefacts, novices gain necessary experience to analyse and self-evaluate individual work. The National Board of Professional Teaching Standards places emphasis on recognising that teachers form learning communities as part of their professional duties. Evans and Powell propose that inculcating the values and group unity of communities of practice for preservice teachers facilitates progression to learning communities.

Research by Riel and Becker, and Schlager and Fusco indicate that preservice teachers demonstrate strong individualistic behaviour, and are prone to private practice that undermines the culture of communities of practice. In a pilot study of science teacher undergraduates it was noted that:

in place and online activities provided little opportunity for cooperative work;
academic competition individualised practice;
paper-based artefacts were less accessible/revisable; and
private portfolio practice lacked consideration of the public audience.

The study concluded that a gap in values exists between national standards and individual practice. This analysis reveals that the problems faced in understanding the composite function of communities of practice has not been fully grasped. Opportunities to delve deeper into initiating pedagogy that embeds mediation and aids learning and teaching comes from observation.

A critique of the use by instructional technologists of the COP metaphor

Instructional technologists propose that class and program level mediation be embedded to facilitate indoctrinating the full function and purpose of COP in preservice teachers before practice. The methods proposed normally focus on an integration of knowledge and communication technology. MaKinster et. al. provide an example of teaching that promotes reflection in action and reflection on action. As reflection allows deeper cognitive processing, preservice teachers adopt behaviour that is valued in the profession. However, critics suggest that intervention may be misguided as the concept is open to misinterpretation. Evans and Powell observe that by implementing standards in teacher learning communities the conceptualisations of COP need to be addressed.

In their review of literature, Evans and Powell note primarily that the evolution of the COP metaphor is still in infancy and too little time has passed to conclude that it is a success. Documentation that affirms the sustainability of COP with active membership is low. There is a deficit of critical analysis on which to base or introduce new designs. Moreover, prescriptive methodology should be analysed by the profession. While Evans and Powell recommend caution, they argue that by changing the focus of existing online COP, skepticism may be reduced.

The next point Evans and Powell raise concerns the use of technology or ICT (e.g. wikis, HTML), observing that static knowledge does not encourage COP sustainability. They refer to Shwen and Hara who conclude that not all technology adopted is suitable for practical purposes of COP culture, therefore may not be sufficiently adaptable. Either the technology is abandoned in favour of more commensurate means of communication, or it encourages deviant behaviour. Evans and Powell clearly state that while they agree in principal, they anticipate new technology will be designed to support the requirements of online and preservice teachers. The heart of the issue lies in the specific use of current technology, not in technology in general. In undergraduate teacher training, the COP has justifiable interest in emerging technology (e.g. Web 2.0 software). Evans and Powell examine how Wikipedia display attributes of a sustained learning community. Furthermore, the use of wireless communication devices provides the platform for mlearning.

Evans and Powell describe the issues faced when using language to articulate the concept of COP, which have descriptive constructs that aid understanding of phenomena but has insufficient detail for prescriptive methodology. As research sets out to describe phenomena and practitioners look for sustainable solutions, Evans and Powell suggest that it may be difficult to contribute positively towards creating and nurturing the growth of COPs. Design solutions arise as a means to support sustainable practice from within the community.

Evans and Powell doubt that instructional technologists will be able to design COP, and instead critically analyse existing COP with specific focus on COP that transform via technology. A study by Evans and Schwen on the US Navy provides insight into the segregation that can occur as a result of an introduction to sophisticated technology. Learning and development had been disrupted by existing technology that was used as a substitute for ability. Sailors were unable to contribute in technician communities, disrupting their locus of identity, hence disparity between sailors and technicians developed. However, Evans and Powell propose that conflict may be averted as developing systems that have clear understanding of the prime objective of COP are adaptable and flexible enough to enhance active participation and learning.

Preservice eportfolio practice: a review of the literature

Eportfolios are used as a means by which preservice teachers are assessed. Though time consuming to establish, eportfolios are the potential to support the values and attitudes of teacher COP. Wireless and digital communication is reforming pedagogy allowing global communication (e.g. www) to attract interest, however the sociotechnical framework of teaching COPs is becoming a source of concern for some. There is some doubt about purpose and identified target audience. Evans and Powell propose an investigation that takes account of these issues to provide a sustainable structure for COP that are supported by eportfolios and technology.

Expert knowledge in eportfolio research indicates that there is a weakening effect if novices imitate without comprehension, which invalidates pedagogy and renders the artefact an unreliable source. The strength of eportfolios lies in its ability to connect novices with their product with a focus on the student-teacher network. Evans and Powell state that literature on eportfolios is inconsistent and confusing, and according to Pecheone "almost non-existent" (pg. 6). Common themes include mentoring programs, and guidance through existing technology. Eportfolios develop flexibly according to individuality and program requirements. A research study noted that neither the lead professor or supervisor of preservice teachers had eportfolios to display as teaching models. Furthermore, they are incapable of creating themselves what is expected of students. Love et. al. introduce a taxonomy of eportfolios:

Level 1 - scrapbook;
Level 2 - CV;
Level 3 - curriculum collaboration between student and faculty;
Level 4 - mentoring leading to mastery; and
Level 5 - authentic evidence as the authoritative evidence for assessment, evaluating and reporting.

These levels develop as a process of maturation, and eportfolios are crucial to achieving levels 3 - 5. The following are the physical and theoretical attributes of eportfolios:

working or showcase;
organisation;
type of student artefact;
presence and capture of feedback and assessment based on standards;
nature of content: static or dynamic and evolving;
heuristic processes involved;
context provided for each item; and
delivery mode.

Evans and Powell critique the taxonomy as in this scenario eportfolios have not been projected further in their capacity as teaching aids, but have instead been limited in context to a product for assessment and review.

Eportfolios are classified as the impetus for group activity and integration, providing the stimulus for feedback and reflection. This function is of primary importance when considering COP attributes (e.g. active participation and open communication). In addition, eportfolios provide active encouragement that supports lifelong learning; facilitates and embeds triple loop learning; maintains constructive feedback from peers; and activates professional and personal identity.

Evans and Powell critically examine how this facilitates learning, and stimulates change in assessment format. Peer interaction sustains the development, diffusion and dispersion of new knowledge. Traditional assessment methods undermine the efficacy of eportfolios by implementing standardisation.

Assessment and eportfolios

Eportfolios should be regarded as more than a compilation of artefacts to be assessed out of context by rubric marking systems. Students have ownership of design layout and links as eportfolios are used to accentuate learning and assessment "while assessment systems only support assessment ... initiatives start with a focus on standards, rather than learning" (pg. 8). Current use of eportfolios stems from accrediting bodies archiving the range of teacher performance that has instigated reforms in the way technology is used. Standardisation of eportfolios may be viewed as contradictory to COP learning and sustainability. Feedback suggests that eportfolios are regarded by preservice teachers as an expression of formative learning, but administrative staff look upon them as a means for summative assessment which places emphasis on institutional needs rather than on student requirement.

Assessment systems and meta-analysis

Disparity in views regarding eportfolios stem from a distrust of ICT that is generated by Digital Immigrants who have had access to an era of education without technology. Portfolios become the identity of the individual and are subject to change and influence directed by learning. Treuer and Jenson state that continually updating an eportfolio requires careful planning in order to stay true to its objective.

Eportfolio use and the COP metaphor: empirical evidence for existing conflicts

Evans and Powell investigate how eportfolios are a more authentic form of assessing activities and the process as it relates to pedagogy and practice. A literature review indicates that many researchers have failed to see the connection between learning, eportfolios and COP until recently. For many students, the problem in creating efficient use of eportfolios has been in identifying and making the transition from paper. Lack of familiarity with software has prevented students from archiving their projects culminating in an obvious lack of sharing. Much work has been invalidated by institutional expectation that is shaped by assessment rubrics as student work is limited to linking proficiency with standards. Evans and Powell question tacit knowledge that has been left out by preservice teachers in order to abide by standardised assessment.

Recommendations for the design for and sustainability of COP

When undertaking change or transformation, social identity should remain intact. Evans and Powell observe a distinct source of conflict between national standards and student behaviour established via eportfolios. They argue that current eportfolios do not uphold COP values of a sharing, nurturing environment in such a way that promotes active participation and public sharing of knowledge. Learning the art of teaching through eportfolios has reached a critical juncture that requires systematic analysis into the reason for neglect or resistance that sustains COP activity.

A student-centered approach with rapid prototyping removes some of the anxiety associated with inhibition and deterioration through lack of activity. Design and planned methods of intervention have been based on linear approaches to instructional design. However, linear models are inadequate when listing meso-level (e.g. mid-level) theory (e.g. COP). Meso-level analysis relinquishes control and precision making it unsuitable to achieve the clarity and linearity expected from micro-level theory. Models for instructional design should therefore reflect the complexity and chaos of any given community.

The unexpected variable outcomes that arise as a consequence of intervention go unreported or are dealt with ineffectively. In light of this, it is possible to conclude that unintended consequences have been exposed as errors caused by individual shortcomings and erroneous conceptualisation. Design work has to integrate with the existing template, rather than obfuscate it.

Web 2.0 technology offers a variety of ICT that enable and facilitate the matching of values between a community of students and standards boards. A combination of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 products highlight the types of software available for transmitting and dispersing knowledge that calls for activity (e.g. del.icio.us). Emergent technology exposes the possibilities for extensive sharing, and promotes active participation. This model exposes community generated and managed data that is linked to external content. Preservice teachers are able to direct supervision or peer interest to an eportfolio that demonstrates a value and a social benefit. In this instance, social bookmarking allows meta-tagging that reveals additional information and connections not found elsewhere. Evans and Powell state that although this method is widespread in corporate strategy, it is novel in educational strategy.

Conclusion

The objective of the authors has been to interject caution in instructional designers who work to improve the use of ICT in preservice teacher training. Eportfolios are used to improve and enhance the values and behaviours which are highly regarded in learning communities. Dysfunction stems from:

the lack of available discourse to improve and elevate the concepts of COP by identifying traits that establish purpose, development, extinction;
instructional designers who are heavily invested in ICT laden solutions that may defeat the primary objective of a COP (e.g. participation); and
instructional designers who are heavily invested in developing a logistic sequence of events intended to achieve COP attributes (e.g. prescription);
the challenges faced in identifying existing phenomena with a view to projecting recommendations for improvement.

Evans and Powell acknowledge the valid concerns that surround the COP metaphor, but argue for the potential value COP provide. COP form a rich database from which to understand key issues in identity, practice, boundaries and belonging. "The impact and value of these sociocultural understandings cannot be denied" (pg. 14). Technology should be considered a boon to the betterment of society, however caution is required when it is used for initiating intervention. Latterly technology has come to include wireless devices that reconfigure communication strategies and were unavoidably omitted from earlier research. Evans and Powell propose that a thorough understanding of COP is necessary before solutions can be effective.

The focus of Evans and Powell's paper lies in discriminating between knowledge and information. In working towards solutions, the authors reiterate the value of caution and a consideration of unexpected variable outcomes that instructional technology may expose. The authors question the motives behind the support given to preservice teachers: