Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Promoting Instructional Designers’ Participation in Free, Asynchronous Professional Development: A Formative Evaluation

  • Published:
Journal of Formative Design in Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Instructional designers (IDs) are continually seeking opportunities to share teaching and learning design strategies and learn from their fellow IDs. An application of Community of Practice (CoP) has allowed instructional design professionals to participate in an open learning setting as a way to continue their professional development (PD), share thoughts and ideas, and keep up on the trends and issues related to the field of instructional design. This formative evaluation examined semi-annual, CoP-based PD opportunities held openly in Canvas Learning Management System (LMS), which gathered IDs from around the world to participate in online discussions, presentations, and other knowledge-sharing activities without any cost. Data were collected from the LMS usage log and corroborated by insights from co-founders of the group, presenters, and participants of PD obtained through an anonymous survey. Findings show that the lack of time, issues with trust, bonding, and open communication, as well as less-favored activities influenced ID’s participation in the PD events. Implications for improving the CoP-based PD events are additionally presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bond, M. A., & Lockee, B. B. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of faculty inquiry groups as communities of practice for faculty professional development. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 2, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-018-0015-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (2018). The emergence and design of massive open online courses. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 250–258). New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borzillo, S., Aznar, S., & Schmitt, A. (2011). A journey through community of practice: how member and why members move from the periphery to the core. European Management Journal, 29, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2010.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadiz, D., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffith, T. L. (2009a). Developing and validating field measurement scales for absorptive capacity and experienced community of practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(6), 1035–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadiz, D., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffith, T. L. (2009b). Experienced Community of Practice Scale [database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS https://doi.org/10.1037/t05787-000.

  • Correll, S. (1995). The ethnography of an electronic bar: the lesbian cafe. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(3), 270–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, B., Hurn, J. E., Mays, T. A., & Woods, D. (2018). An introduction to learning analytics. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 104–111). New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz-Uhler, B., & Hurn, J. (2013). Using learning analytics to predict (and improve) student success: A faculty perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan-Howell, J. (2010). Teachers making connections: online communities as a source of professional learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00953.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorrell, J., Kitsantas, A., & Matthews, W. K. (2013). Community of Practice Scale for Schools [Database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. https://doi.org/10.1037/t29882-000.

  • Guan, X. (2006). Reasons for the formation of cybernetic lurkers. Journal of Huaihai Institute of Technology, 4(3), 79–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guldberg, K., & MacKness, J. (2009). Foundations of communities of practice: enablers and barriers to participation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6), 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00327.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K. M. L., Stephens, M., Branch-Mueller, J., & de Groot, J. (2016). Community of practice or affinity space: a case study of a professional development MOOC. Education for Information, 32, 101–119. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-150965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollock, P., & Smith, M. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. In S. Herring (Ed.), Managing the virtual commons: cooperation and conflict in computer communities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krutka, D. G., Carpenter, J. P., & Trust, T. (2017). Enriching professional learning networks: a framework for identification, reflection, and intention. TechTrends, 61(3), 246–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0141-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, H.-M., & Chen, T. T. (2014). Knowledge sharing in interest online communities: a comparison of posters and lurkers. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lesser, E., & Everest, K. (2001). Using communities of practice to manage intellectual capital. Ivey Business Journal, 65(4), 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marett, K., & Joshi, K. D. (2009). The decision to share information and rumors: Examining the role of motivation in an online discussion forum. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24(1), 47–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieveen, N., & Folmer, E. (2013). Formative evaluation in educational design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research Part A: an introduction (pp. 152–169). The Netherlands: Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phang, C. W., Kankanhalli, A., & Sabherwal, R. (2009). Usability and sociability in online communities: a comparative study of knowledge seeking and contribution. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(10), 721–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qi, J., & Reid, B. (2016). Course content engagements. In Analytics in course design. Retrieved from https://learn.canvas.net/courses/1176. Accessed 6 March 2020.

  • Rafaeli, S., Ravid, G., & Soroka, V. (2004). De-lurking in virtual communities: a social communication network approach to measuring the effects of social and cultural capital. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10). Hawaii.

  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21196.

  • Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2004). Instructional designers’ observations about identity, communities of practice and change agency. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 69–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharif, A., & Cho, S. (2015). 21st-century instructional designers: bridging the perceptual gaps between identity, practice, impact and professional development. RUSC University and Knowledge Society Journal, 12(3), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i3.2176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, A., & Cosgriff, B. (1998). Problem-based learning: a bridge between planning education and planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17, 348–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simunich, B., Robins, D. B., & Kelly, V. (2015). The impact of findability on student motivation, self-efficacy, and perceptions of online course quality. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(3), 174–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trust, T., Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2017). Moving beyond silos: professional learning networks in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 35, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, I.-C. (2012). Understanding social nature of an online community of practice for learning to teach. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 271–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, F.-C., & Kuo, F.-Y. (2010). Online knowledge sharing self-efficacy measure [Database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. https://doi.org/10.1037/t13007-000.

  • Tseng, T.-C., & Kuo, F.-Y. (2014). A study on social participation and knowledge sharing in the teachers’ online professional community of practice. Computers & Education, 72, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998a). Communities of practice: learning as a social system. The Systems Thinker, 9, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (2001). Supporting communities of practice: A survey of community-oriented technologies. Retrieved from http://www.ewenger.com/tech/

  • Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: a brief introduction. Retrieved from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/communities_of_practice_intro_WRD.doc

  • Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179–198). Berlin: Springer Verlag and the Open University.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review (Jan–Feb), 139–145.

  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital habitats: stewarding technology for communities. Portland: CPsquare. https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2013.6577673.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weseley, P. M. (2013). Investigating the community of practice of world language educators on Twitter. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113489032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woo, D. J. (2015). Central practitioners’ developing legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice for changing schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(2), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodgate-Jones, A. (2012). The student teacher and the school community of practice: an exploration of the contribution of the legitimate peripheral participant. Educational Review, 64(2), 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, W., & Storck, J. (2001). Peripheral members in online communities. In Proceedings of the 7th Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 586–593). Boston.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Pauline Salim Muljana, Tian Luo, Sherri Watson & William Domenick Euefueno

  2. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Kayla Nicole Wright Jutzi

Authors
  1. Pauline Salim Muljana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tian Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sherri Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William Domenick Euefueno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kayla Nicole Wright Jutzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pauline Salim Muljana.

Ethics declarations

Research involving human participants

This project was reviewed by the Old Dominion University Education Human Subjects Review Committee who then granted an exempt from IRB review status according to federal regulations on March 15, 2019 (project number: 1382020-2). The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muljana, P.S., Luo, T., Watson, S. et al. Promoting Instructional Designers’ Participation in Free, Asynchronous Professional Development: A Formative Evaluation. J Form Des Learn 4, 74–87 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-020-00044-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-020-00044-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation