Aim of the paper
The aim of this article is to investigate the features of the conversation between education professionals (teachers, teacher educators, school heads and ministry staff) engaged on an online professional learning community (OPLC), having diverse cultural backgrounds while sharing the common goal of being able to promote various aspects of democratic principles and understanding within European schools. The paper offers a descriptive and analytic view of the cognitive, affective and procedural elements found in the conversation, i.e. the qualities of the collaboration that occurs within the conversations between participants. It focuses on activityseen as objective and on the observable features of the interaction between participants, through a comparative approach of two cases - moderated discussion threads (MDT), and has revealed important results concerning the role of moderators in conversations occurring in OPLCs.
Theoretical framework
Educators are learning though talking (McPhee, 2015) and asynchronous web-based discussion platforms may ‘assist shared reflection and problem-solving for teachers to discuss their teaching’ when the conditions are there to favour participants’ engagement. Teachers within the OPLC learn through conversation (Gadamer, Vessey, & Blauwkamp, 2007; Laurillard, 2002; Pask, 1976)with peers and moderators, in a distributed environment and international context (Hildreth, Kimble, & Wright, 2000). Online conversation is here the main medium for the learning process.
Firmly based in social constructivist learning theory, the authors adopt a holistic approach to transcript analysis where interaction is observed within the context of the conversation: OPLCs contain and are sustained both by context, and by the social interaction opportunities they offer (Fahy, Crawford, & Ally, 2001; Gunawardena, 1997). The paper speculates that the features of the conversation arise in a large part from its moderation: the authors investigate moderation styles (attitudes and communicative behaviour), arrangements (team or individual moderator), and moderators’ part in guiding members towards on one hand the co-construction of knowledge within learning activities considered as a central ingredient to professional development and practice (Järvelä et al., 2014; Lockhorst, Admiraal, & Pilot, 2010; Prestridge, 2010) or towards conflict and controversy (Johnson & Johnson, 2009) considered as the crux of democratic culture on the other hand.
Inspired by Fredericks et al.’s (2004) and Järvelä et al.’s (2016) concepts, the paper characterizes engagement as a multidimensional construct uniting behavioural, emotional, social, and cognitive components, and includes participants’ actions (interactions) and expressions (speech acts) proving a sense of belonging, willingness to place effort in collaboration, knowledge construction and valuing practice oriented learning.
Previous research on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and quality of knowledge construction supports the construction of the conceptual approach to the features of the conversation, namely co-regulation and the interplay between motivation, emotion and cognition, such as: quality of knowledge construction (Newman, Webb, & Cochrane, 1995; Zhu, 2006) and design principles supporting the ability to instigate and sustain critical thinking in a community of learners (deNoyelles 2014; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Järvelä, Järvenoja, Malmberg, Isohätälä, & Sobocinski, 2016; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). Finally, the paper analyses structural features of the conversation through the study of involvement, overall and individual involvement (including lurking), intensity (size, density, rhythm, pace), cohesion and attentiveness of members to each other (Henri, 1992), topical persistance, turn-taking (Wiemann & Knapp, 1975).
These studies present design elements that sustain online dialogue and therefore can be relevant to understanding moderators’ roles, area in which the paper takes special interest, i.e., what works and what doesn’t for gradually moving into ‘thick’ narrative as opposed to ‘thin’ narrative that misrepresent problems into oversimplified matters (Mc Niff & Whitehead, 2010).
(Research questions below)