Collections of Practice as High-Level Activity in a Digital Interest-Based Science Community

IF 3.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Lisa Lundgren, Kent J. Crippen
{"title":"Collections of Practice as High-Level Activity in a Digital Interest-Based Science Community","authors":"Lisa Lundgren, Kent J. Crippen","doi":"10.1007/s10956-024-10111-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The theoretical framework of communities of practice (CoP) is often used for framing research into online communities. However, there is an absence of measures and empirical work that evaluates knowledge-sharing within such communities. This represents a substantial gap in our understanding of informal learning for diverse people and in the case of communities that support participation in science, a potential loss of capacity for an enterprise that serves a critical function for society. Our objective is to operationalize <i>practice</i> within a designed online, scientific community and evaluate these behaviors as representative of seven theorized high-level groups. For this case study, content and social network analysis were applied to forums (<i>n</i> = 1858), activity posts (<i>n</i> = 1300), and direct messages (<i>n</i> = 667). Content analysis showed that community members most often used practices that were coded as social and not domain-specific. Differences existed in the ways that forums, messages, and activity posts were used as well as between education and outreach members and members of the public and scientists. Social network analysis revealed two domain-specific practices were central to the knowledge-sharing discourse. The seven theorized high-level groups were reduced to three. We provide a new empirically-based framework for use in identifying practices within the digital spaces as well as recommendations for designing online science communities that emphasize knowledge creation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50057,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Education and Technology","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Science Education and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10111-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The theoretical framework of communities of practice (CoP) is often used for framing research into online communities. However, there is an absence of measures and empirical work that evaluates knowledge-sharing within such communities. This represents a substantial gap in our understanding of informal learning for diverse people and in the case of communities that support participation in science, a potential loss of capacity for an enterprise that serves a critical function for society. Our objective is to operationalize practice within a designed online, scientific community and evaluate these behaviors as representative of seven theorized high-level groups. For this case study, content and social network analysis were applied to forums (n = 1858), activity posts (n = 1300), and direct messages (n = 667). Content analysis showed that community members most often used practices that were coded as social and not domain-specific. Differences existed in the ways that forums, messages, and activity posts were used as well as between education and outreach members and members of the public and scientists. Social network analysis revealed two domain-specific practices were central to the knowledge-sharing discourse. The seven theorized high-level groups were reduced to three. We provide a new empirically-based framework for use in identifying practices within the digital spaces as well as recommendations for designing online science communities that emphasize knowledge creation.

Abstract Image

作为数字兴趣科学社区高层活动的实践集
实践社区(CoP)的理论框架经常被用来构建在线社区的研究框架。然而,目前还缺乏评估此类社区内知识共享的措施和实证工作。这意味着我们对不同人群非正式学习的理解存在巨大差距,就支持参与科学的社区而言,这可能会导致对社会起着关键作用的企业丧失能力。我们的目标是在一个设计好的在线科学社区内将实践操作化,并将这些行为作为七个理论上的高级群体的代表进行评估。在本案例研究中,我们对论坛(n = 1858)、活动帖子(n = 1300)和直接消息(n = 667)进行了内容和社交网络分析。内容分析显示,社区成员最常使用的做法被编码为社会性而非特定领域。论坛、信息和活动帖子的使用方式存在差异,教育和外联成员与公众和科学家之间也存在差异。社会网络分析显示,两个特定领域的做法是知识共享讨论的核心。七个理论上的高层次群体被缩减为三个。我们提供了一个新的基于经验的框架,用于识别数字空间中的实践,并为设计强调知识创造的在线科学社区提供建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Science Education and Technology
Journal of Science Education and Technology EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
45
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Science Education and Technology is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of original peer-reviewed, contributed and invited research articles of the highest quality that address the intersection of science education and technology with implications for improving and enhancing science education at all levels across the world. Topics covered can be categorized as disciplinary (biology, chemistry, physics, as well as some applications of computer science and engineering, including the processes of learning, teaching and teacher development), technological (hardware, software, deigned and situated environments involving applications characterized as with, through and in), and organizational (legislation, administration, implementation and teacher enhancement). Insofar as technology plays an ever-increasing role in our understanding and development of science disciplines, in the social relationships among people, information and institutions, the journal includes it as a component of science education. The journal provides a stimulating and informative variety of research papers that expand and deepen our theoretical understanding while providing practice and policy based implications in the anticipation that such high-quality work shared among a broad coalition of individuals and groups will facilitate future efforts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信