Advertisement

A Design Framework for Building a Virtual Community of Practice

  • Olga FragouEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 916)

Abstract

Sustaining competitiveness in global market is dependent on organizations’ capacity to innovate; revelation of tacit knowledge and its incorporation in organisations’ structures and processes, comprise an important factor in exploring and implementing innovation. Virtual communities of practice (CoPs) and virtual learning communities are becoming widespread within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) thanks to technological developments which enable increased communication, interactivity among participants and incorporation of collaborative pedagogical models, specifically through information communications technologies (ICTs). This paper presents a design framework for building a Virtual Community of Practice (VCoP) incorporating company stakeholders, academics, researchers and school practitioners as prospect members of the community, who interact on the basis of knowledge sharing on IT technologies and engineering: the design characteristics, important concepts, structures and preliminary data are presented. Design research sets the methodological framework used, while, in the context of applying ethnographic practices, qualitative data have been collected to support the proposed design mechanism.

Keywords

Knowledge management Instructional design Communities of practice Design framework 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Dr Olga Fragou is currently an Academic Tutor in Hellenic Open University. The research schema and protocols presented in this paper have been designed and conducted by the author during her research work (2016–2017) at Computer Technology Institute and Press- Diophantus (http://www.cti.gr), for Horizon 2020 Project “UMI-Sci-Εd: Exploring Ubiquitous, Mobile and Internet of Things Technology in Science Education”, GA 750183. The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

References

  1. 1.
    Young, R.: Knowledge management tools and techniques manual. Asian Prod. Organ., 3–14 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wenger, E., McDermott, R., Snyder, W.M.: Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., Robertson, M.: The construction of “Communities of Practice” in the management of innovation. Manag. Learn. 33, 477 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507602334005.available, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247748275_The_Construction_of_Communities_of_Practice’_in_the_Management_of_Innovation. Accessed 26 May 2018
  4. 4.
    Ardichvili, A., Page, V., Wenthling, T.: Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. J. Knowl. Manag. 7(1), 64–77 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barrett, M., Cappleman, S., Shoib, G., Walsham, G.: Learning in knowledge communities: managing technology and context. Eur. Manag. J. 22(1), 1–11 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Squire, K., Johnson, C.: Supporting distributed communities of practice with interactive television. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 48(1), 23–43 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barab, S.A., Duffy, T.: From practice fields to communities of practice (CRLT Technical Report No. 1–98) (2000). Retrieved from http://crlt.indiana.edu/publications/duffy_publ3.pdf
  8. 8.
    Delaney, K., O’Keeffe, M., Fragou, O.: A design framework for interdisciplinary communities of practice towards STEM learning in 2nd level education. In: Auer, M., Guralnick, D., Simonics, I. (eds.) Teaching and Learning in a Digital World. ICL 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 715. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73210-7_86
  9. 9.
    Goumopoulos, C., Fragou, O., Chanos, N., Delistavrou, K., Jaharakis, J., Kameas, A.: The UMI-Sci-Ed platform: integrating UMI technologies to promote science education. In: Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU) (2018). ISBN 978-989-758-291-2Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kumpulainen, K., Lipponen, L.: Productive interaction as agentic participation in dialogic enquiry. In: Littleton, K., Howe, C. (eds.) Educational Dialogues. Understanding and Promoting Productive Interaction, pp. 48–63. Routledge, London (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pan, S.L., Leidner, D.E.: Bridging Communities of practice with information technology in pursuit of global knowledge sharing. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 12, 71–88 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McKay, J., Marshall, P.: The dual imperatives of action research. Inf. Technol. People 14(1), 46–59 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fragou, O., Kameas A., Zacharakis, I.D.: An instructional design process for constructing a U learning ecology. In: Proceedings of 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON 2017), pp. 1797–1806. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laurel, B.: Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hsieh, H.-F., Shannon, S.: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15, 1277–1288 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gerbic, P., Stacey, E.: A purposive approach to content analysis: designing analytical frameworks. Internet High. Educ. 8, 45–59 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Badinelli, R., Barile, S., Ng, I., Polese, F., Saviano, M., Di Nauta, P.: Viable service systems and decision making in service management. J. Serv. Manag. 23(4), 498–526 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231211260396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peppard, J., Ward, J.: Beyond strategic information systems: towards an IS capability. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 13(2), 167–194 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmesster, B.A., McClelland, I.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 189–194. Taylor & Francis, London (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ranmuthugala, G., Cunningham, F.C., Plumb, J.J., Long, J., Georgiou, A., Westbrook, J.I., Braithwaite, J.: A realist evaluation of the role of communities of practice in changing healthcare practice. Science 6, 49 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wenger, E., Trayner, B., de Laat, M.: Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Rapport 18, Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open University of the Netherlands (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hellenic Open UniversityPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations