Upload
karsten-d-wolf
View
5.918
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
Community of Practice Inventory: How to measure a CoP?
Karsten D. Wolf & Andreas RauschDidactical Design of Interactive Learning Environments
Communities & Technologies 2007Michigan State University, East Lansing, USAThursday, 28.06.2007
cc by Karsten D. Wolf 2007
Ongoing integration of work & learning
Fleeting interactions
Collaboration &problem solving
Social structures
ConversationFormal Learning
Documents & Practice
Knowledge filtering
collaborative &individualized
search
Online communities
Email & Discussion
groups
Synchronousinteractions
E-Learningspaces
Social bookmarking
Projectspaces
Knowledge repositories
Collaborative news-filtering & aggregation
N2N-Publishing &Content Sharing
FOAF- and networking platforms
Tools for supporting CoP
From description to nurturing
First description
Lave / Wenger
Ethnographical fieldstudies
Adaption for companies
Brown / Duguid
Consulting
“Cultivating” &“Nurturing”
WengerSnyder & McDermott
Design
1990 2000
From description to nurturing
First description
Lave / Wenger
Ethnographical fieldstudies
Adaption for companies
Brown / Duguid
Consulting
“Cultivating” &“Nurturing”
WengerSnyder & McDermott
Design
1990 2000
missing tools
for diagnosis
& bench-
marking
Goals
• diagnosis & identification
• classification
• design & evaluation of supporting measurements
• differentiate between persons with different roles within the community
• clearify and improve the theory
Problems of item development
There is a fire in the middle of our community,which warmth draws us together…
Starting point
• „tools“ from consultantsCOP@Work • www.wimip.de
• focused on technical implementation KAT • Andriessen & Verburg
• focused on team diagnosisF-A-T • KauffeldTCI • Anderson / West
• focused on learning culture LKI • Sonntag
Analysis of CoP theory
Wenger et alstructural elements(1998)
principles of support(2001)
principles of design(2002)
Smith / Coenders community „barometer“
Typaldos 12 principles of collaboration
Hernandes / Fresneda
critical success factors
Kim 9 design strategies for communities
CoP
Op
CoPI Version 0.1
Version 0.1 α Version 0.2 α
Zweck .61
Identität .76
Reputation .46
Lenkungsbefugnis .17
Kommunikation .41
Gruppen .71
Umgebung .70
Randbereiche .71
Vertrauen .75
Austausch .54
Entäußerung .77
Vergangenheit .79
N = 43
CoPI Version 0.1 ➙ 0.2
Version 0.1 α Version 0.2 α
Zweck .61Persönliches Interesse .47
Gemeinsames Interesse .63
Identität .76Persönliche Bekanntheit .66
Zugehörigkeit .85
Reputation .46Reputation haben .36
Reputation erlangen .41
Lenkungsbefugnis .17Regeln vorhanden .55
Führungsrollen vorhanden .60
Führungsrollen erwerben .76
Kommunikation .41 Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten .71
Gruppen .71 Untergruppen .21
Umgebung .70 Umgebung / Speicher .62
Randbereiche .71 Randbereiche / Lurking .67
Vertrauen .75 Vertrauen / Offenheit .76
Austausch .54 Gegenseitigkeit / Austausch .75
Entäußerung .77Gemeinsame Praxis .45
Rituale .79
Vergangenheit .79 Vergangenheit .73
N = 43 N = 94
CoPI Version 0.2 ➙ 0.3 (part)
Version 0.2 α Version 0.3 α
Reputation haben .36
Being Expert vs. Layman .76
Being Informal Leader .71
Being Formal Leader .85
Experts present .73
Experts known .78
Reputation erwerben .41 Gain Reputation .73
Regeln vorhanden .55Rules .82
Rules enforced .50
N = 76
Explorative factor analysisAspiration Knowledge .88
Individual Interest (P) .79
Aspiration Power .79
Aspiration Reputation .77
Aspiration Community .76
Participation .74
Sense of belonging (I) .65 .50
Learning .57 .48 .53
Voluntariness .57 -.45
Being Expert vs. Lay .46
Gain Leadership -.84
Management Hierarchy -.82
Informal Leadership -.78
Experts included -.70
Duration of membership -.50 .41 -.42
Trust / Openess .79
Experts recognized .66
Shared Practice .66 .48
Gain reputation -.46 .62
Mutuality / Exchange .43 .59
Rituals .88
Sense of shared past .81
Familiarity .73
Rules .47 .65
Repository .81
Common Interest .66
Being an informal leader -.85
Being an formal leader -.75
Explorative factor analysisAspiration Knowledge .88
Individual Interest (P) .79
Aspiration Power .79
Aspiration Reputation .77
Aspiration Community .76
Participation .74
Sense of belonging (I) .65 .50
Learning .57 .48 .53
Voluntariness .57 -.45
Being Expert vs. Lay .46
Gain Leadership -.84
Management Hierarchy -.82
Informal Leadership -.78
Experts included -.70
Duration of membership -.50 .41 -.42
Trust / Openess .79
Experts recognized .66
Shared Practice .66 .48
Gain reputation -.46 .62
Mutuality / Exchange .43 .59
Rituals .88
Sense of shared past .81
Familiarity .73
Rules .47 .65
Repository .81
Common Interest .66
Being an informal leader -.85
Being an formal leader -.75
Goals and interests
Hierarchy
Exchange
Rituals and getting to know each other
Subscales not satisfactory
F3
Text
F4
F4
F3F2
F2
F1
F5
The „12 principles“ are not factors!The „bleed“ into each other
Community
Domain Practice
Individual Roles and Goals of Members
- Aspiration for knowledge- Aspiration for reputation- Aspiration for community- Aspiration for power
- Being Expert vs. Layman- Being informal leader- Being formal leader- Individual interest- Duration of membership
- Common interest- Repository- Learning- Experts present- Experts known- Sub Groups
- Familiarity- Sense of belonging- Reputation- Rules- Possibility to communicate
- Communication- Mutuality / Exchange- Rituals- Sense of shared past- Participation- Rules enforced
- Trust / Openness- Management hierarchy- Informal leadership- Leadership- Boundaries / Lurking
Groupwork
• 4 mini-groups
• community, domain & practice
• indididual roles & goals
• what is missing?
• are items fitting?
Community
Domain Practice
Individual Roles and Goals of Members
- Aspiration for knowledge- Aspiration for reputation- Aspiration for community- Aspiration for power
- Being Expert vs. Layman- Being informal leader- Being formal leader- Individual interest- Duration of membership
- Common interest- Repository- Learning- Experts present- Experts known- Sub Groups
- Familiarity- Sense of belonging- Reputation- Rules- Possibility to communicate
- Communication- Mutuality / Exchange- Rituals- Sense of shared past- Participation- Rules enforced
- Trust / Openness- Management hierarchy- Informal leadership- Leadership- Boundaries / Lurking
Want to measure Your community?
Contact me at
http://www.ifeb.uni-bremen.de/wolf
CoPI
CoPI Version 0.2 ➙ 0.3 (part)
Version 0.2 α Version 0.3 α
Reputation haben .36
Being Expert vs. Layman .76
Being Informal Leader .71
Being Formal Leader .85
Experts present .73
Experts known .78
Reputation erwerben .41 Gain Reputation .73
Regeln vorhanden .55Rules .82
Rules enforced .50
N = 76
CoPI Version 0.2 ➙ 0.3
Version 0.2 α Version 0.3 α
Persönliches Interesse .47
Individual Interest .85
Aspiration Knowledge .81
Aspiration Power .89
Aspiration Reputation .88
Aspiration Community .86
Gemeinsames Interesse .63 Common Interest .69
Persönliche Bekanntheit .66 Familiarity .84
Zugehörigkeit .85 Sense of Belonging .80
N = 76
CoPI Version 0.2 ➙ 0.3
Version 0.2 α Version 0.3 α
Führungsrollen vorhanden .60Management Hierarchy .85
Informal Leadership .84
Führungsrollen erwerben .76 Gain Leadership .84
Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten .71 Possibility to communicate .62
Untergruppen .21 Sub-Groups .31
Umgebung / Speicher .62 Repository .75
Randbereiche / Lurking .67 Boundaries / Lurking .59
Vertrauen / Offenheit .76 Trust / Openess .67
N = 76
CoPI Version 0.2 ➙ 0.3
Version 0.2 α Version 0.3 α
Gegenseitigkeit / Austausch .75 Mutuality / Exchange .83
Gemeinsame Praxis .45 Shared Practice .78
Rituale .79 Rituals .76
Vergangenheit .73 Sense of shared past .82
NEU
Duration of membership .83
Being Expert vs. Layman .76
Being an informal leader .71
Being a formal leader .85
Learning .84
Participation .88
N = 76