Online Student Attitudes to Ownership of User-generated Material within an Online Community of Practice

Year 2017, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 1 - 13, 01.06.2017

Angela Maria Smith

Abstract

This paper investigates online student attitudes towards ownership of collaboratively created online resources and explores whether a sense of community might influence such attitudes. Five participants were randomly selected as they represented a group working collaboratively to complete part of an online module aimed at postgraduate education professionals located in different parts of the world. Applying Rovai’s framework 2001 to identify a sense of community, the work adopts a case-study methodology whilst utilizing a range of data collection methods including email, personal online journal postings and a short questionnaire. Data generated was coded to identify emergent themes with a colleague acting as critical friend to verify the findings and ensure validity of the research. The findings indicate that students believe jointly- created resources should be freely available to participants and to tutors who may request that they be given permission to reuse or repurpose such artefacts. The sense of belonging to a Community of Practice is key to this view although the subsequent question of making such materials freely available across the institution or through OERs requires further investigation.RECEIVED 8 March 2017, REVISED 11 April 2017, ACCEPTED 14 April 2017

Keywords

Community of Practice, user-generated, resources, ownership, online

References

• Andresen, L. (2002). Discussion Starter. Retrieved 12th March 2015 from http://www.canberra.edu.au/celts/resources/herdsa/andresen.htm
• Bell, J.(2005). Doing Your Research project. London: McGraw-Hill International.
• Bowker, N., &Tuffin, K. (2004). Using the Online Medium for Discursive Research about People with Disabilities. Social Science Computer Review, 22(2), 228–41.
• Briggs,A., & Coleman, M. (2007). Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management. SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Burke, D.(1997). Ownership of Electronic Course Materials in Higher Education. CAUSE/ EFFECT, 20(3), 13-18.
• Burton,D.,& Bartlett, S. (2005). Practitioner Research for Teachers. Gateshead: Athenaeum Press.
• Caulley, D. N. (2000). Ethical issues arising from the nature of qualitative research’ Qualitative Research Journal, 1(1), 3–7.
• Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., and Wang, E.T.G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
• Chisholm, J, K. (2006). Pleasure and Danger in Online Teaching and Learning. Academe Online.Retrieved 1st August 2016 from www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/DE/DE-IP-resources.htm
• Cohen,E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. (6th ed.) London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
• Cohill, A. M. (2000). Networks and the knowledge democracy2:: web of relationships. Retrieved 28th August 2016 from http://www.bev.net/about/research/digital
• Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E. and Stephens, J. (2003). Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of Moral and Civic Responsibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Costa, A. L. & Kallick, B. (2000). Getting into the habit of reflection. Educational Leadership, 57(7), 60-62.
• Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London: Routledge Falmer.
• Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2000). Doctoral Students' Access to Research Cultures - are some more unequal than others?. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-163.
• Dey, I. (1993). Creating categories. Qualitative data analysis, 94-112.London: Routledge.
• Dhesi, A. S. (2000). Social capital and community development. Community Development Journal, 35(3), 199-214.
• Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp.1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.
• Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge & Learning Object. 3 pp. 29-44. Retrieved June 2016 from http://ijklo.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p029-044Downes
• Fahy, P. J. (2002). Use of Linguistic Qualifiers and Intensifiers in a Computer Conference. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 5–22.
• Loughborough University (1999). Student Feedback Questionnaires – Code of Practice [Online]. Retrieved 15th May 2015 from http://www.Iboro.ac.uk/admin/central_admin/policy/academic/quality/app-13.html
• Fang, Y. H., & Chiu, C. M. (2010). In justice we trust: Exploring knowledge-sharing continuance intentions in online communities of practice. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26, 235-246.
• Fink, A. (2003). How to ask survey questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Flybvjerg, B.(2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. Sage Publications.
• Hawkridge,D.,Armellini,A.,Nikoi,S., & Witthaus, G.(2010). ‘Curriculum, intellectual property rights and open educational resources in British universities—and beyond ‘
• Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(3), 162-176.
• Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learning networks effective? Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 56-59.
• Horizon. (2007). The Horizon Report: a collaboration between The New Media Consortium and the EDU CAUSE Learning Initiative: Retrieved 28th August 2016 from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007_Horizon_Report.pdf
• Jenkins, H.(2006). Convergence culture. Where old and new media collide. New York: NYU Press.
• JISC (2007). Legal Investigation into Student Work and IPR. Retrieved 1st January 2017 from http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/ManageContent/ManageContent/tabid/243/ID/90/JISC-Legal-Investigation-into-Student-Work-and-IPR-19042007.aspx
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (2004). Assessing students in groups: Promoting group responsibility and individual accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L. & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: a constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
• Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindström, B. (2006). A relational, indirect and meso level approach to design in CSCL in the next decade. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 1(1), 35–56. Retrieved 23rd July 2016 from http://ijcscl.org/_preprints/volume1_issue1/jones_holmfeld_lindstroem.pdf
• Koh,Y. Kim, G., Butler, B & Bock, W. (2007). Encouraging participation in online communities. Communications of the ACM, 50(2), 68-73.
• Langelier, L. (2005). Working, Learning and Collaborating in a Network: Guide to the implementation and leadership of intentional communities of practice. Quebec City: CEFIRO.
• Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light work: Causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
• Lave, J.,& Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: CUP.
• Marathe, J.(1999). Creating Community Online. Retrieved 11th September 2016 from http://www.delijst.net/delijst/pdf/unpan003006.pdf
• McConnell, D. (1998). Developing Networked Learning Professionals: A Critical Perspective Networked Lifelong Learning: Innovative Approaches to Education and Training Through the Internet. Sheffield UK: University of Sheffield UK.
• McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning. London: Kogan Page.
• Orlikowski, W. J. & Baroudi, J.J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2, 1-28.
• Pearson, J. (1999). Electronic networking in initial teacher education: is a virtual faculty of
• Education possible? Computers & Education, 32, 221-238.
• Pór, G. (2004). Liberating the innovation value of communities of practice’ Report written in collaboration with Erik van Bekkum. Amsterdam: Community Intelligence Ltd.
• Plummer, K. (1983). Documents of Life: an introduction to the problems and literature of a humanistic method. London: Unwin Hyman.
• Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community. (2nd Edition, 1998 at URL: http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book
• Roberts, T.S. (2005). Computer –Supported Collaborative Learning in Higher Education. Idea Group Publishing: London
• Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd edition). Blackwell Publishing.
• Robson, C. (1993). Real-world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner – researchers. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
• Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: a case study. Educational Technology Research and Development Journal, 49(4), 33-48.
• Rusman, E., Van Bruggen, J., Sloep,P., Valcke,M., & Kroper, R.(2010). The mind’s eye on personal profiles: How to inform initial trustworthiness assessments in virtual teams. Cited in The implications of Systems Architecture on Identity in Networked Learning: A constructionist Perspective.
• Salomon, G. (1992). What does the design of effective CSCL require and how do we study its effects? SIGCUE OUTLOOK, 21(3), 62-68. NewYork: ACM Press.
• Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the Net: Women, Power and Cyberspace. Victoria, Australia: Spinifex.
• Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & E. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed). pp. 435-454. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
• Taylor, J.(2002).Teaching and learning online: The Workers, the Lurkers and the Shirkers. USQ: Australia.
• Thach, E. (1995). Using Electronic Mail to Conduct Survey Research' Educational Technology, 27-31.
• Thompson, D. F. (1999). Intellectual property meets information technology, Educom Review, 34(2), 14-24.
• Tripp, D. (1993). Critical Incidents in Teaching: Developing Professional Judgement. London: Routledge.
• UNESCO (2017). What are Open Educational Resources (OERs)? Retrieved 8th September 2016 from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/access-to-knowledge/open-educational-resources/what-are-open-educational-resources-oers/
• Wagner, J. A. (1995). Study of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38,152-172.
• Wellington, J. (2000). Educational Research: Contemporary Issues and Practical Approaches. London: Continuum.
• Wenger, E. (2003). Supporting Communities of Practice: A survey of community-oriented technologies.’ in Wenger, E., White, N., Smith, J., & Rowe, K. (2005) ‘Technology for Communities. In L. Langelier (Ed.), Working, Learning and Collaborating in a Network: Guide to the implementation and leadership of intentional communities of practice (pp. 71-94). Quebec City: CEFIRO.
• Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570–581.
• Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications Inc.
• Zimitat, C., & Crebert, G. (2002).Conducting online research and evaluation. Proceedings of Higher Education and Research Society of Australasia 2002 Conference. Retrieved 21st August 2016 from http://www.ecu.edu.au/conferences/herdsa/main/papers/ref/pdf/Zimitat.pdf