Three Issues relating to Communities of practice

[Notes from December 2012 make for intriguing reading as the potential of ‘communities of practice’ online has since been realised with the likes of LinkedIn Groups and Facebook Groups in throught 2020 remote working and learning with contact via Zoom and Meet video conferencing. December 2020]

These are my notes from December 2012

Here are three issues/questions that I put into closer consideration.

  1. North and Konur use the concept of game playing teams to e-learning and accessibility. Who are these teams, how equal is the power distribution between them, what role do they play and what (formal or informal) rules do the apply to safeguard accessible e-learning, applied to your own context (Chapter 11)
  2. How applicable is the activity theory as a potential tool for analysis to e-learning and accessibility. What are the components of an accessible e-learning activity system, the relationships between the components and the key concepts, applied to your context (Chapter 12).
  3. What are the advantages or potential disadvantages of communities of practice to e-learning and accessibility. How can links/connections between communities be created and what are what are the difficulties working across boundaries? (Chapter 13)

Institutional perspective (Chapter 11)

  • What are the formal and informal rules of accessibility?
  • Is the development of accessibility practices within higher education (HE) institutions influenced by differences between the formal and informal rules of accessibility?
  • To what extend are the formal and informal rules regarding accessibility being forced by first, second and third parties?
  • How are the formal and informal rules of accessibility being regulated and enforced within a HE institution?
  • Are institutions seeing accessibility rules as an opportunity to invest in knowledge and skills required to make e-learning accessible?
  • What incentive is there for institutions to invest in the knowledge and skills required to make e-learning accessible?
  • North and Konur use the concept of game playing teams to e-learning and accessibility. Who are these teams, how equal is the power distribution between them, what role do they play and what (formal or informal) rules do the apply to safeguard accessible e-learning, applied to your own context (Sylvia)

Individual perspective (Chapter 12)

  • Can the central components of an activity system be mapped onto components within a accessible e-learning system?
  • Can novices in an accessible e-learning activity system eventually become experts?
  • Are accessible e-learning activities mediated by tools, rules and division of labour?
  • Does the activity of accessible e-learning have a history of development and is that history influencing future development?
  • Are there contradictions between central components of an accessible e-learning system and can the identification of these contradictions help to develop and progress future practice?
  • Seale identifies six potential areas of conflict or contradiction within an organisation or activity system. What potential contradictions exist in your organisation and why? (A35.1)
  • How helpful is it to conceptualize the development of accessibility within your organisation as an activity system? Do you think that Figure 12.1 (see above and blog post from 24.12.2010) would be a useful trigger for discussion within your organisation and would it enable you and your colleagues to identify what changes or developments are needed and why they are needed? (A35.1)
  • How applicable is the activity theory as a potential tool for analysis to e-learning and accessibility. What are the components of an accessible e-learning activity system, the relationships between the components and the key concepts, applied to your context (Sylvia).

Community perspective (Chapter 13)

  • Does the accessible e-learning community consists of one community of practice or a constellations of practice?
  • Is the accessible e-learning community engaged in a pursuit of enterprise through the production of artefacts (reification) and negotiation of the meaning of these artefacts (participation)?
  • Is reification prevailing over participation in the accessible e-learning community?
  • Is the accessible e-learning community mutually engaged in negotiating meaning, developing joint enterprises and sharing repertoires?
  • Is the accessible e-learning community creating connections with other communities through boundary objects, brokers and boundary practices?
  • What artefacts inside and outside your organisation have created (or could create) points of focus for you and your colleagues when it comes to developing accessible learning resources? (A36.1)
  • What are the advantages or potential disadvantages of communities of practice to e-learning and accessibility. How can links/connections between communities be created and what are what are the difficulties working across boundaries? (Sylvia)

REFERENCE

Sylvia Moessinger’s Blog (accessed 23 Dec 2012) http://sylviamoessinger.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/h810-choosing-six-issues-for-detailed-study-a37-1/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s