View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Interaction Patterns of Physical Education Teachers in a Professional Learning Community

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Interaction Patterns of Physical Education Teachers in a Professional Learning Community
Language: English
Authors: Hunuk, Deniz, Tannehill, Deborah, Levent Ince, M.
Source: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2019 24(3):301-317.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 6
Intermediate Grades
Middle Schools
Grade 7
Junior High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Physical Education Teachers, Communities of Practice, Teacher Behavior, Teacher Attitudes, Teacher Collaboration, Facilitators (Individuals), Interaction, Knowledge Level, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Health, Physical Fitness, Foreign Countries, Faculty Development, Grade 6, Grade 7, Elementary School Teachers
Geographic Terms: Turkey (Ankara)
DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2019.1576862
ISSN: 1740-8989
Abstract: Background: In both general education and physical education literature, considerable attention is paid to identifying the effectiveness of communities of practice (CoPs). This literature tends to be more qualitative in nature with less research examining the quantitative nature of interactions in CoPs through direct observation. Purpose: This study examined the ways teachers interact within a newly-developed community (LC) /CoP to understand how conversations evolve; how teachers question, challenge, and/or encourage one another to grow professionally in a learning community. Theoretical Framework: Situated learning perspectives provide a powerful framework for examining teacher learning and facilitation of teacher development. Method: Bales's Interaction Process Analysis Tool (IPA) was selected for analyzing the socio-emotional and task-oriented communication between members of the LC/CoP. Six physical education teachers (four female, two male) and a facilitator, representing the university, participated in LC/CoP meetings designed in collaboration between teachers and the facilitator. The data source was audio-taped transcripts taken of teacher interactions during six weeks of LC/CoP meetings. Findings: Results revealed three main interactive patterns that emerged from analysis of participant interactions during the six LC/CoP meetings. These patterns were: (1) Variable member interactions; (2) Member roles; and (3) Personal interaction pattern development. By coding participant interactions as they occur allowed us to understand and analyze directly what and how LC/CoP members actually talked at the initial stages of community development. Conclusion: The contribution of this study is to use an interaction analysis tool to conceptualize the communicative actions that emerge through a LC/CoP and provide practical insight into the gap in the literature relative to how conversations evolve in a CoP; how teachers question, challenge, and/or encourage one another to grow professionally. Ultimately linking an interactive analysis tool with a well-structured qualitative research component to provide participant voice, feelings and behaviours would provide more robust results.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1209034
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGRVzjlDDPHIa39bwn7PKwxAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEn0y0Yn5I49c9IrpQIBEICBm5-TC7tHy3qwFNw_yEiOFWqffc4b9A_Y0Z0PECbagGkA7HkuHRToLn07dbw7JYIp806uiDmPbUTQTcD01OyruJY3JqtSCdHRoJY7-opf_UjARYQirUpz2L5MEXicNOrTPBe3GHD1flBc7MAlVwYd0lemjVSVVjTTt9bQRTaLKNZWXrzp-6ZkzGjVzaXBE1nB5k8JQK7jByDi3v4Q
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0135371062;z3x01may.19;2019Mar18.14:22;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0135371062-1">Interaction patterns of physical education teachers in a professional learning community </title> <p>Background: In both general education and physical education literature, considerable attention is paid to identifying the effectiveness of communities of practice (CoPs). This literature tends to be more qualitative in nature with less research examining the quantitative nature of interactions in CoPs through direct observation. Purpose: This study examined the ways teachers interact within a newly-developed community (LC) /CoP to understand how conversations evolve; how teachers question, challenge, and/or encourage one another to grow professionally in a learning community. Theoretical Framework: Situated learning perspectives provide a powerful framework for examining teacher learning and facilitation of teacher development. Method: Bales's Interaction Process Analysis Tool (IPA) was selected for analyzing the socio-emotional and task-oriented communication between members of the LC/CoP. Six physical education teachers (four female, two male) and a facilitator, representing the university, participated in LC/CoP meetings designed in collaboration between teachers and the facilitator. The data source was audio-taped transcripts taken of teacher interactions during six weeks of LC/CoP meetings. Findings: Results revealed three main interactive patterns that emerged from analysis of participant interactions during the six LC/CoP meetings. These patterns were; 1) Variable member interactions; 2) Member roles; and 3) Personal interaction pattern development. By coding participant interactions as they occur allowed us to understand and analyze directly what and how LC/CoP members actually talked at the initial stages of community development. Conclusion: The contribution of this study is to use an interaction analysis tool to conceptualize the communicative actions that emerge through a LC/CoP and provide practical insight into the gap in the literature relative to how conversations evolve in a CoP; how teachers question, challenge, and/or encourage one another to grow professionally. Ultimately linking an interactive analysis tool with a well-structured qualitative research component to provide participant voice, feelings and behaviours would provide more robust rusults.</p> <p>Keywords: Professional development; learning community; situated learning theory; community of practice; interaction analysis</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Over the last two decades a growing body of international research in teacher education has focused on the importance, effectiveness, and opportunities associated with learning communities (LC) (Bolam 2000; Desimone 2011) and communities of practice (CoP) (Deglau and O'Sullivan 2006; Patton, Parker, and Pratt 2013). Both LCs and CoPs are alternative forms of teacher continuing professional development (CPD) to more traditional forms of professional development (PD) such as one shot workshops designed to give teachers knowledge and skills for immediate implementation. Frequently, LC and CoP are used interchangeably, both providing teachers with opportunities to learn from and with one another through a collaborative, social culture (Patton, Parker, and Tannehill 2015) focused on teachers' needs (Goodyear and Casey 2015; Grossman, Wineburg, and Woolworth 2001; Parker, Patton, and Tannehill 2012; Patton and Parker 2015; Tannehill and MacPhail 2017). Learning communities reflect groups of teachers meeting regularly with a focus on increasing their own knowledge and their students' learning (Lieberman and Miller 2008). Toole and Lewis (2002) suggest a LC is a group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning-oriented, growth-promoting way. Wenger (2013) describes CoPs as 'groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly' (p. 1) and seeking solutions to problems, and deepening knowledge and expertise through ongoing interaction. He suggests CoPs are important places of negotiation, learning, meaning, and identity that together with three dimensions ensure coherence of a community (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) <emph>Joint enterprise</emph>, a sense of mutual accountability, interpretations, and rhythms; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) <emph>Mutual engagement</emph>, the act of doing things together, developing relationships, establishing norms and working to maintain the community; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) <emph>Shared repertoire</emph>, the community's accumulated stories, artifacts, historical events, language, routines or concepts. Wenger (2013) highlights the three dimensions of a community as central to their development as members engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain. However, according to Blankenship and Ruona (2007), LC and CoP may also vary in terms of the theories on which they are based, leadership, and membership. While LC models all draw from learning organization theory, CoP models draw from situated cognition, social learning theory, or knowledge management theory. Leadership also appears to be stronger externally in LCs than in CoPs. In terms of membership, the community within CoP literature refers to a collection of individuals working together for a common purpose within the organization, in this case, the community itself. It is the CoP that will be the focus of this paper as it reflects our contention that a CoP is an effective form of CPD and one that enables teachers to develop individually and collectively as they engage in shared and collective interaction toward a common goal.</p> <p>In both general education and physical education literature, considerable attention is paid to identifying the effectiveness of CoPs as an effective means of teacher PD when teachers informally and collaboratively learn from and with each other (Armour and Yelling 2007; Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999; van Es 2012). Others report obtaining enhanced content knowledge (Dogan, Pringle, and Mesa 2016; Makopoulou and Armour 2011), forming strong identities as teaching professionals (Deglau and O'Sullivan 2006), developing a commitment to subject advocacy at a policy level (O'Sullivan 2008), increasing teacher empowerment (Parker et al. 2010; Tannehill and MacPhail 2017), focusing on student learning needs, (Hunuk, Ince, and Tannehill 2013) and enabling the sharing of teacher voice (Patton and Parker 2014; Tannehill and MacPhail 2017; van Es 2012). Communities of practice do not occur randomly, they are intentionally initiated and promoted by leaders connected with and responsive to member and organizational needs (Hadar and Brody 2010). Thus, there is a need to better understand what constitutes a CoP, how members participate, develop community through their interactions, and sustain the sense of community over time (Dooner, Mandzuk, and Clifton 2008).</p> <p>Wenger (2013) suggests that a CoP exists because of the value it holds for its members and is kept together by the shared learning and interest of those members. He goes on to emphasize that a CoP is an identity that in turn shapes the identity of its members. Due to the various levels of interaction that take place in the life of the community by its members and the different activities in which they engage, a CoP can move through various stages of development from potential to memorable (Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002).</p> <p>The <emph>Potential</emph> stage is characterized by groups of individuals who experience similar situations and recognize how they might benefit from shared practice; getting to know one another and identifying what they have in common. When in the <emph>Coalescing</emph> stage, group members begin to come together and recognize the potential they hold as a group when working collectively; identifying commonalities, defining how they might collaborate, and negotiating their community. During the <emph>Active</emph> stage, community members engage in developing practice, participating in group activities, developing work exemplars, adapting to a changing environment, and commiting to continued community involvement. A community might reach the <emph>Dispersal</emph> stage where interaction is less frequent and intense yet the community is still viewed as a source of knowledge and professional support. Finally, the <emph>Memorable</emph> stage evolves when the community is no longer central to its members yet the memories developed in the community hold a significant place in members' PD.</p> <p>According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning through participation in a CoP is a two-way interaction where participation shapes the knowledge of the individual and the knowledge of the entire community. Greeno (1997) argues the need to recognize cognition, as a process of coming to know, structured by the situations in which it takes place. With the focus more finely placed on learning and how it occurs, he argues the need to understand learning better 'by developing increasingly detailed analyses of information structures in the contents of people's interactions' (Greeno 1997, 5). Thus, to understand learning through participation in practice, CoP researchers need to examine practices and what they represent, allow, and constrain together with the interactions that occur within them. Doing this will provide a picture of what individuals bring to these interactions and how they adapt while engaging in practice. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the ways teachers interact within a newly-developed CoP to understand how conversations evolve; how teachers question, challenge, and/or encourage one another to grow professionally in a learning community.</p> <p>Qualitative research has made headway in examining the nature of interactions by which teacher communities are sustained, how those interactions develop patterns of communication, and how those interactions result in learning for community members (Groot et al. 2014). Dobber, Akkerman, and Verloop (2012) found that teacher educators and student teachers shared an interactional repertoire especially important for promoting collaboration while Wood (2007) explained the importance of building knowledge in teacher communities by questioning and challenging one another's practices. Dobie and Anderson (2015) suggested that even interactions that lack some elements of open discussion can provide resources for facilitators to draw upon in fostering more extensive and reflective discussions of contrasting ideas. This then emphasizes the importance of engaging credible facilitators to guide teachers in developing knowledge, skills, and effective practices for their individual contexts (Guskey 2002; Tarmizi and de Vreede 2005). In the above mentioned qualitative studies, researchers used participant teachers' and students' voices to examine development of CoPs. However, none of these studies examined participants' voices by using direct observation of their interactions to understand how conversations evolved in a CoP, how teachers questioned, challenged, or encouraged one another to grow professionally. Systematic observation is a quantitative method of measuring behaviors from direct observation that specify the events or behaviors that are to be observed and how they are to be recorded (Darst, Zakrajsek, and Mancini 1989). Direct observation is a method of collecting information by observing the subject(s) in their usual environment without altering that environment. We believe systematic observation using an interaction analysis tool might compliment the qualitative data by conceptualizing the communicative actions and highlight the interaction patterns/roles that emerge for CoP members to enhance their PD.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-3">Theoretical framework</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0135371062-4">Situated learning theory</hd> <p>Situated learning (SL) perspectives provide a powerful framework for examining teacher learning and facilitation of teacher development. Situated learning theory emphasizes the assumption that learning and forming who we are occurs in the process of engagement in social practice in a social setting that reflects authentic activity, context, and culture. Focused on the culture of learning rather than the learning task SL accepts that knowledge is socially constructed, typically unintentional rather than deliberate.</p> <p>Lave and Wenger's (1991) model of SL proposes that learning involves a process of engagement in a CoP with social interaction and collaboration essential. They use the concept of 'legitimate peripheral participation' to understand learning that is characterized by shifts in community involvement by focusing on member participation and development as a progression in which all members are engaged. Whether 'newcomers' or 'full participants', there are times when all members may go through periods where their involvement might be viewed as being on the periphery or fully engaged. Legitimate peripheral participation provides a way to speak about the relations between members, and about activities, identities, artifacts, and communities of knowledge and practice (Lave and Wenger 1991). In this study, the concept of legitimate peripheral participation in a newly-developed CoP is used to illustrate the progression of community members (all newcomers) as they engage in the community meetings by analyzing the members' interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-5">Methodology</hd> <p>This study is part of a larger study that examines the effects of a CoP on (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>) physical educators' and their students' health-related fitness (HRF) content knowledge, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>) the physical educators' health-related fitness pedagogical content knowledge construction process. The first aspect of this study, which was reported in 2013 (Hunuk, Ince, and Tannehill 2013), indicated that through participation in the CoP teachers changed their teaching practices and teaching culture by focusing on their students' needs, increased their engagement in physical education, and triggered continued learning toward personal professional needs. This second aspect of the research focused on the initial stage of CoP development and how participant interactions allowed them to progress from potential to active stage.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-6">Teacher community of practice- research design</hd> <p>This study involved a small group of physical education teachers engaged in a community collaboratively designed and functioning in conjunction with two teacher education faculty (researcher and facilitator). The intent of this community was to serve as a form of teacher PD where teachers create a strong CoP, learning with and from one another to increase their knowledge of health related fitness. This collaborative learning also included opportunities for teachers to share teaching ideas and experiences.</p> <p>This aspect of the study took place over a 10 week period. Teachers taught 10 weeks of HRF in their school while participating in six weeks of CoP meetings (subsumed in weeks 1, 3, 5, 7, 9) in a local university classroom equipped with educational technology including audiovisual equipment. Meetings lasted approximately 1.5-2.5 h and were led by an experienced CoP facilitator and expert in health related fitness. The groups' interactions during CoP meetings were recorded and transcribed for analysis by the researchers.</p> <p>The focus of each of the six CoP meetings was different yet directly related to designing and teaching HRF (MoNE 2007). Topics were identified and agreed upon through collaboration between teachers and the facilitator and ranged from program goals to a discussion of the reformed Turkish physical education program, and from HRF content knowledge to HRF pedagogical content knowledge. Using feedback from the teachers, the facilitator designed the meetings to meet the needs of the teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-7">Participants</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0135371062-8">Teachers</hd> <p>Physical education teachers across school districts in the Ankara region of Turkey interested in taking part in a CoP professional development initiative were invited to be participants in this study. The selection criteria for inclusion were participants teaching elementary 6th (11 years old) or 7th grades (12 years old), in either a public or private school, and in school districts located in the Ankara region. Six teachers, volunteering to participate in the study met the criteria, four females and two males, ranging in age from 30 to 43 years, teaching experience ranging from four to 17 years, five teaching in public schools and one in private, five in urban schools and one in rural. In our initial discussions, these physical educators reported that they had not consciously engaged as members of a LC or CoP. They also reported that they had no recent exposure (CPD etc) to HRF in concept or content since their undergraduate education. Moreover, during the study period, Turkish national physical education curricula was changing from a sport based program to a program emphasizing HRF. Therefore, teachers had sport based program content and pedagogical content knowledge and a desire for more in depth knowledge for HRF. It is worth noting that limited HRF knowledge was held by Turkish physical education teachers as identified in a study by Ince and Hunuk (2013). Participants' demographic variables are provided in Table 1.</p> <p>Participants' demographic variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="4"><tbody><tr><td align="left">Participants</td><td align="center">Age</td><td align="center">Gender</td><td align="center">Years of teaching experience</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td align="left">Member 1 (facilitator)</td><td align="char">41</td><td align="left">Male</td><td align="char">17</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Member 2</td><td align="char">30</td><td align="left">Female</td><td align="char">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Member 3</td><td align="char">36</td><td align="left">Female</td><td align="char">8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Member 4</td><td align="char">32</td><td align="left">Female</td><td align="char">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Member 5</td><td align="char">40</td><td align="left">Male</td><td align="char">13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Member 6</td><td align="char">31</td><td align="left">Female</td><td align="char">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Member 7</td><td align="char">43</td><td align="left">Male</td><td align="char">18</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0135371062-9">Cop facilitator</hd> <p>The facilitator, a 41-year old male had been lecturing in the university for 17 years. He had taught one year of 6th/8th grade physical education after graduating from university. His PhD in Curriculum and Instruction provided expertise in instructional design in physical education which he taught in the university while also supervising teaching practice.</p> <p>The facilitator's role was as a seventh member of the CoP, representing the university who had experience both with university and post-primary students. As a CoP generally requires guidance in its initial stages of development (Parker, Patton, and Tannehill 2012), his role, as requested by participating physical education teachers, was to prepare six-weeks of HRF and facilitate the discussion process to engage them and assist them learning in this content area. Thus, the facilitator's role was to present key topics to the CoP, listen to participants' voices, encourage comments, and keep the discussions focused and pertinent to their development. As a first step in developing their CoP, these teachers felt that the more structured interactive meetings were in their best interest and thus the format chosen.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-10">Bales interaction process analysis tool</hd> <p>After careful review of the Bales Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) categories and trialing it with a small group initially, it was determined useful for the current study of CoP interactions. Bales's 12 IPA content categories described in Figure 1 include giving and asking for suggestions, opinions, and information which are important for group communication, including a CoP. The six socio-emotional message categories which include both positive and negative types of expressions, parallel some of the characteristics of CoPs; for instance, to understand the personal and social dynamics (e.g. culture of trust, mutual respect, and collective engagement) in a CoP, it is important to know and understand the nature and frequency of interactions among participants. Creating a supportive environment is another dimension of a CoP which includes positive attitudes and supportive relationships developed and maintained among participants. Analyzing socio-emotional messages with IPA allows portrayal of the type of environment that exists within a CoP. Examining those categories with CoP also ensures the content validity of the IPA tool. And for the face validity experts were asked their opinion about whether IPA tool measures the concept of CoP.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Researchers' interpretation of Bales' interaction analysis system that guided analysis of data.</p> <p>Bales (1950) suggests that, at the most basic level, it is social and task needs that drive social interaction between individuals. After an extensive examination of interaction analysis tools such as Flanders's Interaction Analysis Category System (Flanders 1970) - FIACS (1970) and Stiver's Coding Social Interation: A Heretical Approach in Conversation Analysis (2015), Bales's Interaction Process Analysis Tool (IPA) was selected to examine the socio-emotional and task-oriented communication between individuals in this CoP study. Bales's IPA tool is recognized as 'seminal, [with] a long history in communication research' (Keyton 2003, 260).</p> <p>As noted by Choi, Im, and Hofstede in their 2016 study on a small group of teachers willing to engage in a group discussion for the purpose of trialing the tool to determine its usefulness, Bales' IPA was a practical tool to conceptualize the communications they were examining. Bales's system, developed for face-to-face group interactions differentiate four types of interactions that take place during group communication including (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>) positive reactions, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>) attempted answers, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>) questions, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>) negative answers (Bales and Strodtbeck 1951). The coding of social interaction fundamentally transforms the behavior being observed into categories that can be examined for frequency or associations with other variables. While not in education, two recent studies have been reported utilizing Bales's IPA tool. In a study by Song, Wang, and Sparks (2018), Bales's IPA was used to understand the group decision-making process of young Chinese travelers. In another study, Vuopala, Hyvönen, and Järvelä (2016) used Bales's (1950) interaction process analysis (IPA) to create a guidelines scheme to understand the interaction forms in successful computer-supported collaborative learning situations.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-11">Data collection</hd> <p>The main data source for this study was audio-taped transcripts of CoP interactions taken during the six weeks of CoP meetings recorded with permission from all participants. Audio-taping of CoP meetings were intended to assist researchers in understanding teachers' interactions, discussion behaviors, interaction patterns that emerged, and types and frequency of group interactions throughout the six weeks of meetings. The lead researcher (first author) attended all CoP meetings as an observer taking extensive field notes of community members' behaviors, facial expressions, and attitudes to aid in interpreting interactions and to add depth to observation data. The lead researcher also acknowledged the insights gained from being in the room and interpreted the textual information as informing the findings of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-12">Data analysis</hd> <p>Six-weeks of audio-taped CoP meetings were analyzed quantitatively using Bales's Interaction Process Analysis (IPA). The IPA tool (Bales 1950) includes twelve interaction categories, in four areas, providing a systemic framework for analysis that include (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>) positive reactions, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>) sharing information, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>) questions, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>) negative answers. Positive reactions and negative answers are defined by Bales as 'expressive integrative' which suggests that they focus on the social process rather than content. Sharing information and questions on the other hand focus on content although they may link to social side effects. The IPA tool delineates a series of methods for analyzing the data to obtain indices descriptive of group process, and factors influencing that process are described in IPA (Bales 1950). According to Bales (1950), the simplest way is to conceive of an idealized problem-solving sequence using the interactive categories. Our interpretation of Bales's interactive categories for this problem solving sequence that guided analysis of data is presented in Figure 1.</p> <p>Coding and analysis of data was carried out by two of the researchers, the lead investigator (first author) and reliability established in conjunction with a second researcher (second author). In the analysis process, the researcher listened to the audio recordings of CoP meetings, transcribed recordings, coded, and analyzed the transcripts using Bales's IPA tool. Researcher's field notes were inserted into the transcriptions to add depth and understanding to our interpretations of teacher behavior. All transcripts were coded separately and all codes were entered to Excel Software and analyzed descriptively based on the Bales's IPA categories. Coding and analysis of data was conducted simultaneously with subsequent meetings; that is, after each meeting data was coded and analyzed allowing the lead researcher to note aspects of data requiring additional researcher observation to clarify our interpretations.</p> <p>An instruction manual provided by Bales (1950) gives clear and precise instruction related to how the IPA tool should be used. Prior to establishing reliability, the two researchers worked through Bales's manual, watched a training video, and reviewed a research-training handbook formulated by the researcher. To measure the level of agreement of the categories, the two researchers independently coded several transcripts. Any disputed sections were then worked out between the two researchers. As Bales argues, although there may be evidence of multiple codes in one message, there is generally a predominant emphasis to the message. Twenty percent of the data set was analyzed in conjunction with the second researcher for accuracy. Overall intercoder reliability was calculated for all codes with 86% achieved. Neuendorf (2002, 145) reviews 'rules of thumb' set out by several methodologists and concludes that 'coefficients of.90 or greater would be acceptable to all,.80 or greater would be acceptable in most situations and below that, there exists great disagreement'.</p> <p>A limitation of this study was that only content validity of the IPA tool was ensured by examining categories of the tool with characteristics of CoP and seeking expert opinion to confirm categories. This study would be strengthened had we ensured both construct and criterion validity. Therefore, it might be an opportunity for further research to modify the tool and validate it with other tools prior to examining interactions within a CoP.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-13">Results</hd> <p>Results revealed three main interactive patterns that emerged from analysis of participant interactions during the six CoP meetings. These patterns were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>) Variable member interactions; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>) Member roles; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>) Personal interaction pattern development. Analysis of researcher's field notes also indicated similar trends in participants' interactions which were used to clarify and support our interpretations where necessary.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-14">Variable member interactions</hd> <p>In total, there were 3390 interactions for the entire group. Table 2 shows the frequency of interactions for each CoP member in each of the six weeks.</p> <p>Frequency of weekly interactions of each participant across the six weeks.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="9"><tbody><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" colspan="8">Weeks</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">1.</td><td align="center">2.</td><td align="center">3.</td><td align="center">4.</td><td align="center">5.</td><td align="center">6.</td><td align="center">Total</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td align="left">Participants</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">188</td><td align="char">210</td><td align="char">233</td><td align="char">163</td><td align="char">189</td><td align="char">128</td><td align="char">1111</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">81</td><td align="left">0/AB</td><td align="char">95</td><td align="char">80</td><td align="char">92</td><td align="char">101</td><td align="char">449</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">3</td><td align="char">41</td><td align="char">45</td><td align="char">123</td><td align="char">51</td><td align="left">0/AB</td><td align="char">59</td><td align="char">319</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">4</td><td align="char">81</td><td align="char">55</td><td align="char">74</td><td align="left">0/AB</td><td align="char">87</td><td align="left">0/AB</td><td align="char">297</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">5</td><td align="char">102</td><td align="char">74</td><td align="char">128</td><td align="char">140</td><td align="left">0/AB</td><td align="char">100</td><td align="char">544</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">6</td><td align="char">67</td><td align="char">21</td><td align="char">27</td><td align="char">37</td><td align="char">64</td><td align="char">41</td><td align="char">257</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">7</td><td align="char">50</td><td align="char">78</td><td align="char">47</td><td align="char">68</td><td align="char">72</td><td align="char">98</td><td align="char">413</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td /><td align="char">610</td><td align="char">483</td><td align="char">727</td><td align="char">539</td><td align="char">504</td><td align="char">527</td><td align="char">3390</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>AB: Absent.</p> <p>According to analysis of IPA, over half (55%) of community member interactions fell into Interactive Categories 5 and 6 which reside in the part of the framework where participants are Sharing Information. Interactive Category 5 reflects community members providing their opinions and/or expressing their feelings whereas Interactive Category 6 sees them providing information and/or confirming another members' viewpoint/comments. Table 3 displays the frequency of interactions in all 12 interaction categories for each participant across all six of the CoP meetings. It should be noted that community member #1 is the CoP facilitator and his role would require him to share the most information with the group. Removing his interactions from all interactive categories does not alter the overall ranking of categories (see the last column in the table).</p> <p>Frequency of interactions in all categories for each member across the six meetings.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="11"><tbody><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" colspan="9"><bold>Participants</bold></td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Categories</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">Total</td><td align="center">Total minus member #1</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td align="left"><bold> </bold></td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">7</td><td align="char">5</td><td align="char">6</td><td align="char">3</td><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">25</td><td align="char">24</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">9</td><td align="char">3</td><td align="char">7</td><td align="char">10</td><td align="char">15</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">3</td><td align="char">48</td><td align="char">39</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">3</td><td align="char">119</td><td align="char">57</td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="char">48</td><td align="char">32</td><td align="char">501</td><td align="char">382</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">4</td><td align="char">66</td><td align="char">6</td><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">5</td><td align="char">8</td><td align="char">3</td><td align="char">8</td><td align="char">98</td><td align="char">32</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">5</td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="char">944</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">6</td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="char">58</td><td align="char">30</td><td align="char">41</td><td align="char">91</td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="char">370</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">7</td><td align="char">137</td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="char">68</td><td align="char">28</td><td align="char">82</td><td align="char">23</td><td align="char">41</td><td align="char">475</td><td align="char">338</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">8</td><td align="char">50</td><td align="char">16</td><td align="char">5</td><td align="char">4</td><td align="char">8</td><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">5</td><td align="char">90</td><td align="char">40</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">9</td><td align="char">6</td><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">10</td><td align="char">4</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">10</td><td align="char">20</td><td align="char">12</td><td align="char">22</td><td align="char">5</td><td align="char">31</td><td align="char">6</td><td align="char">26</td><td align="char">122</td><td align="char">102</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">11</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">9</td><td align="char">9</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">12</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td /><td align="char">1111</td><td align="char">449</td><td align="char">319</td><td align="char">297</td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="char">413</td><td align="char">3390</td><td align="char">2253</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*Circles in this table represent the first two most frequent categories of interaction for each participant.</p> <p>In the table, the first two most frequent categories of interaction are circled for each community member. From this table, it is easy to see individual member 'tendencies' and the difference in frequency of their total interactions in the bottom line of the table. Interactive category 5 was the most frequent category act for each community member and Category 6 and Category 3, being 'agreeable' and 'understanding' 'respectively' were the second most frequent categories for the participants.</p> <p>Interactive category 5 was coded a large portion of the time as it included a wide range of common attempts by the community members to interact with one another, such as giving opinions, evaluating, analyzing, expressing feelings, wishing, making decisions, solving problems, and sharing examples of their own practice. Most frequent in this category was expression of feelings, sharing opinions, and providing examples from their schools. This is supported by researcher field notes in week 6: 'As the weeks progressed, sharing examples and opinions of their own (teachers) provided them with insight on one another's beliefs'.</p> <p>With its wide range of interaction attempts by community members to provide information, repeat a point, clarify a comment, or confirm an issue category 6 was the second most frequently coded category. Interactive category 6 was most frequently represented by clarifying a point or giving information in response to a query. Again, seeking additional information on issues, beliefs, or clarifying a point served to allow members to become more familiar with one another as a community. This is indicated in researcher's field notes in week 6: 'In the last two meetings, I have heard a lot of examples from teachers providing information to each other from their own cases/practices.'</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-15">Member roles</hd> <p>Interaction analysis revealed that the amount and type of interactions differed for each community member as displayed in Table 3. Frequency of individual member interactions provides an indication of social relationships; in other words, how much and how often they engage with others during community interactions provides a picture of how they fit into the community. This helps in understanding the ways individuals differ and the possible implications of these differences for developing their social relationships and encouraging others to engage. Below are several examples of how we interpreted member interactions (frequency and type) and how this provided insight into the differentiated roles and structural 'positions' of each person in the group. In other words, we gained insight into how the community developed with the help of the analysis of researcher's field notes.</p> <p>Frequency of community member interactions by category showed the highest number of interactions was made by Member 1 which is consistent with his role as facilitator and to present key topics for discussion, listen to participants' comments, speak clearly, and keep the discussions focused on the subject being explored. However, his role changed as time passed and other members became more willing to share information, opinions, and examples that led the discussion. Member 1's number of interactions was lower in the last three weeks of CoP as members began to interact more frequently; it appeared they began to take ownership of their community and learning with and from one another requiring less need for the facilitator to get responses from the group.</p> <p>Member 2 sought the most clarification throughout the discussion (with the exception of the facilitator) by frequently asking questions and seeking opinions and viewpoints in the community meetings (114 interactions for Categories 7, 8, and 9). Field notes of the researcher was like that for Member 2:, 'Member 2 was the most curious of the group. She frequently asks questions about the content of the week and wonders about other's experiences on the issue.' (Field notes, after 9th meeting). The interactions in Category 8 (asking for opinions and seeking emotions) (category 8 = 16) and Category 9 (asking for suggestions) (category 9 = 2), by Member 2 are displayed in Table 3. These numbers demonstrate that she was what we perceived as the inquisitive one of the group by asking more questions and seeking others' insights during CoP meetings.</p> <p>Member 3 least frequently moved away from the sharing information categories 4 (providing suggestions), 5 (expressing feelings and concerns), and 6 (providing information) (category 4 = 2, category 5 = 107, category 6 = 30 for a total 139 interactions) and least frequently attempted to respond to other members. In her field notes the researcher posed one reason this member may have responded less frequently: 'In this meeting, member 3 admits several times that she is not confident to teach HRF in her school because of her lack of content knowledge. (Field notes, 3rd meeting)'. This lack of knowledge was noted by Member 3 as a result of her lack of having previously learned HRF content resulting in a lack of confidence in speaking.</p> <p>Member 4 appeared to be the most accepting of the community with relatively high agreement interactions and the lowest in disagreements. She also did not have high rates of negative reactions with only 5 interactions of this nature throughout the 6 weeks. In her field notes, the researcher stated that 'She was an easy going person, ready to talk and share her examples with others from the beginning of the community meetings'. She could not attend the fourth and sixth meetings yet her total interactions were 297 which was higher than another member (Member 6) who attended all the meetings.</p> <p>In field notes, the researcher indicated that</p> <p>Member 5 seems to take the leadership of the group with his enthusiasm and sharing of frequent opinions based on his own experiences during the six weeks. He tended to openly display his knowledge at the beginning of the community and accrued the highest number of interactions after the facilitator. (544 interactions)</p> <p>Member 5 had high rates of interactive categories 4, 5, and 6 (category 4 = 8, category 5 = 213, category 6 = 91) which all focus on sharing information. Responses of other member in the community suggested they respected his opinions, experiences, and comments throughout the six weeks and confirmed his perspectives.</p> <p>Although Member 6 was the quietest of the community having the lowest number of interactions across the total 6 weeks (257 interactions), when she spoke it was an objective, thoughtful, and clear providing information that reflected detail to aid other community members (researcher's field notes). Her number of interactions also relatively low in sharing any disagreement with other members. Member 6 also asked the fewest number of questions, interactive categories 8, 9, and 10 (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>, 0 and 6 respectively).</p> <p>Member 7 was the most willing to share with other members of the community with frequency of interactions suggesting he was eager to share his experiences with others (researcher's field notes). Interestingly, he was the only person whose number of disagreements and agreements were evenly matched; perhaps serving to challenge perspectives and considering alternatives. His number of interactions were second highest, after the facilitator, for sharing his opinion and insights with others in the community, interactive category 5 (54.3%).</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-16">Interaction pattern development</hd> <p>While not surprising given this community was in the process of getting acquainted and beginning to coalesce into a functioning CoP, interaction analysis revealed that interaction patterns changed throughout the six weeks of community meetings as shown in Table 4.</p> <p>Frequency of member interactions in all categories for each week of the six weeks.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="9"><tbody><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" colspan="8">Weeks</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">1.</td><td align="center">2.</td><td align="center">3.</td><td align="center">4.</td><td align="center">5.</td><td align="center">6.</td><td align="center">Total</td></tr></tbody><tbody><tr><td align="left">Categories</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">17</td><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">4</td><td align="char">25</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">29</td><td align="char">4</td><td align="char">5</td><td align="char">5</td><td align="char">4</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">48</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">3</td><td align="char">103</td><td align="char">93</td><td align="char">135</td><td align="char">59</td><td align="char">50</td><td align="char">61</td><td align="char">501</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">4</td><td align="char">26</td><td align="char">12</td><td align="char">13</td><td align="char">5</td><td align="char">5</td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="char">98</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">5</td><td align="char">166</td><td align="char">149</td><td align="char">268</td><td align="char">236</td><td align="char">257</td><td align="char">232</td><td align="char">1308</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">6</td><td align="char">146</td><td align="char">130</td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="char">95</td><td align="char">89</td><td align="char">86</td><td align="char">703</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">7</td><td align="char">74</td><td align="char">72</td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="char">91</td><td align="char">65</td><td align="char">54</td><td align="char">475</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">8</td><td align="char">15</td><td align="char">7</td><td align="char">10</td><td align="char">17</td><td align="char">25</td><td align="char">16</td><td align="char">90</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">9</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">2</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="left"><inline-graphic href="" /></td><td align="char">10</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">10</td><td align="char">27</td><td align="char">12</td><td align="char">17</td><td align="char">30</td><td align="char">7</td><td align="char">29</td><td align="char">122</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">11</td><td align="char">6</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">9</td></tr><tr><td /><td align="char">12</td><td align="char">1</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">0</td><td align="char">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td /><td align="char">610</td><td align="char">483</td><td align="char">727</td><td align="char">539</td><td align="char">504</td><td align="char">527</td><td align="char">3390</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*Circles represent the most frequent interactive categories for category 6 & 7.</p> <p>**Squares represent the most frequently repeated interactive categories for category 4 & 9.</p> <p>Some of the most frequent interactive categories are circled in Table 4; categories 4 (providing suggestions), 6 (providing information), 7 (asking for information and confirmation), 8 (asking for opinions and seeking emotions) and 9 (seeking suggestions). According to Bales (1950), the more concrete and differentiated conception of the problem-solving sequence may be outlined in terms of pairs of categories (Figure 1, brackets labeled a, b, c, etc.). For example, in Table 4 it can be seen that Category 7, seeking information or confirmation from the community was highest during week 3 (119 interactions) and interrelatedly Category 6, providing information and confirming others insights was also highest during the same week (157 interactions). The rate of community interactivity noted for Category 6 may be taken as an index of the amount of interaction the community devoted to attempting to find solutions to the problems of perception and communication (Bales 1950). Category 7, asking for information and confirmation, leads most frequently to answering Category 6. Bales (1950) presumed that the rate of activity in Category 7 and 6 are focused on the amount of interaction the community devotes to solving problems they have communicated with one another. This is an example of how two of Bales's interactive categories assist in developing an important CoP characteristic of teachers building relationship as a means to solve problems collectively. This rate in itself, however, does not give any indication as to whether the communication is sufficient for maintaining positive community relations or individual development, since the amount required would be expected to vary based on different conditions. For example, a higher frequency rate of Categories 6 and 7 in week 3 related to the topic of that week which was content knowledge for Active Participation and Healthy Living learning (training principles, exercise psychology, health promotion). In this case, the facilitator (Member 1) gave a detailed explanation, information, and examples about these topics as community members sought this type of detail. As a result, when questions were posed from community members, most responses came from the facilitator. On the other hand, in subsequent weeks, researcher's field notes show the interactions between community members was more multi-directional between all members of the community including exchanges about their experiences in the classroom teaching HRF as opposed to engaging primarily with the facilitator. In other words, the topic allowed members to seek information and insights from one another from teaching practice to facilitate their development and also helped them to negotiate barriers in communication (researcher's field notes).</p> <p>In Table 4, the most frequently repeated interactive categories 4 and 9 for week 6 are circled. The rate of activity in Category 4 'Providing suggestions' (37 interactions), may be taken as an index of the amount of interaction the community devoted to attempting to find solutions to problems. As Bales (1950) noted, Category 4 is the closest category to the point of group decision making whereas Category 9 'Seeking suggestions' leads most frequently to respond to Category 4. In other words, the rate of activity in Category 9 (6 interactions) may be taken as an index of interactions which the community devoted to indicating to each other that the number of solutions available for solving problem. This rate in itself, however, does not give any indication as to whether community action to solve the problem was sufficient throughout the 6 weeks. For instance, even though Categories 4 and 9 were most frequent during week 6, week 1 was the second for frequency of Category 4. However, in that case, the reason for a higher frequency rate of Category 4 in the 1st week could be that Member 1 (facilitator) gave so many suggestions and directions to explain group rules and the content for the following weeks. On the other hand, in her field notes the researcher stated that, 'As the community progressed (in week 5 and 6), the members of the group asked for and gave suggestions and directions to each other. The interactions started to become more multi-directional among members'.</p> <p>The other pairs of categories are Category 8 'Seeking opinions or expressions of feelings' which is most frequently answered by Category 5 'Providing personal opinions and/or feelings'. The rate of activity in Category 5 may be taken as an index of the amount of interaction the community devotes to attempting to find solutions to the problems of evaluation (Bales 1950) while the rate of activity in Category 8 is an index of interactions devoted to indicating to each other that problems of evaluation exist. These rates in themselves do not define the extent of the problem with evaluation. In Table 4, it can be seen that even though the frequency rate of Category 8 increased in the last three weeks (in total there were 33 interactions in the first 33 weeks and 58# interactions in the last three weeks, which shows nearly 40% increase), while the frequency rate of Category 5 were almost equall across the six weeks (in total there were 583 interactions in the first 3 weeks and 725# interactions in the last three weeks, which shows nearly a 25% increase). In that case, Category 5 was coded for nearly every kind of expression and opinion resulting in it being the most coded category for each individual. However, that frequency rate did not show which opinions or expressions were the most important. The researcher field notes indicate that: 'Teachers were more willing to share their experiences with the other community members in the final weeks of meetings.' This comments was a result of observing that as Member 1 asked for member opinions in the final weeks, the community was intent on giving their opinions based on their previous experiences teaching in schools.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-17">Discussion</hd> <p>This study sought to examine the ways teachers interact within a newly-developed CoP to understand how conversations evolve; how teachers question, challenge, and/or encourage one another to grow professionally in a learning community. This was done through systematic observation by quantitatively coding community member interactions (interaction analysis) over six weeks of community meetings focused on HRF while teachers were teaching HRF in their schools for 10 weeks. Results provide insight into how the community began to develop and represents the development of the community being in the potential stage and just entering the active stage (Wenger 1998). As noted previously, Wenger (1998) identifies the first stage of community development as the <emph>Potential</emph> stage where members engage in activities and interactions designed to promote their getting to know one another and identify what they have common.</p> <p>In the Parker et al. (2010) study, examining a physical education teachers' CoP whose objective was to develop and disseminate a district-wide elementary curriculum, the researchers described formation of what they termed a true CoP using Wenger's (2013) elements of domain, community, and practice. In the current study, in order to develop shared interest (i.e. developing theirs and their students' HRF content knowledge), teachers engaged in professional interactions (i.e. giving opinions, expressing feelings, giving suggestions) with each other and with the facilitator which enabled them to begin to gain insight into their own and other members' knowledge. Data and researcher's field notes suggested that the professional interactions over the 10 weeks and six community meetings allowed teachers to provide them with ideas from their own experiences that might allow them to solve problems.</p> <p>In this study, teacher interactions were examined as they engaged in development of a new community. Data provides us with information about how interaction patterns changed from the first week to the last for each member of the community as well as the community as a whole. For example, the results showed us that when Member 1 (facilitator) asked for member opinions in the final weeks, the teachers were intent on giving their opinions based on their previous experiences and were more willing to share their experiences with the other community members than they were during the first weeks. While this might be expected as teachers began to build relationships in this CoP environment, it was positive to see these increased interactions by all members of the community and the different roles the teachers appeared to take on.</p> <p>According to Lave and Wenger's (1991) model of situated learning, learners participate in a CoP where the mastery of knowledge and skill requires newcomers to move toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of a community. Consistent with Lave and Wenger's framework about legitimate peripheral participation, the interaction patterns that we viewed in this study show how members of the community (all newcomers) began to move from developing as a group in the potential stage to becoming actively engaged with and learning with and from each other. Results of the IPA analysis suggest that by the end of the six weeks of community meetings most of the members were sharing their own experiences teaching in schools, providing feedback to other members based on these experiences, engaging in discussions, and asking questions of other members.</p> <p>Dooner, Mandzuk, and Clifton (2008) suggested a need to better understand what constitutes a CoP, how members participate in these contexts initially, and how these groups develop over time. In order to develop strong teacher communities, Dobie and Anderson (2015) identify communication as a key factor. Therefore, by understanding each community member's differentiated roles and structured positions in the group, it is possible to understand the ways individuals differ and implications on their social relationships which shape the community. In the current study, interaction process analysis revealed that the amount and type of interactions differed for each participant and the types of interactions most used by each individual. This allowed us to suggest possible roles each member might have played in the early stages of community development; as the community progresses, observing how these roles develop or stagnate will be informative.</p> <p>In her study, van Es (2012) focused on creating a framework for development of a teacher learning community in a video club. She concluded an important element in building community is first learning to collaborate - feeling comfortable initiating ideas, listening to one another, and supporting one another's analyses. In the current study, teacher interactions were more multi-directional among members in the last weeks and most of their conversations were based on their experiences on their practice. Interaction process analysis findings revealed that teachers were willing to share their experiences with other members in the community in the final meetings; however, in the first weeks, conversations were mostly one-directional from facilitator to teacher or from teacher to facilitator.</p> <p>Hadar and Brody (2010) stated that CoPs do not occur randomly, rather they are intentionally initiated and promoted by leaders who are connected and responsive to the needs of both members and the organization. Guskey (2002) also suggested credible facilitators guide teachers on new teaching practices and address their personal concerns about how those will affect interactions during the community meetings. Tarmizi and de Vreede (2005) identified the main roles of the CoP facilitator as being an information source, guide, and inspiration for the group; one who creates a positive environment with listening a valued resource. In the current study, the facilitator displayed these characteristic behaviors while also taking a more teacher directed role at the start of the community meetings as requested by members to improve their content knowledge and practice of teaching HRF. Subsequently as the weeks progressed, the facilitator let teachers have a shared voice during community meetings with the facilitator's role becoming more of a guide. Patton and Parker (2014) examined facilitators' perceptions about successful PD with facilitators indicating that success meant professional development belonged to participants in the form of voice, ownership, and advocacy. While evidence from the current study does not support this perspective community members taking a more active and engaged role in communication as the weeks progressed might be first steps in them finding their voice, recognizing their expertise, and taking ownership of their own learning.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study is important in a number of aspects and will make a contribution to the existing literature in three ways. First, recognizing the increasing focus on teacher communication in CoP, IPA provides us with insight on initial and developing interactions as they occur in a newly developed community by directly observing subject(s) in a natural environment without altering that environment. The interaction patterns revealed in this study showed increased member communication and interactive behaviors as the weeks of community meetings progressed which reflects the stages, through which a CoP progresses as they develop (Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002). Secondly, this study shows how interactions resulted in community members being willing to share their knowledge and experiences for the benefit of the entire community. Lastly, this study demonstrates that the IPA is a useful tool for documenting the interactive actions typical in a community and clarifying aspects of group communications. As the community moves into the active stage it will be important to examine how participants' interactions and experiences impact upon teaching practice and student learning.</p> <p>Overall, previous literature examining the development of CoPs has utilized qualitative methods focused on participant teachers' and students' voices via questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaires and interviews collect opinions and other information that are reported by the teachers' or their students'. On the other hand, using IPA for direct observation of participant interactions as they occurred allowed us to view how members of community started to talk at the initial stage of a CoP. Moreover, by looking at the frequency and type of individual member interactions in a community, it is possible to begin to understand the ways individuals differ and the implications this has on their professional relationship which shapes both the individual and the community.</p> <p>As Greeno (1997) encouraged, understanding teacher learning can best be done by examining people's interactions, which for this study focused on community members and their discourse. While Bales's (1950) Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) tool was useful in analyzing this teacher discourse and community interactions, adaptation of this tool to more closely examine specifics of member interactions might be appropriate. Such a tool would allow extending CoP research to gain a more in-depth picture of community interactions including members' thoughts and how they progress over time, teacher emotions that emerge as part of community exchange, interactive behaviors that individual members bring to community engagement, the impact of these on other members and their development, and determining whether community interactions can truly breakdown the isolation that teachers feel during PD as suggested by Hadar and Brody (2010). Finally, perhaps communities developing an interactional repertoire (Dobber, Akkerman, and Verloop 2012) might better promote collaboration and exchange of ideas, colleagues' practices, and teacher analysis of their pupils' learning.</p> <p>In this study, we argue for the importance of understanding how group interaction develops and promotes growth within a community. Fahy (2006) and others (Biesenbach-Lucas 2004; Kanuka 2002; Molinari 2004) highlight the importance of the interaction that takes place in learning groups for decreasing perceptions of isolation, promoting community, and enabling participants to express their thoughts and reasoning. This supports Bales's (1950) view that groups share interpersonal relationships as well as work focused tasks which must be managed in a diplomatic and affable way for group process to be sustained. As a community of practice develops, understanding how participant relationships develop, are hindered, or can be facilitated is critical if such groups are to be promoted as a form of professional growth and development. With this in mind, Bales's IPA or other quantitative observation systems might be viewed as a way of understanding group behavior act by act</p> <p>as it occurs within a developing community. However, more robust and descriptive findings might be provided by linking Bales's IPA system with a fully developed and well-structured qualitative research component to provide participant voice on their feelings about how the group decreases personal isolation, how they feel their interactions were received by peers, behaviors that facilitated or hindered their engagement with the community, and other issues that might be more fully explored qualitatively.</p> <hd id="AN0135371062-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0135371062-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Armour, K. M., and M. Yelling. 2007. " Effective Professional Development for Physical Education Teachers: The Role of Informal, Collaborative Learning." <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph> 26 ( 2 ): 177 - 200. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.26.2.177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bales, R. F. 1950. <emph>Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups</emph>. Oxford, England : Addison-Wesley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bales, R. F., and S. L. Strodtbeck. 1951. " Phases in Group Problem-Solving.." <emph>The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology</emph> 46 ( 3 ): 485 - 495. doi: 10.1037/h0059886</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Biesenbach-Lucas, S. 2004. " Asynchronous Web Discussions in Teacher Training Courses: Promoting Collaborative Learning—Or Not? " <emph>Association for the Advancement of Computing In Education</emph> 12 ( 2 ): 155 - 170.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blankenship, S. S., and E. A. W. Ruona. 2007. " Professional Learning Communities and Communities of Practice: A Comparison of Models, Literature Review." Paper presented at the academy of human resource development international research conference in the Americas, Indianapolis, IN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bolam, R. 2000. " Emerging Policy Trends: Some Implications for Continuing Professional Development." <emph>Journal of In-Service Education</emph> 26 ( 2 ): 267 - 280. doi: 10.1080/13674580000200113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Choi, K. S., I. Im, and G. J. Hofstede. 2016. " A Cross-Cultural Comparative Analysis of Small Group Collaboration Using Mobile Twitter." <emph>Computers in Human Behavior</emph> 65 : 308 - 318. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith, M., and L. S. Lytle. 1999. " Relationship of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher Learning in Communities." <emph>Review of Educational Research</emph> 24 : 249 - 306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Darst, P. W., D. Zakrajsek, and V. H. Mancini, eds. 1989. <emph>Systematic Observation Instrumentation for Physical Education</emph>. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deglau, D., and M. O'Sullivan. 2006. " Chapter 3: The Effects of a Long-Term Professional Development Program on the Beliefs and Practices of Experienced Teachers." <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph> 25 ( 4 ): 379 - 396. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.25.4.379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Desimone, L. M. 2011. " A Primer on Effective Professional Development." <emph>Phi Delta Kappan</emph> 92 ( 6 ): 68 - 71. doi: 10.1177/003172171109200616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dobber, M., S. F. Akkerman, and N. Verloop. 2012. " Developing Designs for Community Development in Four Types of Student Teacher Groups." <emph>Learning Environments Research</emph> 15 ( 3 ): 279 - 297. doi: 10.1007/s10984-012-9116-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dobie, T. E., and E. R. Anderson. 2015. " Interaction in Teacher Communities: Three Forms Teachers Use to Express Contrasting Ideas in Video Clubs." <emph>Teaching and Teacher Education</emph> 47 : 230 - 240. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dogan, S., R. Pringle, and J. Mesa. 2016. " The Impacts of Professional Learning Communities on Science Teachers' Knowledge, Practice and Student Learning: A Review." <emph>Professional Development in Education</emph> 42 ( 4 ): 569 - 588. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2015.1065899</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dooner, A. M., D. Mandzuk, and R. A. Clifton. 2008. " Stages of Collaboration and the Realities of Professional Learning Communities." <emph>Teaching and Teacher Education</emph> 24 ( 3 ): 564 - 574. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fahy, P. J. 2006. "Online and Face-to-Face Group Interaction Processes Compared Using Bales' Interaction Process Analysis (IPA)." EUROD, I-January to June.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flanders, N. A. 1970. <emph>Analyzing Teacher Behavior</emph>. Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodyear, V. A., and A. Casey. 2015. " Innovation with Change: Developing a Community of Practice to Help Teachers Move Beyond the 'Honeymoon' of Pedagogical Renovation." <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> 20 ( 2 ): 186 - 203. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2013.817012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greeno, J. 1997. " On Claims That Answer the Wrong Question." <emph>Educational Researcher</emph> 26 ( 1 ): 5 - 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Groot, E., M. A. Endedijk, A. D. C. Jaarsma, P. R. Simons, and P. van Beukelen. 2014. " Critically Reflective Dialogues in Learning Communities of Professionals." <emph>Studies in Continuing Education</emph> 36 ( 1 ): 15 - 37. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2013.779240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grossman, P., S. Wineburg, and S. Woolworth. 2001. " Toward a Theory of Teacher Community." <emph>The Teachers College Record</emph> 103 ( 6 ): 942 - 1012. doi: 10.1111/0161-4681.00140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guskey, T. 2002. " Professional Development and Teacher Change." <emph>Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice</emph> 8 ( 3/4 ): 381 - 391. doi: 10.1080/135406002100000512</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hadar, L., and D. Brody. 2010. " From Isolation to Symphonic Harmony: Building a Professional Development Community Among Teacher Educators." <emph>Teaching and Teacher Education</emph> 26 ( 8 ): 1641 - 1651. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunuk, D., M. L. Ince, and D. Tannehill. 2013. " Developing Teachers Health-Related Fitness Knowledge Through a Community of Practice: Impact on Student Learning." <emph>European Physical Education Review</emph> 19 ( 3 ): 3 - 20. doi: 10.1177/1356336X12450769</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ince, M. L., and D. Hunuk. 2013. " Experienced Physical Education Teachers' Health-Related Fitness Knowledge Level and Knowledge Internalization Processes." <emph>Education and Science</emph> 38 ( 168 ): 304 - 317.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kanuka, H. 2002. " A Principled Approach to Facilitating Distance Education: The Internet, Higher Education and Higher Levels of Learning." <emph>Journal of Distance Education</emph> 17 ( 2 ): 70 - 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keyton, J. 2003. " Observing Group Interaction." In <emph>Small Group Communication: Theory and Practice</emph>, edited by R. Y. Hirokawa, R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, and L. D. Henman, 256 - 266. Los Angeles : Roxbury Publishing Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. <emph>Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation</emph>. NY : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lieberman, A., and L. Miller. 2008. <emph>Teachers in Professional Communities: Improving Teaching and Learning</emph>. New York : Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makopoulou, K., and K. Armour. 2011. " Teachers' Professional Learning in a European Learning Society: The Case of Physical Education." <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> 16 ( 4 ): 417 - 433. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2010.548060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molinari, D. L. 2004. " The Role of Social Comments in Problem-Solving Groups in an Online Class." <emph>The American Journal of Distance Education</emph> 18 ( 2 ): 89 - 101. doi: 10.1207/s15389286ajde1802_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MoNE. 2007. <emph>Ministry of National Education, Primary Physical Education Curriculum</emph>. Ankara : Ministry of Education Publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuendorf, K. A. 2002. <emph>The Content Analysis Guidebook</emph>. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Sullivan, M. 2008. " Creating and Sustaining Communities of Practice Among Physical Education Professionals." <emph>New Zealand Physical Educator</emph> 15 : 21 - 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, M., K. Patton, M. Madden, and C. Sinclair. 2010. " From Committee to Community: The Development and Maintenance of a Community of Practice." <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph> 29 ( 4 ): 337 - 357. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.29.4.337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, M., K. Patton, and D. Tannehill. 2012. " Mapping the Landscape of Communities of Practice as Professional Development in Irish Physical Education." <emph>Irish Educational Studies</emph> 31 ( 3 ): 311 - 327. doi: 10.1080/03323315.2012.710067</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, K., and M. Parker. 2014. " Moving from 'Things to Do nn Monday' to Student Learning: Physical Education Professional Development Facilitators' Views of Success." <emph>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</emph> 19 ( 1 ): 60 - 75. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2012.726980</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, K., and M. Parker. 2015. " "I Learned More at Lunchtime": Guideposts for Reimagining Professional Development." <emph>Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance</emph> 86 ( 1 ): 23 - 29. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2014.978421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, K., M. Parker, and E. Pratt. 2013. " Meaningful Learning in Professional Development: Teaching Without Telling." <emph>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</emph> 32 ( 4 ): 441 - 459. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.32.4.441</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, K., M. Parker, and D. Tannehill. 2015. " Helping Teachers Help Themselves: Professional Development That Makes a Difference." <emph>NASSP Bulletin</emph> 99 ( 1 ): 26 - 42. doi: 10.1177/0192636515576040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Song, H., Y. Wang, and B. A. Sparks. 2018. " How do Young Chinese Friendship Groups Make Travel Decisions? A Content and Interaction Process Analysis." <emph>Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing</emph> 35 ( 6 ): 772 - 785. doi: 10.1080/10548408.2017.1421117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tannehill, D., and A. MacPhail. 2017. " Teacher Empowerment Through Engagement in a Learning Community in Ireland: Working Across Disadvantaged Schools." <emph>Professional Development in Education</emph> 43 ( 3 ): 334 - 352. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2016.1183508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tarmizi, H., and G. J. de Vreede. 2005. " A Facilitation Task Taxonomy for Communities of Practice." Paper presented at the eleventh Americas conference on information systems, Omaha, NE, USA, August, 11-15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toole, J. C., and K. C. Lewis. 2002. " The Role of Professional Learning Communities in International Education." In <emph>Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration</emph>, edited by K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger, 245 - 279. Dordrecht : Kluwer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Es, E. 2012. " Examining the Development of a Teacher Learning Community: The Case of a Video Club." <emph>Teaching and Teacher Education</emph> 28 ( 2 ): 182 - 192. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vuopala, E., P. Hyvönen, and S. Järvelä. 2016. " Interaction Forms in Successful Collaborative Learning in Virtual Learning Environments." <emph>Active Learning in Higher Education</emph> 17 ( 1 ): 25 - 38. doi: 10.1177/1469787415616730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenger, E. 1998. <emph>Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity</emph>. New York : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenger, E. 2013. <emph>Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction</emph>. Accessed March 16, 2015. <ulink href="http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/06-Brief-introduction-to-communities-of-practice.pdf">http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/06-Brief-introduction-to-communities-of-practice.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenger, E., R. McDermott, and W. M. Snyder. 2002. <emph>Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge</emph>. Boston : Harvard Business School Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, D. R. 2007. " Professional Learning Communities: Teachers, Knowledge, and Knowing." <emph>Theory Into Practice</emph> 46 ( 4 ): 281 - 290. doi: 10.1080/00405840701593865</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Deniz Hunuk; Deborah Tannehill and M. Levent Ince</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1209034
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Interaction Patterns of Physical Education Teachers in a Professional Learning Community
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hunuk%2C+Deniz%22">Hunuk, Deniz</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tannehill%2C+Deborah%22">Tannehill, Deborah</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Levent+Ince%2C+M%2E%22">Levent Ince, M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Physical+Education+and+Sport+Pedagogy%22"><i>Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy</i></searchLink>. 2019 24(3):301-317.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+7%22">Grade 7</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education+Teachers%22">Physical Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communities+of+Practice%22">Communities of Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Behavior%22">Teacher Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Collaboration%22">Teacher Collaboration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Facilitators+%28Individuals%29%22">Facilitators (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pedagogical+Content+Knowledge%22">Pedagogical Content Knowledge</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health%22">Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Fitness%22">Physical Fitness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+7%22">Grade 7</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Turkey+%28Ankara%29%22">Turkey (Ankara)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17408989.2019.1576862
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1740-8989
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: In both general education and physical education literature, considerable attention is paid to identifying the effectiveness of communities of practice (CoPs). This literature tends to be more qualitative in nature with less research examining the quantitative nature of interactions in CoPs through direct observation. Purpose: This study examined the ways teachers interact within a newly-developed community (LC) /CoP to understand how conversations evolve; how teachers question, challenge, and/or encourage one another to grow professionally in a learning community. Theoretical Framework: Situated learning perspectives provide a powerful framework for examining teacher learning and facilitation of teacher development. Method: Bales's Interaction Process Analysis Tool (IPA) was selected for analyzing the socio-emotional and task-oriented communication between members of the LC/CoP. Six physical education teachers (four female, two male) and a facilitator, representing the university, participated in LC/CoP meetings designed in collaboration between teachers and the facilitator. The data source was audio-taped transcripts taken of teacher interactions during six weeks of LC/CoP meetings. Findings: Results revealed three main interactive patterns that emerged from analysis of participant interactions during the six LC/CoP meetings. These patterns were: (1) Variable member interactions; (2) Member roles; and (3) Personal interaction pattern development. By coding participant interactions as they occur allowed us to understand and analyze directly what and how LC/CoP members actually talked at the initial stages of community development. Conclusion: The contribution of this study is to use an interaction analysis tool to conceptualize the communicative actions that emerge through a LC/CoP and provide practical insight into the gap in the literature relative to how conversations evolve in a CoP; how teachers question, challenge, and/or encourage one another to grow professionally. Ultimately linking an interactive analysis tool with a well-structured qualitative research component to provide participant voice, feelings and behaviours would provide more robust results.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1209034
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1209034
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17408989.2019.1576862
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 301
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Communities of Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Collaboration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Facilitators (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pedagogical Content Knowledge
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Fitness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 6
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 7
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Turkey (Ankara)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Interaction Patterns of Physical Education Teachers in a Professional Learning Community
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hunuk, Deniz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tannehill, Deborah
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Levent Ince, M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1740-8989
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 24
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
              Type: main
ResultId 1