Tracing teachers’ transformation of knowledge in social media

Idle chatter or compelling conversation? The potential of the social media‐based #NGSSchat network for supporting science education reform efforts

“…We focus on three features of online professional networks, and #NGSSchat specifically, that have the potential for supporting coordination across educational systems necessary for successful reform implementation: fostering substantive conversations (van Bommel, Randahl, Liljekvist, & Ruthven, 2020); being accessible to and foster balanced participation among educational stakeholders from different professional roles (Macià & García, 2016; Rosenberg, Greenhalgh, Koehler, Hamilton, & Akcaoglu, 2016; Spillane et al, 2015), instead of involvement dominated by one or two professional roles; sustaining participation in online networks (Greenhow, Galvin, & Staudt Willet, 2019). …”

“…Participation in conversations is an important form of professional learning and sense‐making about educational reforms (Coburn, 2001; Rosebery, Ogonowski, DiSchino, & Warren, 2010; Rosebery & Warren, 2008), especially when ideas about reforms are situated in the context and problems of practice that practitioners face (Horn & Little, 2010; Penuel et al, 2013) and are carefully facilitated (Andrews‐Larson, Wilson, & Larbi‐Cherif, 2017). These considerations are important in light of research showing that while some social media‐based professional networks are distinguished by conversations that evidence learning (van Bommel et al, 2020), others seem to be more superficial (Staudt Willet, 2019). While there is research on conversations that take place between students in K‐12 settings (e.g., Michaels & O'Connor, 2012), and on the role of conversations in face‐to‐face professional contexts and networks for teachers (Coburn, Choi, & Mata, 2010; Horn, Garner, Chen, & Frank, 2020; Horn & Little, 2010; Little & Horn, 2007), less attention has been given to the types of conversations in technology‐based professional networks, the first key feature we discuss.…”

“…In the context of mathematics and English language learning groups on the social media platform Facebook, van Bommel et al (2020) explored what subject‐specific conversations took place, finding that the majority of conversations provided some opportunity for learning and that a smaller percentage evidenced transformations, or changes, in an individual's knowledge. Van Bommel et al referred to the former type of conversation as transactional, and the latter as transformational.…”

“…van Bommel et al (2020) noted that not only deep (transformational) conversations are important, but also those that are more social in nature. Transformational conversations are not necessarily superior to others for all purposes: Cultivating a sense of belonging, which might be facilitated by transactions, are key goals or parts of professional learning communities (Goode, Margolis, & Chapman, 2014; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Shulman & Sherin, 2004) and digital technology‐based networks (Bucher & Fieseler, 2017; Greenhalgh, Rosenberg, & Wolf, 2016; Lantz‐Andersson, Lundin, & Selwyn, 2018; Trust, Krutka, & Carpenter, 2016).…”

“…The sustained participation of individuals can be affected by many factors, such as having set times (Greenhalgh et al, 2020) and structured conversations (Booth, 2012) and different types of conversations (Bucher & Fieseler, 2017; Greenhalgh et al, 2016; van Bommel et al, 2020). In light of the different types of conversations that might take place, both transactional and transformational conversations may play an important role; transactional conversations may cultivate a sense of belonging among participants, while transformational conversations may provide value through opportunities to either contribute or receive resources.…”