Communities of Learning (CoL) are suggested to facilitate the co-construction of knowledge among participants of online trainings. Yet, previous studies often detached participants from the social context in which learning took place. The manuscript addresses this shortcoming by providing empirical evidence from 30 CoL of a global organization, where 337 staff members from different hierarchical positions collaboratively enhanced their knowledge via asynchronous discussion forums. The results from four dedicated studies clearly indicate that the higher participants’ hierarchical position, the higher their amount of social and cognitive messages, and the more central their network position within CoL. However, we also identified a group of “Stars” that outperformed their colleagues and who were at the centre of CoL networks, irrespective of their hierarchical positions. Based on these findings, HRD practitioners can better design and facilitate future collaborative learning activities that build upon the strength and weaknesses of all participants.

1. Unified Yet Separated
Empirical Study on the Impact of Hierarchical Positions within
Communities of Learning
Martin Rehm, Wim Gijselaers, Mien Segers
EdMedia 2014, Tampere, Finland

2. Knowledge is a key resource in
maintaining competitive advantage
(e.g. Argote & Ingram, 2000)

3. Interpersonal knowledge transfer
(e.g. Akkerman, Admiraal, Simons, & Niessen, 2006)
Social networks of diverse
participants
(e.g. Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola, & Lehtinen, 2004)

4. Community of Learning
groups of people “engaging in collaborative learning and reflective
practice involved in transformative learning” (Paloff and Pratt, 2003, p. 17)

5. “the microcontext of concrete dialogical relationships cannot be
understood without some concept of macroframes”
(Hermans, 2001, p. 264)

6. “What is the Impact of Hierarchical
Positions on Participants’ Learning
Behaviour and Outcomes within
Communities of Learning?”

7. Setting
• Online training program of a large global organization
• 249 participants (distributed over 25 CoL)
• Collaborative learning activities via asynchronous
discussions forums
• HRC:
82 “Low” 93 “Middle” 74 “High”

8. Challenges
1. What are participants’ ex-ante and ex-post perceptions
of CoL?
2. The general impact of HRC on individuals level of
activity and performance?
3. Impact of HRC on individuals’ network positions within
CoL?
4. Effect of HRC on participants’ level of cognitive
communication within CoL?

9. General Perceptions of CoL
open dialogue
levels of
participation
public &
private spaces
informal
discussions
real-life
& current problems

10. General Impact of HRC
VS.
“800-pound gorilla”
(e.g. Salas & Kozlowski, 2009)
“Status equalization”
(Sproull & Kiesler, 1986, p. 1507)

11. LevelofActivity/Performance
Hierarchical Position
“Stars”
“Middle”
“Low”
“High”
“Middle”
“Low”

12. HRC – Social Networks
(Hierarchical) vortex
(e.g. Casciaro, 1998; Krackhardt, 1990)
Equal chance of making
connections
(e.g. Erdös & Rényi, 1960)
VS.

14. Read Networks

15. Read NetworksReply Networks

16. Read Networks

17. HRC –Level of Cognitive Communication
“Crucial cog(s)”
(Russo & Koesten, 2005, p. 256)
VS.
“800-pound gorilla”
(e.g. Salas & Kozlowski, 2009)

18. “Stars”
“Low”
“High”
Social Communication (low)
Cognitive Communication (high)
Social Communication (high)
Cognitive Communication (low)
“Low”
“Middle”“Middle”

20. Core Practical Implications
Design of CoL
assign
roles
mentoring
system

21. Core Practical Implications
bridging gaps
Facilitation of CoL
nurture

22. Unified Yet Separated
Empirical Study on the Impact of Hierarchical Positions within
Communities of Learning
Martin Rehm, Wim Gijselaers, Mien Segers
EdMedia 2014, Tampere, Finland