1. AERA 2013, San Francisco, CA
Developing
a professional learning network
for effective ICT-supported
teaching and learning
April 30, 2013
Gyeong Mi Heo, Ph.D. (CEFRIO, Canada)
Alain Breuleux, Ph.D. (McGill University, Canada)
Building Community through Telecollaboration

2. Abstract
This paper introduces Building Community through
Telecollaboration (BCT) Network that consists of two
school-board professional learning networks (PLNs) for
teachers, describes the key features and development
processes of the PLNs based on the conceptual
framework of communities of practice (CoPs) (Wenger,
1998), and discusses considerations and implications for
developing PLNs for teachers, particularly at the school
board level.

3. Conceptual Framework
 Communities of Practice
• “Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a
passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and
expertise in this area by interaction on an ongoing basis.”
(Wenger et al., 2002, p.4)
 Professional Learning Networks
• “Shared beliefs, values, and vision; Shared and supportive
leadership; Supportive structural conditions; Supportive relational
conditions; Collective learning; and Peer sharing.” (Bausmith &
Barry, 2011)
 Teacher Knowledge
• Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra
& Koehler, 2006)

4. Research Questions
a) What are the characteristics of the BCT Network in
each school board-based on the conceptual framework
of CoP ?
b) What are the differences in the key features and
development processes between two school boards?
c) What are some of the successful factors, challenges
and implications for developing a PLN at the school
board level?

5. Building Community through
Telecollaboration (BCTN)
40-50 teachers from
9 School boards
Design research
(Iterative process)
Researchers
Consultants
40-50 teachers from
9 School boards
2 school boards
25-30 teachers/SB
Researchers
Consultants
Cycle lead teachers
Participatory design
Research
(Lead teachers)
Participatory design
Research
(Two school board-
based PLNs)
Researchers
Consultants
SB1 Lead Team
SB2 Lead Team
Phase 1
(2007-2009)
Phase 2
(2009-2011)
Phase 3
(2011-2013)
Listserv
Live Classroom
BCT Blog & Wiki
BCT SAKAI portal
Live Classroom
BCT Website
E-Mail
BCT Website & E-Mail
SB1: SB portal & Wiki
SB2: SB Website
Zenlive
Participants
Characteristics
Leadership team
ICT tools

6. Leadership team in each school board
PLN
BCT-SB1(1)
BCT-SB2
Participants 25 teachers from 6 schools
(including 10 BCT
teachers)
29 teachers from 9 schools
(including 9 BCT teachers)
Leadership
team
A SB1 Technology-
Pedagogical consultant
(Former lead teacher)
Two lead teachers
A principal
A SB2 Technology-
Pedagogical consultant
A IT Coordinator
Pedagogy (Process) -
driven approach
Technology (Tools)
- driven approach
(1)
SB is the acronym for School Board.

7. Methods
 Participatory design research approach (Heo & Breuleux, 2011).
 Data collection
a) Semi-structured Individual interviews: Six individual leaders of
both school board leadership teams.
b) Appreciative inquiry survey: At the end of each F2F session,
participating teachers' feedback was collected in terms of three
topics, such as Benefits, Even better if, and Suggestions &
Questions.
c) An online focus group interview: The leaders from both school
board leadership teams.
d) Field notes: BCT F2F meetings, activities of BCT Leadership
team members, and student classroom activities in both school
boards.

8. Results: Emerging conceptions from
interview data
 The concerns on the teacher's part.
Not knowing where to start, how to fit
it in and see it as something else
added on to already busy schedule,
probably in isolation, not having the
other teachers there to be a mentor to
guide her, not knowing about what
tools to use to fit her purpose. I think
often teachers are unclear on how to
integrate them, they just don't know
what they could do or taking that step
that becomes part of the whole lesson
planning process. (SB1 consultant)
 The biggest problem we address is
staying with the teacher until they feel
comfortable with their technological
device of choice. Teachers are scared
of technology as much as they are
scared of the technology not working
in critical moments or they reach a
point they don't understand in front of
the class. and what we do is simply
leave out those fears (SB2 consultant)

9. [Example] Vignette 3.
Jane, a cycle-2 teacher, wants to do a collaborative project with Blabberize in
her class. She is not experienced enough to facilitate student group activities
with ICT. What issues/challenges should be considered as she designs and
implements her project?
The first thing she would want to do is to
talk to somebody who has already
done the project before, perhaps that
teacher or the Technology-Pedagogy
consultant in the board would come
in and model the lesson and look at
examples with the students…
It would be important to have her aware
of what the tools would be chosen for
the project, I think the process during
the project is also important.
Understanding that the technology is
a final step, having to do all of the
reading and writing with the students,
before they get the time in front of a
computer, that's a key with any
technology (SB1 consultant).
First I will tell her not to use Blabberize.
I love Web 2.0 but we have one big
problem with it that is
bandwidth......... Let’s look at
something even more simple, let’s
look at Moviemaker, which almost
can do everything Blabberize can do,
but you can have children create
media artifact of good quality and
perhaps better quality than
Blabberize because it is inside the
computer. So we are not going to
worry about bandwidth
there............... Let’s say they want to
create a CD of all their children’s
efforts, Blabberize is impossible while
with movie maker you’ll get a nice
CD (SB2 consultant).

10. Results: Highlighted features in two
SB Networks (1/2)
Depending on the vision and mission, infrastructure, and available
resources, however, the SBs have taken different approaches to
developing the PLNs.
 First, the members of the SB Leadership teams were different. SB1
Leadership team consisted of teachers who have had extensive
teaching experiences and were BCT lead teachers in Phase 2 while
SB2 Leadership team members came from different backgrounds
and experiences.
 In terms of the domain of practice, hence, for teachers' effective
integration of the ICT into classroom, SB1 emphasized more a
"pedagogy first, then technology" in relation to teachers’ classroom
practice while SB2 gave priority to the teacher's comfort level with
ICT (e.g., ICT hands-on session).

11. Results: Highlighted features in two
SB Networks (2/2)
 For the development of community, SB1 has encouraged the
teachers to interact and collaborate with others through mentoring
and modeling of classroom practice by the lead teachers, whereas
SB2 has tried to identify and train potential Go-To teachers for
facilitating collegial support.
 Each SB Network produced Resource Binders and distributed them
to participating BCT schools and teachers. The Resource Binder of
SB1 consisted of the working sheets related to Internet safety &
privacy activity, research & information literacy activity, and digital
citizenship activity while that of SB2 included tutorials of various ICT
tools. In addition, the BCT Network at large also developed an E-
booklet as a guidebook for effective ICT-supported learning that was
built through the iterative processes of "participation" and
"reification" (Wenger, 1998) of the practice.

12. Further issues for developing a
PLN
(1) Which knowledge should come first,
technology or pedagogy? Or is it rather that
they are mutually constituted in a dialectic
manner? If it is indeed the case, what are the
practical implications for the design of
learning activities in the PLNs?
(2) For facilitating online interaction, which one
should come first, either building trust and
social relationship or increasing teachers'
technical proficiency?
* Please scan the QR code to leave
your responses.

13. Conclusions (1/2)
Based on the findings from the BCT Network, some key considerations
for implementing a PLN for teacher professional development are
suggested along the following factors proposed by Zhao and Rop
(2001):
a) Technology. Infrastructure and technology issues (e.g., reliable
Internet access and IT support) should be dealt with at the school
board level. Teachers' technological proficiency is required but it
must be subsumed under pedagogical competency.
b) Motivation. The roles of lead teachers/Go-To teachers foster
enhanced levels of teacher leadership and teacher ownership of the
BCT Network. The lead teachers/Go-To teachers can represent the
teachers’ actual needs and expectations and reflect their practical
situations. The authentic participation and leadership and design of
the PLN are crucial.

14. Conclusions (2/2)
c) Project time frames. To ensure sustainability of the PLN, effective
ways of transferring ownership and accountability to the school
boards should be accomplished by maintaining intimate
relationships with the school board administrators and staffs and
applying available resources at the school board.
d) Time to participate. Time constraints are a major concern for
teachers to engage in a PLN. This issue is related to teacher
motivation. To encourage teachers' voluntary interaction and
engagement, a PLN needs to build collegial trust, create a safe,
respectful, and supportive group environment among members and
develop Group Guidelines in relation to their own participation
through group consensus.
e) Project goals. As a CoP for teachers, the shared visions and goals
among members are crucial. The teachers also need to set
individuals’ personal goals depending on their levels of competency
and commitment.

15.  Related Links
• BCTN website: http://
bctcollaboration.wikispaces.com/
 Contacts
• Gyeong Mi Heo (gyeongmi.heo@gmail.com)
CEFRIO, QC, Canada
• Alain Breuleux (alain.breuleux@mcgill.ca)
McGill University, QC, Canada
 Online Survey
• https://docs.google.com/forms/d/16zDMD1Hc9aQXhe2G-YEyI4HyRbbiam_HHxJA_rT0dSM/viewform