Characteristics of Leading Groups on a Professional Social Network

Smadar Bar-Tal*, Tami Seifert**
* Center for Innovation and Excellence in Teaching, Levinsky College, Israel.
** Kibbutzim College of Education, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Periodicity:July - September'2019


"Shluvim" is a professional social network (hereinafter: PSN) in Israel. It serves as a space for educational professionals to collaborate and share knowledge, empower their professional development and receive emotional support. The authors aimed to characterize the groups operating in this network and the role played by the groups' leaders over the first four years of its operation, investigating motives for the groups' creation and the extent of group activity and created a model for policymakers and members of PSNs. Qualitative-phenomenological and quantitative data gathered from 16 semi-structured interviews, and a focus group indicated different rates of participation in the groups, distinguishing open and closed groups and identifying motives for their creation. The findings indicate the importance of social networking groups for members' personal and professional development, the importance of the group managers' activity, and reasons for a group's success or failure. Group members' were informed on the recommendations for successful group management.


Groups, Teacher-training, Professional Social Network, Group Manager, SN Group Leader.

How to Cite this Article?

Bar-Tal, S., & Seifert, T. (2019). Characteristics of Leading Groups on a Professional Social Network. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2), 1-13.


[1]. Amin, A., & Roberts, J. (2008). Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice. Research Policy, 37(2), 353-369.
[2]. Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Connecticut, New Haven: Yale University Press.
[3]. Brown, R. E. (2001). The process of communitybuilding in distance learning classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 18-35. https://doi. org/10.24059/olj.v5i2.1876
[4]. Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating online learning: Effective strategies for moderators. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
[5]. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[6]. Dreyfus, H. & Dreyfus, S., (1986). Mind over machine. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Education.
[7]. Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M. & Anzul, M., (2001). On writing qualitative research: Living by words. London: Falmer Press.
[8]. Gairín-Sallán, J., Rodríguez-Gómez, D., & Armengol- Asparó, C. (2010). Who exactly is the moderator? A consideration of online knowledge management network moderation in educational organisations. Computers and Education, 55 (1), 304-312.
[9]. Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquir y in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. 1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
[10]. Gattiker, U. E. (2010). Why social networking groups fail. Retrieved from: networking-groups-fail/
[11]. Geertz, C., (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books Inc. Publishers.
[12]. Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance, 19(1), 20-35.
[13]. Greenhow, C., Robelia, E., & Hughes, J. (2009). Research on learning and teaching with Web 2.0: Bridging conversations. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 280-283.
[14]. Gruda, D., McCleskey, J., & Berrios, R. (2018). Seems fair to me: Dyadic leader consensus mediates fairness and group performance. Small Group Research, 49(2), 195-225.
[15]. Hemmasi, M., & Csanda, C.M. (2009). The effectiveness of communities of practice: An empirical study. Journal of Managerial Issues. 21(2), 262-279.
[16]. Honeychurch, S., Bozkurt, A., Singh, L., & Koutropoulos, A. (2017). Learners on the periphery: Lurkers as invisible learners. European Journal of Open Distance and E- learning, 20(1),191-211. eurodl-2017-0012
[17]. Horrigan, J. B., & Rainie, L. (2001). Online communities: Networks that nurture long-distance relationships and local ties. Pew Internet and American Life Project.
[18]. Iriberri A., & Leroy, G. (2009). A life-cycle perspective on online community success. ACM Computing Surveys CSUR, 41(2), 11. 1459356
[19]. John, N. A. (2012). Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword. New Media and Society.15(2), 167-182.
[20]. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
[21]. Keeves, J.P. (1988). Educational inspect methodology, as good as measurement: An international handbook. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
[22]. Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the web: Secret strategies for successful online communities. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
[23]. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[24]. Lev-On, A., & Hardin, R. (2008). Internet-based collaborations and their political significance. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 4(2), 5-27.
[25]. Lin, F. R., & Huang, H. Y. (2013). Why people share knowledge in virtual communities? The use of Yahoo! Kimo Knowledge+ as an example. Internet Research, 23(2), 133-159. 11313295
[26]. Luan, K., Rico, R., Xie, X. Y., & Zhang, Q. (2016). Collective team identification and external learning. Small Group Research, 47(4), 384-405. 10.1177/1046496416653664
[27]. Mazman, S. G. & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers and Education, 55(2), 444-453. compedu.2010.02.008
[28]. McDermott, R. (1999). Nurturing three-dimensional communities of practice. Knowledge Management Review, 26-29.
[29]. Rennie, F., & Morrison, T. (2012). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
[30]. Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1).
[31]. Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page
[32]. Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London: Kogan Page.
[33]. Sayan, H. (2016). Affecting higher students' learning activity by using Whatsapp. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences, 4(3), 88-93.
[34]. Seidman, I. E., (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College Press.
[35]. Shluvim (n.d.). The professional-social network of the MofeT Institute. Retrieved from http://shluvim.macam. [Hebrew]
[36]. Shoop, M. C. (2009). Public service employees experience in communities of practice (Doctoral dissertation) Antioch University, Ohio.
[37]. Tirado-Morueta, R., Maraver-López, P., & Hernando- Gómez, Á. (2017). Patterns of participation and social connections in online discussion forums. Small Group Research, 48(6), 639-664. 1046496417710726
[38]. Weller, M. (2007). The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning. Computers & Education, 49(2), 148-159. 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.015
[39]. Wisker, G., (2008). The postgraduate research handbook. Palgrave Study Guides (2nd Ed.). Basingstoke: palgrave.
[40]. Yin, R. K., (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). London: Sage Publishers.

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article
Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.