What is learning?
As I read the information for this week and thought about what we have covered so far in this class and what I know from other classes I put the information together in a new way for me. I think that learning occurs when a person can understand, use, or do something they couldn’t before. In educational terms it might be said that learning is a change in cognitive state. It is important to note that this is a process that occurs within the learner, although it is driven by events or stimuli that are external to the learner. Learning objectives express a desired final outcome. The purpose of assessment is to see if this outcome has been attained. One way to think about this is that there is an initial state and a final (goal) state. The initial state is the starting point and the final state occurs when you can understand, use, or do something you couldn’t at the initial state. Summative assessment looks at the final state but it does not address what occurs between the initial and final states. Formative assessment looks at the progress toward the final state. In my cognition class, I learned that problem solving is described as searching a problem space, which consists of an initial and a goal state. The goal state (problem solution) is reached when a path is found between these two states. The more direct the path between one state and the other, the more expertise is acquired. It occurred to me that there is a striking similarity between this and the definition I came up with for learning. What this says to me is that learning and problem solving are basically the same thing. Learning is a constant process of problem solving by searching for a path to some desired goal state. That means that if the only thing you assess is the final (goal) state, you are discounting a series of cognitive gains. Even if the goal state is not reached, progress may have been made and, more importantly, learning has most likely occurred. This is why formative assessment is critical and why judging learning in schools by summative achievement tests is so seriously flawed. The implication for online learning is that assessing learning requires more than the instructor throwing the information out on the web for the students to gather up. There must be a careful and ongoing analysis of the progress the student is making toward the final outcome. This analysis determines the amount of scaffolding that is needed to allow the students to carve a path toward the final desired outcome, keeping in mind that the path is not always the same for every learner.
What does quality mean in online learning?
Given the definition of learning I have described, I would say that quality online learning involves more than just the achievement of learning objectives, although learning objectives are very important in structuring a learning program. Quality instruction is grounded in quality design. This means that the instruction should meet learner needs, consider the learning context, match appropriate cognitive strategies with specific outcomes, and assess learning based on these specific outcomes. If these conditions are met, it can be said that quality instruction is taking place. An additional quality consideration for online learning is the delivery system. The system should ensure accessibility, confidential and accurate record keeping, and provide appropriate resources and opportunities for interaction. All of these attributes should be considered as part of the quality assurance process of online learning.
Conceptual Framework for Evaluation Online Learning Quality
I think that the three presences described in Chapter 11 of Anderson and Elloumi (2004) make an ideal framework for the evaluation of online learning quality. The cognitive presence addresses the need to ensure that the context and instructional practices support and reflect learning theory. The social presence addresses the need for support and collaboration that is required according to social learning theory. The teaching presence places focus on the implementation of sound instructional practice and subject matter expertise. If the evaluation of online learning is viewed through this lens, it seems to me that all aspects of quality instruction will be considered. The structure might look something like this:
Cognitive
Objectives and outcomes are aligned
Delivery method matches outcomes
Ongoing formative assessment is part of the design
Content and process are integrated
Learning context is considered in instructional delivery
Appropriate scaffolding is provided
Social
Student needs are met with regard to learning environment
Opportunities for collaboration and communication are accessible
Discourse is encouraged and supported
Feedback opportunities are provided
Teaching
Instructor has adequate content knowledge
Opportunities for peer instruction are available
Strategies are implemented to encourage discourse and active learning
A collaborative environment is established in which learning is the norm
Friday, April 20, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Blog 5
The Relationship Between Instructional Design, Learning Theory, and Technology As I See It: My Personal Synthesis of this Week’s Readings
Instructional design is all about front-end analysis. Before you can design any kind of instructional program you have to analyze needs, the goals, the learners, the learning context, and the learning task in order to make informed decisions about the delivery of instruction. The art of instructional design is taking all of these pieces of information and fitting them together like a puzzle to come up with the optimal way to maximize learning. The tools that allow us to fit these pieces together are technology and learning theory. In this case, I use the term technology in the broadest sense. Technology is any device that supports learning. This ranges from a pencil, to a blackboard, to streaming audio, to discussion boards, to wireless handhelds, to the internet itself. There are myriad technologies with numerous levels of sophistication and usability. Each tool has different capabilities and can be used in different ways and in different situations. Learning theories are ways to describe how people learn and even what learning actually is. There are a number of different learning theories from behavioral, to cognitive, to positivist, to constructivist. In the past, experts have argued that each of these different theories was the sole explanation for how people learn. Emerging conventional wisdom suggests that all of these learning theories play a part in the overall picture and that each has something to contribute in the way of design elements for instruction (Anderson & Elloumi, 2004). When viewed through this structure, there is really no difference between face-to-face and online learning other than the tools. Analysis is still essential, and the tools selected must match the needs and goals of the learning task. The learning theory informs the tool selection as it applies to learner needs and desired outcomes.
This is essentially how I understood the reading from this week. The conclusion reached in the reading was that it is not the technology (delivery method) that determines the effectiveness of learning but, rather, how the learning is designed and implemented. What this says to me is that the available tools should be matched with corresponding learning theories that address the learning needs and goals of the instructional plan. This is true regardless of where instruction is delivered. In the online context, the available tools are different than they are in the onsite context. By making informed selections of tools and strategies based on the front-end analysis for an instructional plan, quality learning can be achieved. Compromises, trade-off, and adjustments need to be negotiated based on context and available technology. This means that sometimes online learning may not be a possible method of delivery and sometimes on site learning may not be a possible method of delivery, but usually it will just look different because of available technology. If learning theory and learner needs are considered in the plan, successful learning outcomes can be achieved in either context.
I am a big fan of the four contexts described by Bransford et al (1999) as a good way to encompass all types of learning theory into a plausible explanation for how people learn. Anderson (2004) calls the first context learning centered instead of learner centered. I like this perspective and the idea that every stakeholder in the learning process should be considered. This context encompasses the cognitive structures that the learner brings into the process and addresses the ways in which the instructor and the learner can utilize these to maximize learning. The knowledge centered context acknowledges the positivist view that knowledge structures or disciplines provide a framework or heuristic within which learning must take place. The assessment centered context recognizes the value of formative assessment as part of the learning process in which learners create meaning for themselves and the importance of scaffolding and monitoring on the part of the instructor in guiding the learning progress from both a constructivist and cognitive view of learning. The community centered context considers the role that social interaction plays in the mediation and construction of learning. These four perspectives provide a way of integrating the design of instruction with learning theory in a way that provides guidance for the selection of appropriate technology. It unifies the process. The concept map below illustrates my thought process on this concept. Thanks to John for helping me figure out how to get it uploaded. It's a little fuzzy but you get the idea.
Instructional design is all about front-end analysis. Before you can design any kind of instructional program you have to analyze needs, the goals, the learners, the learning context, and the learning task in order to make informed decisions about the delivery of instruction. The art of instructional design is taking all of these pieces of information and fitting them together like a puzzle to come up with the optimal way to maximize learning. The tools that allow us to fit these pieces together are technology and learning theory. In this case, I use the term technology in the broadest sense. Technology is any device that supports learning. This ranges from a pencil, to a blackboard, to streaming audio, to discussion boards, to wireless handhelds, to the internet itself. There are myriad technologies with numerous levels of sophistication and usability. Each tool has different capabilities and can be used in different ways and in different situations. Learning theories are ways to describe how people learn and even what learning actually is. There are a number of different learning theories from behavioral, to cognitive, to positivist, to constructivist. In the past, experts have argued that each of these different theories was the sole explanation for how people learn. Emerging conventional wisdom suggests that all of these learning theories play a part in the overall picture and that each has something to contribute in the way of design elements for instruction (Anderson & Elloumi, 2004). When viewed through this structure, there is really no difference between face-to-face and online learning other than the tools. Analysis is still essential, and the tools selected must match the needs and goals of the learning task. The learning theory informs the tool selection as it applies to learner needs and desired outcomes.
This is essentially how I understood the reading from this week. The conclusion reached in the reading was that it is not the technology (delivery method) that determines the effectiveness of learning but, rather, how the learning is designed and implemented. What this says to me is that the available tools should be matched with corresponding learning theories that address the learning needs and goals of the instructional plan. This is true regardless of where instruction is delivered. In the online context, the available tools are different than they are in the onsite context. By making informed selections of tools and strategies based on the front-end analysis for an instructional plan, quality learning can be achieved. Compromises, trade-off, and adjustments need to be negotiated based on context and available technology. This means that sometimes online learning may not be a possible method of delivery and sometimes on site learning may not be a possible method of delivery, but usually it will just look different because of available technology. If learning theory and learner needs are considered in the plan, successful learning outcomes can be achieved in either context.
I am a big fan of the four contexts described by Bransford et al (1999) as a good way to encompass all types of learning theory into a plausible explanation for how people learn. Anderson (2004) calls the first context learning centered instead of learner centered. I like this perspective and the idea that every stakeholder in the learning process should be considered. This context encompasses the cognitive structures that the learner brings into the process and addresses the ways in which the instructor and the learner can utilize these to maximize learning. The knowledge centered context acknowledges the positivist view that knowledge structures or disciplines provide a framework or heuristic within which learning must take place. The assessment centered context recognizes the value of formative assessment as part of the learning process in which learners create meaning for themselves and the importance of scaffolding and monitoring on the part of the instructor in guiding the learning progress from both a constructivist and cognitive view of learning. The community centered context considers the role that social interaction plays in the mediation and construction of learning. These four perspectives provide a way of integrating the design of instruction with learning theory in a way that provides guidance for the selection of appropriate technology. It unifies the process. The concept map below illustrates my thought process on this concept. Thanks to John for helping me figure out how to get it uploaded. It's a little fuzzy but you get the idea.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Blog 4
From Last Week’s Discussion
During the discussion last week, our group had a lively exchange about the value of narrative in online learning, but I left the discussion feeling like we might have missed something. So I decided to go back and read the chapter more carefully. We definitely nailed the concept that narrative or storytelling makes learning more powerful or personal. There were a lot of great ideas and rationales brought forth for the use of storytelling. What seemed to be missing was the connection between narrative and design.
As I reread the text, I decided what we missed in our analysis was the association between narrative and context. In the constructivist view, context and learning are intertwined. The book points out that stories are a simple way to make context “portable.” This analogy gave me a grasp on the purpose of narrative in the design process. Instead of the designer creating the learning context, storytelling is a way to put control of context into the hands of the learners, which is where it should actually be. It occurs to me that an online setting is actually an ideal place for utilizing this design tool as a way to enrich the learning context. In a virtual environment there are no physical constraints on perception. The “weaving together of words” creates the context for the learning environment and can be interpreted individually by each learner in the way that allows them to construct and negotiate meaning in a personal way. The role of the designer is to set up opportunities for the use of narrative in the learning environment as a way to enhance contextual learning. Additionally, the instructor should be encouraged to model, encourage, and respond positively to storytelling so that the learners feel comfortable immersing themselves in this learning method.
The summary at the end of the chapter did a great job of listing some concrete design tools for creating narrative contexts. They used the framework of community, practice, and domain and gave examples of ways to utilize narrative to draw out each of these areas of a learning community model. For example, telling stories of how a learning event is related to some external community context can act as scaffolding for learners to consider possible future identities they might take on in which current learning concepts might be utilized. Another example is utilizing individual interpretations of a “reading” to show different levels at which an idea can be explain which, in turn, allows the group to negotiate collective meaning.
Our discussion prompted me to go back to the reading and delve more deeply in to this design element. I am really glad that I did because I now have a little better understanding of the relationship between design and context. I guess you could say that telling each other stories about telling stories allowed me to negotiate meaning in the area of context management.
What I Have Learned
I began this class with the notion that the internet should be an ideal place to allow learners to transcend the limitations of the classroom and develop authentic contexts for learning but I had absolutely no idea how that might be accomplished. Most of my experience with online learning to this point has been less than impressive and basically no different than a traditional classroom except that you don’t actually see your classmates. Using this paradigm I was unable to develop a vision for authentic learning in an online environment.
Learning about the creation of virtual communities through online tools and constructivist designs has given me a new outlook on this genre of instruction. I am now able to see the advantages and disadvantages of virtual learning and I am beginning to think about this as part of the instructional decision-making process. Tools such as blogging, synchronous and asynchronous discussions, and social networking websites can be used in the creation of virtual communities of learning and are part of the designer’s arsenal in planning instruction that meshes with the front-end analysis in the design process. I am beginning to get a feel for what learning objectives can and cannot successfully be realized in an on-line environment. As it turns out, I see many more ways to utilize this delivery system than I originally thought.
The information we have learned about the management of context has been particularly valuable to me. As I attempt to design my project I will keep the importance of context at the forefront of my plan. I want my learners to meaningfully interact with one another and I see how this is pivotal in the design of effective learning environments. I am anxious to begin exploring ways that I can make this happen as I attempt to structure my project to meet the learning goals I have chosen.
I have especially enjoyed the opportunity to experience a wide variety of online methods and tools as a learner. Immersing myself in these experiences has given me a better understanding of their potential use. The class models the principals that we are learning. Experiencing this content matter in the context of a student has enriched my experience and will hopefully allow me to have a better grasp on the design process as I move forward into my project in my identity as a designer.
During the discussion last week, our group had a lively exchange about the value of narrative in online learning, but I left the discussion feeling like we might have missed something. So I decided to go back and read the chapter more carefully. We definitely nailed the concept that narrative or storytelling makes learning more powerful or personal. There were a lot of great ideas and rationales brought forth for the use of storytelling. What seemed to be missing was the connection between narrative and design.
As I reread the text, I decided what we missed in our analysis was the association between narrative and context. In the constructivist view, context and learning are intertwined. The book points out that stories are a simple way to make context “portable.” This analogy gave me a grasp on the purpose of narrative in the design process. Instead of the designer creating the learning context, storytelling is a way to put control of context into the hands of the learners, which is where it should actually be. It occurs to me that an online setting is actually an ideal place for utilizing this design tool as a way to enrich the learning context. In a virtual environment there are no physical constraints on perception. The “weaving together of words” creates the context for the learning environment and can be interpreted individually by each learner in the way that allows them to construct and negotiate meaning in a personal way. The role of the designer is to set up opportunities for the use of narrative in the learning environment as a way to enhance contextual learning. Additionally, the instructor should be encouraged to model, encourage, and respond positively to storytelling so that the learners feel comfortable immersing themselves in this learning method.
The summary at the end of the chapter did a great job of listing some concrete design tools for creating narrative contexts. They used the framework of community, practice, and domain and gave examples of ways to utilize narrative to draw out each of these areas of a learning community model. For example, telling stories of how a learning event is related to some external community context can act as scaffolding for learners to consider possible future identities they might take on in which current learning concepts might be utilized. Another example is utilizing individual interpretations of a “reading” to show different levels at which an idea can be explain which, in turn, allows the group to negotiate collective meaning.
Our discussion prompted me to go back to the reading and delve more deeply in to this design element. I am really glad that I did because I now have a little better understanding of the relationship between design and context. I guess you could say that telling each other stories about telling stories allowed me to negotiate meaning in the area of context management.
What I Have Learned
I began this class with the notion that the internet should be an ideal place to allow learners to transcend the limitations of the classroom and develop authentic contexts for learning but I had absolutely no idea how that might be accomplished. Most of my experience with online learning to this point has been less than impressive and basically no different than a traditional classroom except that you don’t actually see your classmates. Using this paradigm I was unable to develop a vision for authentic learning in an online environment.
Learning about the creation of virtual communities through online tools and constructivist designs has given me a new outlook on this genre of instruction. I am now able to see the advantages and disadvantages of virtual learning and I am beginning to think about this as part of the instructional decision-making process. Tools such as blogging, synchronous and asynchronous discussions, and social networking websites can be used in the creation of virtual communities of learning and are part of the designer’s arsenal in planning instruction that meshes with the front-end analysis in the design process. I am beginning to get a feel for what learning objectives can and cannot successfully be realized in an on-line environment. As it turns out, I see many more ways to utilize this delivery system than I originally thought.
The information we have learned about the management of context has been particularly valuable to me. As I attempt to design my project I will keep the importance of context at the forefront of my plan. I want my learners to meaningfully interact with one another and I see how this is pivotal in the design of effective learning environments. I am anxious to begin exploring ways that I can make this happen as I attempt to structure my project to meet the learning goals I have chosen.
I have especially enjoyed the opportunity to experience a wide variety of online methods and tools as a learner. Immersing myself in these experiences has given me a better understanding of their potential use. The class models the principals that we are learning. Experiencing this content matter in the context of a student has enriched my experience and will hopefully allow me to have a better grasp on the design process as I move forward into my project in my identity as a designer.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Blog 3
Since my area of study is instructional design, I decided to focus on chapters 9 and 10 in the assigned text for this week. My goal was to make a connection between the two chapters in order to synthesize what I read in some meaningful way. In past reading I have done (including these chapters), constructivism and the internet are often talked about together. This has always puzzled me a little bit because I don’t see an overt connection between the two. In my mind, the internet is not necessary for constructivist designs. It seems to me that constraining the two elements together flies in the face of the concept of context as the driving force in knowledge construction. It makes it sound as though the internet is the preferred way to manipulate context. As I struggled with trying to solve this perceived inconsistency, I decided to frame my discussion prompt for this blog from that perspective.
What is the connection between the internet and constructivist learning that causes many experts to link the two together?
After I read and digested chapters 9 and 10, I found a common link that gave me some insight into this question.
Activity theory links consciousness and activity by working through four basic assumptions. The first is that consciousness and activity are interdependent. The second is that all actions or behaviors are intentional (directed at some goal). The third is that higher cognitive functioning within a system of activity is mediated by tools (technical and mental). The last is that activities evolve over time within a culture. Using these underlying assumptions, the theory proposes the central unit of analysis to be the activity (or activity system). This system has four components; subjects, objects, actions, and operations. The subjects are the people participating in the activity. The objects are the intentions of the activity (goals or objectives). The actions are goal-directed activities that are carried out in order to achieve the objective. The operations are plans and procedures that relate to how the actions are carried out. In this model the subjects transform the objects (construct learning) using tools such as computers, techniques, or theories. Community is related to the subjects that play a role in the transformation of the object and is defined by the rules, norms, and leadership structure by which the task is divided among group members. This process is dynamic and is unique to each community. Using the constructivist paradigm, the context is the whole activity system and it defines the learning process.
In describing e-learning communities, chapter 10 refers to Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) who propose a five stage model of community evolution which resembles the forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of team development discussed in chapter 6. At each stage, Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) identify a pattern to community evolution and note that “the pattern is influenced by a dynamic balance of people, process, and technology elements.” They refer to the people as users of technology, the process as the support structures used to create a common experience, and the technology as the tools which promote the community formation process. When I read this section, the obvious connection to activity theory jumped out at me. It is an ideal fit.
What this says to me is that e-learning community formation is a good fit for the constructivist model for contextual learning. This doesn’t mean that on-line learning is the only way that activity theory can be utilized; it just says that e-learning is a good fit for constructivist learning. The tools of e-learning (blogs, synchronous and asynchronous discussions, webquests, etc.) can be used to carry out the operations and actions that allow the subjects in a learning community to negotiate or achieve learning objectives. Activity theory adds another dimension to the process of e-learning community formation. To me it suggests that mental tools and operations such as theories, cognitive processing, and concept mapping should be incorporated into each learning system in order to fully utilize the learning context. From a designer’s point of view, it seems to me that this is the factor that is often missing from e-learning environments. The tools are only a means through which we apply the elements of design.
Looking at the process of creating context in this way has helped me to get a better handle on the “fuzzy” nature of constructivist learning design. In my quest for a method for structuring inquiry learning environments, this gives me some concrete tools to use in integrating the nature of inquiry into lesson construction in the classroom.
What is the connection between the internet and constructivist learning that causes many experts to link the two together?
After I read and digested chapters 9 and 10, I found a common link that gave me some insight into this question.
Activity theory links consciousness and activity by working through four basic assumptions. The first is that consciousness and activity are interdependent. The second is that all actions or behaviors are intentional (directed at some goal). The third is that higher cognitive functioning within a system of activity is mediated by tools (technical and mental). The last is that activities evolve over time within a culture. Using these underlying assumptions, the theory proposes the central unit of analysis to be the activity (or activity system). This system has four components; subjects, objects, actions, and operations. The subjects are the people participating in the activity. The objects are the intentions of the activity (goals or objectives). The actions are goal-directed activities that are carried out in order to achieve the objective. The operations are plans and procedures that relate to how the actions are carried out. In this model the subjects transform the objects (construct learning) using tools such as computers, techniques, or theories. Community is related to the subjects that play a role in the transformation of the object and is defined by the rules, norms, and leadership structure by which the task is divided among group members. This process is dynamic and is unique to each community. Using the constructivist paradigm, the context is the whole activity system and it defines the learning process.
In describing e-learning communities, chapter 10 refers to Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) who propose a five stage model of community evolution which resembles the forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of team development discussed in chapter 6. At each stage, Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) identify a pattern to community evolution and note that “the pattern is influenced by a dynamic balance of people, process, and technology elements.” They refer to the people as users of technology, the process as the support structures used to create a common experience, and the technology as the tools which promote the community formation process. When I read this section, the obvious connection to activity theory jumped out at me. It is an ideal fit.
What this says to me is that e-learning community formation is a good fit for the constructivist model for contextual learning. This doesn’t mean that on-line learning is the only way that activity theory can be utilized; it just says that e-learning is a good fit for constructivist learning. The tools of e-learning (blogs, synchronous and asynchronous discussions, webquests, etc.) can be used to carry out the operations and actions that allow the subjects in a learning community to negotiate or achieve learning objectives. Activity theory adds another dimension to the process of e-learning community formation. To me it suggests that mental tools and operations such as theories, cognitive processing, and concept mapping should be incorporated into each learning system in order to fully utilize the learning context. From a designer’s point of view, it seems to me that this is the factor that is often missing from e-learning environments. The tools are only a means through which we apply the elements of design.
Looking at the process of creating context in this way has helped me to get a better handle on the “fuzzy” nature of constructivist learning design. In my quest for a method for structuring inquiry learning environments, this gives me some concrete tools to use in integrating the nature of inquiry into lesson construction in the classroom.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Blog 2 - Learning community dynamics and structure
I read Chapter 9 in Renninger and Shumar. I found the idea of collective expertise discussed in the chapter extremely thought-provoking. It seems to me that the sharing of ideas and opinions in a particular area of expertise by so-called non-experts is similar to what used to take place among neighbors and social groups in the community or family. I don't see it as an attempt to ignore expert opinion so much as it is a process of looking critically at existing information and standards. When used wisely and thoughtfully, this type of discourse can expand the knowledge base and push the envelope in current thinking and study. This is a way for the "common man" to influence current technology in fields such as medicine, engineering, and social science. If experts are questioned collectively it forces them to defend the quality of the information they are disseminating and it allows the lay public to provide input into scientific work. This type of discourse can be a type of public forum as in the case of the MMR debate described in the chapter. It also allows people to share personal expertise in areas that are unpublished and/or unstudied.
Having declared the virtues of this type of discourse, it is also necessary to point out the inherent danger in this type of community development. Misinformation can be perpetuated and legitimate scientific knowledge could be circumvented in a case where a large amount of public ignorance or bias is introduced into a discussion. It seems to me that this could be particularly true in areas where moral and political values can be easily integrated into the discussion. It occurred to me that this is all part of what we see as the democratic process. In a democracy, ideas are exchanged and encouraged and the collective public is a force in shaping the community. In this type of open system there is a trade-off. In this case the trade-off is the danger that the majority opinion could be influenced by factors not based on empirical evidence due to moral or political bias. This is not unlike the struggle that we face as a democratic society.
A connection can be made between the self-help communities discussed in Chapter 9 and the life cycle of a learning community discussed in Chapter 10. Part of the success of the perpetuation of a learning community lies in what the book describes as essential elements of mediation. This is also mentioned as an element of the projects described in many chapters of the book such as the Zero-g Project in Chapter 10. In the case of the self-help groups described in Chapter 9, I see the mediation element as the experts in the field. They keep such discussions grounded in reality and fact while still encouraging the kind of valuable discourse and information exchange that promotes forward movement. Without this mediation element a group can get mired in an emotional or moral quagmire that is not conducive to accuracy or progress. The same thing can be said about virtual learning communities in general. The element of mediation is critical to the vibrancy and value of a learning community. It should not dominate the structure of the community but rather guide and stabilize the learning process. Mediation should be interactive and fluid. The mediator or mediation element should be open to change and new learning as much as the community members are. In synthesizing all of the material I read, this is the main idea I drew from my study. I see this as the key element in the success and perpetuation of a virtual learning community.
I see the wired self-help group as a task-based learning community in the terminology of Riel and Polin. This puts it at the ‘lower end’ of the learning community continuum. In a way this is a good thing. This community is at the level of knowledge sharing or identifying a common problem and possible solutions. As long as users see this for what it is, misinformation can be dealt with and expected. It seems to me that the thing to do is take this type of community to another level where information can be truly internalized and placed into a common body of knowledge. It may be that the community itself does not evolve because it has completed its life cycle but that it informs the practice and sharing in communities at the practice-based and knowledge-based end of the continuum. This is what I think Riel and Polin are talking about when they refer to these different types of communities within the same system such as a school or a medical community as a culture of systems. As long as members within the system all have access to the same information and the freedom to participate in the various levels within the system, this is an powerful way to promote learning and increase knowledge within the larger group. Everybody participates at their own level of comfort and expertise and everybody benefits.
Having declared the virtues of this type of discourse, it is also necessary to point out the inherent danger in this type of community development. Misinformation can be perpetuated and legitimate scientific knowledge could be circumvented in a case where a large amount of public ignorance or bias is introduced into a discussion. It seems to me that this could be particularly true in areas where moral and political values can be easily integrated into the discussion. It occurred to me that this is all part of what we see as the democratic process. In a democracy, ideas are exchanged and encouraged and the collective public is a force in shaping the community. In this type of open system there is a trade-off. In this case the trade-off is the danger that the majority opinion could be influenced by factors not based on empirical evidence due to moral or political bias. This is not unlike the struggle that we face as a democratic society.
A connection can be made between the self-help communities discussed in Chapter 9 and the life cycle of a learning community discussed in Chapter 10. Part of the success of the perpetuation of a learning community lies in what the book describes as essential elements of mediation. This is also mentioned as an element of the projects described in many chapters of the book such as the Zero-g Project in Chapter 10. In the case of the self-help groups described in Chapter 9, I see the mediation element as the experts in the field. They keep such discussions grounded in reality and fact while still encouraging the kind of valuable discourse and information exchange that promotes forward movement. Without this mediation element a group can get mired in an emotional or moral quagmire that is not conducive to accuracy or progress. The same thing can be said about virtual learning communities in general. The element of mediation is critical to the vibrancy and value of a learning community. It should not dominate the structure of the community but rather guide and stabilize the learning process. Mediation should be interactive and fluid. The mediator or mediation element should be open to change and new learning as much as the community members are. In synthesizing all of the material I read, this is the main idea I drew from my study. I see this as the key element in the success and perpetuation of a virtual learning community.
I see the wired self-help group as a task-based learning community in the terminology of Riel and Polin. This puts it at the ‘lower end’ of the learning community continuum. In a way this is a good thing. This community is at the level of knowledge sharing or identifying a common problem and possible solutions. As long as users see this for what it is, misinformation can be dealt with and expected. It seems to me that the thing to do is take this type of community to another level where information can be truly internalized and placed into a common body of knowledge. It may be that the community itself does not evolve because it has completed its life cycle but that it informs the practice and sharing in communities at the practice-based and knowledge-based end of the continuum. This is what I think Riel and Polin are talking about when they refer to these different types of communities within the same system such as a school or a medical community as a culture of systems. As long as members within the system all have access to the same information and the freedom to participate in the various levels within the system, this is an powerful way to promote learning and increase knowledge within the larger group. Everybody participates at their own level of comfort and expertise and everybody benefits.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Blog 1 - Virtual Communities
Reflections on Readings about virtual communities for EIPT 6423:
A community as defined by Bruckman and Jensen is a group of people interacting with one another in some fashion. This loose definition gives rise to many interpretations and generalizations about various collections of people that can be considered to be a community. Anything from the gang at a local coffee shop, to a WeightWatchers group, to a school faculty, to a church congregation can be seen as a community. The common thread in these groups is the interaction among the members within each group. Renninger and Shumar feel that, in addition to the interaction element, a community is characterized by its ability to engender feelings of belonging and purpose in its members. This extra facet, when added to the basic definition of community, allows for a more explicit representation of a community. In order to be a community a group of people not only must interact with one another, they must also feel as though they are getting some overt benefit from this interaction. With this definition in mind, it follows that an on-line or virtual community is a group of people who interact in an on-line environment for some sort of mutual advantage or purpose. These people return to this environment because they benefit from it in some way, either by gaining information of value to them, by acquiring a sense of membership, or both.
In this week’s reading we saw two examples of virtual communities. MediaMOO is a virtual reality environment designed for media researchers to share ideas and network with one another. The Math Forum is an on-line group that is dedicated to utilizing computers and the Internet to enhance mathematics learning and teaching. Both of these on-line environments fit the definition of a community and have experienced varying degrees of participation, one of the indicators of the “success” of an on-line community. MediaMOO became a large community and then its membership dropped dramatically. A number of factors led to this decline, most of which are related to the nature of the context in which the community exists. Technical and historical factors contributed to the loss of participation. These factors are unique to the Internet and constitute a specific issue related to communities using the Web. Another factor that was cited was the splintering of subgroups from the MediaMOO community. This is also an issue related to the Internet and virtual communities. These communities are not geographical and the members are not forced to belong by mere location. The members of these communities can choose to come and go from the environment and are not constrained by locality. This is why the element of benefit or belonging is so important in a virtual community. This is what holds on-line communities together. There is nothing keeping members coming back except for a sense of need or belonging. It is this factor that makes on-line communities both powerful and fragile. In the case of MediaMOO, the community became very large and broke away because there was no place for smaller groups with common interests and relationships to thrive. The Math Forum community, however, is alive and healthy because they have so far addressed these issues. That is not to say that the success of this community is assured. Without constant vigilance and flexibility with regard to the needs of the community members this thriving community could also disappear as technology advances and people’s needs change.
The very nature of the Internet makes for a different kind of community. Members can be anonymous if they so choose and can come and go as they wish with very little personal consequence. Members can come together from all walks of life and many different cultural and geographic backgrounds. This has the potential of making the community experience more powerful. Members can interact without the constraints of a formal face-to-face relationship and can feel free to voice their true opinions and share information with less fear of repercussion or judgment. This type of potential can also translate into a powerful learning experience. By the same token, the anonymity and distance factors can also give rise to some problems. Misinformation can be shared or participants may use the opportunity to express socially inappropriate opinions or feelings. While this type of community may be empowering and freeing to some, to others it might be threatening or intimidating if personal contact is a need for certain individuals. Like real communities, virtual communities are constrained by the knowledge, character, learning styles, and communication types of the members; the boundaries are just a little broader. Just as a real learning experience should be carefully monitored and examined, so should virtual learning experiences. The sense of belonging engendered by certain situations has the potential to be very powerful or very dangerous. A highly collaborative and meaningful experience within a virtual community is very authentic and can be very compelling to the learner. A large, influential community has the power to increase or change the way people think. Peer pressure is alive and well on the Internet.
Research shows that learning is mediated by the social environment in which it occurs. This means that knowledge can be constructed by communities of learning, virtual or real. In the virtual community the power of the Internet and the availability of a diverse population in which interaction can occur make the virtual community and on-line collaboration an ideal place to experience inquiry learning. Through this type of experience, learners construct their own knowledge as they seek to find answers to authentic problems utilizing print and human resources available through the “magic” of the Internet. Keeping in mind the limitations and constraints of this medium, virtual communities would seem to be a very credible place for learners to construct their own knowledge and have the potential to be an effective learning and teaching tool.
Even though I find the idea of Time magazine choosing everybody as the Person of the Year a little bit of a departure from the expected, it is an interesting concept. Their point is that we now have the ability to create communities of learning and collaboration that have never been possible before because of the Internet. We can tap into a wide diversity of information and individuals to expand our knowledge and make the world a “smaller” place. Everybody has the opportunity to share a bit of their expertise and benefit from the expertise of others. The latest opportunity for sharing is the YouTube craze. This web-site allows people from anywhere in the world to share and critique videos of all kinds, not just professionally made ones. I had never been to YouTube before but I logged on after reading the article. The number of videos out there is mind-boggling and I was not particularly interested in most of them. I noticed that you have to “subscribe” to these videos and that there seem to be some “cult classics” on the menu. I also noticed that people comment and share about these videos and they seem to know each other. This is truly a virtual community. I could not figure out which videos to view or even how to do it because the whole subscription thing made me feel like I was moving in on territory that was not mine. The process was a bit confusing. Suddenly, I got that feeling like I was in junior high again and all the “cool kids” were shunning me because I wasn’t an insider. Hmmm… Maybe virtual communities and real communities aren’t so very different.
A community as defined by Bruckman and Jensen is a group of people interacting with one another in some fashion. This loose definition gives rise to many interpretations and generalizations about various collections of people that can be considered to be a community. Anything from the gang at a local coffee shop, to a WeightWatchers group, to a school faculty, to a church congregation can be seen as a community. The common thread in these groups is the interaction among the members within each group. Renninger and Shumar feel that, in addition to the interaction element, a community is characterized by its ability to engender feelings of belonging and purpose in its members. This extra facet, when added to the basic definition of community, allows for a more explicit representation of a community. In order to be a community a group of people not only must interact with one another, they must also feel as though they are getting some overt benefit from this interaction. With this definition in mind, it follows that an on-line or virtual community is a group of people who interact in an on-line environment for some sort of mutual advantage or purpose. These people return to this environment because they benefit from it in some way, either by gaining information of value to them, by acquiring a sense of membership, or both.
In this week’s reading we saw two examples of virtual communities. MediaMOO is a virtual reality environment designed for media researchers to share ideas and network with one another. The Math Forum is an on-line group that is dedicated to utilizing computers and the Internet to enhance mathematics learning and teaching. Both of these on-line environments fit the definition of a community and have experienced varying degrees of participation, one of the indicators of the “success” of an on-line community. MediaMOO became a large community and then its membership dropped dramatically. A number of factors led to this decline, most of which are related to the nature of the context in which the community exists. Technical and historical factors contributed to the loss of participation. These factors are unique to the Internet and constitute a specific issue related to communities using the Web. Another factor that was cited was the splintering of subgroups from the MediaMOO community. This is also an issue related to the Internet and virtual communities. These communities are not geographical and the members are not forced to belong by mere location. The members of these communities can choose to come and go from the environment and are not constrained by locality. This is why the element of benefit or belonging is so important in a virtual community. This is what holds on-line communities together. There is nothing keeping members coming back except for a sense of need or belonging. It is this factor that makes on-line communities both powerful and fragile. In the case of MediaMOO, the community became very large and broke away because there was no place for smaller groups with common interests and relationships to thrive. The Math Forum community, however, is alive and healthy because they have so far addressed these issues. That is not to say that the success of this community is assured. Without constant vigilance and flexibility with regard to the needs of the community members this thriving community could also disappear as technology advances and people’s needs change.
The very nature of the Internet makes for a different kind of community. Members can be anonymous if they so choose and can come and go as they wish with very little personal consequence. Members can come together from all walks of life and many different cultural and geographic backgrounds. This has the potential of making the community experience more powerful. Members can interact without the constraints of a formal face-to-face relationship and can feel free to voice their true opinions and share information with less fear of repercussion or judgment. This type of potential can also translate into a powerful learning experience. By the same token, the anonymity and distance factors can also give rise to some problems. Misinformation can be shared or participants may use the opportunity to express socially inappropriate opinions or feelings. While this type of community may be empowering and freeing to some, to others it might be threatening or intimidating if personal contact is a need for certain individuals. Like real communities, virtual communities are constrained by the knowledge, character, learning styles, and communication types of the members; the boundaries are just a little broader. Just as a real learning experience should be carefully monitored and examined, so should virtual learning experiences. The sense of belonging engendered by certain situations has the potential to be very powerful or very dangerous. A highly collaborative and meaningful experience within a virtual community is very authentic and can be very compelling to the learner. A large, influential community has the power to increase or change the way people think. Peer pressure is alive and well on the Internet.
Research shows that learning is mediated by the social environment in which it occurs. This means that knowledge can be constructed by communities of learning, virtual or real. In the virtual community the power of the Internet and the availability of a diverse population in which interaction can occur make the virtual community and on-line collaboration an ideal place to experience inquiry learning. Through this type of experience, learners construct their own knowledge as they seek to find answers to authentic problems utilizing print and human resources available through the “magic” of the Internet. Keeping in mind the limitations and constraints of this medium, virtual communities would seem to be a very credible place for learners to construct their own knowledge and have the potential to be an effective learning and teaching tool.
Even though I find the idea of Time magazine choosing everybody as the Person of the Year a little bit of a departure from the expected, it is an interesting concept. Their point is that we now have the ability to create communities of learning and collaboration that have never been possible before because of the Internet. We can tap into a wide diversity of information and individuals to expand our knowledge and make the world a “smaller” place. Everybody has the opportunity to share a bit of their expertise and benefit from the expertise of others. The latest opportunity for sharing is the YouTube craze. This web-site allows people from anywhere in the world to share and critique videos of all kinds, not just professionally made ones. I had never been to YouTube before but I logged on after reading the article. The number of videos out there is mind-boggling and I was not particularly interested in most of them. I noticed that you have to “subscribe” to these videos and that there seem to be some “cult classics” on the menu. I also noticed that people comment and share about these videos and they seem to know each other. This is truly a virtual community. I could not figure out which videos to view or even how to do it because the whole subscription thing made me feel like I was moving in on territory that was not mine. The process was a bit confusing. Suddenly, I got that feeling like I was in junior high again and all the “cool kids” were shunning me because I wasn’t an insider. Hmmm… Maybe virtual communities and real communities aren’t so very different.
Monday, January 15, 2007
First Attempt
This is my first blogging entry. As a new blogger my goal is simply to figure out how this works. Profound thoughts come later...maybe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)