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 It also allows people to share personal expertise in areas that are unpublished and/or unstudied.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.