On-line communities for network learning

Group activities have a role to play in enabling learning that needs to be incorporated as an integral part of a pedagogy (Smagorinsky and Fly, 1993). Collaborative processes can also enhance learning and reflection (Clifford, 1999, p117). Cousin and Deepwell (2005, p63) state the “need to focus on the

construction of a learning architecture which can enable rich forms of learner participation” through networked learning that has peer learning at its heart

and is accessed through a medium that “supports reflective practice” and “balances exploration with anchorage”.

Brown (2003, p179) recognises the role of reflecting collaboratively, within a work-based context, as being a means to create knowledge and as a possible lead to practice modifications. Brown (2001, p18), writing about the process of community building in distance learning classes found that the loneliness reported by some distance learners was overcome once they had formed a community of learners which offered mutual support. Brown also found that:

“students utilising computer-mediated communication said they generally took a longer period of time to create bonds of friendship, community or camaraderie than they might have in face-to-face associations”.

(Brown, 2001, p32) Levinson (2006) also presents some of the pitfalls in on-line communities such as the potential to marginalise or exclude some learners, delays in recognising non- engagement and a potential to adopt a surface approach to learning. These are not unique to on-line learning environments but it could be argued they are more difficult to spot than in a face-to-face situation. For example, lack of engagement in a face-to-face lecture can be identified through non-attendance or the watched behaviour of someone who attends but does not engage. In an on-line environment, particularly an asynchronous one (where participants have

a flexible time-frame in which to engage), non-attendance, through not logging- in or not responding to activities, could be learners choosing to delay their response, which is acceptable, or to non-engagement, which is not acceptable. Within my pedagogy I will need to consider how I can check learner engagement but not limit individual choice in when and where to study.

Issues of potential marginalisation or exclusion have also been identified in the earlier sections on generic aspects and accessing on-line learning. Again the pedagogy will need to consider how to minimise or avoid these particular pitfalls. Learners who feel that they ‘belong’ to a community have been found to be less likely to withdraw from a course of study (Mackie, 2001; Martinez and Munday, 1998; Tinto, 1975, in Draper 2005; and Wiley, 2002) whilst Yorke and Longden (2007) found that “making friendships was considered critical for a

positive experience of HE” (Felce, 2007a, p17).

A community of practice is said to emerge where individuals are engaged “in a

process of collective learning” (Wenger, c.2007, cited in Smith, 2009). Each

cohort studying a common unit on-line (as is planned for in my pedagogy) could be described as such a community because they exhibit the crucial

characteristics of domain (a shared domain of interest), community (they interact and learn together) and practice (they are practitioners in the same area of learning). However, this would go against a premise that “communities

of practice are mostly informal and distinct from organisational units” (Wenger,

1998, p2) and that what we are creating within our cohorts is actually a

community of interest (because they have a common interest) or a geographical community (because they are in the same virtual location). If we do have

communities of practice then they need to be nurtured and developed, with internal leadership and support, legitimated participation, have a strategic context and be attuned to real practice (Wenger, 1998, p7).

Despite Wenger’s assertion that communities of practice are mostly informal, Keenan, Kumar and Hughes (2010, p2) argue that “they can also be formed more

formally for a particular purpose” thus the cohorts studying on-line can be

regarded as a community of practice. An on-line course delivered through a UK based university contained many collaborative tasks in order to help build a community of practice and to share collaborative learning but it was noted that the “amount of time required to fully develop the Community of Practice

pedagogy is intended to run for a notional ten weeks. Learners will be able to progress onto other ten-week units, but these will not, necessarily, be the same unit as others in their cohort. This ten week ‘turn-round’ might not be sufficient time to fully develop a community and I should consider this in my design and evaluation.

Thomas (2009, p128) questions the role of the lecturer in on-line learning and asks if they watch the students constructing their learning or if they should have a more active role in which they are “an architect of the network and activator

of communities”. It is likely, at least in the initial units studied, that the

lecturer will be the architect and activator as described by Thomas until

learners become more confident in their own abilities. As was stated earlier, it is likely that learners on the units will expect the teacher to take control of the learning design but that this control can gradually be released as the learners gain confidence. Whether or not this can be achieved within a ten-week study period is, again, something to review during the project.

Wenger, White and Smith (2009) in their book on Digital Habitats recommend approaches to design and stewardship of on-line communities that could be applied to the context of my project. The authors present five key principles for stewarding an on-line community that we can apply in the context of my

Principles for stewarding on-line

communities Application in context of an e-portfolio based pedagogy

Vision before technology

My vision was to create a learning environment that would be accessible to work-based learners and that would allow them to bring together all aspects of their life-long and life-wide learning (See Figure 2.1). An e-portfolio was identified as a potential technology that would enable this vision.

Keep it simple

The e-portfolio offers a potential ‘one- stop’ environment for learning content and individual and group activities. Only one technology will need to be ‘learnt’. I plan to make use of the affordances that the technology offers to ensure the learning environment is intuitive for the learners.

Let it evolve

Learners will be guided by tutor-led questions and also encouraged to communicate with their peers without tutor intervention.

Use the knowledge around you

I aim to make use of colleagues who are familiar with designing and supporting learning in an e-portfolio environment and to build capacity by employing them as mentors to other academics.

Always back it up

The e-portfolio “resides on two (physical)

servers – web and database, respectively. There is a duplicate test platform of identical specification and configuration, which acts …. as a backup platform in case of hardware failure affecting the live platform. Both live and test platforms are on maintenance agreements with the server supplier for fast response to any reported hardware issues” (Soden, 2011).

Table 3.2 Application of principles for stewarding on-line communities within the proposed pedagogy

Through my literature review and discussions earlier in this chapter looking at general pedagogic principles, at aspects of on-line learning and at the concept of social interaction as a constituent part of learning I have established that an on-line community, or group, was an essential element of my proposed

pedagogy. Having established that I need to have a community of learners I now turn my discussion to identify an optimum group size for each cohort of learners. In addressing the issues raised earlier in this chapter I determined that I needed to build in group activities, ensure that learners in each group would be able to

contribute, that a range of contributions could be shared and that each cohort could be adequately and appropriately supported by a tutor.