Online communities and networked learning 33

The potential of social computing to support social constructivist approaches to learning has provoked renewed interest by educationalists in the concept of a community (Ala-Mutka, 2010; OECD, 2008). Indeed, there is growing evidence to suggest that this social phenomenon may be put to good use in the support of online learning (Rheingold, 2000; Brook and Oliver, 2003; Lai et al., 2006; McConnell, 2006; Palloff and Pratt, 2007; Hildreth and Kimble, 2008; Ala-Mutka, 2010).

Extensive research literature already exists for co-located, presential communities. However, much less is known about online communities (McConnell, 2006) and

concerns have been raised that the term is being applied without due consideration for the characteristics that distinguish the social phenomenon (as discussed at the start of section 2.1). Preece and Maloney-Krichmar (2003) posit that there is no accepted definition of an online community and Grossman et al. (2000, p.3) note that ‘Groups of people become community, or so it would seem, by the flourish of a researcher’s pen’. Riverin and Stacey (2008) caution that a community cannot be formed by simply creating an electronic forum and Lai et al. (2006) emphasise that long term investment is required for a community to develop.

Providing the right technological environment and social affordances for a community is no guarantee that effective learning will take place. Riel and Polin (2004, p.18) caution that ‘simply labelling a group of people as a community neither ensures that it functions as one, nor that it is a beneficial, cohesive unit in which learning will take place readily’. Grossmann et al. (2000, p.6) note that the term community has become ‘an obligatory appendage to every educational innovation’. McConnell (2006, p.21) adds that ‘the idea of a community is currently being applied in too many educational contexts with little apparent understanding of what it might, or should, mean’.

The following literature suggests that the extent to which learning is the main objective of a community can have epistemological and ontological implications, concerning the importance of shared activities, knowledge and practice, and the relationship between novices, experts and artefacts. McConnell (2006, p.21) proposes three broad concepts of communities involving online learning: a learning community in which a group of learners engage in a ‘collective effort of understanding’, with shared responsibility for learning and a belief that the group can learn more by cooperating than it could by learning alone; a community of practice (CoP) that focuses on shared professional practice in a common domain in which the identities of the participants are both influencing the CoP and influenced by it; and a knowledge

building community in which cooperation goes further, as students collaborate to

arrive at a group understanding and the generation of new knowledge. Riel and Polin (2004) suggest three different types of online community for supporting learning: task

based, practice based and knowledge based. The first is usually short-term, output

orientated and focused on individual learning in a group context; an example would be a community of students established as part of a formal course in higher education. The latter two, on the other hand, emphasise longer-term groupings benefiting both the individuals and the community; an example would be a CoP for policymakers developing educational policy.

In describing CoP, most literature makes reference to the early seminal work of Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, which explains the specific features of CoP and their benefits for learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1999a). Lave and Wenger (1991, p.98) espouse a social theory of learning, describing CoP as ‘a set of relations among persons, activity and world’ in which learning is encouraged through meaning, practice, community and identity. Wenger (1999a) emphasises that we are fundamentally social beings and that knowledge is developed through valued enterprise and active engagement with our surroundings. For learning to be valuable, it needs to be meaningful. In describing CoP, he asserts that there must be mutual engagement, a joint enterprise and a shared repertoire. Daele et al. (2007) describe CoPs in terms of peer-orientated learning, in a collaborative manner, over a prolonged period. Lai et al. (2006) see them as informal communities, not necessarily task orientated, with diverse and heterogeneous membership, developing shared practice. Online learning communities are similar in many ways to online CoP. They both encourage collaboration and sharing amongst peers in informal social settings, engendering mutual trust, shared values and the development of strong ties. They differ, however, in their focus on learning (Wubbels, 2007): with CoP the primary focus is on ‘identity and identity formation in the context of professional practice’ (McConnell, 2006, p.21); with learning communities the primary focus is on learning (Riel and Polin, 2004) and the ‘development of a culture of learning’ (McConnell, 2006, p.21). CoP develop shared resources through participation and the reification of knowledge (Wenger, 1999a). Learning communities develop competence, through collaboration, reflection and transformative learning (Palloff and Pratt, 2007). In CoP experts work with novices (or trainees and apprentices) and there is a difference in status, whereas in learning communities all participants are likely to be learners with a more equal status (Eraut, 2002). Whereas this distinction is not black and white, and both types of community support learning, the primary focus on learning does become important when one considers the cognitive and organisational aspects.

In the context of online communities, there is quite a debate in the literature on the nature of the relationships between online learners, the role of collaboration and the importance of valuing difference as opposed to encouraging consensus. The rise of the networked society (Castells, 2000), the concept of ‘networked individualism’ (Wellman et al., 2003) and the role of weak ties (Kavanaugh et al., 2005) is seen by some as encapsulating a more powerful paradigm for learning in a modern society, than a renewed emphasis on strong ties, social capital and learning communities. Whereas strong ties emphasise relationship, reciprocity and emotional attachment, weak ties are more instrumental in supporting the flow of information between groups

and across networks. Some authors see these not as a dichotomy, but rather as complementary relationships that render communities more effective for organising collective action (Kavanaugh et al., 2005). Concerns have been raised about an over emphasis on collaborative learning and communities, especially in higher education. Fox (2005) wonders whether it is simply a prevailing feeling of nostalgia for the strong, tight communities of the past and suggests a more imaginative view of communities which is international and multicultural in nature. Ryberg and Larsen (2008, p.105) critique these ‘exotic islands and bounded social spaces’ and propose the network as a better metaphor for social forms of online learning. Hodgson and Reynolds (2002; 2005) suggest that we are seeing a reaction to a previously exaggerated emphasis on individual autonomy and caution that the pursuit of common goals, loyalty, trust and shared values in a community may be at the expense of recognising and valuing differences (Reynolds and Trehan, 2003). Students who hold differing opinions or values are often under pressure to conform or effectively be ostracised for fear of undermining the community’s integrity. This may lead some students to underperform (to lurk rather than participate as a dissenting voice), to undergo frustration or to feel marginalised.

Networked learning is often seen as an alternative approach that embraces network individualism and the multitude of learning resources, opportunities and relationships available via the internet (Jones, 2004). It ‘incorporates insights and assumptions from a number of theoretical perspectives’ (Dirckinck-Holmfeld et al., 2004, p.5) and unlike Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), does not privilege ‘collaboration over other kinds of relationships’ (2004, p12), emphasising instead the strength of weak as well as strong ties (Ryberg and Larsen, 2008).

The idea of online communities also tends to separate out and privilege the virtual against the real. The ideas of online and offline communities need to merge in the activity of real people who are both simultaneously on and offline when they are engaged with computer networks. (Jones and Esnault, 2004, p.91)

Blended learning is a term often used in education to capture the idea of learning being a mix of online and offline activities, of different tools and media, of different pedagogical approaches, etc. However, the concept has been criticised for placing emphasis on learning as seen by the teacher and for having many different meanings, to the extent that ‘building a tradition of research around the term becomes an impossible project’ (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005, p.24).

Despite the rhetoric, the vision put forward in network learning is not at odds with that of online learning communities. On the contrary, networked learning embraces both individual and group learning in the context of multiple communities that embrace and value difference. Communities are thus part of a bigger picture, ‘they are special cases of more general network phenomena that rely on a particular form of individualisation’ (Jones, 2004, p.86). The important point raised by the proponents of networked learning is that attention must be paid to issues of democracy, power and culture in an online learning community if we are to avoid the ‘tyranny of participation and collaboration’ (Ferreday and Hodgson, 2009) associated with an over emphasis on collaboration and consensus, as previously discussed. This in turn implies careful design, organisation and facilitation of the educational experience. The next section discusses the literature concerning these aspects in more detail, returning to the literature on the CoI framework and using the three presences to look more closely at the importance of the cognitive, teaching and social aspects for an effective online community focused on learning.