In order to understand the nature of the contribution technology can make to building virtual learning communities, we first need to distinguish between traditional conceptions of technology and the kinds of contributions technology can make to building learning communities. Traditionally, when people think of technology, they think of media&emdash;television, film, computers&emdash;as means of delivering or presenting material. Certainly traditional media have made many contributions to education, schools, communities and ultimately, learning. Most school divisions have developed extensive libraries of resources, and everything from a set of maps to a complete trigonometry course on videodisc have been used by teachers to support instruction.
But the reader may have noticed that this paper refers only tangentially to the hardware and software commonly labeled as "technology" by educators. The type of technology we are talking about in this paper emphasizes technology as a medium for expression and communication. Used as a communication tool, technology offers opportunities for extending learning beyond the boundaries of classroom, province and country, and this in turn promotes the development of a rich tapestry of formal and informal learning communities. A virtual learning community employs technology to communicate; therefore, it can, and does, happen anywhere, and it can be constructed anywhere. The idea of construction is central to the notion of virtual communities, as what is created by the community becomes the collective product of its individual members.
In order to satisfy our requirements for a virtual learning community, a technology must permit each of the following conditions:
While virtual communities are often built around central themes, ideas or purposes, the organizing principles are not externally imposed. Purposes, intentions and the protocol for interaction are constructed by participants. Systems allow open and unrestricted access based on individual interests and needs.
Participants can achieve personally gratifying levels of intimacy with other participants, and can select the level of intimacy appropriate for any negotiated relationship with another participant. Anonymity is possible, but as the sense of community develops, it is unlikely that a participant would choose to remain anonymous.
The quality of participation depends on individual and shared commitment or relevance of the substance of the community. Commitment depends on shared values in the community, where participation represents an ethical choice among those who share goals or needs. The valence of the commitment need only be strong enough to maintain participation in the group, but stronger commitment generally leads to the development of stronger communities.
Participants interact with each other and have the capacity to conduct discourse freely and meaningfully. In order to fit our definition, engagement must have immediacy&emdash;not be significantly delayed in time or space. Interaction must be effervescent, and based on influence among participants rather than power relationships.
Each of these components is necessary for meaningful communication to take place between and among individuals, and we believe that communication, in the form of legitimate discourse, is central to the notion of building learning communities. In order to examine how these components contribute to the development of virtual learning communities, we will examine a few examples of virtual learning communities, and also look at some technologies that might be mistaken for virtual learning communities.
One of the simplest examples of a virtual learning community is a conference telephone call. Requiring only a telephone for each participant and a bridge to connect them, it allows participants a full range of negotiation, intimacy, commitment and engagement. A teleconference (n-way video and audio) accomplishes the same purposes as a conference telephone call, but also permits visual communication. A recent innovation allows participants to mount inexpensive video cameras on computers and transmit slow scan video and telephone quality audio over telephone lines, and establish a connection between two computers. In effect, each participant appears in a small window on the computer screen of the other participant. Special software can be used to establish a reflector site, which acts like a video bridge for several participants at the same time.
A chat room is another technology available for joining several participants in a community of discourse. Simply speaking, chat rooms are locations on the internet that gather keyboarded input from two or more individuals as they type. Everyone logged into the chat room can view the posted material and respond to the comments of others. Chat rooms are usually organized around a specific topic or area of interest, and the topics are as wide ranging as the imaginations of the participants. Participants can use their own names or pseudonyms, personally controlling whatever is a comfortable amount of intimacy. In crowded chat rooms, interaction can become quite confusing, as one participant responds out of sequence to an item presented much earlier in the on-screen discussion among several people. So it is common for individuals to pair off and agree to meet in another, private room. It all sounds quite seductive, and certainly can be, but in most cases, private rooms are used to pursue a specific conversation more intensely with another individual. Chat rooms are often moderated by an individual who monitors discussion and facilitates interaction. Participants typically monitor discourse too, and are quick to isolate an individual who contributes inappropriate or unsavory material. In this way, protocol is constantly negotiated. Chat rooms provide a rich example of technology that facilitates negotiation, intimacy, commitment and engagement. How can they be turned into virtual learning environments? First, teachers can build chat rooms around specific topics of discussion and help moderate and participate in discussions. Classroom activities and projects can be designed to encourage students to use chat rooms to collaborate with other students in problem-solving activities. Teachers can also help students develop skills in framing arguments, conducting on-line discussions, and understanding the protocol and etiquette of communicating through this technology. In some cases, it may be necessary for educators to closely monitor the chat rooms, to help keep the focus of discussion on learning activities, and even to remove intruders who enter the room to cause mischief.
There are, of course, limitations to each of these examples. One of the most dramatic, is access. Each technology, even the most modest, requires some hardware and budget to support interaction. Some technologies introduce specific barriers. For example, access to chat rooms require keyboarding skills. Poor typing skills limit the amount and quality of the interaction, and probably test the patience of other participants.
At the same time, the examples illustrate how inclusive such communities can be. Individuals with disabilities, those living in remote or rural areas, and those who have difficulty participating in groups can all be part of virtual communities.
There are several technologies which appear to support virtual learning communities, but which do not. There are a host of websites which offer excellent material to educators, but which do not make any pretense of promoting negotiation or engagement. Perhaps the most prevalent, and growing example of this, can be found in the array of university courses now available on the web. Most provide an electronic version of a print-based correspondence course, and challenge the learner to read material and extract information. These sites can have great value, but they should not be confused with learning communities, as they do not permit discourse. Some websites pretend intimacy and engagement, but merely simulate actual conversation rather than engage in discourse with the user. For example, psychic hotlines are available which give the impression of real, intimate and engaged discussion, when in fact, the conversation is not negotiated by the participants as it is controlled by the "host."
Televised distance education programs with fax and phone call-back are among the easiest educational innovations to confuse with virtual learning communities. In these programs, a teacher typically teaches a class to the camera or to a group of students in the studio. Students at remote locations can interrupt the instructor with comments, questions or faxes, but unless the instructor is highly skilled at conducting mediated discussions, there will be little actual give-and-take in the conversation. This can provide a serious source of frustration to teachers who usually depend on classroom discussion to carry a class, as the technology can serve to isolate learners from the teacher. As an aside, we suspect that this is precisely why some distance education initiatives fail&emdash;because the technology promotes transmission of information rather than the construction of learning communities. It is not the fault of the teleteacher or the technology, yet it is a natural outcome of the interaction between the two.
Listserves and electronic mail are also easily mistaken for technologies that support virtual learning communities. A listserv is a location for posting mail messages on a particular topic to everyone who subscribes to that listservice. It is very similar to a chat room, with one important difference: participants in the listserv are not in the location at the same time. Listserv participants drop mail into a location; chat room participants drop into a location and type messages in real time to each other. Thus, the engagement is not immediate and negotiated. Listserves and e-mail have important contributions to make to education and learning, but they are not examples of platforms that support virtual learning communities.
|
|