Before we build new kinds of communities, we need to consider the place of a learning community within a theoretical framework that considers the full power of a technologically integrated world. Sergovanni (1996) offers a footing for building these theoretical structures by proposing four key considerations for theorists and practitioners engaged in learning community theory development.
First, the theory and form of the community should be aesthetically pleasing. The language and form should be appealing: "Let them choose the one that they find most appealing-most useful (Sergiovanni, 1996, p. 32)". Learners and teachers exist in relationships where they are both customers and suppliers; teachers consume student work and supply instruction while students consume instruction and supply work within interactive, interdependent relationships.
Second, we should consider moral connections within this community where "I" thinks about "We". Connections weaved by such moral reasoning might require us to teach our learners and ourselves the practices of value self-reflection and determination. "Connections satisfy the needs of coordination and commitment that any enterprise must fulfill in order to exceed (p. 33)". What we are talking about is a fundamental shift in how we think about school leadership [and community leadership] (Sackney and Walker, 1996, p.15). Strong connections created within the community lead to common shared values and commitments that propel learning and new knowledge. For example, learners and teachers would strive to engage in the learning process (together) for mutual benefit and not through power relationships.
We must consider robust, innovative approaches to technology-enhanced communication that fit the new community. The old utilitarian means-ends theories only work where linear relationships exist. We know that linear relationships and linear communications seldom exist in learning communities with students, teachers, administrators, local business persons, school boards and remote knowledge "experts" who interact via both personal and mediated communcations. When was the last time the essence of a minister's report was first understood by school administrators in a formal letter? The 'grapevine' and mass media mock the idea of hierarchical communication. Etzioni reminds us that a collective rationality "can emerge from integrating all of our values, emotions, beliefs and social bonds and that our definition must accommodate this level of integration (Etzioni, 1992, p. 63). Our practice in community building should consider the emergence of such collective rationalities when learners decide what to learn.
Finally, we must consider constructivist principles to be the pillars supporting this learning community. Most importantly we should incorporate an understanding of what teachers, parents and students wish to accomplish: "At the root of it [theory] is the simple idea that children and adults construct their own understandings of the world in which they live (Sergiovanni, 1996, p. 38)". When we open up dense, integrated, interactive channels of communication for parents, students, teachers and administrators we open our community to deeper understandings of what is really going on - and with shared values,
By considering these four major issues we can begin to develop a technologically supported community that is inclusive, open and self managing.
|
|