Week 4- Blog2

Summary of Renninger & Shumar’s Chapters 10-12 (Possibilities for Communities):

Chapter 10 reviews the systematic patterns of change that network-based learning communities undergo over a period of time that ultimately lead to the termination of the community, also defined as a “life cycle” (Levin & Cervantes, 2002).  Levin & Cervantes (2002, p.270) state the “lifecycle of network-based communities can lead to more productive learning by communities of learners distributed across the world...can help create powerful learning environments for diverse sets of learners.”  Six stages in the network project life cycle include the: (1) proposal, when the activity for the activity is proposed; (2) refinement, the idea is refined through communication by the proposers; (3) organizational, time schedules and planned procedures; (4) pursuit, activity is carried out; (5) wrap-up, proposer of activity thanks participants for contributions; and (6) publication, aimed at attracting future participants (Levin & Cervantes, 2002).  Levin & Cervantes (2002) describe a case study of the Zero-g Project, which I thought was quite interesting because of the diversity of the participants involved: from novice (students) to experts (NASA scientists).  This learning community was successful due to several factors: clear project goals and purposes, availability of resources and support (educational and technical experts), wide range of curricular areas, teacher flexibility, strong and consistent leadership throughout the life cycle, timely and adequate feedback to participants, and a solid orientation that motivated participants.  Reading this chapter made me realize the importance of understanding the way activities within a learning community unfold overtime and that there is continuous development. Also, as the stages progress, the role of each participant also changes.  The leader of the community may also have a different role as the community progresses through the life cycle, but he/she always remains active and engaged in the process.

Chapter 11 (Nolan & Weiss, 2002) state that the commonality between offline and online communities are the possibilities offered for learning.  What makes it difficult to determine if online communities actually exist is the sense of space; there is no physical location to attach itself (Nolan & Weiss, 2002).  Nolan & Weiss (2002) argue the online community is actually a community because it is constructed and the only difference between an offline and online community is that people make conscious decisions to inhabit cyberspace.  Nolan & Weiss (2002) describe several learning locations for learning in virtual communities: (1) Curriculum of Initiation and Governance, requiring that the individual(s) make the decision to create and maintain the virtual site and location; (2) Curriculum of Access, accessing and becoming socialized to the virtual community; and (3) Curriculum of Membership, the actual engagements in the community, purposes for the site, and the gains people expect from it.  Nolan & Weiss (2002) describe in detail, four online communities to help readers understand the sense of location and expectations that each group creates for its community.  In the MOOkti example, I found it interesting that the creator had an intended purpose for the site, but placed no limitations or condition on participation, therefore, external participants shaped the site into fulfilling their own needs and criteria (an unintended outcome of Curriculum of Initiation and Governance).  The founder had to have assistance in the initiation of the site because it developed far beyond his technical knowledge, therefore, “a small community of the administrators had already developed, and this social core became a template for interaction that new members could learn from or ignore...influenced the way in which new members manifested their own experiences in the environment.” (Nolan & Weiss, 2002, p. 309).  What is common among the four examples is they are all learning communities, there are limits to membership, purposes and goals vary, there is individual mobility, no long-term commitments, continuity among membership, and they interact and communicate within the community.

Chapter 12 describes the tools or type of technology that support a knowledge-building community.  Hoadley & Pea (2002, p.325) define a knowledge-building community where “individuals are committed to sharing information for the purpose of building understanding (knowledge) in all the participants.”  It is important that the learning community has precise goals and collaborative support from the community members.  Before developing a knowledge-building learning community, Hoadley & Pea (2002) reflected upon eight areas of inquiry: defining learning communities, examining existing practice, identifying potential changes to improve practice, finding ways that technology might effect these changes, designing and building the technology, advocating the technology, understanding the consequences of technology, and evaluating the community in respect to the original goal.  The design and building of the technology must fit into the goals of the community and what tools will work best.  However, proponents of the technology must help the community reach a productive equilibrium, that is, working with community to develop new practices or ways of working to appropriate the new tools (Hoadley & Pea, 2002). Lastly, the community should be evaluated to determine its success based on goals reached, which can vary between communities.

References:

Hoadley, C., & Pea, R.D. (2002) Finding the ties that bind: Tools for a knowledge-building community. In K. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 321-351). Cambridge University Press.

Levin, J., & Cervantes, R. (2002). Understanding the life cycles of network-based learning communities. In K. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 269-292). Cambridge University Press.

Nolan, D.J., & Weiss, J. (2002). An educational view of virtual community. In K. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 293-320). Cambridge University Press.