Learning Communities of Place: Situating Learning Towns
Within A Nested Concept of Social Learning Environments
Australian Learning Communities Network (ALCN)
National Conference 2006 “Learning Communities”
September 25-27, Brisbane, Queensland
Presenting Author:
Dr Leone Wheeler
RMIT University
Authors:
Dr Ron Faris
Golden Horizon Ventures, Canada.
Dr Leone Wheeler
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Faris identifies a growing body of research and literature on learning communities
and cities in the emerging knowledge-based economy and society. He argues that it
is important to situate the learning community of place (ie, neighbourhoods, villages,
towns, cities and regions) within the confused and confusing literature on learning
communities. The term “learning community” can mean a community within a
classroom or educational institution, a virtual global learning community, communities
of practice, or those of place. In an attempt to clarify the generic term “learning
communities” Faris has situated the term as a nested concept of social/cultural
learning within an expanding scale of learning environments. The nested scale
covers the smallest scale (learning circles) through to those of largest or global scale
(virtual global learning communities). Wheeler discusses the nested concept of social
learning environments and applies it to a range of projects within Australia.
Introduction
The term ‘learning community’ can be used in many ways. A search of online
catalogues shows that in practice the term, ‘learning community’, covers learning
activities in a range of situations. In fact a Google search conducted on January 21,
2006 returned among the first one hundred references: 42% related to academic
learning communities; 38% related to electronic or virtual learning communities; 14%
related to communities of practice and 6% related to learning towns or cities (four of
British and two of Australian origin) (Faris, 2006a). This diversity is mirrored in the
topics of papers/workshops delivered at the last Australian Learning Communities
Conference held in Newcastle in 2004 – 34% of papers related to digital, online and
flexible learning, 26% related to social learning programs and 13% related to learning
community resources such as libraries, community technology learning centres and
networks. There were other categories such as the learning organisation, training,
government/private/university partnerships, with 13% of papers relating to learning
communities of place.
Practitioners often struggled to argue about the importance of developing learning
communities within particular geographic regions. This paper situates the learning
community of place (i.e., small towns, shires, cities and regions) within the continuum
1
of the different meanings for learning communities. It is recognised, however, that
the growth in the idea of a learning community of place (be it a learning town,
learning city, learning shire, learning region or just learning community) has come
about because of a shift in focus of policy makers and analysts from learning as an
individual activity to learning as a social activity, with learning embedded in everyday
settings – the family, the community, the school and the workplace (Faris, 2006b;
Kilpatrick et al., 2003; Sheed and Bottrell, 2001).
Longworth (2006) documents many of these initiatives and outlines the variations of
how local and regional authorities are re-inventing themselves as learning cities,
learning regions and learning communities. The literature emphasizes the importance
of partnerships, of lifelong learning, of learning champions and pioneers, of using the
learning resources of all sectors and developing a learning culture to achieve
economic prosperity and a tolerant and caring community within a region. A
considerable body of knowledge based on practical experience has been developed
(Faris, 2003; Henderson et al., 2000; Longworth, 2006; Wong, 2004; Yarnit, 2000).
As Kilpatrick et al (2003) notes, the learning community movement has evolved in
response to the diverse needs of learners and the communities in which they work.
Nested Learning Community Concept
There is a growing body of research and literature on learning communities and cities
in the emerging knowledge-based economy and society (Faris, 2006a). It is
important, however, to situate the learning community of place (i.e., neighbourhoods,
villages, towns, cities and regions) within the confused and confusing literature on
learning communities (Faris, 2006a; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; Plumb and McGray,
2006).
In a recent study of the term “learning communities,” an example of the shifting definitional
sands is contained in an otherwise worthy analytical summary, as follows: “…as humans
lose their capacity to engage in processes of cultural learning, they lose the ability to build
strong and vibrant communities capable of supporting varied tasks like identity formation,
social integration and cultural reproduction. Without an immediate, diligent and longstanding commitment to improve “learning communities,” Canada is at risk of continuing to
lose what is perhaps its most important social, cultural and economic asset: the capacity of
its citizens to participate fully in learning together in communities of practice (Plumb and
McGray, 2006).”
Greater clarity is possible if we view the generic term “learning communities” as a nested
concept of social/cultural learning with an expanding scale of learning environments. The
following diagram and table are an attempt to locate “learning communities of place” –
learning neighbourhoods, villages, towns, cities and regions – in a nested Russian egg of
social learning.
2
Figure One: Learning Communities: A Nested Concept of Expanding Scale and
Cascade of Social Learning Environments (Ron Faris 2006)
The following Table I illustrates the differentiation of social learning groups from those of
smallest scale (learning circles) through to those of largest or global scale (virtual global
learning communities). It also attempts to distil the unique features of the various types and,
when possible, identify leading exponents of each concept. Finally, several examples of
each type are provided but with the recognition that a wide variety of organizations or
models could be cited.
While there are clear definitional boundaries among all types of learning communities, at
least two generalizations applicable to all are possible. First, every type is subject to
“virtualization,” that is the creation and adaptation of every type on the Internet, regardless of
the argument by early exponents that the original face-to-face learning version provides
unique learning processes and outcomes. For instance, both the “learning circle” and
“communities of practice” were initially premised and promoted as means of gaining the
special benefits of face-to-face interaction and group dynamics. Today, there are a myriad
of learning circles and communities of practice that are conducted electronically. Second,
learning in every type of “community” is recognized as a two-way, interactive social process.
Table I: Learning Communities: A Nested Concept of Expanding Scale and Cascade
of Social Learning Environments
Type
Scale (Smallest to
Largest Scale)
Example(s)
Unique Features or
Characteristics
Virtual Global
Learning
Communities
Largest: World Wide Web
Networks of Shared Interest or
Purpose
Solely dependent upon Information and
communications technologies (ICT)
e.g., Electronic Learning Communities
Learning
Communities of
Place
Civic Entities:
Neighbourhoods, Villages, Towns,
Cities or Regions
*CISCO Academy of
Learning
* Commonwealth of
Learning
*Kent Learning Region
*Victoria Learning City
*Finnish Learning
Villages
* Hume Global Learning
Village
Place-Based Settings
*Places that explicitly use lifelong
learning as an organizing principle and
social/cultural goal
*Political jurisdictions
*Residents define operational
boundaries
* ICT used to network within and among
3
Learning
Organizations
Corporations/Bureaucracies
through to Small and MediumSized Enterprises
*IKEA Natural Step EcoEconomic Model
* UK Investors in People
Scheme
Academic Learning
Communities
Educational Institutions:
Colleges/Classrooms
*Evergreen College
*Community Schools
Communities of
Practice
Communities of Interest:
Professions, Trades, Avocations,
etc.
*Artists’ Workshop
*Legal Assistants’
Network
* Australian Flexible
Learning Leaders
Networks
Learning Circles
Smallest: Small Groups Engaged
in Learning Activities of Mutual
Interest
*Swedish Study Circle
Movement
*Small Group
Discussions
*Adult Learning Australia
Learning Circle Groups
learning communities of place
Private, Social or Public Enterprises
that Foster Learning as a Strategic
Objective
* Shared Vision
* Systems Thinking
* Mental Models
* Personal Mastery
*Team Learning
- Peter Senge, chief exponent
Formal Education Settings
*Team Teaching
* Interdisciplinary Approaches
*Co-operative Learning
- A. Meiklejohn, chief exponent
Initially Solely Face-to-Face
*Often Theme-Based
*Members are Practitioners
*Members Learn from One Another
- Etienne Wenger, chief exponent
Initially Solely Face-to-Face
*Small Group Dynamics
*Optimum Size: 8-12 Persons
- Kurt Lewin and Myles Horton,
chief exponents
Ron Faris, 2006
Why the Emphasis on Place?
“The world is a sum of its parts and all the parts are local.”
Sheila Fell, quoted in From Place to Place, Common Ground, 1996.
In the midst of an age of the growing use of information and communication technologies
and the creation of the “virtual” dimension of almost every human experience, the expanding
research and literature on “place-based” theory, analysis, planning and practice may appear
paradoxical. Disciplines such as geography, history, anthropology, social psychology and
urban planning are, however, predictable sources of such perspectives.1 Similarly, the
unique aboriginal worldview, with its profound respect for the land and the living systems
thereon, promotes a concern for place.2 These concerns are increasingly reinforced by the
findings of the ecological sciences and the associated environmental or eco-literacy
movement.
1
2
See Bradford, N., 2005, Place-Based Public Policy: Towards a New Urban and Community
Agenda for Canada, Research Report F/51 Family Network, Canadian Policy Research Networks,
Ottawa for an inter-disciplinary, international comparative analysis to inform place-based public
policy in Canada. This report cites the Vancouver Urban Development Agreement, and other
western Canadian urban agreements as emerging place-based models. It should also be noted
that there is a body of research in social psychology around the concepts of “propinquity” and
“proximity” that analyses the apparent importance of space and human interaction in human
social intercourse.
Semken, S., 2005, “Sense of Place and Place-Based Introductory Geoscience Teaching for
American Indian and Alaska Native Undergraduates”, Journal of Geoscience Education (March,
2005). Some geographers argue that a “sense of place” comes into existence when humans give
meaning to a part of the larger, undifferentiated geographic space – a view akin to a constructivist
learning theory.
4
In more recent years leading economists, often concerned with the development of creative,
sustainable cities or regions have engaged in place-based analysis.3 Of particular relevance
to those exploring the conceptual framework of learning communities is the growing interest
in “place-based pedagogy” or learning.4
Recently, particularly in Australia, “place management” strategies involving
collaboration among different levels of government (federal, state and local or
sometimes state and local) across a cluster of departments – in a whole-ofgovernment approach – have focussed substantial public resources to successfully
address a variety of issues of special concern in a specific locale or place
(neighbourhood, town, city or region) (Faris, 2005).
Application of the Nested Learning Concept in the Australian Context
A best practice example of an application of the nested concept of social learning
environments in Australia are the myriad of projects that have taken place over the
past six years as part of the Australian Flexible Learning Framework5 . An example
is the Flexible Learning Leaders which connect flexible learning experts from around
the country with each other and also to the latest international expertise in a
particular area. Communities of Practice have been written about extensively and put
in place through Reframing the Future (Mitchell, 2002). Collaborative online
communities of interest are well established through EdNA6. Adult Learning Australia
promotes the use learning circles and recently published a facilitators guide (Hannan
et al, 2004).
At the same time, there has also been a movement to establish learning communities
of place in Australia. The learning community movement in Australia is relatively new,
with the first learning city being declared by Albury Wodonga in 1998. There are now
over 30 learning communities in Australia and these communities belong to the
Australian Learning Communities Network, formed in 2001 after the first Australian
Learning Communities conference held in 2000 to provide a support and
development focus for learning communities across Australia.
In recent years state and nationally funded projects have encouraged the
development of learning communities. In particular, since 2000 the Victorian State
Government has funded the development of 10 Learning Towns. Nationally the
Australian National Training Authority in 2001 funded 10 learning communities across
all States and Territories of Australia.
The Australian movement has also been influenced by international and regional
bodies that have implemented projects and conferences reporting on the
development and impact of learning regions and cities. These include, Unesco, the
OECD, and the European Commission with projects such as TELS (Towards a
3
4
5
6
Florida, R. 2002,The Rise of the Creative Class and How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure,
Community and Everyday Life, Perseus Books Group, New York; Duke, C., Osborne. A. and B.
Wilson, 2005, Rebalancing the Social and Economic: Learning, Partnership and Place, National
Institute of Adult Continuing Education, Leicester; Wolfe, D., 2000, “Social Capital and Cluster
Development in Learning Regions,” Paper presented to the XVIII World Congress of the
International Political Science Association, August 5, 2000, Quebec City.
Gruenewald, D., 2003, “The Best of Both Worlds: Critical Pedagogy of Place,” Educational
Researcher, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 3-12. Rae, K. and B. Pearse, 2004, “Value of Place-Based
Education in the Urban Setting”, Presentation at the Conference on Effective Sustainability
Education: What Works? Where Next? Linking Research and Practice, Sydney.
See www.flexiblelearning.net.au
Education Network Australia (http://www.edna.edu.au/edna/page1.html)
5
Learning Society) and R3L (Regions and its relationship to Life Long Learning)
(Longworth, 2006). The progress of many of these undertakings are highlighted by
PASCAL, an international observatory tracking developments in Place Management,
Social Capital and Learning Regions7
Wong (2004) argues learning communities of place provide a neutral space within a
community. This is a ‘space where organisations can safely come together to
collaborate on joint community activity in a genuine partnership of equals’. A
particular example is the Victorian Learning Towns which were identified as ‘play(ing)
a unique facilitation role that add(s) value to a range of learning providers and
community stakeholders’(Cavaye, 2002: as cited in Wong 2004 : p29). The nested
concept of social learning environments situates this neutral space also in the virtual,
so that a particular learning community of place can learn from other learning
communities, both locally and internationally.
The latest 2004-2010 national VTE strategy Shaping our Future, builds initiatives to
strengthen communities and regions economically and socially through learning and
employment’ (DEST, 2005). The most recent Australian Flexible Learning
Framework project related to this strategy which brings together online learning
environments and learning communities of place is the E-learning for Creative
Community Partnerships Project. The programme ‘aims to create sustainable
demand for, and use of, e-learning in communities, to foster both learning in the
communities, and through learning, economic and regional development for the
communities involved’(AFLF, 2006).
Projects are chosen based on strong partnerships across sectors, the ability to
embed e-learning in other community based and regional development initiatives and
to increase participation of targeted disengaged and disadvantaged client groups in
formal education. The 2005/2006 projects come from across Australia and some are
explicitly attached to learning community projects, for example, the E-learning for
isolated learners led by a Ballarat Registered Training Organisation - BRACE will
build upon the existing regional focus of that organisation, the partnership with the
Ballarat City Council and ‘Ballarat a Learning City’ as well as links with local
government in Ararat and Maryborough. This emphasis on partnerships, linking with
technology and embedding the project in community/regional development initiatives
is mirrored across the other programs.
In 2005 a national project team supported online discussions across project teams,
but the projects themselves were very much grounded in a geographic community of
place. An interesting area of further research would be to track the social learning
methods used within the nested learning environments as outlined by Faris and also
to determine whether the online environment also provided the neutral space for
facilitation as theorised by Wong (2004).
Conclusion
The concept that Faris presents frames learning communities of place in a nested concept of
social/cultural learning within an expanding scale of learning environments. Learners can
come from any sector (civic; economic; public; educational; or voluntary/community); they
can be learning at any institution (work-place training, kindergarten, university, secondary
school or out in the community, for example, landcare projects); and the learning can be
informal (serendipitous), non-formal (systematic, non-credit) or formal (systematic,
accredited) in nature. The key premise is that while there are clear definitional boundaries
7
http://www.obs-pascal.com/
6
among all type of learning communities, two generalisations are possible. First, every type is
subject to “virtualization” or extending the learning to adaptation to online groups on the
Internet. Second, learning in every type of “community” is recognised as a two-way,
interactive social process.
The nested concept of social learning environments is presented in this paper as an idea
worthy of further investigation. We could have written a paper on each of the social learning
methods and how they link to one another. However, we present the concept to encourage
further discussion as we seek clarity in understanding learning communities of place and
their relationship to other forms of “learning communities”.
References:
AFLF (2006) E-learning for creative community partnerships.
http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au/flx/go/home/projects/2006/communitypartne
rships
Cavaye J (2002) Learning Town Evaluation Framework. Melbourne: Victorian
Learning Towns Network.
DEST (2005) Shaping our Future: for communities.
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/training_skills/policy_issues_reviews/key_issu
es/nts/dap/strategy_communities.htm
Faris R (2003) Learning Community by Community: Preparing for a Knowledgebased Society. Education Canada
.http://members.shaw.ca/rfaris/docs/CEA.pdf
Faris R (2005) Lifelong learning, social capital and place management. In C Duke, M
Osborne and B Wilson (eds.): Rebalancing the social and economic,
Learning, partnership and place. Leicester: NIACE, pp. 16-36.
Faris R (2006a) Learning Cities Annotated Bibliography - In support of the Vancouver
Learning City Initiative: Unpublished Report. Vancouver, Canada.
Faris R (2006b) Learning Cities: Lessons Learning - A Background Paper Prepared
for the Vancouver Learning City Initiative (Unpublished). Vancouver, Canada.
Hannan, M, Lewis-Fitzgerald, C, Quinn, P, (2004) Introduction to Learning Circles:
Facilitator's Resource Manual - Part A, Canberra: Adult Learning Australia
Henderson L, Castles R, McGrath M, and Brown T (2000) learning around town:
learning communities in Australia: Adult Learning Australia (ALA).
Kilpatrick S, Barrett M, and Jones T (2003) Defining Learning Communities:
Discussion Paper D1/2003. Tasmania: University of Tasmania.
Longworth N (2006) Learning Cities, Learning Regions, Learning Communities:
Lifelong learning and local government. London and New York: Routledge.
Mitchell J (2002) The potential for Communities of Practice to underpin the National
Training Framework: Findings from an evaluation of pilot projects of
Communities of Practice that were managed by Reframing the Future and
funded through the Australian National Training Authority, 2001. Melbourne:
Australian National Training Authority, pp. 104.
Plumb D, and McGray R (2006) Learning Communities: CCL Review of the State of
the Field in Adult Learning. Canadian Council on Learning, Halifax: Mount
Saint Vincent University.
Sheed J, and Bottrell C (2001) Learning Towns Network Program Evaluation.
Melbourne: ACFE, pp. 67.
Wong S (2004) The Practice and Progress of Geelong as a Learning City, RMIT
University, Melbourne.
Yarnit M (2000) Towns, cities and regions in the learning age - a survey of learning
communities. London: LGA Publications, DfEE, LCN, pp. 92.
7