Chapter 3.3
Online Learning Communities in K-12 Settings
Seng Chee Tan, Lay Hoon Seah, Jennifer Yeo, David Hung
National Institute of Education
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Abstract: This review aims to clarify the concept and boundary of research on online
learning communities, identify the major trends of research, and suggest pertinent issues for
future research. Four online learning communities, namely, Knowledge Building communities,
Quest Atlantis, Virtual Math Team, and Web-based Inquiry Science Environment were
reviewed. We compare and contrast the design principles and characteristics of these
learning environments along cognitive, social, and technological dimensions. Potential
implementation and research issues were discussed, including the contradictions with
traditional school cultures and practices, the issues of authenticity versus simulation
approach in schools, the cognitive and socio-emotional outcomes of online learning
communities, and the possibilities and impact of advances in technologies.
Key words: online learning communities; knowledge building communities; cognitive
dimension; social dimension; technological dimension
Introduction
The 21st Century has been characterized as the Knowledge Age and the Digital Age.
As we crossed into the new century, a number of reports on K-12 education, such as
“enGauge®21st Century Skills: Literacy in the Digital Age” (North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory, 2003) and “Results that matter: 21st Century skills and high school
reform” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2006), questioned the adequacy of school
education in preparing students for new challenges. In the 21st Century, students need to
develop new skills and knowledge, inter alia, knowledge innovation capacity and digital
literacy, for the survival and growth of individuals and for contribution to the new economies
(see Anderson, 2008) Learning communities (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999) and knowledge
building communities (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003) have been proposed as educational
models that schools should adopt to address such critical needs.
A parallel development in the Digital Age is the advancement of computer network
technologies, particularly the Internet, which have dramatically changed the ways people are
1
connected, blurring the line between face-to-face and online communication. Beyond
communication, computer networking technologies have profound impact on the notion of
community, which was once confined by physical and geographical locations. With
increasing access to the Internet, new forms of community, known as online communities,
began to emerge. The term, social software, was coined to refer to a wide range of online
software including internet discussion boards, messaging, web blogs (e.g.,
www.blogger.com), social book marking tools (e.g., www. blinklist.com), wikis (e.g.,
en.wikipedia.org), and others. These developments capitalize on the collective intelligences
and dynamics of the worldwide community. The pervasive use of such platforms among
individuals is typically around the sharing of music, pictures, opinions, and the like, rather
than in domains of school work or what is typically referred to as formal learning.
The confluence of these developments gives rise to the genesis of online learning
communities. As an emerging field of study, there are many questions on online learning
communities yet to be answered. This review attempts to examine the literature with the goal
to clarify the concept and boundary of research on online learning communities, identify the
major trends of research, and to suggest pertinent issues for future research.
This review is guided and organized around the following questions:
1.
What are online learning communities?
2.
What are the theoretical foundations underpinning learning in online learning
communities?
3.
What are the major studies on online learning communities? Are there common
themes among these studies?
4.
What are some guidelines and principles of fostering, facilitating, and supporting
online learning communities?
5.
What are some pertinent research issues to be explored?
Defining Online Learning Communities
2
Online learning communities, otherwise known as virtual learning communities (Henri
& Pudelko, 2003), or cyberspace classrooms (Palloff & Pratt, 2001), is an emerging field of
study that is still being defined by researchers. In this review, we attempt to define online
learning communities by explicating each key dimension of online learning communities
progressively: psychological and social dimension (community), technological dimension
(online community), and educational dimension (communities of learners).
Community
Derived from the Latin word communis, the word community suggests commonness
and joint ownership. What is common and shared can be locations, interest, identities or a
combination of the above. From a sociological perspective, a community is a cohesive social
entity that is commonly defined within a geographical location (Tönnies, 1955). From a
psychological perspective, members of a community can be connected in mind (McMillan &
Chavis, 1986). This “sense of community” (ibid.) has four key dimensions: (a) membership,
(b) influence, (c) integration and fulfillment of needs, and (d) shared emotional connection.
Within the community, the members develop a sense of identity and belonging which in turn
helps to define the boundaries and criteria for membership to the community. As the
members interact with each other, mutual influence develops among members. There is also
a dialectical relationship between individuals and the group: individuals contribute to the
community and the community has influence on individuals. The cultures and norms within
the community provide the fulfillment of needs of individuals, and at the same time reward
and reinforce their practices. Through the shared experience and history, members develop
a strong sense of emotional connection to the community. A community is thus both systems
and processes where diverse human needs can be fulfilled, including survival, socialization
and support, and sense of identity.
The earlier forms of communities are bounded by geographical locations. The
psychological sense of community, however, could exist beyond the geographical boundary
3
and ride on the advancement of network technology, giving rise to the flourish of online
communities.
Online Communities
The advent of network technology results in the development of numerous
technologies for Computer-mediated Communication (CMC). Email, newsgroup, list server,
web-based bulletin-board, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and Multi-User Dungeon (MUD) are
examples of CMC that could potentially be used to support online communities (Lazar, Tsao,
& Preece, 1999). Of particular interest are technologies developed purposefully in the service
of learning, known as Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) technologies.
One distinct characteristic of CSCL technologies is the pedagogical support embedded in the
software, for example, Knowledge Forum (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003), Collaborative and
Multimedia Interactive Learning Environment (CaMILE) and Scaffolded Multi-User Integrated
Learning Environment (SMILE) (Guzdial et al., 1997).
There is a consensus among many researchers that defining online communities with
technologies as the key attribute is insufficient and unproductive (Stahl et al., 2006).
According to Kirschner, Martens, and Strijbos (2004), design of CSCL environments should
take into consideration social, technological and educational dimensions of the environment
in the service of learning. The educational dimensions of the environment determine the
learning activities and tasks for intentional learning; the social dimensions facilitate relevant
social interactions among learners towards learning goals; and the technological dimensions
provide a “physical” environment that facilitates and supports learning.
Following the classification schema by Lazar and Preece (1998), online communities
can be classified along a) the technology dimension; b) attributes of the communities; c)
relation to physical communities and 4) boundedness. The relation to physical communities
provides the contextual information about the historical development of the communities, the
attributes of the communities help define the goals and purposes of the online communities
and the boundedness defines the sociological elements that are critical to the development
4
of a sense of community. More specifically, Preece (2000) proposed that an online
community consists of people, a shared purpose, policies, and computer systems that
mediate social interaction.
Communities of Learners
Community of learners or CoLs stresses the intentional goals of learning. A learning
community is cohesive and has a “culture of learning such that everyone is involved in a
collective effort of understanding” (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999, p. 2). In a learning community,
both the individuals and the community as a whole are learning how to learn and knowledge
is constructed through involvement in the community’s shared values, beliefs, languages,
and ways of doing things. Bielaczyc and Collins (1999) identified four characteristics of a
learning community: a) diversity of expertise amongst members; b) shared objective of
advancing collective knowledge; c) emphasis on learning how to learn and d) mechanism for
sharing what is learnt. One of the tenets for a successful CoL is that members in the
community need to be organized around a structural-dependence principle. “The community
should be organized such that students are dependent on other students’ contributions in
some way. It is important to have a valid reason for students to work together that makes
sense to the students, such as common task that requires joint effort” (ibid. p. 288).
Online Learning Communities
Inheriting the characteristics of online communities and community of learners, an
online learning community was defined as “ensembles of agents, who share a common
language, world, values in terms of pedagogical approach and knowledge to be acquired.
They pursue a common learning goal by communicating and cooperating through electronic
media in the learning process. The common interest of this type of community is the common
interest in learning.” (Seufert, Lechner, & Stanoevska, 2002, p.47). The key attribute of online
learning communities that differentiates it from other communities is the sharing of a common
goal of learning. They are different from other types of online community that exist for non-
5
educational purposes such as informal information exchange or the building of social
relations guided by personal interests. The common goal of learning entails sharing “a set of
knowing, a set of practices, and the shared value of the knowledge that these procedures
generate” (Riel & Fulton, 2001, p. 519). The participating individuals are valued for the
knowledge they possessed and their desire to learn.
For K-12 education, there is an increasing number of studies on the design,
development and outcomes of online learning communities in blended learning
environments, in particular, those that originate from communities within classrooms or
schools (e.g. Manlove, Lazonder, & de Jong, 2006; Salovaara, 2005). Tapping the availability
of diverse views and expertise across time and space that are afforded by the web-based
technology, an online learning community might also include students from disperse
geographical locations such as via teleconferencing or online collaboration on a common
project with students from another school or country (e.g. Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003) or even
individuals or groups from outside the school community such as trainee teachers,
educational researchers, scientists or experts who are keen in supporting the learning of the
students (e.g. Maples, Groenke & Dunlap, 2005).
Theoretical Foundations of Learning in Online Communities
Since the goal of learning is what differentiates online learning communities from
other online communities, it is pertinent to review theories underpinning learning in online
communities.
From a social-cultural perspective, Vygotsky viewed learning as a cognitive
developmental process that occurs through social interaction. Vygotsky (1962/1986) held
that learning is embedded within social events and learning occurs as a learner interacts with
people, objects, and events in the environment. In addition, Vygotsky argued that
development of higher mental functions is mediated by signs and sign system, particularly
speech and language. Through interaction with surroundings and communication with others
via language, a person engages in metacognitive self-regulation of behavior and reflection in
6
action. Through such a process, internalization and learning occur. In online learning
communities, learning occurs through interaction among individuals who are connected
through computer network as they interact via various modes, primarily language.
Also pertinent to socio-cultural learning is the notion of distributed cognition within a
collaborative setting (Pea, 1993). In an online learning community, intelligence and expertise
are distributed among various members. Each member, entering the community with
different background, experience, and expertise, contributes different ideas and perspectives
through computer-mediated interactions. This diversity of ideas, expertise and perspectives
becomes the collective resources for the community. In addition to distributed intelligence,
there is also a distribution of responsibilities for difficult and complex learning tasks, which
reduces cognitive overload of individuals and allows members to develop differential
expertise (Roth, 1999).
Brown and Duguid (2000) characterized learning in communities as demand driven, a
social act, and as identity formation. Building on the notion of situated cognition, Brown,
Collins, and Duguid (1989) also argued that learning is interwoven with context and activity.
Learning is driven by demand, a real need, and as we engage in activity, social acts or
practices, learning takes place. Contextual information is encoded in the process which
indexes the personal knowledge that is constructed during the process. The implication is
that the design of learning activities should be contextualized and premised on authentic
problems. Learning should occur in rich situational and activity-practice context that allows
for cognition by individuals in an interactional and dialectical relationship with other
individuals, artifacts, ideas, tools, and problems.
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of Community of Practice (CoP) provides further
insights into learning as social acts and as identity formation. In a community of practice,
people socially construct meanings, create and appropriate social cultural norms. At the
periphery of a community, the participants start as legitimate peripheral participants,
appropriating implicit and explicit knowledge through participating and observing. This
process is epitomized by the process of apprenticeship, where apprentices gradually acquire
7
skills of the trait, norms, and rules held by the core members within the community of practice.
Lave and Wenger (ibid) characterized the learning journey as one that moves from legitimate
peripheral participation to central participation of the practice. Beyond learning, by
participating in the community, one also appropriates from the practice “ways of seeing”
(Hung, 1999), meaning that the participants acquire a “lens” for seeing meanings that are
identified with the community of practice. Identity formation takes place through the
appropriation of the beliefs, values, and skills required in a practice. Lipponen, Hakkarainen
and Paavola (2004) further differentiated between the participatory approach and the
knowledge creation approach of learning in a community. The participatory approach
happens when a novice is enculturated while moving from periphery to the central of a
community. The knowledge creation approach, on the other hand, advocates collaborative
knowledge building with the constant goal of improving cultural artifacts and knowledge, as
epitomized in Knowledge Building communities (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003).
Review of Studies on Online Learning Communities in K-12 Settings
In this section, we summarize research studies on online learning communities in K12 settings. While there are myriad of studies on learning mediated through electronic means,
we will only focus on research studies that gear towards the formation of a community for
learning. Online learning communities are chosen based on the following criteria: (1) learning
in K-12 settings, (2) use of computer network(s) as a mediation tool, and (3) evidence of a
design effort towards fostering a sense of community. We will include both learning in formal
and informal settings, as well as online and blended environments. Excluded are studies
based on ad hoc groups collaborating or learning through computer network with no
evidence of effort towards fostering a sense of community. Based on our criteria, we have
chosen four online learning communities: Knowledge Building Communities (KBC), Quest
Atlantis (QA), Virtual Math Team (VMT), and Web-based Inquiry Science Environment
(WISE). Knowledge building community, strictly speaking, is a blended environment that
involves both face-to-face and online interactions. We include KBC in this review as it marks
8
an important milestone in the field of online learning communities as one of the pioneers in
using Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) technology for learning in a
community in K-12 settings. In addition, many design principles that can be used for online
learning communities were developed through studies in KBC. Due to space constraint, we
regret that we are not able to review other communities, like CoVIS (Chan & van Aalst, 2008;
Edelson, Pea, & Gomez, 1995) or River City (Clarke, Dede & Dieterle, 2008).
Knowledge Building Community
Knowledge Building Community (KBC) is pioneered by Scardamalia and Bereiter
(2003) who define knowledge building as “the production and continual improvement of ideas
of value to a community, through means that increase the likelihood that what the community
accomplishes will be greater than the sum of individual contributions and part of broader
cultural efforts”(p.1370). Scardamalia and Bereiter (ibid) argued that knowledge building
leads to personal learning but the converse may not be true. In this sense, KBC is a superordinate concept that subsumes a learning community. Currently, KBC has been
implemented in around 19 countries (http://www.ikit.org).
1.
Cognitive dimension. Underpinning KBC is an expansive view of learning that
emphasizes critical and creative work on ideas. The central idea of knowledge building is to
get students to put their ideas in a public space (e.g. online forum); the ideas become objects
of inquiry as they are made available to the whole community such that the ideas can be
discussed, inter-connected, revised, and superseded. Cognitively, the students learn to
engage in knowledge building discourse as they take collective responsibility to improve the
ideas in the public space. It aims to empower students with the abilities to engage in
metacognition and reflection and to construct knowledge substantiated with warrants and
evidence. Researchers in several countries have reported positive effects of KBC (for
example, see Scardamalia, & Bereiter, 1996; Hakkarianen, 1998; Tan, Hung, & So, 2005;
Tan, Yeo, & Lim, 2005).
9
2.
Social dimension. KBC uses Knowledge Forum (http://www.knowledgeforum.com/)
that allows ideas to be displayed in a public forum so that inter-subjectivity of ideas can be
achieved when differences in opinions and perspectives are visible. The success of
knowledge building communities depends largely on establishing socio-cognitive norms and
values that all participants are aware of and work toward. For example, collective cognitive
responsibilities for knowledge advances, constructive critique through knowledge building
discourse, and continual seeking of idea improvement. In an online forum, the pace and turntaking order is not controlled by teachers, thus facilitating re-negotiation of institutional power
(Tan & Tan, 2006). Students can assume greater power for social order. They also have
more time for reflection, consulting authoritative resources, and formulating their responses.
3.
Technological support and infrastructure. Specifically designed for KBC is the online
collaborative tool called Knowledge Forum. The graphical interface is organized as Views
which can be linked to other Views on topics, questions and problems. Participants put forth
their ideas as contributions which serve the inquiry purpose and objects upon which the
community can reflect, link, relate and question ideas posted. The notes are linked
graphically, allowing one to trace the development of and organize ideas. To facilitate
knowledge building discourse, customizable scaffolds can be embedded in a note window.
These are cognitive supports which scaffold and encourage learners to engage in more indepth inquiry rather than superficial chatting. Knowledge Forum encourages idea
improvement by allowing review and revision of notes, publications of views, and a “rise
above” function which encourages users to synthesize or summarize ideas at a higher level.
Quest Atlantis
Quest Atlantis (QA) (http://atlantis.crlt.indiana.edu/),undertaken by Indiana University,
is a 3D multi-user virtual environment which incorporates the strategies of online gaming and
narration. Target at learners of ages 9-12, the design of QA is based on a triadic foundation
of education, entertainment and a set of social commitments. Currently, it has served 4500
10
users distributed across seven countries through membership by association with elementary
schools, children’s museums and after-school clubs.
1.
Cognitive dimension. QA is designed based on three key features of engagement,
change and understanding (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Carteaux & Tuzun, 2005). Based on a
participatory framework, children investigate relevant personal issues related to community,
power, global and water in a fictional game context. They direct their own activities and share
their personal experiences as they travel through worlds and villages in Atlantis to solve real
world, inquiry-based challenges, called Quests. Through this experiential learning, children’s
understanding is derived from and modified through experiences, action and reflection in this
physical setting.
2.
Social dimension. QA adopts a social agenda of empowering individuals and
communities in its design. The design of QA takes into consideration seven principles to
foster social commitment: personal agency, diversity affirmation, healthy communities, social
responsibility, environmental awareness, creative expression and compassionate wisdom in
a child so that the lives of a child will be enhanced and hence developing children into
knowledgeable, responsible and empathetic adults (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Squire & Newell,
2004).
3.
Technological support and infrastructure. To support participation in this community,
the virtual world is housed on a central Internet server. Building on strategies from online
gaming such as free play, role play and adventure, it consists of both structural and
motivational functions to encourage learning and social development. Structurally, it consists
of a shared mythological context that establishes and supports program activities like the
Quests. Its online spaces and its text-chat function provide the affordance for children,
mentors and Atlantian Council to interact with each other. With a well-defined advancement
system which rewards advancement in knowledge and wisdom, it encourages academic and
11
social learning. With individualized homepage, children can build a portfolio to show their
advancement in their works and develop the identity of the persona adopted in the virtual
space.
Virtual Math Team (VMT) Project
VMT project (http://vmt.mathforum.org/VMTLobby/) focuses on the use of an online
synchronous environment for students to talk about mathematics and solve mathematics
problems (Wessner, Shumar, Stahl, Sarmiento, Muhlpfordt, & Weimar., 2006). VMT is an
extension to the regular suite of interactive math education services offered in The Math
Forum, an online resource for improving mathematics learning, teaching and communication
(Virtual Math Team, n.d.).
1.
Cognitive dimension. The goal of the VMT project is to create a self-sustaining
system and a non-competitive environment that allows individuals become part of a wellworking group and make progress together toward increasing their mathematics knowledge
and problem solving skills (Wessner et. al., 2006). The environment is made up of a number
of math discussion chat rooms that cater to different types of situation and math topics
including challenging problems taken from The Math Forum.
2.
Social dimension. VMT aims to foster collaborative knowledge building through math
discourse among teachers, mathematicians, researchers, students and parents (Virtual Math
Team, n.d.). The environment, made up of a virtual lobby and chat rooms, provide the
affordances for social interaction among the members. In these spaces, members could
socialize in the virtual lobby, propose new topics, create a new room or join an existing room
for joint work on a given or self-defined problem. In problem solving, new ideas are proposed
and questions are posed. However, mentoring the process remains a challenge with
students having to post summaries of their work and to request asynchronous feedback from
their mentors.
12
3.
Technological support and infrastructure. VMT provides a number of tools that
support learning and communication such as textbox, whiteboard function, chat-log and
referencing tool. The textbox is a synchronous chat tool. The whiteboard function provides
the shared space for drawing mathematical objects and graphical representation of the
problem. A referencing tool allows users to refer to an area of whiteboard so that a specific
area of a math object drawn on the whiteboard can be defined in the text box; it also allows
one text posting to be connected to a previous one. The conversation in the VMT-chat can
be saved and reviewed at a later time. It thus allows any newcomers to follow the historical
happenings of the problem solving process.
The Web-Based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE)
WISE (http://wise.berkeley.edu/) offers a free online environment where grade 5-12
students can log on to participate in inquiry projects jointly developed by classroom teachers,
technologists, natural scientists and pedagogical researchers (Linn & Slotta, 2000). A library
of at least 25 inquiry projects has been set up and used by as many as 1000 teachers and
100, 000 students (Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003).
1.
Cognitive dimension. WISE uses the scaffolded knowledge integration approach
which builds on the premise that eliciting ideas from students and combining, sorting,
organizing, contrasting, integrating, creating and reflecting on the repertoires of ideas help to
build understanding (Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003). It aims to make thinking visible, make
science accessible, help students learn from each other, and promote lifelong learning. Each
WISE project also includes pretest, posttest, scoring rubrics, lesson plans and commentary
from teachers who have used the project. WISE could also incorporate hands-on activities
and field trips. The expected outcome is that students possess the disposition and skills
capable of doing scientific inquiry which will enable them to become consumers and
contributors to the scientific enterprise.
13
2.
Social dimension. Discussion tools such as online asynchronous discussions allow
students to interact and learn from each other. There are two types of discussions: studentinitiated discussions and large group question-and-answer sessions (Cuthbert, Clark, & Linn,
2002). Students are allowed to make contributions anonymously which help to reduce
stereotypical responses from others and encourage sharing of ideas. Probing software is
used to group students who have different explanatory theories and perspectives together in
electronic discussion groups, thus encouraging them to argue and work towards achieving a
consensus (ibid.). Show and tell allows students to showcase their work and seek feedback
from others. Strategies are also incorporated to balance sustaining interactions and
achieving the learning goals, such as requiring students to place their comments into
categories before posting, grouping students’ comments on the same topic together and
listing the number of comments with unanswered questions (ibid.).
3.
Technological support and infrastructure. In addition to the tools to support social
interaction, other tools include Inquiry Map, a step-wise procedural guide, that serves to
scaffold independent students’ inquiry and learning; Hints, questions which allow students to
make connections; Evidence Pages, consisting of authoritative scientific information and
hyperlinks to provide students with the relevant background knowledge; Principle Builder,
which provides a set of pre-defined phrases to help students construct scientific theories; and
Advance organizers, which help students to focus on relevant materials on the different Web
pages (Linn, Clark & Slotta, 2003). Students’ thinking is made visible through the use of note
on which students record their ideas as guided by epistemological, metacognitive or
knowledge integration prompts. Visualizations, graphing and exploratory data analysis tool
are also available to support student thinking and make their ideas explicit.
Comparison of the Four Online Learning Communities
14
The unifying features across these online learning communities are the recognition
that learning within a community is a social process and advanced technologies are
leveraged as mediation tools to support cognitive and social processes in the communities.
We summarized three key characteristics that might contribute to the success and
sustainability of these communities:
1.
In the cognitive dimension, goals and types of pedagogical tasks and activities
are grounded on theories or principles of learning. For example, KBC focuses on expansive
approach of learning by emphasizing idea improvement; QA adopts a participatory
framework which emphasizes inquiry-based learning and experiential learning; VMT focuses
on mathematics problem solving through math discourse; In WISE, students are guided to
engage in scientific investigative practices.
2.
In the social dimension, these communities strive on the strength of collective
responsibilities and contributions as a community. For example, KBC explicitly stresses
collective knowledge and community responsibility, students as epistemic agency,
democratization of knowledge, and symmetric knowledge advancement. QA emphasizes
social commitments to foster sense of purpose as individuals, as members of their
communities and as knowledge citizens of the world. In WISE, conscious attempts are made
to collect students’ experiences and represent them in an accessible and equitable manner,
which represent the identities of the community members. In the least scaffolded way,
students share ideas and negotiate solutions in VMT.
3.
In the technological dimension, the four communities leverage technological
advances to achieve goals beyond face-to-face settings. This is in contrast to the common
criticism of putting old wine into new bottles where technologies are used as bells and
whistles to glamorize traditional modes of instruction. For example, in KBC, the graphical
view allows idea development to be visualized; In QA, 3-D technologies are used to create
15
an immersive experience and to support real-time collaboration; In VMT, a variety of rooms
allows participants to self-organize into groups characterized by shared interests and goals
or be assigned a particular problem; WISE scaffolds the students for practices and daily
tasks of scientists through the use of technology.
Notwithstanding these commonalities, the four online learning communities vary in
terms of settings and origins, duration of existence, technological environment, norms and
practices, forms of communication, cultural and political values and the design of learning
environments. These differences give rise to online learning communities with different
character and ambience. In contrasting these online learning communities, we characterize
them along several continuums (Table 1), for example, generic versus discipline specific
learning. This analytical approach aims to provide insights into the variations and different
shades of online learning communities, thus demonstrates the richness and potential
directions that this field of study might progress.
Table 1
Comparisons of the online learning communities
Cognitive
Generic
Discipline specific
Abstract
Situated, authentic
Participatory
Expansive
Cognition
Metacognition
Social
Self-organized
Intentional community
Expert-novice power
Personal agency
Individual gain
Collective gain
16
Technological
No scaffolding
Embedded scaffolding
Turn taking
Multiple threads
Synchronous
Asynchronous
Text
Multimodal
Cognitive Dimension
The four online learning communities show some variations in the nature of cognitive
tasks and activities. While KBC and QA can be used for different subject domains, WISE is
designed for learning of science and VMT is designed specifically for mathematics problem
solving. Within the situatedness and abstract continuum, WISE features strongly in
approaching authentic practices of scientific investigations. KBC emphasizes studentinitiated problems and authentic problems of understanding, making the concrete-abstract
and everyday-scientific connections. QA adopts a simulation approach, using scenario and
narrative to engage students in problem solving. VMT uses brain teasers and problems
similar to classroom mathematical problems, thus is closer to the Abstract end of the
continuum. KBC adopts an expansive view of learning by stressing innovativeness and idea
improvement. The other communities adopt a participatory view of learning with tasks or
activities predominantly designed by a team of experts. Metacognition is emphasized to
varying extent, with KBC showing deliberate attempt to engage participants in ‘Rise Above’,
that is, metacognition and reflection to advance collaborative knowledge. Metacognitive
scaffolding is less apparent in other communities.
Social/Emotional Dimension
All four online learning communities included varying degree of technological support
and scaffolding for social interactions among members. On one end, we see KBC declaring
knowledge building as the pervasive goal in school curriculum with strong modeling and
17
mentoring from the teachers, and on the other hand, VMT fostering a self-organizing
community among members from diverse background. QA declares strongest mandate in
fostering social emotional development among the members, for example, social
responsibility, empathy, and environmental awareness. VMT represents the other end of the
continuum where there are emergent interactions among members and social emotional
development is incidental. One contrasting difference among the four communities is the
power relationship. In WISE, for example, expert and mentor are explicitly recognized. QA
and KBC emphasize the importance of empowering students as epistemic agency. Even
though there is a strong presence of adults and experts in KBC, the importance of
empowerment and appropriate use of authoritative sources is emphasized. All four
communities use online communication tools to support interactions and collaboration among
members. KBC advocates collective cognitive responsibility and symmetric knowledge
advancement among all participants. This balance between individual and collective gains
seems to be present in all communities.
Technological Dimension
Among the four online learning communities, we see greatest variation in terms of
technologies. One commonality, however, is the use of technology as mediation tool to
support social and cognitive development. The technologies vary in terms of degree of
embedded scaffolding. For example, Knowledge Forum has embedded cognitive scaffolds,
whereas VMT uses online chat that imposes least amount of structural constraints or
scaffolding for the participants. Asynchronous discussion forums in KBC and WISE allow
participants to join in multiple thread discussions. Synchronous chat of VMT and online
games of QA, however, requires participation at the same time and depends largely on turntaking interactions. Another variation is the modalities of communication. While text remains
the main mode of communication in the four online learning communities, graphing and
graphical representations are available in Knowledge Forum and WISE. A related difference
18
is the use of discipline specific tools. For example, visualization and modeling tools are used
in WISE to support scientific inquiry specifically.
Pertinent Research and Implementation Issues
In the above sections, we have covered much ground on cognitive, social/emotional,
and technological dimensions of established and emerging online learning communities.
There remain, however, several pertinent research and implementation issues in this field of
work.
1. Contradictions with traditional school cultures and practices
In many schools where preparation for high-stake national examinations is
emphasized, the goals and motivations for schooling run in contradiction to the social
constructivist and collective advancement ideals of online learning communities. One
possibility is to view them as separate initiatives and maximize on their respective potentials
in complementary ways. To do this, schools could find ways in which their students can
participate in online communities, which could occur in informal settings, by preparing
students with the media literacy skills for participating in these communities. Regardless of
the tensions that arise, we see a transition where an increased emphasis in social
constructivist forms of pedagogy, such as in CSCL, is gradually helping to weaken the
strongholds of traditional pedagogies. When teachers and school practices are more learnercentric, learning communities might become more prevalent. Concomitantly, with the
prevalent involvement of school students in online communities, schools will be compelled to
change their traditional didactic practices because students will soon find schools boring and
irrelevant. These push and pull factors will gradually change schooling and the practices of
teaching and learning. Some pertinent research issues include: 1) how to facilitate
implementation of online learning communities within existing school cultures? 2) to what
extent could online learning communities be implemented in formal school settings? 3) what
19
are some concomitant systemic factors, such as high-stake assessment, which could be
changed to facilitate implementation of online learning communities?
2. Issues of authenticity of learning
A fundamental challenge in the field of learning communities is that schools are
perceived and criticized as insufficiently authentic, that is, with respect to communities of
practice. Schools are trying to make learning more authentic by engaging students in
practices that are nearer to what actual practitioners do but they are not sufficiently fostering
in students the disposition towards disciplinary practices such as in the scientific practices. In
order to simulate the authentic construction of meanings in any practice is to be as close to
the professional practice as far as possible such as simulating the discipline-specific genre
and talk for example in science (O’Neill, 2001). Petraglia (1997) pointed out that these
simulations are a priori (preauthentication) designs. They have missed the in-situ
epistemological considerations that underpin constructivism and situated cognition. He
argues that educational technologists have been preauthenticating learning materials and
environments to correspond to the real world rather than fostering learners with the ability to
interact with it. Thus, several issues remain: 1) should authentic disciplinary practices be the
ultimate goal for schools? 2) if not, what could be the realistic goal in the authentic-simulation
continuum?
3. Knowledge acquisition through online learning communities
In general, research in the dimension of knowledge acquisition through online
learning communities is scarce. This could be due to the current emphasis towards
investigating and understanding the constructive processes involved in learning rather than
the learning outcomes (Suthers, 2005). In this field of CSCL, some researchers hold that it is
still in need of substantiating its claim for better learning outcomes (Hendriks & Maor, 2004).
Even though knowledge acquisition is only one of the many learning outcomes that online
learning communities are gearing towards, in a pragmatic sense, it could help to convince
20
policy makers and practitioners about its effectiveness (see also Strijbos, Kirschner, &
Martens, 2004). A critical mass of participants in sustainable online learning communities
could provide the fertile ground for fruitful research in this field. Some questions to explore
include 1) what learning benefits could online learning communities demonstrate? 2) in what
ways does students’ cognitive development occur through participating in online learning
communities? 3) in what ways could students’ cognitive development be fostered in online
learning communities?
4. Social-emotional outcomes
It is a challenge to foster for identity and dispositional enculturation of practices in
online learning communities, while in informal online communities, people are expressing
their identities and personal views (as in blogging and messaging) in the form of reflections
and social interactions. There is a heightened and almost definitive sense of ownership. As
discussed earlier, the factors that make or break a community, whether face-to-face or online
are issues of trust and identity, clarity of purpose, and boundaries (Rheingold, 1994). QA
emphasizes the socio-emotional outcomes but research in this dimension is rather scarce.
Emerging technologies like MUVEs also bring new issues like the nature of (virtual) identity
in a virtual environment. Some research issues include: (1) in what ways could students’
socio-emotional development be fostered in online learning communities? (2) what are the
socio-emotional benefits online learning communities could offer to K-12 students? (3) in
what ways is (virtual) identity developed in the online learning communities? (4) how does
(virtual) identity affect students’ behavior and learning outcomes?
5.
Technological advances
Advances in technologies continue to provide new frontiers and possibilities for online
learning communities. Recent projects like Second Life and River City have demonstrated
advance features of 3D virtual environment and shown promises of new affordances yet
unseen in other online communities. River City is a MUVE that allows multiple participants to
21
access virtual contexts simultaneously, representing themselves through avatars,
communicate with other participants, interact with the digital artifacts and take part in
experiences that simulate real world problems (Clarke, Dede & Dieterle, 2008). Second Life,
created by Linden Lab in 2003, is a 3-D virtual world where members of the public can create
their own avatars, build houses, start up businesses and schools, sell real estate, stage or
enjoy entertainments and just about anything they could do in the real world. Linden dollar is
the currency used within this virtual world but it can be converted to US dollars at several
online currency exchanges (http://secondlife.com/), thus behaving like a foreign currency in
many aspects (Prisco, 2006). Pertinent research issues include: (1) what are the affordances
of advanced technologies that could facilitate learning in online learning communities? (2)
what are the learning outcomes that could be achieved through these new environments? (3)
in what ways do identities and community development occur in these new environments?
Conclusion
Online learning community, as an emerging field of research, builds on the foundation
of online communities and communities of learners. As a nascent field of study, research
findings have demonstrated the complexity and challenges of establishing and sustaining
online learning communities. We can, however, derive a few key dimensions from these
research findings: cognitive, social, and technological dimensions. Since learning is the
distinctive goal that distinguishes online learning communities from other online communities,
the cognitive dimension of learning within the community remains an important consideration
in designing and implementing an online learning community. In addition, as a community,
one cannot ignore the issues of trust and identity, clarity of purpose, and boundaries. Thus,
the social dimension of the learning environment, in service of cognitive, emotional, and
community development, becomes critical. Likewise, as an online community, the
technological dimension cannot be neglected. Online learning communities are situated
within a larger social, cultural, and political framework. Its existence and sustainability is
dependent on systemic environment factors, such as existing school organizations and
22
cultures, or even the larger societal views about schooling and education through alternative
means and experience. We need to be cognizant of the dialectical relationship between the
online learning communities and the systems and environment in which they are situated.
Through the review of four online learning communities, namely, Knowledge Building
communities, Quest Atlantis, Virtual Math Team, and Web-based Inquiry Science
Environment, we highlighted some common principles and characteristics of these learning
environments. Their differences, on the other hand, illustrate the richness and possibilities
that this field of study could advance. We have also discussed several challenges and
potential research issues for researchers, including the contradictions with traditional school
cultures and practices, the issues of authenticity versus simulation approach in schools, the
cognitive and socio-emotional outcomes of online learning communities, and the possibilities
and impact of advances in technologies.
As the intended audience for this paper is primarily researchers, implications for
practitioners and learners are not elaborated. For example, teachers would need to be
sensitive to socio-technological design and not just in content delivery. Designing for sociality
and learning interactions will become key skills and dispositions for teachers, and these will
be considered part of pedagogy. Students will have to learn to be a lot more innovative, open
minded, and information and media savvy compared to previous generations of students.
References
Anderson, R. (2008). Implications of the information and knowledge society for education. In
J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in
primary and secondary education (pp. xxx-xxx). New York: Springer.
Barab, S. A., Thomas, M., Dodge, Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun:
Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 53(1), 86-108.
23
Barab, S, A., Thomas, M., Dodge, Squire, K., & Newell, M. (2004). Critical design
ethnography: Designing for change. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(2), 254268.
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A
reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional
design theories and models (Vol. II). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P (2000) The social life of information. Harvard Business School,
Cambridge.
Chan, C., & van Aalst, J. (2008). Collaborative inquiry and knowledge building in networked
multimedia environments. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of
information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. xxx-xxx). New York:
Springer.
Clarke, J., Dede, C., & Dieterle, E. (2008). Emerging technologies for collaborative, mediated,
immersive learning. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of
information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. xxx-xxx). New York:
Springer.
Cuthbert, A. J., Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE learning communities: Design
considerations. In K. A. Renninger, & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities:
Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 215-246). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. (1995). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In B. G.
Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design.
Englewood cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Guzdial, M., Hmelo, C., Hubscher, R., Nagel, K., Newstetter, W., Puntambekar, S., Shabo, A.,
Turns, J., & Kolodner, J. (1997). Integrating and guiding collaboration: Lesson learned
in computer-supported collaborative learning research at Georgia Tech. Proceedings
24
of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning
(CSCL), 1997, Toronto, Ontario, 91-100.
Hakkarainen, K. (1998). Epistemology of scientific inquiry and computer-supported
collaborative learning. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Toronto.
Hendriks, V., & Maor, D. (2004). Quality of students’ communicative strategies delivered
through computer-mediated communications. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,
15(1), 5-32.
Henri, F., & Pudelko, B. (2003). Understanding and analyzing activity and learning in virtual
communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 474-487.
Hung, D. (1999). Activity, apprenticeship and epistemological appropriation: Implications
from the writings of Michael Polanyi. Educational Psychologist, 34(4), 193-205.
Kirschner, P. A., Martens, R. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2004). CSCL in Higher Education? In J. W.
Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And
implementing it in higher education (pp. 3-30). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (1998). Classification schema for online communities. Proceedings of
the 1998 Association for Information Systems, Americas Conference, 84-86.
Lazar, J., Tsao, R., & Preece, J. (1999). One foot in Cyberspace and the other on the ground:
A case study of analysis and design issues in a hybrid virtual and physical community.
WebNet Journal, 1(3), 49-57.
Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58(2), 29-32.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science
Education, 87, 517-538.
Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2004). Practices and orientations of CSCL. In
J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL and
25
Implementing it in Higher Education, (pp. 34-50). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., de Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative
scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 87-98.
Maples, J., Groenke, S., & Dunlap, D. (2005). The web pen pal project: Perceptions of a
learning community in an online synchronous environment. Journal of Interactive
Online Learning, 4(2), 108-128.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2003). enGauge 21st century skills: Literacy
in the digital age. Retrieved 18 Dec, 2006, from
http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/skills.htm
O’Neill, D. K. (2001). Knowing when you’ve brought them in: Scientific genre knowledge and
communities of practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3), 223-264
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of
online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Partnership for 21st century skills. (2006). Results that matter: 21st century skills and high
school reform. Retrieved 18 Dec, 2006, from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/RTM2006.pdf
Pea, R. D. (1993) Practices of distributed intelligence and designs of education. In M. Cole, &
Y. Engeström (Eds.), Distributed cognition: Psychology and educational considerations,
Cambridge University Press
Petraglia, J. (1997). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in
education. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. New York:
Wiley.
Prisco, G. (2006). Virtual reality in your second life and beyond. Retrieved 13th Dec 2006,
from http://futuretag.net/index.php/Slgp1
26
Rheingold (1994) (in text but not in reference list)
Riel, M., & Fulton, K. (2001). The role of technology in supporting learning communities.
Kappan, 82, 518-523.
Roth, W. (1999). Authentic school science. In R. McCormick, & C. Paechter (Eds.), Learning
and knowledge (pp. 6-20 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication.
Salovaara, H. (2005). An exploration of students’ strategy use in inquiry-based computersupported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 39-52.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building
communities. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging
paradigm. (pp. 249-268). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In James W. Guthrie (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.) (pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference,
USA.
Seufert, S., Lechner, U., & Stanoevska, K. (2002). A reference model for online learning
communities. International Journal on E-Learning, 43-66.
Stahl, G., Zemel, A., Sarmiento, J., Cakir, M., Weimar, S., Wessner, M., & Muhlpfordt, M.
(2006). Shared referencing of mathematical objects in online chat. Paper presented at
the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2006), Bloomington,
Indiana.
Strijbos, J. W., Kirschner, P. A., & Martens, R. L. (2004) What we know about CSCL and
what we do not (but need to) know about CSCL. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R.
L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher
education (pp. 245-261). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic/Springer Verlag.
Suthers, D. (2005). Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: A thematic agenda
for CSCL. In T. Koschmann, D, Suthers, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported
collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years. (pp. 662-671). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
27
Tan, S. C., Hung, D., & So, K. L. (2005). Fostering scientific inquiry in schools through
science research course and Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL).
International Journal of Learning Technology, 1(3), 273-292.
Tan, S. C., & Tan, A. L. (2006). Conversational analysis as an analytical tool for face-to-face
and online conversations. Educational Media International, 43(4), 347-361.
Tan, S. C., Yeo, J., & Lim, W. Y. (2005). Changing epistemology of science learning through
inquiry with Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching. 24(4), 367-386.
Tönnies, F. (1955). Community and association. London: Routland & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Virtual Math Teams. (n.d.). The virtual math teams project: An overview of VMT. Retrieved
January 3,2007, from http://www.mathforum.org/vmt/TheVMTProject.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1962/1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wessner, M., Shumar, W., Stahl, G., Sarmiento, J., Muhlpfordt, & M., Weimar, S. (2006).
Designing an online service for a math community. Paper presented at the
International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2006), Bloomington, Indiana.
28