EdTech 504: Learning Communities - Chapter review notes

I am very interested in learning communities (particularly in an online format), as I aim to get involved in promoting those throughout K-12 arena in the next school year. As I read chapter 11, I was considering these questions: Are learning communities even necessary for good education? How is a learning community actually different from a community of learners? And how are online communities different from face-to-face formats?

Chapter 11. Learning Communities (From Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments)

1. Defining Community
1. “can tap levels of emotion and energy that otherwise remain dormant” (Manning, Curtis, and McMillen (1996))
2. “…negotiated by individuals, in the context of changing external constraints” (Komito (1998))
2. Defining Learning Community
1. Everyone involved in collective & indiv. effort to understand (Bielaczyc & Collins (1999))
2. Share concern, set of problems, or passion about a topic. Deepen knowledge/expertise though ongoing interaction (Wenger, McDermott, Snyder (2002))
3. How formed? (Hannafin et al. (2003))

                                                               i.      Directed: Objectivist, formal, authority-driven goals & means (instruction + eval.)

                                                             ii.      Negotiated: Jointly-determined norms & expectations

                                                            iii.      Informal: Learner-driven (e.g. technology-trends increase learning via Web 2.0 + social networking)

3. Examples of Learning Communities
1. Knowledge Forum – (1990’s Scardamalia & Bereiter) – “knowledge building communities”

                                                               i.      Learners come tog. to extend ideas using Web-based tools

1.      multiple perspectives

2.      elaborate/reorganize ideas

3.      helps their own and others’ understanding

2. Doesn’t have to be elaborate

                                                               i.      International partnerships

                                                             ii.      Face-to-face or online using various tools (e.g. Web 2.0)

                                                            iii.      Professional development (don’t need a fancy “course")

1.      e.g. Inside Teaching: multimedia website as a “living archive”

2.      learn from it and contribute to it for others’ benefit

4. Theoretical Foundations of Learning Communities
1. Social Constructivist Theory -- Vygotsky

                                                               i.      Interdependence of learner and learning context

                                                             ii.      Community members on various points of ZPD continuum, novices supported by “experts” via scaffolding

2. Social Presence explores connections between group members

                                                               i.      “the degree of awareness of another person in an interaction and the consequent appreciation of an interpersonal relationship” (Short, Williams, and Christie (1976))

                                                             ii.      Perceived social presence affected by social context, online comm., & interactivity (Tu and McIsaac (2002))

                                                            iii.      Positive feelings of social space transferred to subject matter

3. Social Interdependence

                                                               i.      Foundational theory in cooperative learning

                                                             ii.      “exists when the outcomes of individuals are affected by their own and others’ actions” (Johnson and Johnson (2009))

                                                            iii.      Can be positive (promote joint goals) or negative (obstruct each others’ goals)

                                                            iv.      Hudson,Hudson, and Steel (2006) study international online learning comm.. (share purpose, division of labor, and joint activity).

1.      Look at language, culture, and identity

2.      Assessment for learning, not of

4. Situated Learning

                                                               i.      Context shapes and defines meaning – can’t be indep. (Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989))

                                                             ii.      Learning thru interactive/facilitated collab. & communication (w/ peers & teacher)

                                                            iii.      Can’t separate process of knowing from that which is known

                                                            iv.      Learners recognize knowledge’s usefulness for cognitive purposes (e.g. problem-solving)

5. Promoting the Individual

                                                               i.      Self-Regulation Theory -- Self-efficacy, motivation, and metacognitive skills influence quality of cognitive engagement, and in turn, social engagement in learning comm..

                                                             ii.      Self-Directed Theory – similar theory explored from process and personal attribute perspectives

1.      Robertson (2011) study of blogs used to extend face-to-face interactions. Results: enhanced self-directed learning skills + support each other

5. Issues and Challenges Associated with Building a Learning Community
1. Development takes time, attention, and interaction (w/ peers, experts, or content)
2. Need a sense of presence (Tu (2004))

                                                               i.      Community of Enquiry Framework: social, cognitive, and teaching presence (Garrison and colleagues)

3. Purpose

                                                               i.      Naturally develops (grassroots) or is intentionally formed

                                                             ii.      Type: Community of inquiry or practice

1.      Wenger (2006) comm. of practice has people who share concern/passion for something they do – improve thru regular interaction

4. Assumptions -- Form face-to-face more than online
5. Logistics: limited time in general (or specifically asynchronous/synchronous), limited one-on-one attention, tech challenges
5. Creating Learning Communities: Strategies and Techniques
1. Learning Community Environment

                                                               i.      Sociocultural theory – supportive, “safe” context to interact and share (and take risks (Allan & Lewis (2006)). Shared goals and values (Guldberg & Pilkington (2006))

                                                             ii.      Social interdependence theory – estab. common ground, e.g. rules for interaction (Johnson & Johnson (2009)). Helps learners understand own role and explore other roles. Builds relationships

                                                            iii.      Situation learning – authentic, real-world situations = improve results & interactions

                                                            iv.      Self-directed or -regulated – “failure safe”, no retribution = extend comfort zones (Hill (2002))

2. Time

                                                               i.      Presence: “Someone is out there” (Hill (2002)) – direct contact w/ individs. + regular news sharing

                                                             ii.      Time management: boundaries, guidelines, set priorities

3. Technology

                                                               i.      Easier and quicker social presence, outreach, and “collaborative knowledge building” (e.g. blogs & wikis)

                                                             ii.      Needs well-organized structure, regardless of format

                                                            iii.       Multiple ways to engage

                                                            iv.      Well-supported (time and resources) to avoid tech probs

7. Moving into the Future with Learning Communities: Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research
1. Building one is a process, takes care and nurturing
2. Lingering questions:

                                                               i.      Transformative learning experiences in a learning comm.?

                                                             ii.      Role of culture?

                                                            iii.      # of participants to be effective?

                                                            iv.      How to encourage/reward participants? (importance of social structures)

References

Allan, B., & Lewis, D. (2006). The impact of membership of a virtual learning community on individual careers and professional identity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6) , 841-852.

Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in a classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models, Vol. II (pp. 269-292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, J.S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1). Available online: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational Researchers, 18(1), 32-42.

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157-172.

Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online leaning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.

Greyling, F.C., & Wentzel, A. (2007). Humanising education through technology: Creating presence in large classes. South Africa Journal of Higher Education, 21(4), 654-667.

Guldberg, K., & Pilkington, R. (2006). A community of practice approach to the development of non-traditional learners networked learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 159-171.

Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Oliver, K., Glazer, E., & Sharma, P. (2003). Cognitive and learning factors in Web-based environments. In M. Moore & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 245-260), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hill, J. R. (2002). Strategies and techniques for community-building in Web-based learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14(1), 67-86.

Hill, J. R. (2012). Learning communities: Theoretical foundations for making connections. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 268-285). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hudson, B., Hudson, A., & Steel, J. (2006). Orchestrating interdependence in an international learning community. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 733-748.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379.

Komito, L. (1998). The Net as a foraging society: Flexible communities.  The Information Society, 14, 97-106.

Manning, G., Curtis, K., & McMillen, S. (1996). Building community: The human side of work.  Cincinnati, OHL Thomson Executive.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2). Available online: http://www.ajde.com/Contents/vol3_2.htm#editorial.

Robertson, J. (2011). The educational affordances of blogs for self-directed learning. Computers & Education, 57, 1628-1644.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A chellenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Song, L., & Hill, J.R. (2009). Understanding adult learners’ self-regulation in online environments: A qualitative study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(3), 264-274.

Tu, C.-H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online environment. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(2), 34-45.

Tu, C.-H. (2004). Online collaborative learning communities : Twenty-on designs to building an online collaborative learning community. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-269.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Available online: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/. 

The Constructionist Learning Theory

Definition of Educational Technology

I am delving to a new term in the EdTech Program, this time focusing on the theoretical foundations of educational technology.  The EdTech 504 course description (taken from the syllabus) is as follow: An overview of classic and contemporary theories of learning and their applications in educational technology and emerging orientations; implications for practice. Explores foundations, history, perspectives, and literature in the field. Enables students to think more critically about their efforts and career goals.

This introductory week's task was to define "Educational Technology" (with the guidance and direction of several peer-reviewed resources).  Here is my post:

What is progress? What is education? What is technology? It is very difficult to define these words in a concise way because they refer to highly multi-dimensional and subjective ideas. The same is true for educational technology.  It is not a “cut and dry” concept, science, or field of study. Luppicini reminds us that educational technology is "value-laden and wrapped up in socio-cultural influences", which means there are many ways to interpret this discipline depending on the context (i.e. who is asking and why).  Its definition can be broad enough to include all systems required to revise, implement, evaluate, and manage solutions to problems related to human learning (AECT 1977) or narrow enough to predominantly focus on technology as the use of state-of-the-art equipment to improve learning.

In creating a definition for this discussion task, I reflected on Luppicini’s consideration that “”technology” refers to the organization of knowledge for the achievement of practical purposes as well as any tool or technique of doing or making, by which capability is extended."  It can exist as a thought, an action, or an object.  Given this perspective, my current definition is:

Educational technology is the theory, strategic process, and collection of tools and resources that make learning more efficient and effective.

I appreciate that there are a multitude of ways to piece together and articulate a succinct definition of educational technology. That is because there are many universal aspects of educational technology as an applied science.  Primarily, it is used to enhance instruction (particularly in areas that are difficult to teach or conceptualize) through tutorial, exploration, communication, and dynamic presentation tools.  These tools are purposeful; They not only fit but in fact promote the task they’re meant for.  The aims of technology-enhanced education are to make learning more interactive, enjoyable, collaborative, transparent, reportable, data-driven, transforming, and individualized to student needs and interests.  Viewed in a more collective and sociocultural way, educational technology should also transform educational systems and practices.  As Luppicini encourages us to consider, educational technology is not just to improve individual learners’ success. It has an important place in society and can serve as a transformative agent of change (for educational systems and practices).

One of the increasingly popular and important features of educational technology as a social science is its reliance on data-driven practices. According to Valdez, et al, to increase learning opportunities we must use data to determine priorities and a strategic use of resources. The authors assert that institutions need a well-designed systemic plan that features funding, professional development, accountability, and evaluation.  Teachers, the implementers of educational technology, must serve as action-researchers to keep up with the fast pace of material technology’s short life cycle.  The participants and promoters of this field should also guided by collaboration and research of best practices.  The message, really, is that educational technology is an organically growing field of study.  Its parameters and defining characteristics are determined, in large part, by its users.  Just as the AECT definition has evolved over time, so too will our own personal understandings of this term.

References

Januszewski, A. (2001). Educational Technology: The Development of a Concept. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (3), 103-109. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_3/10.pdf

Valdez, G., Mcnabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes, M., and Raack, L. (2000). Computer-based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations. Revised Edition. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Number: ED456816).