Creating Online Learning Communities Using Web 2.0 Technology. Scott A Strand Instructional Technology Consultant Bethel University.

Transcription

1 Creating Online Learning Communities Using Web 2.0 Technology Scott A Strand Instructional Technology Consultant Bethel University Digital Culture Background Reflecting back on the last eleven years that I have been involved in the area of distance or online education there seems to have been a quiet revolution going on. Perhaps revolution is too strong of a term; the term I want to use is evolution. An early form of distance education was the correspondent course. Here the course content was delivered in written format. Content delivery then evolved into sending out cassette tapes and videos containing lectures. In all these courses there was little to no interaction between the learner, fellow learners, and the professor. A model, which to a certain degree, that mirrored what was happening in the traditional classroom. Content was also distributed via listservs, and regular mail. Distance education then evolved into the online Web 1.0 world. Courses could now use web sites as a place to distribute information or foster discussion. Streamed audio began to be used to deliver lectures. Course management systems began to appear to help create classrooms in this virtual environment. Technological innovation really drove this online learning evolution. Finally, there was the arrival of Web 2.0 technologies and their ability to create a highly interactive, collaborative online learning environment. We will look in greater depth at different Web 2.0 technologies later in this paper. Along with the evolution of distance education, there was also a cultural shift occurring in our society from analog to digital. At the beginning of this new century terms such as digital native and digital immigrant began to appear in our vocabulary (Prensky, 2001). Digital immigrants referred to people born prior to the rapid advances in computer technology but have adapted to use of technology in their everyday life, either for work, pleasure, or both. Digital native refer to those people born into this digital evolution. Computers, ipods, cell phones, and other technologies have always been apart of their life. Being a digital native does not make one an expert with all the different technologies, but it does give one exposure to and familiarity with them. This generation of learners has had the benefit of advances in learning theory and educational technology. This will be discussed later in the paper. This classification of people as digital natives or digital immigrants is not perfect. Any generalization eventually fails on some level. There are some digital immigrants who know more about their adopted country or culture than do the digital natives. The point being made by Prensky is that digital natives generally have an easier time navigating their own digital culture than do digital immigrants (Prensky, 2001). Where conflicts may arise is when a digital immigrant tries to teach a digital native when they don t fully understand the digital culture s setting and nuances. Digital immigrants need to develop an understanding of how digital natives engage with technology and how best to integrate technology into the educational process. It is important to remember that while exploring this area that it is not the technology that drives the educational process, but rather it is an examination of the educational process to see how the use Web 2.0 technologies might enhance the educational process and online learning community. Copyright 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 1

2 Community Defined Community What is community? There is a gaggle of geese, a heard of cows, a flock of birds, or a school of fish. These communities existed based on a common goal or purpose. A community of people may be based on where they work, go to school, or live. Community could also be based on ethnicity, gender, or a shared interest. Communities may be held together rather loosely or they can be a close-knit group of individuals. In the first, community is simply allowed to happen; while in the later there is intentionality to creating and maintaining a sense of community. So how is community defined? Dr. Steve Sandage put forth this definition for community: a true community consists of a group of people who (a) are socially interdependent; (b) share meanings, history, and practice; and (c) have personal relationships of depth (Sandage, 1999, p. 385). In an informal online survey, conducted as part of my doctoral research, respondents identified characteristics of social interdependence or shared meaning, history, and practice in their own definitions of community. Respondent s definitions included comments such as: Doing life together. People committed to one and other. A group bonded together in some way. An environment of shared experiences. What seemed to be lacking in most of the definitions was a sense of the depth of the relationship. There were two responses that touched on this characteristic, one stated that community was being close enough to share one s goals, dreams, and emotions and the other referred to community as being a safe place. Components of Community In the Fabric of Community Model developed by Sandage, he identified five components that may be present in a community. These components are belongingness, moral trust, mutual gifting, citizenship, and story (Sandage, 1999, p. 385). The audience for Sandage s model is counselors and therapists, but the elements can be adapted for a variety of audiences including online education. Using Sandage s description as the foundation, the components for use in an the online learning community could be defined as common purpose, sense of ownership, collaborative learning, sense of greater good, and shared stories or experiences. The idea of a common purpose is what initially brings the community together. This may be a common class, area of study, or major. For community to exist this component is essential. If one does not share a common purpose with others there is no group to have a sense of belongingness to. It stands to reason that the more focused this common purpose is the smaller the community will be. This may also lead to a greater sense of belongingness or closeness of the community members. The second component of community, a sense of ownership, is what gives longevity or permanence to a community. One is more likely to endure a problem or work through an issue if they have a sense of ownership in the community. Healthy communities can endure setbacks and struggles because the community members have a sense of ownership in their community. The third component, mutual gifting or collaborative endeavors, is why we participate in community. Community is where we can share with others our talents and skills, as well as receiving from others the benefit of their knowledge, insight, and expertise. Together we have the potential to produce a better end product than if we were working alone. Copyright 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 2

3 The fourth component, a sense of greater good, is probably the hardest component to describe. Here we have to look outside ourselves and outside our community to see how we as a community can make a difference for the greater good of all. Communities should not exist simply to nurture and satisfy themselves. There is a need to understand where and how our community fits into the greater grouping of communities. The final component is that of shared stories. NT Wright, a New Testament scholar, contends that we are all storied creatures (Wright, 1992, p. 56). These stories are how we communicate our life events, the lessons we have learned and the experiences we have had. These stories might be shared orally or come about as a result of doing life together. These stories, experiences, and lessons learned are how we as a community grow, learn, and experience life together. There are a couple of key points to consider as we conclude this section. First, as one thinks about community, both the quality and quantity of these five components will affect the way its members experience it. Second, we all participate in a variety of communities (Sandage, 1999, 385) and in various degrees within a given community. Third, no one can be forced into being an active part of a community. All one can do is create an environment where community can happen. Finally, in the virtual world one needs to be intentional about the creation and maintenance of community. Now, we will take a look at the technology that could be used in online learning communities. History Web 2.0 The World Wide Web has evolved from a text-based beginning to Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and looking toward the future Web 3.0 and beyond. In its earliest days the web was used as a means of sharing text based content. The development of a set of standards then evolved into what has been termed Web 1.0. This version of the web was static, with text and graphics being displayed on the computer screen. There was little to no user interaction with the content aside from clicking on the occasional link. As we moved into the 21 st century Web 2.0 technologies began to appear. The appearance of these new technologies was in large part due to advances in web programming languages allowing for a much richer, interactive user experience. Technologies Web 2.0 technologies provide a platform that has transformed the way the web functions making it easier to share ideas and data, work collaboratively on projects, and maintain relationships with people around the world. These technologies include blogs, wikis, social networking sites, photo sharing sites, and Flash. These technologies have allowed a wide variety of people to publish an assortment of material to the web with relative ease. There are millions of blogs and wikis currently published on the web. Looking at the trends for social networking usage [Facebook 120 million members (Shankland. 2008) and over a billion hits per month, MySpace 800 million hits per month (Swain, 2009)] and the proliferation of blogs and wikis, one could conclude that the use of Web 2.0 technology has a strong foothold in our digital culture. As new technologies emerge, it is important not to discard them simply because they are new or different. Conversely, it is important that one carefully evaluates the technology as to its practicality and effectiveness in the online educational setting. Failure to use Web 2.0 technologies can result in a lost teaching opportunity, but a failure to use the technology without sound pedagogical underpinnings can Copyright 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 3

4 result in lost learning. Educators need to avoid using technology simply because they can. The goal when using any technology should be to enhance the learning experience for all involved. Pedagogy Space does not allow us to undertake a thorough examination the pedagogy or best practices when using Web 2.0 technologies. What follows are three practices that a professor or instructional designer might want to consider when integrating these technologies into a course. First, make sure that the right technology is being used to achieve the intended educational outcome. For example, if a group of students were working together on a case study a wiki would be the tool to use. This tool is designed to do collaborative work with a number of people who may or may not be in the same physical location. A wiki allows the students to present idea or finding and organize their thoughts in a variety of ways. If one tried to do the same thing with a discussion board or through s it would be hard to keep track of the different threads. In another example, a student might be required to keep a journal dealing with some activity. In this setting a blog may be the best solution if the journal contents is to be shared with a number of different people. A second consideration is what the student needs in order to use the Web 2.0 technologies. Does the technology require a special player or other user interface? What about Internet connection speed? Is the technology for synchronous or asynchronous teaching? Older computer hardware can hamper the use of newer technologies. Likewise, slow Internet connection speeds can limit the use of some Web 2.0 technologies. One of the benefits of online learning is that it can happen anytime, anywhere, but if synchronous technologies are required some of this freedom is lost. Finally, has the technology been woven into the course in such a way as to enhance the learning experience rather than simply being another technological hurdle that the student must jump through? Know why the chosen technology is being used. Develop lessons and learning objectives around the technology rather than simply trying to fit an old lesson into the new technology. Consider how the use of a particular technology contributes to the online learning experience. Online Learning Communities The integration of community components and the use of Web 2.0 technologies are key in the establishment of a successful online learning community (Menchaca, 2008). As we have seen, there are five key community components that should be included in our online learning environment. Also, there are a variety of Web 2.0 technologies that can help us in conducting a course as well as creating community. How these components are woven together is where the art of course design meets the reality of teaching. The first element of community is a common purpose. The fact that people are taking the course shows a common purpose for all involved. The degree of involvement may be greater in people who are taking the class because they want to, rather than those who reluctantly take the course because they are required to. There is little that Web 2.0 technology can enhance here. However, the use of these technologies can provide the framework for the creation of an online learning community. The second element, a sense of ownership, provides one with an opportunity to deploy a variety of technologies to enhance the learning experience and give the student a sense of ownership. Imagine creating a number of interactive Flash learning objects to deliver course content to meet a certain course objective. Each of these learning objects may address a different learning style so students can choose the learning object that best meets their preferred learning style. Another example might be to offer students the choice of demonstrating mastery of a subject by giving an online presentation using Adobe Connect or Copyright 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 4

5 Elluminate instead of writing a paper. Again, this gives a sense of ownership that in turns helps to strengthen the online learning community. The third element is that of students sharing their knowledge, insight, and expertise and allowing others to come along side them. This would be put into practice by creating a collaborative project. Individuals working alone have a certain level of expertise. However, if a group of individuals were to work together their collective knowledge should produce a better end product. A wiki is the tool that could be used to create and share information for this collaborative project. A sense of a greater good is the fourth component of community. Here students are looking beyond the class to see how what they are learning might be applied. Creating a blog would be one way to engage the blogosphere to see how others respond to their ideas. Students could also follow others blogs or twitter tweets to see what others are exploring or how they are applying certain ideas. The final element is sharing in the stories of others. This experience allows for others to speak into one s learning so that they might hear another perspective or the wisdom gained though life experiences. Here one could use blogs, podcasts, vodcasts, or YouTube to share the stories. The ideas we have been looking at have been described for a specific course housed within a course management system. This is in fact one layer or level of community that the student participates in. If we take a step back we see another layer or level of community, that of the program. It is here that the different courses might be grouped together in another Web 2.0 technology, the social network. I am not talking of using Facebook or another public social network; rather I see the use of either an enterprise version of social networking software or a third party host. A private social network could function a lot like the student union on campus. Students could get together in a social setting, a study session, or a gripe session. They could ask questions, seek clarification, or realize that they are not alone in their academic pursuits even though they may be spread out around the country or around the world. Conclusion As online educators, we want to provide a quality online learning experience. We want to do all we can to help the student succeed in their academic endeavors. To do this, we need to intentionally facilitate an online learning environment where community does not just happen, but where community components are built into the courses we create and the programs that we run. The appropriate application of Web 2.0 technologies can help in this process of building a supportive online learning community. References Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved from Sandage, S. J., Aubrey, C. J., & Ohland, T. K. (1999). Weaving the fabric of community: A model for counselors & therapists. Marriage & Family: A Christian Journal, 2(4), Shankland, S. (November 3, 2008). Facebook membership surges to 120 million users. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from Swain, S. (February 10, 2009). Statistics: Facebook bypasses MySpace and twitter stronger than ever. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from Wright, N. T. (1992). New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Copyright 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 5

6 Author Summary Scott A Strand is an instructional technology consultant at Bethel University. Is currently pursuing a doctoral degree looking at the digital culture, spiritual formation, and the church. Address: 3949 Bethel Dr. St. Paul, MN s-strand@bethel.edu Phone: Copyright 2009 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 6