COLLABORATION AND COMMUNITY CONSTITUENTS:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE KEY ELEMENTS THAT BUILD, NURTURE
AND SUSTAIN A COLLABORATIVE LEARNING COMMUNITY IN NETWORKED SPACES

Nick Noakes, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology <lcnoakes@usthk.ust.hk>

 

"Learning is fundamentally social. Learning is really a matter of changing identity, not just acquiring knowledge. That knowledge is integrated in the life of communities. When people develop and share values, perspectives, and ways of doing things, they create a "community of practice." The challenge to all of us in education, on behalf of students and organizations, is to create, negotiate, nurture, and sustain the communities of practice in which effective learning takes place. (Henschel, 1998 cited in the AAHE Bulletin, June 1998)

 

INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The aim of this paper is to identify the key elements that make up a networked collaborative learning community. It is hoped that by doing this it will raise awareness of these factors for people running networked learning events using a collaborative learning approach and that program design and delivery will incorporate learning activities that foster these elements.

Reasons for choosing topic
This author's "community of practice" is the field of English as a Second and Other Language (ESOL). A field that has used group-based approaches to learning since the early '70s; particularly in Europe and North America. Practitioners in this field believe very strongly that their notions of a learning community, or what they commonly refer to as group dynamics or classroom 'atmosphere', is a major component of what is essentially a communication skills subject. What makes certain classes 'gel' and others not is a frequent topic of discussion in the teachers coffee room. It is considered important enough by this particular community of practice for there to be books dealing specifically with teaching strategies that help learners to focus on issues related to group-based learning (Hadfield, 1992). A lot of learning tasks in ESOL classrooms (whether face-to-face or electronic) revolve around collaborative activities. As a result, ESOL practitioners have a lot of experiential knowledge, mostly tacit (Polyani, 1966), of 'what works and what doesn't' in terms of successful collaboration from a teacher's perspective and it's strong connection to the notion of a learning community. This paper is an attempt to change this knowledge base from an implicit one to an explicit one.

Scope
Due to the breadth and depth of the information in this area, this investigation will as far as possible be restricted to researching and discussing online or networked learning. There is a great wealth of information on collaborative, cooperative and group-based learning in the research literature of a number of fields (McConnell, 1994; Kaye, 1995). Thus, as far as possible, this discussion has been kept to collaboration and community as they relate to a computer supported learning environment. Furthermore, this paper does not question claims made for the learning benefits associated with group-based, collaborative and cooperative learning processes. Nor does it question the constructivist learning theories that are often used to support their adoption, as these are well documented in the education research literature (Duffy and Jonassen, 1992; Hsiao, 1996)

Caveat
Although this paper focuses on collaborative learning, the author recognizes the importance of more individual forms of learning.

Outline
This paper is organised around a number of research questions, namely:

 

COLLABORATION
Defining terms
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines collaboration as working jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor, in this case a learning endeavor. In the educational literature the words collaboration and cooperation are often used by different authors to mean the same thing and by others to mean different things. Although these terms are frequently used synonymously, some authors do make distinctions between the two.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW
Matthews at al (1997) acknowledge the overlap between collaborative and cooperative learning, with both involving small-group activity, and both following Dewey's (1916) belief that education should be seen "as a social enterprise in which all individuals have an opportunity to contribute and to which all feel a responsibility." Embedded in this belief are a number of assumptions; specifically:

They see the broad difference between the two as being the amount of self-determination or self-direction; with cooperative learning being very much teacher-controlled and collaborative learning being learner-controlled. More specifically, they see differences in terms of:

McConnell (1994), on the other hand, sees both forms as being learner-controlled or managed. For McConnell, the difference is that collaborative activities are ones where the product and process are joint efforts and there is only a single product (a joint paper or a solution to a problem). In contrast, he sees cooperative activities as involving individual products and mainly individual processes. Also, they involve group members supporting each other by helping to define learning goals, structure processes and outcomes and provide peer evaluations, as well as supplying resources and acting as reflective others.

Following on from McConnell, we may need to think of collaborative and cooperative learning as involving a number of dimensions, namely:

 

However, experientially I believe that what distinguishes collaboration from cooperation comes down to exactly what is shared. When cooperating, it is only physical resources (objects, time, money) or intellectual resources (knowledge, expertise) that are shared. Whereas when collaborating, in addition to these shared physical and intellectual resources, are shared goals, responsibilities, values, beliefs and attitudes. Some of these intellectual resources (both cognitive and affective) may become shared through the practice of cooperation but with collaboration they are factored in from the start. From this collaborative sharing comes synergy which adds value by producing something new and unique. For the purpose of this paper, this view of collaboration is the one that will be used as the basis for discussion

A number of studies have discussed the elements that are needed for successful collaboration. Table 1 shows these elements from four different studies and it can be seen from this list that there are a great many constituents which are considered necessary for successful collaboration. However, what this table doesn't show are the researchers' weightings given to the various elements. All of the four research studies considered the social dimension of interpersonal relationships to be central to the notion of successful collaboration. This interpersonal relationships aspect was brought into sharp relief in the Sonnenwald et al (1998) study by the descriptive comments students gave as part of their evaluation of a course involving American and Finnish students. Their course was similar to this part of the M.Ed. in that the students were studying the theory and practice of collaboration using collaborative technology. The importance of interpersonal relationships is highlighted in these comments:

"It was very challenging to do the paper with someone, who was in another country and who you did not know anything about at the beginning. We both realized that the social part of collaborating is very important, and you must give time to that unofficial part. Both of us took the time to try and get to know each other better. That helped the project go more smoothly.

The tools do not collaborate themselves. A good personal relationship is crucial Ö there were technical problems and human misunderstandings Ö but eventually we established an effective and rewarding partnership.

Collaborating with new technology requires more attention to ... cultural aspects, getting to know the working style of the partner and taking some time to decide the rules and ways for working together.

The tools that were available to us do not approach substituting for the interpersonal interaction that distance precluded" (p.10.)

 

Table 1: A Review of the Research Literature on Computer Supported Collaboration

Constituents of collaboration from the research literature

 

McConnell (1994)

 

Kaye (1995)

 

Schrage (1990/95)

 

Sonnenwald et al (1998)

Reciprocity
 X

 

 

 

Commitment
 X

 

 
 X

Agreement
 X

 

 

 

Group identity (both within and outside the group)
 X

 

 

 

Motivation
 X

 

 
 X

Interactional Equality
X

 

 

 

Structuring of group processes (roles, group formation, activity types, support, feedback, guidance, facilitation, parallel or serial tasking, task specialisation, assessment, content)
 X
 X

 

 

Self-determination (individually and as a group)
 X
 X

 

 

Interdependence
 X
 X
 X

 

Shared goal(s)
 X
 X
 X

 

Creation and manipulation of shared spaces
 X
 X
 X

 

Shared co-created/discovered understandings
 X
 X
 X
 X

Pooling/Sharing of individual competencies
 X
 X
 X
 X

Social dimension (centrality of relationships both within an outside the group)
 X
 X
 X
 X

Interpersonal communication skills (Continuous - but not continual - communication)
 X
 X
 X
 X

Mutual respect
 X
 X
 X
 X

Trust
 X
 X
 X
 X

Explicit intention to add value

 

 
 X

 

Multiple forms of representation

 

 
 X

 

Formal and informal environments

 

 
 X

 

Clear lines of responsibility

 

 
 X

 

No restrictive boundaries (i.e. lines can be crossed)

 

 
 X

 

Acceptance of non-consensus-based decision making

 

 
 X

 

Physical presence not necessary

 

 
 X

 

Selective use of outsiders

 

 
 X

 

Realisation that collaboration ends when goal has been achieved (i.e. is time-bound)

 

 
 X

 

Candor (but not rudeness or politeness)

 

 
 X

 

Accountability

 

 

 
 X

Tolerance

 

 

 
 X

Appreciation of differences

 

 

 
 X

Adaptability

 

 

 
 X

To sum up, as Schrage (1995) says, "collaboration is the medium for relationships both personal and professional" and reciprocally, "the true medium of collaboration is the people."

 

COMMUNITY
Defining terms
Communities differ and so do the definitions of what a community might be. There are religious communities, geographic communities or neighbourhoods, communities of interest, communities of practice, discourse communities and of course virtual communities!

Communities have traditionally operated through personal interaction, structured along hierarchical and bureaucratic lines and defined by geography but this has changed over time. The communities of the 90's have shifted dramatically from such traditional ones. While still operating through personal interaction, they're dynamic processes have speeded up; forming, evolving, reforming, disintegrating and forming again. Interaction within these communities is based on accessibility, common interest and particularly "interest of the moment." Many are non-hierarchical and non-geographic and vary widely from the more traditional definitions of community. Many are highly driven by technology and often knowledge resides with the young rather than the elders.

For virtual communities the key is 'connection'. The individuals, while united in a common purpose, may not know each other on a personal face-to-face basis, yet friendships, business transactions, information sharing and learning can all be experienced and actualized. Communities can be inclusive and yet some are exclusive. Technology may not be able to assist in this respect because basic social and cultural perspectives drive these behaviours. But, technology can be a significant force in connecting the disconnected and perhaps help in easing some of these tensions by bringing like minded people into a shared space to achieve a set of goals leading to a better quality of life. Although it also has the potential for fragmenting communities into "haves and have-nots" (Wresch, 1996)

Figallo, cited in Williams (1997), sees community as "a complex network of human relationships over time". While Talbott (1995) defines community as "a group of people bound together by certain mutual concerns, interests, activities and institutions (which find expression through whatever technical and non-technical means at hand)." I would argue that in a learning context both these definitions are valid. Following on from both these definitions, we can view a learning community as a group of people in a dynamic and complex network of human relationships over time who are bound together (at least initially) by a mutual concern for learning a specific subject and situated in a computer supported learning environment. This is the view of learning community that will be used in this paper.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW
For computer-supported or electronic communities, there are now a large number of these on the Internet and, although most have not been set up specifically as learning communities, they can enlighten the notion of community in a computer-supported environment. The WELL, one of the original online communities and the subject of a book called Virtual Communities (Rheingold, 1993), has extensive guidelines for online moderators and their current Conference Director has written a number of articles on building and sustaining community online (e.g. Williams, 1996; Williams 1997). She identifies a number of key elements for doing this that include shared place, shared interests, shared norms of interaction, shared discourse, respect (with particular emphasis on gender), accountability, identity, flexibility, openness (not 'playing to win'), passion, sensitivity, empathy, trust and continuity. Coates (1998), from another large online community called TheGate, sees the currency of community as being communication.

In addition, Williams (1996) notes that there is an interaction between the nature of the community and the nature of the shared place or space; namely that the community is partly defined by how the space is laid out and run as well as the reverse. This is probably even more true of online communities where there is greater flexibility, manipulative ease and thus speed in changing the shared space. I would argue that this ease and speed of change makes this reciprocal relationship even stronger.

For Pedlar (1981), some of the key elements of a learning community are mutual interdependence, acceptance of differing learning needs within the group, equality in terms of knowledge, skills, status and power, as well as sharing and offering - what could be termed reciprocal sharing. He also sees the community building process as one that involves introspection and reflection, and a balancing of variety in terms of the participants skills, knowledge and competencies. Taking the elements Pedlar highlights alone is perhaps a little limiting and may not be reflective of the richness and complexity that forms a growing learning community. As well as the mutual interdependence that Pedlar mentions, a learning community also needs interaction, identity and interconnectedness on a personal level.

Gordin et al. (1994) have noted that "learning communities are difficult to build because they have high social and material requirements".

Students access published work, such as, papers, figures, presentations, and analyzed data;

Students access tools and raw data, such as, equipment for production, laboratory procedures and materials, community developed data sets, and analysis tools;

Students dialogue with community members, either written or oral, such as, exchange of letters, email, telephone calls, and interviews;

Performance of joint coordinated activities between students and work-based learning communities, such as performing an experiment together or planning collaborative activities;

Incorporating student work into published archives of a community's work (e.g., when scientist(s) collect and use student collected data). (Gordin, et al., 1994).

I would contend that the M.Ed. team (and by team, I mean both tutors and participants) have been very successful at building a community. This claim is supported by comments made by other participants:

However, I would suggest that what may be more difficult is sustaining the community and I suspect that this is strongly connected to the notion of continuity mentioned by Williams (1996) earlier. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLABORATION AND COMMUNITY
"learning communities work <...> because of the power of collaboration, only fractionally realized up to now because of the departmentalization and compartmentalization of collegiate life. Learning communities are a programmatic expression of a simple but elusive truth: We educate better when we discuss with one another the outcomes we seek and the means we have collectively to achieve them." (Masterson, 1998)

It would seem from a review of the relevant literature that collaborative learning and learning community have a great deal in common; so much so that researchers now talk about collaborative learning communities (Ravitz, 1995). Both involve reciprocal sharing, interdependence and shared goals, interests, attitudes, values and beliefs. And both heavily stress the importance of interpersonal relationships and communication. (See Table 2.)

However, the main difference between the two seems to be one of time. The word community carries with it the connotation of permanence; to some extent it is time-unbound. Collaboration on the other hand, particularly in a learning context, is seen much more as something that is temporary, transient and time-bound; something that dissolves once the task has been completed. Coupled with this is the notion that collaboration involves a fixed group of people for this time period, whereas a community's participants are forever evolving with a permanent core of people but with others coming and going. This may well be an over-simplification of the notion of community as we could view communities as involving ever changing and overlapping collaborations. Whichever is the case, it is certain that the boundaries of these differences between collaboration and community are fuzzy with some collaborations extending over a long time, having changes in personnel and continually evolving (Sherry & Myers, 1998).

Because there is such great overlap between these two ideas, it is very difficult to say whether either one is a precondition for the other. In fact, the relationship between the two is most likely to be a reciprocal one; in that full collaboration engenders community and community deepens collaboration. So that to look at one without paying attention to the other in program design and delivery is likely to lead to a poorer quality learning experience. The need to pay attention to these two areas is particularly true of a networked collaborative learning community as the vast majority of interactions are intentional or planned and only a few are incidental; a point that will be addressed later.

Table 2: Overlap between Elements of Collaborative Learning and of Learning Community

Constituents from the research literature

 

Collaboration

 

Community

Reciprocity
 X
 X

Commitment
 X
 X

Agreement
 X

 

Group identity (both within and outside the group)
 X
 X

Motivation
 X
 X

Interactional Equality
 X
 X

Structuring of group processes (roles, group formation, activity types, support, feedback, guidance, facilitation, parallel or serial tasking, task specialisation, assessment, content)
 X

 

Self-determination (individually and as a group)
 X

 

Interdependence
 X
 X

Shared goal(s)
 X

 

Creation and manipulation of shared spaces
 X

 

Shared co-created/discovered understandings
 X
 X

Pooling/Sharing of individual competencies
 X
 X

Social dimension (centrality of relationships both within an outside the group)
 X
 X

Interpersonal communication skills (Continuous - but not continual - communication)
 X
 X

Mutual respect
 X
 X

Trust
 X
 X

Explicit intention to add value
 X

 

Multiple forms of representation
 X

 

Formal and informal environments
 X
 X

Clear lines of responsibility
 X

 

No restrictive boundaries (i.e. lines can be crossed)
 X

 

Acceptance of non-consensus-based decision making
 X

 

Physical presence not necessary
 X
 X

Selective use of outsiders
 X

 

Realisation that collaboration ends when goal has been achieved (i.e. is time-bound)
 X

 

Candor (but not rudeness or politeness)
 X
 X

Accountability
 X
 X

Tolerance
 X
 X

Appreciation of differences
 X
 X

Continuity

 
 X

Adaptability
 X
 X

Sensitivity

 
 X

Empathy

 
 X

Shared discourse

 
 X

Passion

 
 X

Shared attitudes, values and beliefs.

 
 X

Collaborative Participants' Perceptions Of The Important Elements Of Online Collaboration And Community And Their Interrelationship

Originally, it was intended that this would be investigated using a research technique for tracing conceptual change known as Concept Mapping (Beyerbach, 1988; Morine-Dershimer et al 1992). This is a procedure that has been used in several studies in the field of teacher education research. Usually it involves participants in producing a pre and a post concept map so that conceptual changes can be seen. The technique that was applied in early studies was criticised (Kagan, 1990) on a number of grounds. These included small numbers of subjects (4-5); emphasis on short-term changes; comparison of student maps with a target map such as the course tutor's; complex and time-consuming systems of analysis; and faulty assumptions that such maps reflected cognitive structure. All of these were valid criticisms. However, later studies considerably improved on the concept mapping research methodology, as well as involving bigger populations, and it is now considered to be a valid research technique.

A simpler system of analysis has now been developed and single maps are considered to be evidence of a person's knowledge of a subject or idea as well as the importance they attach to certain aspects of a central idea (Morine-Dershimer, 1993). Iterations of the same map, by the same person over longer time periods, such as a year, are considered to be evidence of knowledge growth.

 

METHOD
Out of a possible 50 participants (25 in MEd98, around 20 in MEd97 and 5 from MEd96), a total of 9 (around 20% and all from MEd98) volunteered to take part in this small-scale study. Each person was firstly asked to produce a concept map in response to the following prompt:

A follow up question was sent to each of the 9 people who produced a concept map. This question was:

DATA ANALSIS
Originally, it had been intended to follow the data analysis technique suggested by Morine-Dershimer (1993) in which the concept maps are statistically analysed in terms of two key factors: centrality (proximity to central concept) or specificity (proportional frequency of items associated with category). Unfortunately, the full implementation of the data analysis technique was not possible largely due to a mistake on this researcher's part. Rather than one idea, this paper is focused on two notions; collaboration and community. The specification to the participants in completing the concept map was not clear. As a result some people only focused on collaboration, others only on community, still others put the two words together to form one central notion while others kept them separate. As a result, it was impossible to make any statistical analysis as would have normally been carried out. However, the elements included in the concept maps were tabulated (Appendix 2) to highlight both the centrality of these elements to the core ideas of collaboration and community and the extent of the agreement between participants.

 

THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ELEMENTS OF COLLABORATION & COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED IN THE RESEARCH LITERATURE MATCH WITH, AND DIFFER FROM, THIS STUDY

RESULTS
Caveats
Before moving on to discussing these findings by looking at their implications for program design and delivery, the reader is reminded that:

The concept maps reveal qualitative data as to the elements which participants see as experientially important to collaboration and community in a networked collaborative learning environment. From the concept maps that were received and the responses to the follow up question (Appendix 1), it is evident that there are a number of elements considered important by participants (Appendix 2 shows this as a function of centrality). Quite a lot of these elements overlap with those from the research literature (See Table 3 below) but there are also a number of ones that arenít stressed in previous studies. These can be grouped under two main headings: affective factors in learning and the impact of the technology used.

 

TABLE 3: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE RESEARCH LITERATURE AND THIS STUDY OF THE ELEMENTS OF COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY

Constituents

 

Research literature

 

This study
Collaboration
Community
Collaboration & Community

Reciprocity
 X
 X

 

Commitment
 X
 X
 X

Agreement
 X

 
 X

Group identity (both within and outside the group)
 X
 X
 X

Motivation
 X
 X
 X

Interactional Equality
 X
 X
 X

Structuring of group processes (roles, group formation, activity types, support, feedback, guidance, facilitation, parallel or serial tasking, task specialisation, assessment, content)
X
 
X

Self-determination (individually and as a group)
 X
 
 X

Interdependence
 X
 X
 X

Shared goal(s)
 X
 
 X

Creation and manipulation of shared spaces
 X
 
 X

Shared co-created/discovered understandings
 X
 X
 X

Pooling/Sharing of individual competencies
 X
 X
 X

Social dimension (centrality of relationships both within an outside the group)
 X
 X
 X

Interpersonal communication skills (Continuous - but not continual - communication)
 X
 X
 X

Mutual respect
 X
 X
 X

Trust
 X
 X
 X

Explicit intention to add value
 X
 
 X

Multiple forms of representation
 X
 
 

Formal and informal environments
 X
 X
 

Clear lines of responsibility
 X
 
 

No restrictive boundaries (i.e. lines can be crossed)
 X
 
 

Acceptance of non-consensus-based decision making
 X
 
 

Physical presence not necessary
 X
 X
 

Selective use of outsiders
 X
 
 X

Realisation that collaboration ends when goal has been achieved (i.e. is time-bound)
 X
 
 

Candor (but not rudeness or politeness)
 X
 X
 

Accountability/Responsibility
 X
 X
 X

Tolerance
 X
 X
 X

Appreciation of differences
 X
 X
 X

Continuity
 
 X
 

Adaptability
 X
 X
 

Sensitivity
 
 X
 

Empathy
 
 X
 X

Shared discourse
 
 X
 

Passion
 
 X
 

Shared attitudes, values and beliefs.
 
 X
 X

Impact of technology

 
 
 X

Affective factors

 
 
 X

IMPLICATIONS FOR COLLABORATIVE NETWORKED LEARNING PROGRAM DESIGN AND DELIVERY
We have seen both from previous research and this study that successful collaboration and a sense of community are inextricably bound together. We have also seen the central role that communication, interaction and interpersonal relationships take in this success. We have also seen that the technology used by a collaborative community of networked learners both shapes, and is shaped by, that community.

Social Aspects and Affect

We have seen that the participants in this M.Ed. course feel themselves to be a part of a learning community, albeit to differing degrees. The fact that this situation exists, within such a short period for a group that has only met face-to-face for five days, begs the question as to exactly what processes and structures in this course have fostered community and collaboration. As a participant in this experience, there seem to have been a number of key learning tasks that have engendered this. These are:

having participants meet face-to-face at the beginning

designing tasks that get participants to connect to each other as people rather than simply as learners (e.g. using personal objects as the basis for sharing meaningful events in the past)

designing tasks that require people to collaborate together to produce a shared outcome and also involve them in making decisions and coming to agreement about mutually beneficial goals and shared responsibilities

designing periods of reflection so that participants focus on the rationale behind activities and can integrate them with, and scaffold them from, their existing knowledge base

designing tasks that allow participants to make choices both individually and as a group (self-determination/direction/management of learning)

designing an assessment system that matches the theories of knowledge and learning that form the basis of the approach (e.g. collaborative assessment, pass/fail instead of letter grading to reduce the potential/tendency for competition. See Ravitz, 1995)

taking an action learning approach as it takes into account individual learning needs as well as grounding participants' learning in their practice

Coupled to the social aspect of learning is a strong emotional element that has been seen across the different learning sets within the whole M/Ed. '98 cohort. The following quotes from these databases highlight this strongly affective aspect of learning where feelings of guilt, anxiety, empathy and enjoyment are intermingled:

There is a strong research literature in general education with respect to the relationship between affect and learning (Hargreaves and Tucker, 1991) but as yet this does not seem to have found its way into the networked collaborative learning field. Perhaps this is an area for future research. But at the program design and delivery level it is being addressed to some extent.

In the majority of networked learning courses, people are not brought together face-to-face for very good reasons associated with time and cost. Usually such online courses involve some activity that attempts to get people to 'connect' with each other as individuals rather than just fellow learners. Typically, this 'getting-to-know-you' activity involves posting a brief biography along with a statement of reasons for taking the course, a statement of anticipated personal outcomes and perhaps a photograph. Often these are done through a Webpage but are only looked at quickly at the start of the course when they are constructed and then again later when looking for partners for collaborative tasks.

Having experienced both types of courses, the feeling of 'connection' through this course is much greater. This is no doubt largely due to having met and interacted face-to-face with people both in a social and a learning environment but I also think it relates to some of the specific tasks we were given. I am left wondering how it would be possible to transfer to an online environment the past experience-sharing task that involved talking about an object that had personal significance as this activity seemed to create strong personal connections. Although, it might not be quite the same, this could be done by getting people to take photos of the objects, scanning them in and posting them to a Webpage with a digital audio or video recording of the person telling the story (or simply a written story). The key thing here in building a community is to extend the connection outside the learning sphere to the social dimension of learning as normally happens with learners in a residential setting.

Programmatically, if a course is run totally online, we may also need to think about moving from short collaborative and cooperative tasks (as defined by McConnell, 1994) at the beginning to longer ones later so as to maintain pace, energy and build up feelings of community early on that are needed to sustain learning in such potentially isolating environments. Each of these collaborative or cooperative tasks would need to be followed by periods of reflection on process as well as peer review of product. These tasks could be cooperative 'learning to learn' activities such as comparing responses to a number of surveys that provide information on an individual's learning preferences such as the Self-Directed Learning Readiness questionnaire, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter [http://www.keirsey.com/] and Kolb's learning styles [http://www.algonquinc.on.ca/edtech/gened/styles.html] questionnaire. This could form part of the 'course orientation' in the first week of an online course (the tasks I mention here are all geared at teenagers and above. I do not know if there is anything along these lines for primary learners).

However, along with the successes in the design of this M.Ed. course, there are also areas that militate against sustained success. We have noted that one of the essential prerequisites for both collaboration and community is the accessibility of a shared space. The ability to fully interact, to collaborate and to be an active member of a learning community is not simply a function of an individual's motivation but is a function of an online learner's ability to access the environment. Thus a person who can access the environment both from work and from home has the potential to participate more fully - even dominate a discussion to the detriment of the collaborative task and the learning community as a whole. Similarly, people who do not have to pay for an ISP or for telephone charges have the potential for greater access to the collaborative learning community. Yet again, people who are less pressured with work or family commitments will have more time to participate. The restrictions on participation due to other commitments was a recurring theme in posts:

These differences can create inequalities in the learning community (Wresch, 1996). In terms of programme design, this could possibly be dealt with by giving guidelines for threshold levels for interaction in terms of access time. This could be given either in terms of online hours per week and/or in terms of the total of on-line and off-line hours per week, so that a threshold level of participation/interaction is reached. For example, the Open University's MA in Open and Distance Learning gives guidelines on total course commitment. They normally only allow learners to enroll in one course at a time so that they have the best chance of meeting the necessary level of participation and do not drop out (attrition rates in open and distance education are notoriously high).

As well as economic status, people can have reduced access as a result of disability. They can also be excluded from interacting fully because of language, age, gender, colour, ethnic or national origin, social background, religion or political beliefs and family circumstances as it is known that these aspects of a person do get carried over into online interaction even when people haven't met (Herring, 1996). Dealing with these issues may involve providing information on where to obtain specific hardware and software that supports people with disabilities or it could mean having discussion tasks near the beginning of a program that involve participants in discussing these issues. Whatever strategies are used, these issues of inclusion need to be taken into account when designing the program if a learning community is to have a chance of sustaining itself.

The Impact of the Collaborative Technology Used

The other area highlighted as essential in the concept maps of the M.Ed. '98 participants was technology, specifically the collaborative technology that is used to create the shared space for this collaborative learning community - Lotus Notes. Roschelle (1992) asserts that: 

With this in mind, we need to ask ourselves what features are needed in a collaborative technology in order to facilitate the important elements of a successful networked collaborative learning community. Gomez et al. (1994) state that when people "come together for the purpose of inquiry and knowledge acquisition . . . informal interpersonal interaction among members of the community can facilitate their construction of knowledge." We've all experienced the chance meeting in the corridor that has led to fruitful collaboration. As Hiltz and Turoff (1993) say, "Support structures are needed for knowledge-building activities, and to support informal interpersonal communication. What remains to be seen is how a balance can be achieved that will best serve different groups of participants. The social dynamics of computer networks is an important aspect to be considered further." (p. 104).

We can see the importance of this by the fact that quite a number of participants on this M.Ed. have used the freeware ICQ as a means of facilitating this type of unplanned, informal or spontaneous learning. The First Class collaborative software contains a synchronous text-based chat tool which carries a feature whereby you can check to see if someone else in your course is online when you are. When using First Class, I found this feature really useful in maintaining feelings of connection to my peers. It also helped with my learning as these unplanned chats often involved an unexpected exchange of resources (like a reference to a relevant article). Adding features such as an option to alert you when other people are online rather than you having to check and also options to be left alone such as ICQ's Away, Extended Away, DND or invisible would also help in terms of giving privacy options when needed.

There is another important area that needs to be addressed with collaborative learning software which is related to communication; namely knowledge construction. It has been noted by researches that threaded discourse, of the type found in Lotus Notes and the majority Web-based conferencing software, actually works against convergent thinking processes over time (Hiltz, 1986; Harassim, 1990; Eastmond, 1994). It is found that this can have "a negative effect both on the learner's efforts to synthesize ideas, and on collaborative processes which become increasingly fragmented as discussion threads and individual interests diverge." (Hewitt, 1997). Specifically, the hierarchical structure of threaded discourse discourages effective group learning in five main ways:

We have already witnessed the first solution in the IMPS database with the opening of IMPS-2! However, none of these solutions really help with knowledge construction which is at least 50% of the reason for attending any programmed form of learning (whether self-managed or not). This strongly suggests that there is a need for new technologies that support group cognition (Levy, 1997). The solution found by the researchers at the Ontario Institute of Education has been to opt for a networked structure rather than a hierarchical one (see Fig.1). The product of this development is WebCSILE webbed-database integrated with a computer-supported intentional learning environment (CSILE) - acronyms abound!

 

Figure 1. Hierarchical vs. Networked Structures (Hewitt, 1997)

This approach is very similar to that of concept map construction and also a knowledge mapping software tool called The Brain [http://www.natraficial.com/], which is being used by at least two participants from this course to aid their own knowledge construction (see Fig. 2)

 

Figure 2. 'Affective Domain', part of the author's concept map for Networked Collaborative Learning

 Such concept maps can be shared, so it is possible with these tools to communally build knowledge (Gaines & Shaw, 1995, Flores-Méndez, 1996); aiding knowledge growth while at the same time supporting collaborative interaction and sustaining community. This strongly suggests that designers and deliverers of networked collaborative learning courses need to take into account the conversational structure engendered by the collaborative conferencing software, i.e. whether it is uses a threaded or networked structure, as this has an effect on both collaborative communication and knowledge building.

Finally, the research literature abounds with studies that look at the importance of affective factors in classroom learning and their relationship to psychological factors such as self-concept and self-esteem (Menges, 1996). I would contend that in the online environment affective factors are even stronger because:

most NCL environments are text-based which means that communication is 'permanent'; social 'errors keep getting refreshed in people's minds, unlike transient speech (Kaye, 1995);

messages in asynchronous environments that appear to fail to get a response are often misinterpreted as meaning that the message has caused offence and gives rise to strong tensions in the learning community (Wegerif, 1998);

the reduced communication bandwidth which results from a lack of vocal and visual cues means that learners have to develop an online social presence or telepresence (Gunawardena, 1995; Cutler, 1995).

Combined, these factors can create enormous tension and anxiety as online learners are taking risks with their self-esteem and self-concept when posting messages. The implication of this for program design and delivery is that all learners in NCL environments need to be aware of this from the start and be sensitive to it so that trust can form through openness and honesty. Thus, program designers need to provide activities that help learners to reflect on this issue and program deliverers need to be able to model community building and sustaining behaviours such as empathy and sensitivity which demonstrate their awareness of the issue.

 

CONCLUSION
This study has demonstrated the centrality of interpersonal relationships and communication for a successful networked collaborative learning community. It has also discussed how this issue impacts on program design and delivery and has suggested some possible implementation strategies.

Given how essential relationships seem to be, there is a need to focus research on differences in discourse engendered by networked learning environments and particularly on discourse that facilitates collaboration in these environments. This has already been looked at to some extent by a number of researchers, notably: Murray (1991), Herring (1996) and Sudweeks, McLaughlin and Rafaili (1998), to name but a few, but this area is still worthy of further investigation.

Finally, the vast majority of research into networked collaborative learning appears to be based on college, university and adult learners. It seems that only a few articles have dealt with primary and secondary school (K-12) learners. Thus, it would seem useful to research into issues related to networked collaborative learning with these particularly age groups especially given the vast amount of money that is currently being poured into hardware and software at this level worldwide! (Burns et al, 1998).

 

REFERENCES
Beyerbach, B. A. (1988) Developing A Technical Vocabulary on Teacher Planning: Preservice Teachers' Concept Maps Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp.339-347

Burns, A. et al (1998) T-Skills: The Transferable Skills that should be brought to Networked Collaborative Learning, from the Policy, Institutional, Teacher and Learner levels. Assignment paper for the M.Ed. in Networked Learning at Sheffield University, UK [Online document accessed on 21/12/98 at http://lc.ust.hk/~est/tskills/]

Coates, J. Cyberspace Innkeeping: Building an Online Community. Online Document [Accessed on 21/1298 at http://sfgate.com/~tex/innkeeping]

Cutler, R. H. (1995) Distributed Presence And Community In Cyberspace, Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century [Accessed on 2/1/99 at http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~ipct-j/1995/n2/cutler.txt]

Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education New York, Macmillan [Available online at http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/academic/texts/dewey/d_e/title.html ]

Duffy, T. M. and Jonassen, D. H. (1992) Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eastmond, D. V. (1994). Adult distance study through computer conferencing. Distance Education, 15, 1, 128-152.

Flores-Méndez, R. A. (1996) Distributed Concept Mapping Collaboration Using Java Workshop presentation at the Knowledge Acquisition Workshop - KAW'96, Banff, Alberta, Canada November 9 through November 14, 1996 [Accessed on 15/12/98 at http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KAW/KAW96/flores-mendez/KAW96demo.html]

Gaines, B. R. and Shaw, M. L. G. (1995) Collaboration through Concept Maps. In Schnase, J. L. and

Cunnius E.L. (Eds.) Proceedings of CSCL 95: The First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Mahwah, MJ., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. [Accessed on 15/12/98 at http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/articles/CSCL95CM/]

Gomez, L., Fishman, B., and Polman, J. (1994, April). Media Spaces and their Application in K-12 and College Learning Communities. Panel conducted at the meeting of the Computer Human Interaction Special Interest Group of the Association for Computing Machinery, Boston, MA. [Accessed on 21/12/98 at http://www.covis.nwu.edu/Papers/CHI'94.html Note this server is frequently down.]

Gordin, D., Gomez, L.M., Pea, R.D. and Fishman, B.J. (1994). Using the World Wide Web to Build Learning Communities in K-12. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, Vol. 2 No. 3 [Accessed on 21/12/98 at http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue3/gordin.html]

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995) Social Presence Theory and Implications for Interactive and Collaborative Learning in Computer Conferences Community Shared Experience Moderators. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, Vol. 1, Issue 2/3 pp. 147-166

Hadfield, J. (1992) Classroom Dynamics, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Harassim, L. M. (1990). Online Education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In Harassim, L. (ed.) Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Hargreaves, A. and Tucker, E. (1991) Teaching and Guilt: Exploring the Feeling of Teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education. Vol. 7, No. 5/6 pp. 491-505

Henschal, P. (1998) What We Know About Learning...and the Implications for Our Work. Keynote Speech at Taking Learning Seriously, AAHEís 53rd National Conference on Higher Education Atlanta, GA March 21-24, 1998 (cited in AAHE Bulletin, June 1998)

Herring, S. C. (1996) Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cultural Perspectives, Amsterdam : J. Benjamins Pub.

Hewitt, J. (1997). Beyond Threaded Discourse. WebNet 97, Toronto, November 1997. [Accessed on 28/12/98 at http://csile.oise.utoronto.ca/abstracts/ThreadedDiscourse.html]

Hiltz, S. R. (1986). The 'virtual classroom'. Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication 36, 2, 96-104.

Hiltz, S. R., and Turoff, M. (1993). The Network Nation: Human communication via computer. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.

Hsiao, D. (1996) CSCL Theories. Online Document. [Accessed on 3/1/99 at http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/dhsiao/theories.html]

Kagan, D. M. (1990) Ways of Evaluating Teacher Cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks Principle. Review of Educational Research, 60, pp. 419-469

Kaye, A. (1995) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning in Heap, N et al (ed.) Information Technology and Society, Milton Keynes, Open University

Levy, P. (1997) Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace New York, Plenum Trade.

Masterson, J. T. (1998) Learning Communities, the Wizard, and the Holy Grail, AAHE Bulletin April 1998. [Accessed on 4/1/99 at http://www.aahe.org/bulletin/bull_2apr98.htm]

Matthews, R. S., Cooper, J. L., Davidson, N. and Hawkes, P. (1997) Building Bridges Between Cooperative and Collaborative Learning in AAHE's Change [Available online and accessed on 26/12/98 at http://eminfo.emc.maricopa.edu/innovation/ccl/models/building.html ]

McConnell, D. (1994) Implementing Computer Supported Cooperative Learning, London, Kogan Page

Morine-Dershimer, G. et al (1992) Choosing Among Alternatives for Tracing Conceptual Change, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 8 No. 5/6 pp.471-483

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1993) Tracing Conceptual Change in Preservice Teachers, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp.15-26

Murray, D. E. (1991) Conversation for action: the computer terminal as medium of communication Amsterdam : J. Benjamins Pub.

Pedlar, M. (1981) Developing the Learning Community in Boydell, T. and Pedlar, M. (Eds) Management Self-development: Concepts and Practices, Alderhsot, Gower

Polyani, M. (1966) Tacit Knowledge, London, Routledge and Keegan

Ravitz, J. (1995) Building Collaborative Online Communities for K-12 in Conference Proceedings of the Midcontinent Institute's Fourth Annual Innovations in Education Conference, Minot State University, Minot, ND., November 9-12, 1995, pp. 71-83. Online Document [Accessed on 21/12/98 at http://www.npac.syr.edu/users/jravitz/Ravitz_Paper_8_95.html]

Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading n the Electronic Frontier, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley

Roschelle, J. (1992) What Should Collaborative Technology Be? A Perspective From Dewey and Situated Learning. Proceedings of the Spring '92 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol. 21 No.3, ACM Press. [Accessed on 3/1/99 at http://www-cscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/outlook/39_roschelle.html]

Schrage, M. (1990) Shared Minds, New York, Doubleday

Schrage, M. (1995) No More Teams: Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration, New York, Doubleday

Sherry, L., & Myers, K.M. (1998). The dynamics of collaborative design. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 41 (2), 123-139. [Accessed on 8/1/99 at http://www.cudenver.edu/~lsherry/pubs/ieee.html]

Sonnenwald, D. H., Iivonen, M., Alpi, J. A., Kokkinen, H. (1998) Collaborative Learning Using Collaborative Technology: A Report from the Field BITE: Bringing Information and Communications Technology to Higher Education International Conference Proceedings (pp.238-254) Maastricht, Netherlands

Sudweeks, F., McLaughlin, M. and Rafaeli, S. (1998) Network and Netplay : virtual groups on the Internet Menlo Park, CA : AAAI Press ; Cambridge,Mass. : MIT Press

Talbott, S. (1995) The Future Does Not Compute, Sebastopol, O'Reilly

Wegerif, R. (1998) The Social Dimension of Asynchronous Learning Networks Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks Vol. 2 Issue. 1 pp. 34-49 [Accessed on 18/10/98 at http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issue1/wegerif.htm also available in pdf format from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issue1/Wegerif.pdf]

Williams, G. A. (1996) Community is the Online Buzz-word of the Year. Again. Online document. [Accessed on 6/1/99 and available at http://www.well.com/user/gail/community.notes.html]

Williams, G. A. (1997) Online Moderator Guidelines and Community Building Tips Online document. [Accessed on 6/1/99 and available at http://www.well.com/confteam/hosting.html]

Wresch, W. (1996) Disconnected : haves and have-nots in the information age, New Brunswick, N.J. : Rutgers University Press

 

APPENDIX 1: PARTICIPANTS' CONCEPTS MAPS AND COMMENTS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLABORATION AND COMMUNITY.
Participant 1

I would define a community as a group of people who work together for their common benefit - so collaboration is an essential part of that, but not the only requirement. Other requirements include such things as shared values and beliefs. On the other hand, I can collaborate with someone simply because it suits ME and MY objectives - with no feeling of community involved. I could also be required to collaborate whether I wish to or not - as part of my job, for example. Hence collaboration is an essential part of community, but not vice versa, but I can't see this as a hierarchy - more as a Venn diagram.

Participant 2:

For me there is no community, unless there exists full and open collaboration with no fear of ridicule and no competition. That is everyone works openly together. The text I would sort of refer to is the Kaye article page 195-196 starting at To collaborate (co-labor) on page 195 and where he talks of group read community. Therefore, for me they are in a hierarchical relationship as Community - super, Collaboration - sub.

 

Participant 3

 

Participant 4

I would consider the concept of community to be wider than that of collaboration - I don't think you can have an effective community without some form of collaboration, but you can have collaboration without community - people working in pairs for example. Collaboration can form the basis of a community (and I think is probably a prerequisite to it) but I would also regard a community as having other characteristics (some shared values etc).

 

Participant 5

By collaborating a group becomes a community? Communities need not collaborate - that ought to suggest a hierarchy, but I can't work out which way it goes. Collaborators are working together toward a common aim, presumably they must /become/ a community to do that - they must know about each other if they are to function well, though they don't have to know much

 

Participant 6

Collaboration - team-working/problem-solving; sharing tasks, ideas, projects with a set of people in a work, research environment. Other members of collaboration will work together to achieve common outcomes.

Individuals are likely to be from very disparate backgrounds brought together to focus on a collaborative project/outcomes. They may not socialise or share personal information outside the collaborative tasks.

Community - a group of people in a social and/or geographical shared space. Sense of community, responsibility towards other members of community, altruism.

Members may be formed from similar ethnic, religious or philosophical background. Shared identity, common beliefs, homogeneous.

The following is an excerpt from a paper called "Community-based Information Technology Services. What users want" http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1996/n1/caldwell.txt

The local community defined by place and home has a variety of residents with a range of interests and
needs. A community of interests (such as an electronic discussion group) are bound by different ties and different considerations for community definition. Effective information technology delivery to a community of place will focus on those services which support the functions and social
maintenance of the community.

Finally, the relationship between. Obviously common areas ie: sharing, responsibility. I have always thought the of the term 'community' to mean something local, home-spun, a communality, formed out of choice. Collaboration begets a sense of community, ie: shared goals and shared experiences.

 

Participant 6 - map

 

Participant 7

I do not think that collaboration would be possible without there being some structure within which it could operate. This structure might be a community (sharing background, space or interests) or it might be another type (e.g. imposed, work/financial, etc.) I feel that the most effective collaborations come from mutual trust and shared objectives/beliefs. In even some extreme opinions on organization, voluntary federations are seen as the way to get things done (see Ward, C. (1977) Topless Federations in The Anarchist Reader ed. Woodcock, G. London: Fontana). So, to attempt to answer your question, community is not essential for collaboration but I would consider it to be likely to be present wherever effective collaboration occurs.

Participant 8

 

 

Participant 9

 

Participant 10

I think collaboration and cooperation can exist independently of "community". People can collaborate/cooperate without actually liking each other or feeling that they share much in common. They can work without any sense of a community, I think. Axelrod's coop theory discussed all of this. Community suggests something different I think: a need/ willingness to "look after" each other, to treat each other as equals and people who you would feel an obligation towards. Community suggests to me a group that has shared goals and maybe shared views of the world. I would say a collaboration exists in a community.

 

Appendix 2: Elements of Collaboration and Community by Level in the Concept Maps

Level 1

 

Level 2

 

Level 3

 

Level 4

 

Level 5

 

community building

 

getting started

 use familiar metaphors

introductions

 learning curve tasks

common purposes

 real tasks

 shared identity

 

critical mass

 students

 messages

 frequent access

 interaction

 

relationships

 equality

 trust

 humour

 

community nurturing

 

moderator skills

 facilitate

 arbitrate

 guide

 summarise

 provoke

 stand back

 

student involvement

 peer support

 regular access

 positive feedback

 enthusiasm

tasks

 clearly defined

 engaging

 

Collaboration

 

Suitable tasks

 

functional groups

 personality types

 defined roles

 common goals

shared responsibility

 shared achievement

software features

 availability

 skill level

 

technology

easy access

 place

 time

 computer

low usage cost

 off-line reading

 off-line composition

ease of use

 software

 training

reliable

tech support

installation

 

Collaboration

 

Community

 positive

 builds

 develops

 negative

 destructive

 people

 goals

 aims

 individuals

 habits

 personality

 

Rules

 external

 internal

 communication

 etiquette

 netiquette

 add value

 abrupt

 

Environment

 f2f

 good

 easy

 electronic

 skills

 time management

 postings

 brain storming

 Subject

 theories

 reading

 legalities

 ethics

 

Sustain Community

 External supervision

 tutoring

 mentoring

 tech support

 Realistic expectations

 Friendship

 Mutual dependence

 Shared interests

 High motivation plus low ambition

 Willingness to do more than share

 Strength to stand back when you've done enough

 Skill interpersonal qualities

 tact/discretion

 empathy

 Humour

 Leadership

 from within yourself

 from others in the community

 Continued trust

 Shared agendas

 

Collaboration

 Network

 work

 partner

 Equality

 trust

 respect

 Partnership

 joint

 shared

 Synthesis

 one

 many

 Work

 teamworking

 partnership

 Help

 tasks

 ideas

 

Community

 Sharing

 resources

 workload

 network

 Friendship

 giving

 taking

 Public

 identity

 belonging

 partnership

 individual

 group

 Group

 formation

 cohesion

 Equality

 characteristics

 input

 output

 

Online

 Network

 home

 work

 Email

 one-to-one

 one-to-many

 

Internet

 WebCT

 mailing lists

 discussion

 chat

 GroupWare

 First Class

 Lotus Notes

 

collaboration

 aims/objectives

 personal gains

 agreed group outcome

 processes

 working methods

 suitable technology

 intangibles

 beliefs

 values

 attitudes

 enthusiasm

 motives

 commitment

 content

 personal contributions

 outside

 group contributions

 

Collaboration & Community

 in it together

 group

 colleagues

 peers

 unpredictability

 new

 sexy

 cutting edge

 support

 not alone

 friends

 happy

 

practical

 no exams

 relief

 de-stressed

 dislike

 Useful

 promotion

 skills

 knowledge

 spontaneous

 

enjoyment

 work

 interest

 fun

 not bored

 games

 new

 shared interests

 support

 help

 ideas

 

anticipation

 looking forward

 what next

 enjoy

 unusual

 party

 friends

 innovative

 philosophy