The first three chapters provided a very nice introduction to the concept of "Virtual Community". Especially the following sentences were a great summary:
"...People in virtual communities do just about everything people do in real life, but we leave our bodies behind. You can't kiss anybody and nobody can punch you in the nose, but a lot can happen within those boundaries" (Rheingold, 1994).
In the second and fourth chapters, an example of a failed virtual community (MediaMOO) and a successful virtual community (MathForum) have been discussed respectively. I have never joined either of those communities but it was interesting to read the reasons of failure and success.
It is not difficult to understand why people discontinued to use MediaMOO. It is said to be text-based. I really don't know the environment but to be honest a text-based environment doesn't sound very interesting. I totally agree that "In a text-based world, users have access to full range of body language and emotion, limited only by their writing ability and imagination (Bruckman & Fensen, 2002)". The authors discuss the other reasons of failure. It seems that another important reason of failure is that people preferred to build other communities out of it which are focusing on specific subject matters. As stated, having subgroups and connections within the community seems like a logical solution to this problem, but community members should be involved in the forming process, so they create what they want.
MathForum, on the other hand, was said to be satisfactory since it meets most of the needs of community and provides opportunities to think critically. The things that make it so engaging are: "the opportunities to talk, think and share resources with others about mathematics, technology and/ or pedagogy; interactions with expert-others who model and provide support for problem solving; and a wide and ever deepening range of quality content about mathematics, technology and pedagogy (Renninger and Shumar, 2002)". It seems that MathForum is really effective in professional development. It is the high quality and well established system and effective functionality what makes it so desirable.
Although the idea of 'virtual communities' might seem boring and uninteresting to some people (because of the dependence on the computer), it is a fact that there are many well designed virtual communities out there which are really dynamic, highly interactive and enjoyable.
To me, an effective way of interaction, ongoing dynamism, attractive interface and tools may really make a virtual environment inevitable. I am really looking forward to discover some other features of virtual environments which make them attractive, desirable and effective. BASED ON YOUR OWN EXPERIENCES can you think of other features of virtual worlds which make them REALLY good?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ipek, In response to your question, I think that the emerging sophistication of many sites' avatars can greatly influence participants' enjoyment of virtual communities. Being able to create a representation of who you are online or an authentic online self can oftentimes greatly contribute to the positive experience of those engaging in these environments and the types of meaningful relationships that can be maintained online.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how much an Avatar improves a virtual environment, but what I think it does do is give it more of that "game feel" that our younger generation has grown up with. They are comfortable with the various role playing games where they walk around and interact (e.g., World of Warcraft).
ReplyDeleteThis may be a generational gap thing, because I find walking around as an Avatar a waste of time and very uncomfortable, since you have no idea who or what you're actually interacting with (just because it's a female Avatar doesn't mean that's who is controlling it).
I think more serious study is required to determine if such virtual interaction worlds can actually improve learning or are they just a novelty and an escape from reality.