This week I have read chapters 11 and 12 from CSCL 2 (Koschmann, Hall & Miyake, 2002). In chapter 11 Bell (2002) is "exploring how to orchestrate collaborations around abstract argument representations in the classroom to promote individual learning (pp.449-450)". He used a software called SenseMaker to support students' argument construction in science. The design of the software is made based on the scaffolded knowledge integration and cognitive apprenticeship. It makes thinking visible by modeling expert thinking, providing a process to support individual reflection and promoting the collaborative exchange and discrimination of ideas (Bell, 2002). The research results show that 40% of students think that SenseMaker supports their individual learning, while 46% of the students believe that the collaboration features of the software supported their learning. It is interesting that each student perceive and take advantage of a learning tool in a different way. While some believe that they don't learn much from others, the others believe that there is always something to learn from others. The author suggests designing flexible learning environments which can be used by students with different inclinations. His argument makes sense since learning is a social activity as well as a individual activity. It really depends on the context, peers, the level of prior knowledge on topic, etc.
Chapter 12 of the CSCL2 textbook written by Gay, Rieger and Bennington (2002) and chapter 9 of Bonk (2009) are focusing on mobile learning. Based on the evaluations of 4 groups of people who used mobile computers in different "fields", the learners find the mobile devices enthusiastic and useful (Gay, Rieger & Bennington, 2002). The mobile devices allow them to do many things including getting details of the information, entering notes, receiving contextual help, uploading data, analyzing group findings, making comments to other people, searching entries of other people, etc. Basically the mobile technologies allow people to use the information actively during the field study. The devices are engaging, authentic and motivating. A mobile device is an additional resource for the learner during the field study. The learner doesn't have to rely on the observations and the knowledge of the teacher during the field work, but he/she also has access to multiple resources, which might provide different perspectives or different formats of the information. Different learning activities provide different possibilities and different learning environments to construct the knowledge.
Chapter 6 of Bonk (2009) discusses that we no longer listen and learn passively. Instead, we learn by contributing, participating and creating. He introduces several web based tools that let people learn by contributing, creating and sharing. Wikipedia, Youtube, YackPack, Facebook and TeacherTube are some of them. Learners have the control of their own learning as they have access to such technologies. He gives several ideas about educational uses of technology. I wanted to be a practitioner teacher when I read this chapter :) Technology really allows people to use their creativity, and it is amazing that there are many ways of utilizing those technologies for educational purposes.
Bell, P. (2002). Using Argument Map Representations to Make Thinking Visible for Individuals and Groups. In T. Koschmann & R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying Forward The Conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bonk, C.J. (2009) The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. Jossey-Bass
Gay, G., Reiger, R., Bennington, T. ( 2002 ) Using mobile computing to enhance field study. In Miyake, N., Hall R, and Koschmann, T. (Eds.). Carrying the conversation forward. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Koschmann, T., Hall, R., & Miyake, N. (Eds.)(2002). CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Reflective Summary I
So far we have read many studies discussing the factors that should be taken into consideration when building an online learning community, reviewed a couple of virtual learning communities and had many implications regarding the features, structure, etc. of effective virtual learning communities. Now, it is time to synthesize and reflect how we will apply all our knowledge in future design of online learning environments. Below I will mention the context, learners and subject matter of the online course that I plan to design and develop as a requirement of this course, and then discuss my conceptualization of the design. Lastly, I will conclude by mentioning how I have developed my design frame.
Overview of My Project
I will design and develop an online course for the institution I work. The course is going to be about Fundamentals of Technology. That course will provide students with the fundamental concepts, principles, and ideas needed to understand how business is operated and managed in a rapidly changing global environment, which is needed for success in business-related careers. Basic computer, database and Internet skills will be covered. This course will also provide job readiness skills and soft skills that are critical for success in any workplace setting. Learners of this course are high school students and adults.
Conceptualization of My Online Course
This will be a practice-based community. Riel and Polin (2004) suggest that ‘practice-based communities are groups with shared goals that offer their members richly contextualized and supported arenas for learning (p. 20)’. I will design this course based on situated learning theory (Collins, 1988; Lave, 1988). Collins (1988) defines situated learning as: ‘the notion of learning knowledge and skills in contexts that reflect the way the knowledge will be useful in real life’ (p.2). So, I will use authentic context and activities to ensure that the learning environment reflects the way the knowledge will ultimately be used (Collins, 1988; Jonassen, 1999). I will use a number of theoretically grounded instructional strategies and principles to ensure learning. First, the use of technology will be performed and demonstrated by instructors, and those demonstrations and modeling of processes will be provided in downloadable video formats as well as text and graphic based formats. According to the multimedia principle of Mayer (2009), “people learn more deeply from words and pictures than from words alone (p. 47)”. Second, analogies will be used to introduce complex and hard-to-visualize technological systems to the students (Smith and Ragan, 2005). Third, reflection opportunities will be provided to ensure transfer of knowledge to real world.
Social interaction will be an important feature of this course. Students will be encouraged to discuss and exchange information through forums and real-time communication tools. Subgroups will be formed for each career field, so the students in the same career field will develop their own information database, which will reflect their shared interests, goals and needs. For example, the students in Graphic Design career field will have a designated area to discuss their own professional goals, needs, interests, problems, etc. However I don’t know if it would be possible to develop structured collaboration activities. My concern is that students in individualized learning system study at their own pace. A student can enroll the classes at any Monday. So, each student in the class is at a different part of the course. I don’t know how realistic it would be to track where each student is at and pair the students at the same level.
Another important component of the course will be the application of the knowledge. Students will be encouraged to do hands-on activities to practice the skills they learned. For example, they will be asked to develop a PowerPoint presentation after they learn the procedure of presentation development.
Support will be provided throughout the course. The support should be including but not limited to technological support (Riel &Polin, 2004), promotion of intrinsic motivation (Collins, Brown & Holum, 1991), coaching (Collins, Brown & Holum, 1991; Jonassen, 1999), and providing opportunities to make choices (Kaptelinin & Cole, 2001). Also, students will be encouraged to sign up for a professional social networking site - LinkedIn to communicate with the practitioners of their field and improve their employability skills.
Conclusion
Each of the class activities (reading textbooks and PPTs, discussing with peers and instructor, reviewing virtual learning communities, writing blogs, etc.) was very helpful in framing these design ideas. While Renninger and Shumar’s (2002) text introduced the basic concepts and sample successful and unsuccessful virtual learning communities (i.e. WISE, MediaMOO, etc.), Koschman, Hall and Miyake (2001) provided the key consideration points in design of collaborative virtual learning communities. Especially, sample virtual learning communities (e.g. MediaMOO, WISE, Ning, MERLOT, etc.) let me see what works and what doesn’t work. Peer discussions and blogs were also helpful since they made me articulate what I learned and how I will use what I learned. Articulation of the knowledge required me to review the text back and forth, which made me see a new point each time. PPTs and additional articles provided by the instructor backed up the necessary design features theoretically. I am really looking forward to developing this online learning environment.
References
Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology (Technical
Report No. 6899). BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making
thinking visible. American Educator, 6-11, 38-46. Reviewed by Dan Watola.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaptelinin V, Cole M. Individual and collective activities in educational computer game playing. In: Koschmann T, Hall R, Miyake N, eds. CSCL 2: Carrying Forward the Conversation. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum, Chapter 8, 2002:297-310.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press
Renninger, K.A. & Shumar, W. (2002) Building Virtual Communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK
Riel, M. Polin, L. (2004). Online Learning communities: common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. In Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. (Eds.). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 16-52.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J., (2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). NY: Wiley.
Overview of My Project
I will design and develop an online course for the institution I work. The course is going to be about Fundamentals of Technology. That course will provide students with the fundamental concepts, principles, and ideas needed to understand how business is operated and managed in a rapidly changing global environment, which is needed for success in business-related careers. Basic computer, database and Internet skills will be covered. This course will also provide job readiness skills and soft skills that are critical for success in any workplace setting. Learners of this course are high school students and adults.
Conceptualization of My Online Course
This will be a practice-based community. Riel and Polin (2004) suggest that ‘practice-based communities are groups with shared goals that offer their members richly contextualized and supported arenas for learning (p. 20)’. I will design this course based on situated learning theory (Collins, 1988; Lave, 1988). Collins (1988) defines situated learning as: ‘the notion of learning knowledge and skills in contexts that reflect the way the knowledge will be useful in real life’ (p.2). So, I will use authentic context and activities to ensure that the learning environment reflects the way the knowledge will ultimately be used (Collins, 1988; Jonassen, 1999). I will use a number of theoretically grounded instructional strategies and principles to ensure learning. First, the use of technology will be performed and demonstrated by instructors, and those demonstrations and modeling of processes will be provided in downloadable video formats as well as text and graphic based formats. According to the multimedia principle of Mayer (2009), “people learn more deeply from words and pictures than from words alone (p. 47)”. Second, analogies will be used to introduce complex and hard-to-visualize technological systems to the students (Smith and Ragan, 2005). Third, reflection opportunities will be provided to ensure transfer of knowledge to real world.
Social interaction will be an important feature of this course. Students will be encouraged to discuss and exchange information through forums and real-time communication tools. Subgroups will be formed for each career field, so the students in the same career field will develop their own information database, which will reflect their shared interests, goals and needs. For example, the students in Graphic Design career field will have a designated area to discuss their own professional goals, needs, interests, problems, etc. However I don’t know if it would be possible to develop structured collaboration activities. My concern is that students in individualized learning system study at their own pace. A student can enroll the classes at any Monday. So, each student in the class is at a different part of the course. I don’t know how realistic it would be to track where each student is at and pair the students at the same level.
Another important component of the course will be the application of the knowledge. Students will be encouraged to do hands-on activities to practice the skills they learned. For example, they will be asked to develop a PowerPoint presentation after they learn the procedure of presentation development.
Support will be provided throughout the course. The support should be including but not limited to technological support (Riel &Polin, 2004), promotion of intrinsic motivation (Collins, Brown & Holum, 1991), coaching (Collins, Brown & Holum, 1991; Jonassen, 1999), and providing opportunities to make choices (Kaptelinin & Cole, 2001). Also, students will be encouraged to sign up for a professional social networking site - LinkedIn to communicate with the practitioners of their field and improve their employability skills.
Conclusion
Each of the class activities (reading textbooks and PPTs, discussing with peers and instructor, reviewing virtual learning communities, writing blogs, etc.) was very helpful in framing these design ideas. While Renninger and Shumar’s (2002) text introduced the basic concepts and sample successful and unsuccessful virtual learning communities (i.e. WISE, MediaMOO, etc.), Koschman, Hall and Miyake (2001) provided the key consideration points in design of collaborative virtual learning communities. Especially, sample virtual learning communities (e.g. MediaMOO, WISE, Ning, MERLOT, etc.) let me see what works and what doesn’t work. Peer discussions and blogs were also helpful since they made me articulate what I learned and how I will use what I learned. Articulation of the knowledge required me to review the text back and forth, which made me see a new point each time. PPTs and additional articles provided by the instructor backed up the necessary design features theoretically. I am really looking forward to developing this online learning environment.
References
Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology (Technical
Report No. 6899). BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making
thinking visible. American Educator, 6-11, 38-46. Reviewed by Dan Watola.
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kaptelinin V, Cole M. Individual and collective activities in educational computer game playing. In: Koschmann T, Hall R, Miyake N, eds. CSCL 2: Carrying Forward the Conversation. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum, Chapter 8, 2002:297-310.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press
Renninger, K.A. & Shumar, W. (2002) Building Virtual Communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK
Riel, M. Polin, L. (2004). Online Learning communities: common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. In Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. (Eds.). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 16-52.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J., (2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). NY: Wiley.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Human Side of Collaborative Learning
I'd like to mention identity formation (Chapter 7, Suzuki & Kato, 2001) and individual and collective activities (Chapter 8, Kaptelinin & Cole, 2001) in this post. The common feature of these chapters is that both are discussing the human side of collaborative learning. The the seventh chapter Suzuki and Kato are discussing that individual's identity in the community is formed as the time goes by. I have to admit that I had never thought about that before, and actually it is a very interesting phenomenon. We are always shy or introvert when we join a new community. We don't want to be visible or the one in change. Self-perceptions of the individual in a community changes as he/she learns new things and gains experience. And some time is needed to develop a perspective on a topic or the field. Peers, instructor and resources are really affective in identity formation. The person shouldn't feel helpless or unsafe in the learning process. If she/he fells so, this would affect his/her identity development as well as learning process negatively.
As Kaptelinin and Cole (2001) suggest, there are times in which students cannot achieve their goals by themselves. They have to interact with other people to do collective activities and achieve shared goals. In that process, they are supposed to achieve their own individual goals, as well. So, social interaction has an impact in both the social development and the individual development. In order for the interaction to be very effective on the individual development and transfer of knowledge, the area of study should match with the interests of the individual. That way, learner can make more effort to develop the individual and group identity.
As Kaptelinin and Cole (2001) suggest, there are times in which students cannot achieve their goals by themselves. They have to interact with other people to do collective activities and achieve shared goals. In that process, they are supposed to achieve their own individual goals, as well. So, social interaction has an impact in both the social development and the individual development. In order for the interaction to be very effective on the individual development and transfer of knowledge, the area of study should match with the interests of the individual. That way, learner can make more effort to develop the individual and group identity.
CSCL in University and Vocational Education
The characteristics of the learning environment described in third chapter (De Jong, Veldhuis-Diermanse and Lutgens, 2001) is pretty similar to the one in first chapter. Students develop a database (web-based version of Knowledge Forum) collaboratively. The phases have been stated clearly:
-Actualizing
-Planning
-Deepening
-Experiencing
The application of the model requires students to share their thinking and insight during the learning process. Students are expected to be aware of their own learning. To promote metacognitive skills, thinking type tags (i.e. My Theory, What is this about, etc.) are used. Perspectives, experiences and different interests have an important impact on the construction of knowledge. As the students reflect and relate the knowledge to their own life experiences, meaningful learning occurs.
Teacher's role has also been emphasized. He/she really needs to facilitate learning through coaching and monitoring. That's to say, teacher involvement is inevitable even in student-centered approaches.
De Jong, F. P. C. M., Veldhuis-Diermanse, E., & Lutgens, G. (2001). Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning In University and Vocational Education. In T. Koschmann, R.
Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2 Carrying Forward the Conversation (pp. 111-128):
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-Actualizing
-Planning
-Deepening
-Experiencing
The application of the model requires students to share their thinking and insight during the learning process. Students are expected to be aware of their own learning. To promote metacognitive skills, thinking type tags (i.e. My Theory, What is this about, etc.) are used. Perspectives, experiences and different interests have an important impact on the construction of knowledge. As the students reflect and relate the knowledge to their own life experiences, meaningful learning occurs.
Teacher's role has also been emphasized. He/she really needs to facilitate learning through coaching and monitoring. That's to say, teacher involvement is inevitable even in student-centered approaches.
De Jong, F. P. C. M., Veldhuis-Diermanse, E., & Lutgens, G. (2001). Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning In University and Vocational Education. In T. Koschmann, R.
Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL2 Carrying Forward the Conversation (pp. 111-128):
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Knowledge Building Communities
Hewitt (2001) is focusing on knowledge building communities in the first chapter of the CSCL 2 book. The benefits of understanding the knowledge as opposed to completing the task has been discussed. It has been stated that learning actively through knowledge building communities is more effective than traditional learning type in which the teacher is the one who transmits the knowledge to the students (Hewitt, 2001; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE), a networked learning environment developed by Scardamalia, Bereiter, McLean, Swallow and Woodruff (1989), is introduced and the classroom application of the model is being discussed. In the classroom application, the students are basically encouraged to select a problem and resolve the problem by developing a database collaboratively. They follow specific guidelines during the knowledge construction process. They have to address certain things such as "Problem", "My Theory", "I Need to Understand", etc. One of the key points in that process is that students have to share openly what they know, what they understand and/or don't understand. Otherwise, it is nothing but a "task to complete". Students should think as well as research in order to "understand the topic" and solve the problem.
Research and students' understanding of the problem are important components in the knowledge construction process. After an unsuccessful trial, Hewitt develops some strategies and tries to apply the model again and the results become more positive this time. Better scaffolding during the collaboration and discussion process have brought the success. In order to scaffold, the teacher made the discussion more structured, encouraged the students to respond to each other in a constructive and productive manner in which students offer new ideas instead of simply writing any response, and encouraged reflection to stress understanding. He even involved the parents of the students by encouraging them to ask their kids questions like "What did you learn today?", " What problems are you working on science?" instead of asking simply " What did you do today?". These are all very interesting strategies and they all make sense to me. Some of the key things to do to scaffold and create a constructivist learning environment is clearly depicted in this chapter.
Collin's (2001) response to Hewitt emphasizes the importance of a meaningful end product which would be a presentation, an essay, etc. I agree with Collin on that. If the small groups inside a class don't share what they have understood and/or resolved, would that be a real learning community? Even though they develop a database of knowledge, should they be expected to go back and review other group's resolutions? How practical and effective would that be? Other than that, I think those type of knowledge building communities do enhance learners' problem solving, critical thinking, communication and argumentation skills.
Collins, A. (2001). The balance between task focus and understanding focus: Education as apprenticeship vs. education as research. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.) Computer Supported Cooperative Learning (Vol. 2). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hewitt, J. (2001). From a Focus on Tasks to a Focus on Understanding: The Cultural Transformation of a Torontio Classroom, in Koschmann, T., Hall, R., Miyake, N. (eds) CSCL2: Carrying Forward the Conversation, (Mahwah, NJ / London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51-68.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly, ed., Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Research and students' understanding of the problem are important components in the knowledge construction process. After an unsuccessful trial, Hewitt develops some strategies and tries to apply the model again and the results become more positive this time. Better scaffolding during the collaboration and discussion process have brought the success. In order to scaffold, the teacher made the discussion more structured, encouraged the students to respond to each other in a constructive and productive manner in which students offer new ideas instead of simply writing any response, and encouraged reflection to stress understanding. He even involved the parents of the students by encouraging them to ask their kids questions like "What did you learn today?", " What problems are you working on science?" instead of asking simply " What did you do today?". These are all very interesting strategies and they all make sense to me. Some of the key things to do to scaffold and create a constructivist learning environment is clearly depicted in this chapter.
Collin's (2001) response to Hewitt emphasizes the importance of a meaningful end product which would be a presentation, an essay, etc. I agree with Collin on that. If the small groups inside a class don't share what they have understood and/or resolved, would that be a real learning community? Even though they develop a database of knowledge, should they be expected to go back and review other group's resolutions? How practical and effective would that be? Other than that, I think those type of knowledge building communities do enhance learners' problem solving, critical thinking, communication and argumentation skills.
Collins, A. (2001). The balance between task focus and understanding focus: Education as apprenticeship vs. education as research. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.) Computer Supported Cooperative Learning (Vol. 2). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hewitt, J. (2001). From a Focus on Tasks to a Focus on Understanding: The Cultural Transformation of a Torontio Classroom, in Koschmann, T., Hall, R., Miyake, N. (eds) CSCL2: Carrying Forward the Conversation, (Mahwah, NJ / London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R. S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51-68.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly, ed., Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
MERLOT - Virtual Learning Community
Introduction
After taking a look at a couple of online virtual communities, I have decided to examine MERLOT (Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching) (http://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm). (see Figure 1). I have chosen that virtual community because it looked structured, well-organized and very comprehensive. Another reason of choosing is that MERLOT is a virtual community which has many well-developed resources of my own interests. So, I thought that being a part of that virtual community could be helpful in my own professional development.
“MERLOT is a leading edge; user-centered, searchable collection of peer reviewed and selected higher education, online learning materials, catalogued by registered members and a set of faculty development support services. MERLOT's vision is to be a premiere online community where faculty, staff, and students from around the world share their learning materials and pedagogy (http://taste.merlot.org/)”
My first impression of the community was very positive. I have created an account and had access to great online resources right away. Although I didn’t make a contribution to the community, I reviewed a couple of resources that other members posted and visited the profiles of some of the community members. I am impressed with not only the variety of the resources but also the easiness of the site navigation.
Type of the Community
MERLOT is both a knowledge-based learning community, in which members “construct, use, reconstruct, and reuse knowledge in deliberate, continuous cycles” (Riel & Polin, 2004; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Bereiter, 2001; Hewit, 2004), and a practice-based community, which arises around a profession, discipline, or field or endeveavor (Riel & Polin, 2004). MERLOT has been categorized as three portals: Discipline communities, Community of MERLOT Partner Academic Support Services (COMPASS), and partner communities. That means, users can reach the resources by selecting the discipline they are interested in (i.e education, agriculture, etc.), by selecting the type of material they are looking for (i.e. e-portfolio, online courses, etc.), or by selecting the institution and/or program that they are belong to (i.e. California State University - Business, World Futures Studies Federation, etc.). MERLOT aims at supporting all communities of disciplines. Since it is sponsored by higher education, corporate and community organizations, it is free for the users.
Structures of the Community
Every individual create a profile as they sign up for the site and manage their profile easily. Components of the profile include contact information, skills and interests, publications, experiences, etc. Users are not required to fill out every component of the profile.
Users can review peers’ works, make comments to the resources, become a guest speaker in the area of their expertise, join discussions and debates in MERLOT Voices forums, chat with people in real-time and participate in the annual international conferences to interact with each other and learn by collaborating.
I have observed a discussion in MERLOT Voices site about the topic: “How can we increase student participation in our online classes?” It was interesting to review people’s ideas about the topic. While some of them were stating their concerns, some others were sharing their experiences and ideas. One of the users linked to another source about the topic. The forum was looking very interactive and informative.
Design Features and Role of Technology
The site looks very organized and consistent. There are smaller groups within the site to connect people with common interests. Some of the examples are Faculty Development, Health Sciences Editorial Board and Virtual Worlds Taskforce. Users can join the groups and view multiple discussion threads about an area. Users can even invite friends and send gifts to each other. Also, users have access to their Twitter accounts from the site.
Each user has a page in which he/she can upload a photo, post a blog, add RSS, check inbox, update the status, add apps and videos. The page is very similar to a Facebook profile page. Other people can visit and write comments on the walls of each other. The pages are useful for personal use and for interaction with others.
Conclusion and Implications
I really liked the structure and tool features of MERLOT. It is an excellent online virtual learning community that could be used very interactively. Navigation is easy and simple and resources are varied. I believe that there is something in the site that every educator would find useful. I really cannot think of any suggestion for improvement.
References
Bereiter, C. (2001). Education and the Mind in the Knowledge Age. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hewitt, J. 2004. An Exploration of Community in a Knowledge Forum Classroom: An Activity System Analysis. In: S. Barab, R. Kling & J. Gray (Eds.). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Riel, M. & Polin, L. (2004). Learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. Chapter 3 in Barab & Kling (eds.) Designing Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building
learning communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(}), 265-283'
NING Virtual Community
Introduction
I have been using NING network site for two days and really enjoying it (www.ning.com). NING is a platform where people can create their own social networking. I wasn’t aware of the presence of NING until Lee Nelson recommended me to check it out in blog interaction. As I signed up, I realized that it is very interesting and fun. People pick their area of interest (i.e. sport, music, art, education, etc.) and connect to multiple pages that have been created by members with the tag of that area.
As I signed in, I picked the category “Art” and started to visit the pages that are related to art. I didn’t participate in discussions but as far as I observed there were hot discussions going on in the discussion forums. The discussions were informal.
Then, I decided to create my own network. I was asked to fill out my profile and upload a photo. I selected a theme and gave a title to my network “page”. I found the site very nice. The tools are easy to use and all the graphics and themes are very appealing. Members are allowed to use their creativity and customize their pages. The site is very user-friendly.
Type of the Community
The site provides people a space to share information or products in an informal way. People discuss in forums, share photos, share videos, and follow the events. Smaller groups within the pages let people concentrate on specific topics. For example “Children Portraits” group within the “Photography” page lets people share specifically children portraits in that area. Those kinds of categorizations make the page easy to use, because it becomes easy to locate what you’re looking for.
Structure of the Community
Everybody has their own space in which they can create discussions, invite people, check their messages, etc. The interface is consistent in all pages, however the theme changes as you click on different people’s profile pages.
People can create groups, write comments to each other, share tutorials and tips. Subscription is a very easy way of staying updated.
A drawback that attracted my attention is that you have to sign up to each page in order to participate in the discussions, write comments to people’s posts, etc., and it takes some time for the administration to approve your membership. You can view everything but cannot interact with people before the approval.
Events make people highly interact with each other. For example photo contests make people take different photos and give constructive feedback to each other.
Design Features and Roles of the Technology
There are many design and technology features that encourage people to stay connected to the community. First, individual inboxes let people communicate privately, so members don’t have to share everything publicly. Second, everybody can manage their own place and decide what to have and what not to have on their pages. Following on Twitter and Facebook are other good features that people don’t have to sign in to see what is new on the site. Also, the site gives a lot of flexibilities to the users. They can change their mode of views, customize their profile pages easily and enjoy the nice graphics and themes. Lastly, real-time communication is enabled through chat feature.
Conclusion and Implications
I really liked to explore NING network. It is a nice place to spend free times and learn new things at the same time. I believe that it is a great example of a virtual community. Also I like that it is multimedia supported. You cannot only read the texts, but also watch videos, listen to podcasts, view illustrations, graphics, etc. and upload your own media. I believe that I will stay connected to it in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
