The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning
Introduction
One way of looking at the values of the internet is to ask what social values it seems to champion. This might cover questions such as:
- •
What are the social norms expected of behaviour when you join an online community?
- •
How are you expected to communicate?
- •
What is unacceptable behaviour?
- •
What sorts of topics generate online debate?
- •
What does the online community perceive as threats to its core values?
- •
Is there such a thing as one set of values for the internet?
- •
What sort of technologies take off online and why?
- •
How do people actually use the different technologies in everyday life?
The answer to all such questions lies in the essence of the internet and what it was created for, namely communication, and in particular robust, decentralized and open communication. While these were technological features of the internet design, as the internet took off, they also became social features of the system. A comparison of these two aspects of the internet, its technological and social features reveals how each of these three key features is realized. In terms of robustness, the internet was designed as a distributed system that could survive attack, failure or sabotage of any particular part and still function as a meaningful communication system. In order to do this it had to be a network system, with no centralized control. This is fundamental to all that follows. Having opted for a decentralized system, this means that there needs to be many different connections, with no single node being more important than any other. This is realized through the network of internet routers, where if one is down, then information will simply find an alternative route. An open system follows from the decentralized approach, because if the system is to have no central control, then it is necessarily open, so that any compatible computer can hook up onto it and allow communication to continue.
If we view the internet in terms of social features and communication, these three key characteristics are evident again. Robustness is seen through the ability to communicate from different locations, using a variety of devices. It is also evidenced through the failure of governments or commerce to really control the internet and what is discussed on it. The decentralized nature of the internet is key to this – no one body or organization owns or controls the internet. Every server or web site is potentially as significant as any other one. This makes the internet an obviously open and democratic place. Anyone can publish and debate is not governed or censored. In many ways, the internet acts like a living organism, driven by these social values. As John Gilmore famously observed ‘the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.’ As well as making a strong case against censorship, what Gilmore’s quote indicates is that the social behaviour of the internet mimics the technological behaviour.
This provides an insight into the social values of the net and answers to the questions above. In short, the values of the internet are based around the sanctity of communication. Anything that appeals to these three key features of the net, namely openness, decentralisation and robustness, is likely to take off online. Anything that threatens or impinges these is likely to cause concern and debate. (I am speaking about the open internet here, different values might apply regarding internet use within an organization, although often it is the conflict between these two cultures that causes difficulties.) This perspective on all internet developments, but especially those in e-learning provides a useful means of both predicting what developments might be successful, but also analyzing why certain technologies or approaches have been successful or unsuccessful. Using this approach to examine the potential of communities offers a fresh perspective on their likely uptake.
This paper explores this hypothesis in detail by examining some successful developments on the internet. Each of these is examined in light of the three fundamental social characteristics outlined above. This analysis demonstrates the validity of the hypothesis. The educational motivation for adopting a community-based approach is then set out. These two areas combine to suggest that communities are a natural end point in e-learning, since they meet the three social characteristics and there are powerful pedagogical advantages for their adoption. Some of the issues in realizing e-learning communities are then addressed.
Section snippets
Naspter
Napster (the music sharing system) was something of an internet phenomenon. Between 1999 and 2002 the software gained some 80 million registered users, led to a number of similar programs being developed (e.g., Gnutella, Kazaa), changed the manner in which people viewed the internet and caused great concern in the music industry. The software allowed users to swap MP3 music files between themselves. This led to the rise of peer-to-peer computing, which bypasses central servers.
The reasons
The educational motivation for communities
There has been some research examining the development of online communities, particularly amongst learners. For example, Brown (2001) suggests that there are three levels of community:
- •
Online friends and acquaintances – individuals communicate with other students who they get on with or with whom they share interests.
- •
Community conferment – this is when students felt a degree of membership to the community of learners. This is gained through participation in threaded, thoughtful discussion.
- •
Learning communities as a natural end-point
Given the reservations above regarding the uptake of online communities as a widespread approach in education, we shall now look at reasons why these reservations may be overcome. If we return to the original three features that determine the success of a technology or service on the internet, we can analyse e-learning communities in the light of these.
The first of these characteristics is openness. E-learning communities are necessarily open in that all individuals are encouraged to
Realizing e-learning communities
So how might e-learning communities be realized, or encouraged? It is important to appreciate from the outset that one needs a broad definition of a community, and how one is realized. In e-learning, the tendency is to think of a community being built up over time through asynchronous text-based forums. Whilst this is certainly an important instantiation of the online community, it is not the only one. Indeed, there may be multiple modes of communication existing within an online community.
Conclusions
The internet was constructed around three design principles: robustness, decentralization and openness. As usage of the internet developed these design principles became social characteristics of the internet. Successful internet developments usually display all three of these characteristics. This has been demonstrated through an analysis of three such developments: Napster, blogging and open source software.
There are strong educational motivations for communities in e-learning, as has been
References (14)
- Beaty, E., Hodgson, V., Mann, S., & McConnell, D. (2002). Working towards e-quality in networked e-learning in higher...
- Blood, R. (2000). ‘Weblogs: a history and perspective’. <http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html>...
- et al.
Situated cognition and the culture of learning
Educational Researcher
(1989) The process of community-building in distance learning classes
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks
(2001)The internet galaxy: Reflections on the internet, business, and society
(2002)- Fernback, J., & Thompson, B. (n.d.). ‘Virtual communities: abort, retry, failure?’...
- et al.
Evolving communities of practice: IBM global services experience
IBM Systems Journal
(2001)