XplanaZine

What makes a successful online learning community? It’s almost a mantra now: “The quality of an online course is a function of the quality of interaction.” What does that mean in practice? The reciprocal and goal-driven interaction of ideas, resources, models, and opinions characterizes a successful e-learning environment, and results in an effective community of practice. Online learning communities are formed in distributed learning spaces that enable and facilitate sustainable exploration-driven interactions between learners and facilitators. These interactions are built on a solid foundation created by learning technologies and subject matter experts and informed by definable and measurable goals and objectives.

The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) describe the elements necessary for the design of generative learning environments in Constructivism and the technology of instruction (1992). Later, Jaffee (2002) and Dabbagh (2004) detail other instructional attributes required for functional Community of Practice. They include the following:

Control of learning is distributed among the participants (e.g. students and instructors) and does not rest in the hands of a single subject matter expert or instructor;

Learning activities are flexible, and modifications are encouraged if they suit the needs of the learner and the group as a whole;

Multiple parties interact and they are united by a shared goal, problem or project, which provides a mission, vision, and focus. Incentives - both intrinsic and extrinsic - are incorporated into the learning environment in order to motivate learners;

Learners and Facilitators are committed to the sharing of knowledge, and to encouraging the generation of new knowledge;

Multiple perspectives and alternative explanations are not only encouraged, but required of learners and facilitators;

Investigations and inquiries cross traditional disciplinary boundaries;

Conceptual and intellectual risk-taking is encouraged and rewarded;

Instructors model intellectual risk-taking and innovative approaches to problem-solving.

Instructional designers utilize appropriate instructional technology in order to actualize the development of a community of practice. In most instances, the activities will be structured around and within a course management system, which both foments and constricts the construction of a flexible learning space. Nevertheless, the following strategies should be accommodated (Collins, 1991) and Nardi (1996):

” Collaboration and Social Negotiation
” Exploration
” Problem-Solving
” Reflective Thinking
” Exposition
” Negotiation

The most effective instructional strategies analyze the desired objectives and then frame them in terms of the learning outcomes. Appropriate approaches keep the technology in the background, and foreground the cognitive processes at work.

References

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1992). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. In T. M. Duffy and D. Jonassen (Eds.). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol and B. F. Jones (Eds.). Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 121-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dabbagh, N. (2004). Distance Learning: Emerging pedagogical issues and learning designs. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 5(1), 37-49.

Evans, T. (1995). Globalization, post-Fordism and open and distance education. Distance Education. 16(2).

Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development. 40 (1), 49-63.

Hannafin, J. J., Hill, J. R., and Land, S. M. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implication. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94-99.

Maddux, C. D., Johnson, D., & Willis, J. W. (2001). Educational computing: Learning with tomorrow’s technologies (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Thach, E. C., & Murphy, K. L. (1995). Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research & Development. 43(1), 57-79.

Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational Technology Research and Development . 39(4), 43-58.