A COMPARISON OF FORMAL AND NON-FORMAL VIRTUAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES

Richard A. Schwier, Dirk Morrison, Ben Daniel Virtual Learning Communities Research Lab

College of Education, University of Saskatchewan 28 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Canada Richard.schwier@usask.ca, dirk.morrison@usask.ca, ben.daniel@usask.ca

ABSTRACT This paper explores the pedagogical implications of the catalysts, elements & emphases model of formal virtual learning communities [1] for non-formal learning contexts, drawing on findings from a four-year program of research on virtual learning communities in formal learning environments. The paper compares how learners in formal and non-formal learning environments can make use of virtual learning communities. Ultimately, we argue that there is a need to extend basic theory on formal virtual learning communities (VLCs) to elaborate our understanding of learning and pedagogical practices in non-formal online learning environments. KEY WORDS Web-based education, community, non-formal learning 1. Introduction Important questions orbit the design, implementation, pedagogy and effects of virtual learning communities, and the socio-educational aspects of learning in these learning environments. Traditional pedagogy appears to drive the design of most online courses, making it difficult to determine the actual contributions of unintended collaboration in virtual learning communities [2], [3], [4]. At the same time, there is growing attention in the literature to the need for and design of collaborative online learning environments [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Another aspect limiting our current understanding of how learners make use of virtual communities is the fact that existing research focuses almost exclusively on formal learning environments—post-secondary courses managed by institutions of higher learning. Formal environments often require learners to engage each other online in specific, externally defined ways, whereas non-formal environments may impose fewer controls on learner activities. This paper extends what we have learned about VLCs in formal learning environments to how learners in non-formal learning environments will make use of VLCs to enhance informal learning.

2. Formal, Informal and Non-Formal Learning Contexts

Formal educational contexts are usually characterized by learners in classes being taught by teachers who deliver comprehensive, multi-year curricula, which is institutionally bound to a graduated system of certification [11]. In sharp contrast, informal education is often characterized as unorganized, unsystematic, and regularly unintentional [12]. This type of learning was described by [13] as the lifelong process by which people acquire and accumulate knowledge skills, attitudes and insights gathered from a lifetime of experiences. For the purposes of this research program, a third category of education is proposed, one that straddles these two seemingly polar learning contexts, and this is non-formal learning. Selman, Cooke, Selman, and Dampier identify non-formal learning as that which “comprises all other organized, systematic educational activity which is carried out in society, whether offered by educational institutions or any other agency [14]. It is aimed at facilitating selected types of learning on the part of particular sub-groups of the population (p. 26). For example, non-formal education may include such activities as professional development interest groups or community education initiatives. These alternative group-learning contexts are usually characterized by a sharing of expertise and knowledge amongst the membership, which may or may not include a “content expert.” It is clear learners, within the context of non-formal learning environments, need to exercise various degrees of self-directedness in their approaches to their learning. Some authors have characterized the self-directed learner as learning alone, whether under the tutelage of an instructor or agency, or completely independent of such structures [14], [15]. However, we would expand the notion of independence to being independent of the structural contexts of education; any particular learner or group of learners may manifest elements of self-directedness in their learning, whether it is within a formal, non-formal, or informal learning environment.

610-060

Proceedings of the Seventh IASTED International Conference

March 17-19, 2008 Innsbruck, AustriaWeb-based Education

ISBN Hardcopy: 978-0-88986-723-9 / CD: 978-0-88986-724-6

321

3. Virtual Learning Communities The metaphor of community has been used to describe a wide range of contexts, from distributed communities of practice in the corporate world [16], to virtual community networks [17], [18]. Communities are collections of people who are bound together socially for some reason, and that reason defines the boundary of the community. A learning community emerges when people are drawn together to learn, when a group of individuals is engaged intentionally and collectively in the transaction and/or transformation of knowledge. Although learning communities emphasize outcomes in education, their power resides in their ability to take advantage of, and in some cases invent, a process for exchanging ideas and learning collectively. Virtual learning communities happen when the process of learning takes place outside the boundaries of face-to-face contact (although face-to-face and virtual experiences may be blended), and often outside the boundaries of formal education. In order to understand the characteristics of community in formal online learning environments, we developed a conceptual model of VLCs from existing literature and later refined it [1]. The model of formal virtual learning communities included three interacting categories of characteristics: catalysts, emphases and elements, and it is this model that will serve as the starting point for the pedagogical implications offered here. This model illustrates a theoretical framework that exists in the larger context of communities of practice and social capital theory [19], [20]. 3.1 Catalysts of VLCs Communication is a catalyst for community, and when communication is vibrant, community can emerge; when communication is absent, community disappears. Four notions act as catalysts and orbit communication in a virtual learning community: awareness, interaction, engagement, and alignment [1], [21]. These are the products of communication when it acts as a catalyst for community. Awareness is a prerequisite variable to communication and it is drawn from theoretical discussions of social presence and social capital [19]. Interaction includes exchanges between learners and content, learners and instructors, and learners with other learners. Engagement is more than interaction; it describes when interaction becomes mutually beneficial to the individual and the group. To become a contributing member of a community, some kind of engagement has to happen, and ultimately it is important for the tacit knowledge held by community members on the periphery of the community to be made explicit. If this does not happen, then it mitigates the effectiveness of the community. The third notion is alignment. When individuals engage in a virtual learning community, some measure of alignment occurs. Individuals align personal, private purposes with the collective, public purposes of the community.

3.2 Emphases of VLCs Formal learning environments emphasize various purposes, and we suggest these are important to understanding how any VLC operates. The current model suggests five tentative emphases: ideas, relationship, reflection, ceremony and place. Each of these purposes defines a focus for individual participation. While some communities are deliberately constructed to promote one or more of these purposes, any particular emphasis is also the result of the individual’s intention for using the community. 3.3 Elements of Formal VLCs What turns the group into a community rather than merely a collection of people with a shared interest? Thirteen elements were identified in a series of grounded theory studies of online graduate-level seminars and subjected to social network and modeling analyses [22]. These elements underscore the idea that communities are a complex of many factors and variables. Any adequate understanding of virtual learning communities needs to recognize that these variables interact multi-dimensionally. Historicity. Communities are stronger when they share

history and culture. Conversely, they are weak when they are based on general interests and abstract ideas.

Identity. Communities foster a sense of shared identity. Successful virtual learning communities need to have boundaries—an identity or recognized focus.

Mutuality. Communities spring from, and are maintained by interdependence and reciprocity.

Plurality. Communities draw much of their vitality from intermediate associations such as families, churches, and other peripheral groups.

Autonomy. Communities respect and protect individual identity. Individuals interact with each other and have the capacity to conduct discourse freely and meaningfully.

Participation. Social participation in the community, especially participation that promotes self-determination supports autonomy and sustains the community.

Trajectory. Learning communities are not static; they create movement in a direction.

Technology. In virtual learning communities, technology facilitates and development of community, but may also inhibit its growth.

Social Protocols. Conventions and rules of engagement are usually prescribed in formal learning environments, but even in informal learning environments, participants follow conventional patterns of interaction.

Reflection. Communities exhibit conversational flow, and later conversations often make reference to earlier conversations and interactions.

Intensity. Strong communities exude a sense of urgency, that involvement in the community is purposeful and meaningful.

322

Trust. When people build communities, they commit themselves to each other through trusting social relationships.

Learning. Learning is a central element of virtual learning communities, although the nature of the learning can be broadly defined and contextual.

4. Comparing Characteristics of Formal and

Non-Formal VLCs Although a comprehensive comparison of implications that obtain in virtual online learning environments is beyond the scope of this paper, we offer a sample of comparisons here. Also, we want to emphasize that while we are relatively confident about the composition of VLCs in formal learning environments, given that they are based on empirical data, we are speculating about how these characteristics apply to non-formal learning environments. First of all, we suggest that the catalysts and emphases of non-formal VLCs are similar to those in formal VLCs. Learners build awareness, interact, engage and ultimately align with each other over time. The mechanisms of social capital are at work, and learners build interest and confidence that the social network will provide useful avenues of communication. We presume that one potential difference is that learners may feel fewer obligations to communicate in non-formal environments—the social imperative to participate may be more intrinsic and less based on the extrinsic inducements that are familiar in formal learning environments. Strong teacher presence is typical in formal VLCs, with directed discussion and deliberate strategies employed to engage learners with each other. In non-formal VLCs, teachers may not be as directive, and learner engagement will arise or diminish based on how compelling the perceived need is to communicate. Similarly, formal and non-formal VLCs can both emphasize undulating combinations of ideas, relationships, reflection, ceremony and place. In formal VLCs, emphases are institutionally or centrally defined. Most formal VLCs emphasize communities of ideas, although other reasons for participating may motivate individual members. Non-formal communities are also typically designed with particular emphases in mind, either institutionally or by groups of participants, and participants congregate based on shared interests, but outcomes are individually defined. Significant differences seem to play out when we consider the socio-pedagogical implications of VLC elements in formal and non-formal environments. We will compare each in turn and provide an example of how the differences might manifest themselves. Historicity. Given the confined course timetables in formal learning environments, a sense of shared history may occur by the end of a course, or from the reputation of a course from one offering to the next. An instructor can promote and nurture historicity, but the temporal boundaries of formal environments mitigate its growth.

Temporal boundaries often exist in non-formal environments too, so they offer similar challenges. To promote historicity, a moderator can incorporate what members have contributed and make their stories part of the community culture. Explicit mention of the culture, value and context of the virtual community is possible. Identity. In formal VLCs, and instructor can use team-building exercises, develop community logos, and publicly acknowledge accomplishments by the group and individual members within the community. Teachers can articulate the focus or purpose of the community, and outline the requirements and rituals accompanying membership in the community. Participants may wish to remain anonymous or to protect their identities as communities move from formal to informal. Fictitious identities may be used to guard identity in some non-formal settings, yet participants can be encouraged to engage each other in authentic ways. Mutuality. In formal VLCs, a teacher can include group exercises, assignments, activities that require each member to contribute to the final product. Ask leading questions that encourage members of the community to invest in concerns held by other members, and to share ideas and possible solutions. In non-formal settings, learners have more control, but team challenges and problem solving exercises can be used to encourage participants to self-select groups to maximize the team's likelihood of solving the challenge. Plurality. A teacher employing a formal VLC can encourage membership and participation from and association with groups related to the learning focus. These might include businesses, professional associations, or groups in other countries exploring similar issues. Similar intentions can be promoted in non-formal settings, but self-directed learners will decide which peripheral associations can be revealed. Instructors can encourage participants to elaborate on their contributions with examples from other parts of their lives, but ultimately, learners have more authority over what they offer and what they do not because there are fewer external inducements for participation. Autonomy. In both formal and informal VLCs it is important to foster individual expression and comment explicitly on its value. Educators in either environment will set up protocols for respectful communication and acquire consensus in the group. Savvy teachers will also create strategies for settling disputes or inappropriate behaviour before problems occur. Acknowledging autonomy is probably even more important in self-directed learning environments. Explicitly respecting the choices of individuals, and using consensus-building strategies are important approaches. Participation. Instructors in formal VLCs often promote participation in a variety of ways: allowing members of the group to shape learning agendas, giving guidance to new community members, and promoting opportunities for established members to go outside the boundaries of the learning event or focus. They can also encourage lurkers and spectators to participate actively.

323

While active participation is just as important in non-formal VLCs, fewer external controls over individual investments translate into greater control by learners about their own levels of participation. Educators can attempt to stimulate discussion by offering intense and engaging topics for discussion, and suasion is an important tool, but ultimately learners will determine to a larger extent how much they will participate. This can influence the momentum of the group, as dwindling or intermittent participation by group members can ultimately erode the incentive that active participants have to continue trying to communicate. Trajectory. In formal and non-formal learning environments alike, educators may employ a number of explicit strategies to promote an inward-bound trajectory of participation and to propel the trajectory of the group in a particular direction. They might ask participants to describe ways they will use what they have learned in the community in the future, or conduct "visioning" exercises to determine new initiatives to be undertaken by the community. Participants can be encouraged to discuss the directions being taken individually and collectively in the learning environment, but ultimately the individual and group trajectories are determined by the participants. Technology. In any VLC, formal or informal, technology provides affordances and imposes barriers. In any learning setting, it is important to employ technology that allows meaningful communication, and which is easy for participants to use. In formal learning environments, it is critically important to provide support for learning how to use communication features of the technology-based system used by the group. In non-formal settings transparency and ease of use are paramount. Participants will locate alternative loci for learning if the technological context for learning is awkward or difficult. Learning. Learning is one of the key elements that differ in intent between formal and non-formal learning environments. In formal environments, a community moderator will often remind participants of externally imposed learning intentions, and intervene when interaction drifts too far away from the learning focus. One goal of moderators is to muster communication around a topic. They will also induce individuals on the periphery of the community to contribute their tacit knowledge to the explicit knowledge of the community. Non-formal group learning, by comparison, is often characterized by a sharing of expertise and knowledge amongst the membership, which may or may not include a “content expert." Learning agendas may be more personalized and diverse within a group, and learning outcomes may be self-determined. Non-formal learning environments may articulate central purposes and goals, but learners will adapt them to satisfy individual purposes. Reflection. A moderator can look for linkages in conversations over time and in some cases even require participants to comment on how a current conversation relates to a course topic or conversation thread in formal learning environments. But in non-formal environments a

moderator may encourage participants to reflect on learning at key stages but, reflection is largely an individual choice, and opportunities may not be taken. Intensity. As an explicit strategy, instructors in formal VLCs will often introduce provocative or significant social issues related to topics of conversation to provide context and authenticity for online conversations, and to ignite controversy and debate in the community. Similarly in non-formal VLCs, a moderator or participants can introduce provocative or significant social issues, but the participants determine authenticity and relevance. Controversy and debate in the community may be attractive to some participants, but may cause other participants to leave the VLC. Trust. In a formal VLC, an instructor will often spend a considerable amount of energy trying to build trust among participants and between the instructor and participants. She/he might provide opportunities for members to collaborate on small activities in the community, or participate in simple, non-competitive activities, such as co-moderating discussions to promote the development of trust among individuals. As part of these activities, an instructor often invokes an element of co-reliance, such that the success of the team depends on the participation of everyone in the group. As informality increases, the development of trust may become more elusive, as participants choose to trust or distrust other participants based on episodic experience. Cohesive groups in non-formal settings, such as cohorts of employees undertaking voluntary professional development activities, may offer similar opportunities for trust-building activities as formal environments, and trust may emerge as awareness and familiarity among participants grows. Social Protocols. In a formal learning environment it is the responsibility of the teacher to establish clear rules and expectations for engagement, especially for setting or negotiating the acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaving in a community. As the sense of community grows, the group can review existing protocols and be given responsibility for monitoring engagement in the community. In non-formal and informal settings, rules and expectations are typically the product of ongoing social negotiation, so they may be more fluid than in formal environments. In non-formal contexts sub-groups often form around shared interests, and each sub-group may elect to use different protocols to govern interaction. 5. Conclusion In each of these cases, it is important to recognize that the differences depend, at least partially, on how an educator or learning leader chooses to operate with the group online. Any educator, even those in highly formal and institutionalized learning environments, may elect to use VLCs in very informal ways. Any given class may be comprised of formal and informal learning events and structures. When we discuss formal and informal learning environments, we refer to those events and structures, not

324

to whether the VLC is used in a formal learning institution or as part of a particular program of studies. Given this caution, we propose that there are important differences between formal and informal VLCs and how they can be used to promote learning. As non-formal and informal learning opportunities continue to flourish and entice learners, it is important for educators to find ways to incorporate non-formal events and structures, otherwise learning will become further bifurcated into “institutional” and “real-life” camps. In addition, it is important for educators to realize that non-formal and informal learning is legitimate, significant and influential in its own right. Whether or not educators choose to endorse non-formal and informal online learning, they will continue to outstrip formal learning opportunities for most learners. The research agenda required to address non-formal VLC questions is large and growing. We suggest that one of the first research challenges is to identify the shared and unique characteristics of non-formal virtual learning communities, and to understand their social and pedagogical implications. This paper has attempted to draw some logical comparisons to formal environments by considering characteristics that have been identified in formal online learning environments in higher education. These are speculations that require empirical investigation to determine whether they are legitimate speculations. No work, to date, has been done on identifying the unique features of non-formal VLCs. Another research challenge is to identify existing non-formal VLCs and to gather narrative data from participants about the meaning of the communities to their learning and lives. By storying the experiences of participants, we can gain an insight into the ways non-formal learning environments engage learners and learning need to be designed to optimize participation and augment other types of learning structures in an increasingly diverse learning landscape. Acknowledgements This paper was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. References [1] R.A. Schwier, A typology of catalysts, emphases and elements of virtual learning communities. In R. Luppicini (Ed.), Trends in distance education: A focus on communities of learning (Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 2007, pp. 17-40). [2] S. Naidu, (2003). Designing instruction for e-learning environments. In M.G. Moore & W.G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003, pp. 349-365). [3] T.C. Reeves, J. Herrington, & R. Oliver, A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 2004, 53-65.

[4] A.J. Romiszowski, How’s the e-learning baby? Factors leading to the success or failure of an educational technology innovation. Educational Technology, 44(1), 2004, 5-27. [5] S. Cox, & R. Osguthorpe, Building an online instructional design community: Origin, development, and the future. Educational Technology, 43(5), 2003, 44-48. [6] D. Hung, & D.T. Chen, Understanding how thriving internet quasi-communities work: Distinguishing between learning about and learning to be. Educational Technology, 42(1), 2002, 23-27. [7] P. Kirschner, J.W. Strijbos, K. Kreijns, & P.J. Beers, Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 2004, 47-66. [8] W.D. Milheim, Strategies for the design and delivery of blended learning courses. Educational Technology, 46(6), 2006, 44-47. [9] E. Murphy, & E. Coleman, Graduate students' experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(2), 2004, 29-46. [10] D. Uribe, J.D. Klein, & H. Sullivan, The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 2003, 5-20. [11] P.H. Coombs, The world crisis in education: The view from the Eighties (New York: Oxford, 1985). [12] Selman & Selman, 1998 [13] Lowe, 1982. [14] G. Selman, M. Cooke, M. Selman, & P. Dampier, The foundations of adult education in Canada. (2nd ed) (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1998). [15] A. Tough, The adult’s learning projects: A fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning (Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1971). [16] C. Kimbel, & P. Hildreth, Communities of practice: Creating learning environments for educators (Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 2008). [17] M. Bullen, & D. Janes, Making the transition to e-learning: Issues and strategies (Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing, 2007). [18] N. Lambropoulos, & P. Zaphiris, User-centred design of online learning communities (Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 2006). [19] B. Daniel, R.A. Schwier, & G. McCalla, Social capital in virtual learning communities and distributed communities of practice. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(3), 2003, 113-139. [20] B.K.D. Motidyang, A bayesian belief network computational model of social capital in virtual communities (Doctoral thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 2007). [21] E. Wenger, Communities of practice: Learning meaning and identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

325

[22] R.A. Schwier, R.A., & B.K. Daniel, B.K., Did we become a community? Multiple methods for identifying community and its constituent elements in formal online learning environments. In N. Lambropoulos, & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), User- evaluation and online communities (Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2007, pp, 29-53).

326