Building Virtual communities

Blog 2:

Virtual Communities Offering Self-Help: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

Burrows and Nettleton (2002) raise several relevant points concerning virtual communities offering online self-help in their article Reflexive modernization and the emergence of wired self-help. The authors use the theoretical lens of reflective modernization in their analysis of the phenomenon identified as wired self-help. Burrows and Nettleton define the theory of reflective modernization as an attempt to explain the nature and rate of social change in the contemporary period, which is not only moving at a more rapid pace than in any other historical time frame, but is also much broader in its scope and depth. The authors identify changes in economic life, family life, technology, culture along with the new millennium as causing a period of uncertainty, unpredictability and instability for adults worldwide (pp. 252-254). Based on these characterizations, our world has become one in which twentieth century social traditions are replaced with uncertain risks, more choices and therefore more decisions that have to be negotiated by each individual. During this era of detraditionalization expert knowledge and the experts are being called into question and even replaced by lay knowledge and personal experience (254). The results of this are a loss of faith in our traditional authority figures, such as doctors, teachers, fathers, and scientists which has caused a shift from reliance solely on the standard social institutions for advice toward alternative and individual authority figures.

In analyzing the emergence of self help groups, the growth and spread of which has been greatly accelerated by the Internet, the authors highlight several issues for future discussion (265). First, the format of the self-help virtual communities is derived from ideologies of individualism and collectivism, with individualism being the greater factor, meaning that it is geared more for personal help in lieu of a collective help form. In such a setting, an individual seeks out knowledge or support or provides a response geared toward another participants question or query. The information is not geared toward community issues or concerns, but rather individualistic queries for personal concerns and problems. Secondly, as indicated earlier, there is a reluctance to accept advice from experts or authority figures at face value. Nontraditional and multiple sources of information are sought out, which may equate to better informed individuals, but the discrepancy in the multiple sources increases difficulty and anxiety in making decisions. Finally, the authors question what the significance of the shift from PC Internet, which requires proactive participation, to digital TV, a more passive format, on virtual self-help communities fearing that they may become a form of entertainment or oprahfication (266).

In analyzing self help virtual communities, Burrows and Nettleton use two examples both of which are relegated to the sphere of public health policy, the debate over MMR childhood vaccinations and the selling and consumption of genetically modified foods. The threaded posts highlighted from discussion boards are representative of a quest for knowledge by individuals who want to make an informed decision. In looking at the responses by individuals given to the father who questions the need for the shot, fear of possible side effects and alternative ways to administer the shot, it appears that what he receives are nothing more than non-documented opinions having nothing to do with the original questions. The virtual debate over genetically modified foods appeared to contain both facts and opinions. The possibilities for learning and change using self-help virtual communities is indeed endless, but we must remember that many users become even more confused by the information they receive.

While I believe that the Internet is an excellent source to find out information and multiple perspectives/takes on issues, the threaded discussion on “to immunize one’s child” or not is an excellent indication of why one must be a discerning consumer of information found online. Fact, fiction, and personal nonbiased opinions are not always easy to distinguish from one another. Remember Orson Well’s radio broadcast of War of the Worlds in October 30, 1938, who would have thought such numbers of adults would have panicked over a work of fiction read aloud on the radio. Maybe they missed the disclaimers at the beginning of the broadcast or ignored them, perhaps they listened to the opinion of a panicked neighbor, or they were simply not educated in the art of being objective, whatever the case, whenever individuals blindly follow bad advice, bad decisions or similar scenarios could result.

On the other hand, the discussion posts from last week’s class discussion are indicative of the positive results that can be associated with self-help in a virtual community. Questions and problems were presented and were responded to with valid responses and solutions most of which were not based on documented studies and research, but from personal experiences and observations. I guess we can say there is both good and bad and if we think about there is even ugly too. The author’s fears of an oprahification of virtual self-help communities is not only a future concern, but a current one as well. We can access information and entertainment of every conceivable classification via the internet and virtual communities, some of it good, some not so good and some completely unmentionable!

In short, virtual communities and the Internet have a great impact on individuals seeking information and knowledge construction, but the old practice of consumer beware is just as applicable in the virtual community as it is in the real world setting. As more and more information consumers seek answers via the World Wide Web educational support for consumer awareness need to be in place. One easy way to implement this is in classrooms of public schools. Each year more schools systems and classrooms are connecting to the Web. Most students are given the basic Internet safety concerns of caution in disclosing identity or other personal information as well as who they interact with in chat areas. As long as we are cautioning them on the need to discern the outgoing information, why not include the same cautions on incoming information as well?


Life Cycles of Online Learning Communities

In addition to Internet access in classrooms across the United Sates and world, is the introduction of students to collaborative learning experiences in virtual learning communities. According to Levin and Cervantes (2002) these network-based learning communities go through a similar process of development or life cycle (269). The progression of phases or stages in a network-based learning community; formation, growth, maturation, decline and termination, is the focus of their article Understanding the life cycle of network-based learning communities. While the case study of this article is a bit dated (1992-1993), the information Cervantes gathered can be applied to many virtual learning communities.

Along with the description of the life cycle stages were some excellent bits of food for thought for those interested in developing online learning courses or communities. One of the areas emphasized is the discrepancy in how network interactions differ from face-to-face exchanges. This is a key concept in an online course, because many students have not grasped the time factor involved in asynchronous communications. This can lead to frustration when students wait until the last moment to post questions and end up missing deadlines due to a response that arrives several hours later. There is a lot of confusion caused by the “time elongation” involved in online exchanges of communication (Levin & Cervantes, 2006, p. 272). As the authors point out, people see the internet communications as moving at the “speed of light” when in reality they can move in extremely slow motion. In an online discussions, a conversation that might play out in a manner of minutes in a face-to-face class, might take hours, days or even a week as participants enter the discussion posts at all hours of the day. This is certainly the case when clarification of what is being asked must be determined before another participant can respond to the actual question. In the Zero–g Project the availability of experts to assist with the students as well as the entering and exiting of participants form the project caused the project to appear to roll along in lurches.

Along with the time delay in communication exchanges, technical ability, type of computer equipment needed to participate and integration of the Zero-g Project into current school curriculum were other areas of concern. In thinking about an online course, technical skills needed and the proper equipment are important if all students are to participate in the course and its activities. In my online courses both of these are important factors. The college of Arts and Sciences has determined the basic connection and minimum computer requirements that students must have to take online courses here at OU. Once the students log into the course I walk them through these requirements by linking them to A & S web pages. As my specific courses require the students to view videos on themes, grammar and culture along with listening to MP3 files of vocabulary pronunciation, I have several pages in the course content area that detail the type of programs or software required in the course and provide links to free downloads. The students are also required to record themselves speaking in the target language and post these recordings as WAV or MP3 files. Once again, links are provided to a free program, Audacity, which allows students to record and save files as WAV or MP3. Along with the links, detailed step-by-step instructions have to be included as the learners are at both ends of the spectrum when it comes to technology savvy and ability.

No matter how detailed the instructions are or how fool-proof you think the applications are, there is undoubtedly going to be a learner in need of assistance or technical trouble shooting. This is a big problem in online language courses especially with adding accented letter and diacritical marks to documents and inside the course management quizzing system. Many times the method or codes a student used to add accents in compositions written in Word or similar word processing programs will not function within the course management system. This type of trouble shooting has to be handled in advance of the course going live as very few students will have the luxury of bringing their computer by your office for you to work the bugs out.

Levin and Cervantes describe networked learning as a loosely, coupled communities. This is a great image for online learning communities as there is a lot of activity going on simultaneously and independently in a multitude of locations at various times. While it may not appear possible, learning is going on, just not in the lock-stepped time frames of traditional learning environments. In their closing discussion, the authors again emphasize the need to understand the life cycle of network based learning activities by participants and leaders or instructors. Since the interactions can stretch out over long periods of time the role of the mediator is crucial to keep the networked learning environment and participants progressing through its life cycle. They credit improper mediation or lack of leadership as a big factor in failed networked learning environments. I think we can all see the repercussions of lack of leadership when we reflect on The mystery death of MediaMOO: Seven years of evolution of an online community (Bruckman and Jensen, 2002).


Managing Learning in Virtual Settings: The Role of Context

Context and Learning: A Philosophical Framework

While this article examines both context and content, two important concepts in online course design and development, context is the major focus. Figueiredo and Alfonso (2006) begin by looking at antiquated methods for delivery of content which they liken to mechanist fluid. This fluid content is “transferred from the texts books and the minds of the teachers into the empty minds of the learners” (2). This analogy of pouring knowledge into the minds of learners echoes of Paulo Freire’s “Banking” concept of education in which information is deposited into the learner for storage purposes only. According to Figueiredo and Alfonso’s model, the learner is not a vessel at the periphery of the model, but is now the very center of the model surrounded by content and context.

The authors emphasize that the perception of context in learning is tied to the philosophical paradigm adopted by the instructor or course designer. For this reason three key philosophical questions are addressed including the ontological, epistemological and the methodological. The focus of each question differs. The ontological perspective addresses “What can be known?” The response to this question is colored by our perceptions and experiences, “what can be known is what is constructed by us from our perceptions of reality” (8). To emphasize this concept, the authors quote the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus: “You cannot step twice into the same river” (7). In reflecting on this quote, I would add that no two students step into the same course as their experiences and knowledge make each learner’s learning experience unique.

The epistemological perspective asks the question “What is knowledge or what knowledge can we get?” The response posited to this question is “Knowledge is what we can learn by exploring the causes of the problems we face; the only knowledge we can get is that resulting from our inquiries into the efficient causes of the problems we face” (8). In stark contrast to the epistemological perspective is the methodological which questions “How can we build that knowledge?” The response resembles more of a statement than an answer: “we need knowledge not just to understand but also to build the reality we experience” (9).

In looking at all three of these perspectives there is a definite undercurrent telling us that knowledge is not static, but constantly flowing and changing course. For this reason the authors tell us that, “context is not stable but permanently changing” (12). These changes happen as a result of our experiences and perceptions in learning situations. The implications, in terms of course design are simple. Courses must be designed with room to grow, expand and change. As the authors put it we need to understand design as a process of translation. It is going to differ a little in meaning to everyone who engages in it.

Virtual Settings: E-Learning as Creating Context

Duchastel and Molz are on a mission to shift the focus of content, from a traditional centralized model of delivering information to the learner, to a more modern model of the learner’s access of information. “The point of the shift is to reengage the learner in more personal learning that can be more interesting and meaningful” (2006, 24). The authors identify four quadrants which interact together making up the learning environment. These contexts of learning perspectives include the experiential context, information context, institution context and community context.

The experiential context, or the realm of subjective experience, is the starting point of learning. This is important because the learner’s feelings of being overwhelmed, bored or stimulated with learning are a direct result of his/her prior knowledge and skills. The next context is information which the authors tell us “will always appear contextualized, that is, framed by a certain situation” (28). The institutional context is related to the socioeconomic system and relationships of the learning and where it takes place. The community context deals with the type of group, size, location, cross-cultural and multilingual factors.

From an instructional design stand point each realm encompasses its own challenges. The first realm, experiential, must be designed to allow learners to discover and reflect on personalized learning opportunities. The second realm, information, must contain all the tools and information the learner will need including communication and access. The third realm, institution, is in the cohesiveness between the course’s instructional approach, organizational development and support. The final realm, community, addresses the need for options in the learner’s ability to participate and engage in a variety of real life or authentic learning communities which transcend the traditional classroom. The authors conclusions that a design paradigm shift to a learner centered model is necessary for optimal learning to occur in e-learning or virtual courses incorporating each of the four quadrants of learning contexts is valid. Most educators agree that a paradigm shift from instructor centered to learner centered model in all educational endeavors is in order. It may be a hard task to remold all existing courses and instructors, but for those educators who embrace these new visionary concepts there is a whole new virtual frontier in which they can lead the way by course design and instruction, even if it is one course at a time.

Reflections and conclusions:

There are differences between E-learning and traditional course formats, but too many educators try to duplicate an existing face-to-face course into an e-learning environment. What they discover is that one size does not fit all and one model is not identical to another. Just about the time we entered the new millennium we entered into a new and unfamiliar territory, called cyber space and virtual learning. While a lot of our existing knowledge base serves as a starting point for course design in virtual settings, we as educators have now become the students in a quest to build the best learning programs. In the old school we cooked and dished up the content to hungry learners. Now the recipes are changing and we have to learn how to cook all over again and are unable top rely on all the old tried and true methods (or what we took for granted as tried and true!). We adapted from cooking over wood fires, to gas and electric ranges, and finally onto microwaves. We are both adaptive and enterprising. We made it through all those changes and we will continue to meet the challenges of the future. Knowledge is never static, it is ever changing and evolving, so why would we ever consider that our course designs and methodologies could remain the same?


Burrows, R. & Nettleton, S. (2002). Reflexive modernization and the emergence of wired self-help. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 249-268). Cambridge University Press.

Bruckman, A. & Jensen, C. (2002) The mystery death of MediaMOO: Seven years of evolution of an online community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 21-33). Cambridge
University Press.

de Figueiredo, A. D. & Afonso, A. P. (2006). Context and learning: A philosophical framework. In A. D. de Figueiredo & A. P. Afonso (Eds.), Managing learning in virtual settings: The role of context (pp. 1-22) London: Information Science Publishing.

Duchastel, P. & Molz, M. (2006). Virtual settings: E- learning as creating context. In A. D. de Figueiredo & A. P. Afonso (Eds.), Managing learning in virtual vettings: The role of context (pp. 24-39) London: Information Science Publishing.

Levin, J. & Cervantes, R. (2002). Understanding the life cycle of network-based learning communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 269-292). Cambridge University Press.