Learning Communities

I'm looking at dictionary.com for a decent definition of "community". Check this one out:

"A social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society within which it exists."

I guess that's a sufficient description of our little INSDSG619 clan. But is it really? Simply being distinct from a larger society in some way doesn't create a "community" in the sense of what we hope to create as educators. We aim to create a positive and inclusive experience - not just a distinct one. How about this:

"A group of men or women leading a common life according to a rule."

Better, I think. Here, at least, there's a suggestion of dedication to a common purpose. But there's still something missing, and that's the idea of trust as outlined by Brenda in her presentation. The idea is that people can be resources for each other - and that if a learning experience can become social, it will also become more active (as opposed to a passive learning experience, in which the instructor's presence dominates everyone's experience).

In spite of the loss of the physical, immediate aspect of f2f communication, some people feel a lot more comfortable writing than speaking. I suppose I'm one of them, and so my blog entries and discussion posts are usually on the verbose side. (I apologize to you all.) But this has been quite in spite of myself; my first experience with online classes was not a positive one, and I must confess I've been leery of the whole thing all along. I don't have the kind of life or personality that really makes online learning an attractive option. I like showing up in the classroom. For one thing, I use computers all day, and when I get home from work I'm not excited about turning another computer on. And truth be told, I don't even work from home; I find that I get nothing done, and I miss the experience of going out into the world and being part of it.

Sure, I can be part of it over the Internet, sitting in my living room in my underwear - but it's not the same!

Still. I've got to hand it to online learning; it puts you undeniably in touch with your own motivation or lack thereof. I've learned so much from online coursework - not simply about the course subject matter, but about myself as well. I understand my own learning processes better now, the places where I need to push myself and the places where I tend to slide. This is the kind of valuable learning experience that only a paradigm shift can offer.

The collaborative aspect has definitely played a big part in this for me - because the discussions we've had are probably not discussions I would have been able to have in person. I'm not great with conflict, for one thing, and I don't enjoy debate. But on a discussion board, you can really take the time to reflect on what's being said and get your bearings before you formulate a response. And so I've been able to get to new places in my interactions with other students; I don't just stare at my MacBook for an entire class period. Well, actually, I do, but the difference is that the rest of the class is in there with me. And I've found that I have something to add - quite a lot, in my cases.

So what makes a community? What establishes this "rule" by which we're bound together? What enables us to be distinct together?

The Right Attitude
Desire on the part of learners is the thing that, as educators, we can't control. We can appeal to our learners' desire to connect with each other, to bond, to form relationships - we may even be able to manipulate it - but we can't control it, and to some extent it's a crap shoot. If you end up with a bunch of people who can't stand each other, it might end up being a fantastic learning experience for everyone - if they have the desire. In many situations, you can count on this attitude being there.

The Right Technology
Communicating online is complex; you need to have the tools to connect with your partners in learning, and you need to use them.

The Right Design
Discussion boards are probably a standard feature in most LMS sytems, but an instructor who knows how to design a course around interaction is not. A online course is a piece of software, and the target users of that software are the learners. Designing that software the way it should be designed - around the needs of the user - is the way to encourage people to use what's at their disposal.

The Right Tone
Inclusivity is key. The learning environment needs to be built on an understanding of different learning and communication styles, and the accomodation thereof. Sure, people need to be encouraged to use the technology. But to require people to communicate in one and only one way will only alienate them, and to some extent it will defeat the purpose of technology-aided learning - because technology is here to accomodate us, not the other way around.

And what destroys community?

Alienation, of course. The feeling that we don't matter, that nobody cares, that somebody else is more important. Without consistent feedback, we lose our sense of place. That is why instructors need to walk such a fine line in online courses; they need to stay engaged with each student, but they need to keep from dominating the experience.

This week we immersed ourselves in two sets of readings: one set was devoted to eLearning "theory" and what makes eLearning effective or ineffective, and the other was dedicated to critiques of eLearning in general (including a podcast interview with Mark Buaerlein, author of "The Dumbest Generation", which I found particularly engaging).

The thesis of Bauerlein's book is that "teenagers and young adults... are drowning in a tidal wave of teen/youth stuff delivered through digital tools, and the adult realities of history and civics and politics and foreign affairs and fine arts can't break through."

I couldn't help but be reminded of Andrew Keen's book "The Cult of the Amateur", a similar rant about the evils of cheap, ubiquitous technology. The idea is that since anybody can now make a movie and post it on YouTube, for example, people spend more time watching amateurish crud than other content of more "substance", and this is causing a collective "dumbing down" which is having disastrous effects on our culture.

Well, look. I don't have a PhD in Education or English Lit, so I'm not about to go up against these guys in terms of theory. But find me a young person that is NOT more interested in entertainment than in schooling. I'm an uncle, and my girlfriend is a foster mom. I can tell you that these kids spend every minute of their free time on MySpace , etc., and the mindlessness of the content in which they immerse themselves is rather alarming.

But what was I doing at their age? Watching Saturday morning cartoons - a far less active endeavor. To hear Bauerlein talk, you'd think that if someone suddenly pulled the plug on Facebook, young people would flock to art museums just to have something to do. What nonsense. I don't think it makes a lot sense to freak out over my niece's fascination with Club Penguin.

Isn't it a GOOD thing for young people to have these tools? If you had to choose between having your child engaged in some sort of interactive activity, however vapid, and having them plopped in front of the TV, for hours a day, which would you choose?

And yet, I think Bauerlein's concerns are absolutely valid - there is a general lack of motivation evidenced by young people whose minds are awash in a sea of digital goo. Just because young people have access to better tools than we had does not mean they are learning to use them in ways that we, their parents and teachers, would appreciate. And isn't that a function of how their lives and curricula are structured? And isn't that, in turn, a function of our own understanding of the possibilities of technology? Who can deny that you can have too much of a good thing?

Dreyfus makes a similar case against technology-enhanced learning, but seems to be operating from the same fallacy - that all learning that takes place through a technological context will suffer from the same design flaws, inherent limitations, and moral bankruptcy that our parents said would curve our spines and lose the war.

Yes. There's a difference between data and information, and the availability of data in vast amounts is not necessarily a positive thing. But the bottom line is, the cat is out of the bag and it's not going back in. The answer is not to bemoan the evils of technology, or of the people who have vaunted it into the role it plays today. Rather, let's try to understand what, *specifically*, technology can add to the learning process, and build technological contexts that can direct minds in more effective ways - and when we cannot, we should simply remember that Instructional Design does not equal eLearning and try a different approach.

We get the technology we deserve.

Ciao!

First off, hello to all my INSDSG619 homies. I hope to make my blog entertaining enough for you to consider it worth your time.

I wanted to take this course for a couple of reasons:

• I worked for quite a while as Development Manager for a small eLearning company, so I have some experience with the technical side of eLearning. I got to do some voice-over and even some on-camera work for that company, which was fun. I've also worked as an Interaction Designer and a Usability Engineer, so I'm very anxious to explore the design side of creating online courses.
• A lot of my classmates from INSDSG604 are in this course, and since I enjoyed sharing that course with them I knew this course would be a good bet.

Three things that everyone who knows me knows, and one to grow on:

• I love Flash and Flex development.
  
• I usually have a million things going through my head at once.
• I play guitar, and I own more of them than I know what to do with.
• I'm almost always in a play, somewhere or other.

Thanks for reading!