Diane-Michel.com

Collective Intelligence

Collective intelligencecan be defined as an organically grown bank of knowlege, which providesthe group with a totalsum of knowledge that is fargreater than what each individual member could produce or realize on their own. Information within collective intelligenceis organizednaturally according to each member’s interest and intention. Members of the group become smarter by collaboratively definingand organizing information to aid in each other’sunderstanding.Collective intelligence isone of thecornerstone concepts of Web 2.0 technologies.

PARC research is nowresearching and developing concepts related toaugmented social cognition. They define augmented social cognition as being:

Supported by systems, the enhancement of the ability of a group to remember, think, and reason; the system-supported construction of knowledge structures by a group. (Chi, 2007)

When PARC becomes focused on a particular dimension of research it behooves us to take notice. PARC has continually produced revolutionary technologies over the years that have completely changed the way we live and work. They created the ability for us tonetwork computers using the Ethernet, created graphical user interfaces (GUI), object oriented programming, and laser printing to name just a few of their breakthroughs. (PARC, 2007) PARC at this time has over “170 researchers from the physical, computer, biological, and social sciences (80% of whom hold doctoral degrees). “Employees come from 46 different countries, and include native speakers of virtually every major language. This diversity contributes to an environment in which collaboration is multi-dimensional, cutting across cultures, laboratories, and scientific disciplines.

Here is Ed Chi’s presentation on augmented social cognition within Google Talk. The video is entitled: “Social information foraging and collaboratve search: Augmented social cognition from social foraging to social sensemaking.” (Chi, 2007)

Additional Resources:
Social information foraging and collaborative search: PDF

Rememberance of things: Information foraging

References

Chi, Ed. (2007). Augmented social cognition. Retrieved December 31, 2007, from http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2007/05/augmented-social-cognition.html

Chi, Ed. (2007). Social information foraging and collaborative search: Augmented social cognition from social foraging to social sensemaking. Retrieved December 31, 2007, from http://www.parc.com/research/projects/collaborativesystems/default.html

PARC Research. (2007). Retrieved December 31, 2007, from http://www.parc.com/research/projects/collaborativesystems/default.html

Wiki Etiquette: byRachael King, Business Week (2007)

DO
1. Be bold: Go ahead and create content or edit someone else’s work. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, etc. This is a collaborative tool, after all.

2. Make notes: If you make changes, explain why you made those changes in the discussion or notes pages that are generally attached to wikis.

3. Give praise: Has someone added useful content to the page or spent a great deal of time cleaning up the page so it’s easier to read? Praise helps let people know their contributions are valued €”and makes them want to contribute again.

4. Build structure: Wikis need people to synthesize and structure content so it’s easy to read. Even if you’re not creating content, you can still help by shaping what’s already there.

5. Be polite: As with e-mail and instant messaging, it’s often easy to misinterpret the tone of a comment. Disagreements over content or edits can become heated. If that’s the case, it’s a good idea to take a break for a day or two and come back to it later.

DON’T
1. Take it personally: Yes, colleagues will edit your work and you might not agree with every change, but that’s the nature of collaboration. It doesn’t mean that your co-workers dislike you or think you’re stupid.

2. Ignore questions: Colleagues may disagree with your changes and ask why you made them. If so, be prepared to give concrete reasons for your edits.

3. Delete useful content: Many times a posting can be improved by amending or editing it, but deleting content upsets people, and they may feel they’ve wasted their time.

4. Be chatty: A wiki shouldn’t be used as a chat room. Any discussions related to a wiki subject should take place on the discussion or talk page, not on the actual content page.

5. Keep it secret: If you find valuable content on your company’s wiki, tell others about it. Wikis benefit from a wide range of contributors.

References:
King, R. (2007). Wiki etiquette. Retrieved December 24, 2007, from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ceo_tipsheet/2007_3.htm

Collaborative Intelligence: Wikis for Business

In today’s top Fortune 500 companies, wikis are becoming thecollaborative tool of choicefor building vast store houses of corporate knowledge. Wikis are relativelyeasy touse and manage,and are surprisingly versatile in their functionality. Innovation and knowledge sharing cut right through typical bureaucratic red tape with amazing speed.Colleagues can communicate as a group much more efficiently without beinghampered by endless strings of meetings, or the literally hundreds ofemails that certain projects seem to breed among all the players involved. Communication can also be more easily facilitated withinon a global scale,utilizing a variety of language translation wikis. The constant creation and evolution of globally shared knowledgecreates a tremendouscatalyst for positive change. Business therefore canbuild and developinnovation at a speedthat simply has never been witnessed before. No longer justlone wolves in an organization, the team comes together taking the power of each member and combining it into a stronger force.

Who are using wikis for business?

According to Business Week’s Rachael King,(2007), one of the early adoptors was Intel.In 2005, Josh Bancroftneeded a way for engineers and staff to easily collaborate on internal projects. His solution was tocreate “Intelpedia”.Intelpedia is nowembraced by and utilized daily by thousands ofengineers and staffwithin the company. “Intelpedia now has amassed 5,000 pages of content and garnered 13.5 million page views. According to King (2007), corporations such as Sony, Xerox, Disney, and Microsoft alsohavebrought in wikis as a new and vitaltool for their business. King cites Andrew Mcafee, a professor at Harvard Business school, “If you did a comprehensive survey of Fortune 1,000 companies, you would probably find some sort of wiki in all of them.”

According to Bancroft (2007), corporate wikis can be used to fill a variety of needs including, “tracking industry news, setting meeting agendas, posting corporate policies, and even creating strategy documents.” Open-source software packages such as MediaWiki, and Twiki allow employees to create their own wikis without having to ask for technical IT help. Bancroft cites Ann Majchrzak and Christian Wagnerin their report for the Society of Information Management, that wikisare used by companies such as Motorola, Yahoo!, Amazon, Google, and Nokia. IBM has successfully implemented their wiki with over 125,000 active users. According to Bancroft (2007), “IBM assembled a worldwide community of 50 IBM experts in the fields of law, academia, economics, government, and technology to collaborate on the wiki. The result of that project is a collaboratively written intellectual-property manifesto that also serves as the foundation of IBM’s new patent policy.”

Wiki Security for Companies

Worried about security, who wouldn’t be? If internal corporate informationwas set free on the Internet, havoc would surely ensue.But, thanks to tighter security features, corporate wikis are less likely to face the pranks or vandalism that Wikipedia faces on a daily basis.Most corporate wikis also utilize intranets, as opposed to the Internet. Enterprise wikis software packages such as Atlassian, Socialtext, CustomerVision, and MindTouch provide the added security and access control features that are needed to keep internal company information private.

What’s next in the evolution of company wikis?

Engaging partners and customers seems to be the next step in the evolution of corporate wikis. For example, according to Bancroft (2007), Microsoft is utilizing a wiki to gather information from it’s partners around the worldwhile developing Visual Studio’s documentation. This not only encourages greater collaboration, but also allows Microsoft to enter into new markets where documentation has been previously hampered by local dialects.

How to handle exponential growth in a wiki

One caveat Bancroft (2007) reveals is that in time wikis can become unwieldy with too much information from too many sources. She cites Majchrzak in stating that there needs to be a “shaper” within the wiki environment, that is someone who helps “synthesize” the information so it is easier to read, more efficient, and therefore more usable by other members of the group.

Let’s finish off with a video by Barry Libert, entitled “7 Rules for Building a Business Community.”

……………………………………………………………………………………

Corporate Wiki Software Solutions
1. Social Text
2. Confluence
3. Blogtronix
4. Clearspace
5. Mindtouch

……………………………………………………………………………………………
Additional Resources:Marshall School of Business:
Corporate Wiki Survey of Users – PDF ……………………………………………………………………………………………
References: King, R. (March, 2007). No rest for the wiki. Retrieved December 23, 2007, from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070312_740461.htm

Wikis: Wikis are evolving into the perfect collaborative tool for business and education. By now, nearly everyone has heard of, or used the famous “Wikipedia” that was launchedin 2001. But what you might not realize is that the open source power behind Wikipedia,is available toanyone. Forward thinkingbusinesses and schools are increasinglyutilizing wikis to create theirvery own collaborative resource sites.

Why usewikis?

1. Wikis are adaptable, searchable and easy to use.
2. They handle and organize a growing base of knowledge in a veryefficient and usablemanner.
3. Wikis allow for individuals to rapidlyco-construct knowledge in a free-form manner.
4. Wikis remove the chronological sortingbarriers that blogs have. (Latest postings always being postedfirst might not always be ideal.)
5. They can be password protected.
6. Information is set free and “democratized.”
7. Open source wikis are free for your use.
8. Depending on the type of wiki, they can be easily installed without programming experience.
9. Wikis can be installed on your own computer as an organizational tool.
10. Wikis can even be installed on thumbUSB drives and passed amongst the collaborators.

Here are some creative ideas for using Wikis that may help you in your business or educational environment.

Ideas for usinga Wiki in Business
(Wiki.com, 2007)

1. Project collaboration and brainstorming
2. Building a community of practice
3. Creating knowledge bases on specific topics
4. Writing documentation or FAQ’s
5. Creating specifications and architecture documents for software or other projects
6. Creating “How to Step by Step Explanations”
7. Planning and documenting events
8. Real time reports of conferences
9. Information and policies about a project
10. Developing best practices or patterns
11. Software testing and development
12. Meeting agendas and notes for organizations
13. Developing software features and other inventions
14. Solidifying an existing community through collaboration and increased connections
15. Discussing theories
16. Creating an easily searched Website with hyperlinks.

Ideas for Using Wikis in Education

1. Websites can easily be created and maintained by students separated by distance.
2. Provides a sense of community and central meeting groundfor online students to collaborate ideas.
3. Collaboratively constructing knowledgein a way that isengaging and motivating.
4. Assignments can be peer reviewed, and critiqued. Particularly writing assignments.
5. Group assignments can be easily organized, andbe a central point for documents, photos, media, etc.
6. Information is searchable.
7. Encouraging Parent – Teacher – Child communication.

History of Wikis

According to Wikipedia.org (2007), the first wiki was called the WikiWikiWeb. It was produced by Ward Cunningham in 1995. It was first only open to invited programmers, and its original intent was “to facilitate communication between software developers, and also to experiment with the new hypertext capabilities”.

According to Darryl Taft in his article written for e-Week.com(2006), Mr. Cunninghamhas said: “The power of collaborative development has only just begun to be realized, and open-source software will continue to spur more collaboration and more innovation.”

“I’m betting on open source being a big trend,” Cunningham said, chuckling at his understatement. “And it’s not just because of cost, but because of end-user innovation. No end user wants to be a programmer; they just want to get their jobs done,” he said. But more and more people with powerful tools and powerful languages will be able to work together to build better systems, he said.

“I think of software being a work €”very much like a wiki being a work €”where people see an area that’s weak and they make it stronger.”

Mary Joe Foley (2004) also interviewed Cunningham in 2004 for e-Week.com. In the interview she reports: “Cunningham emphasized the need for programmers to abandon the lone-wolf approach and instead work more collaboratively. He said the WikiWikiWeb is all about nurturing collaboration by allowing developers to elaborate when writing patterns or other pieces of software.”

Interested in reading more about WardCunningham’s work in his own words? Here is an interesting page written by him about the history of his wiki development.

Features of Corporate Wikis
Features of wikis specifically helpful to a corporation include: (Wikipedia.org, 2007)

1. Allow to glue information via quick-and-easy-to-create pages containing links to other corporate information systems, like people directories, CMS, applications, and thus build up knowledge bases.




2. Avoiding e-mail overload. Wikis allow all relevant information to be shared by people working on a given project. Conversely, only the wiki users interested in a given project need look at its associated wiki pages, in contrast to high-traffic mailing lists which may burden many subscribers with many messages, regardless of relevance to particular subscribers.




3. Access rights, roles. Users can be forbidden from viewing and/or editing given pages, depending on their department or role within the organization.




4. Building consensus. Wikis provide a framework for collaborative writing. Particularly, they allow the structured expression of views disagreed upon by authors on a same page.




5. Organizing information. Wikis allow users to structure new and existing information. As with content, the structure of data is sometimes also editable by users; see structured wiki.




6. Saving time by: Making ideas available; Sharing Knowledge, Having a common glossary, and Managing Related Information. Sometimes used is “If you do not know where to put the information, put it in the wiki”.




7. Convert informational “noise” into corporate wisdom.

Corporate Wiki Solutions
Wikipedia.org (2007):

A large set of corporate wiki solutions are available; see list of wiki software and comparison of wiki software. Wikis with the required feature set include TWiki, MoinMoin, XWiki, TikiWiki, Confluence and Socialtext. Their aim is to provide all ranges of companies with ready-made wiki solutions that can be adapted to SMEs as well as multinational corporations. Amongst those companies, the competition lies as much in corporate philosophy as in what the products look like. For example, MoinMoin and Socialtext value simplicity, where TWiki puts an emphasis on structured wikis where users can create wiki applications. Most of them have adopted an Open-Source mindset and allow developers or even users to create purposed applications.

Wiki software packages not specifically built for corporations are also used at the workplace, such as MediaWiki or DokuWiki. Although they can be used to build simple knowledgebases and internal websites, they often lack enterprise features such as fine grained access control, per page name space for attachments, or integration with other enterprise tools.

Let’s finish this posting with a sort of “campy” video on wikis vs blogs. Kennedy taking the position of wikis, and Nixon on blogs. (Be patient, the beginning skips a bit, but then the film runs smoothly.

2. Another Wiki Comparison Guide.

3. List of wiki software.

4. List of wikis written in a variety of languages.

5. Download MediaWiki: The Free open source software that powers Wikipedia.

6. Open Source Collaborative Software

7. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful tools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

8. Educause: Use of wikis in education – Podcast

Wiki Tools: One Page

• JotSpot Live
• Writeboard
• Writely
• RallyPoint
• Zoho Writer
• StikiPad

Full Web Site

• Helping Students Education 501(c)(3)
• Wetpaint
• JotSpot
• Atlassian Confluence
• MediaWiki
• SocialText
• JotBox Wiki appliance for large enterprises
• EditMe
• Trac Project tracking wiki
• Wikispaces aimed at social groups
• PBwiki
• SeedWiki
• Schtuff
• Instiki
• Wetpaint
• LauLima
  …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

References

Wikia.com. (2007). Uses of a Wiki. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Uses_of_a_wiki.

Foley, M. (2004). Father of the wiki talks programming practices. Retrieved December 18, 2007, from http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1684470,00.asp

Taft, D. (2006). Father of wiki speaks out on community and collaborative development. Retrieved December 18, 2007, from http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1939982,00.asp

Wikipedia.org (2007). Corporatewiki. Retrieved December 18, 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_wiki

What is Podcasting?
Podcasts are essentially episodes of programming delivered via the Internet. They can useaudio, video or PDFs or a combination of all three. Content publishers utilize RSS feeds which contain metadata, allowing for the broadcast to be catalogued and searched.The term “podcasting” according to Laurie Patterson of the IEEE, (2006) is essentially a combination of words referring to Apple’s portable MP3 player, theiPod and broadcasting. (However it is reallynot necessary to utilize an iPod to listen to podcasts. Any computer or MP3 player can play a podcast.)

When did Podcasting Begin?
The term “podcasting” is believed to have firstbeen coined by Ben Hammersley. On February 12, 2004, Mr. Hammersley wrote an article entitled “Audible Revolution“for the San Francisco Guardian:

With the benefit of hindsight, it all seems quite obvious. MP3 players, like Apple’s iPod, in many pockets, audio production software cheap or free, and weblogging an established part of the internet; all the ingredients are there for a new boom in amateur radio. But what to call it? Audioblogging? Podcasting? GuerillaMedia?

According to the IEEE’s Computer.org, in an article entitled: “The technology underlying podcasts“:

Tristan Louis, who was involved in developing W3C standards for the merger of TV with the WWW, first proposed the idea of podcasts in 2000. Dave Winer, a developer of XML dialects, along with other individuals, further developed RSS (Really Simple Syndication or Rich Site Summary or RDF Site Summary)

The idea of downloading audio files to listen to at their convenience struck a chord with many computer users. Instead of downloading a podcast to an MP3 player or iPod, users could listen to the downloaded audio files on their PCs.

Interest in podcasts has increased exponentially. On 28 September 2004, there were 24 Google hits for “podcast.” Two days later, there were 526 hits, and three days after that, 2,750 hits were recorded. The number of hits reached 100,000 by mid-October of that year, and Google recorded more than 100 million hits a year later. At the end of May 2006, Google had more than 319 million hits.

Why use Podcasts?
Podcasts provide an entirely new and exciting path to reach your students.Barriers for learning such as distance, and time are erased; asteaching is nolonger constrained toa pureclassroom activity.Podcasts are a highly convenient medium, which is compatible across numerous hardware platforms. Podcasts can be downloaded from the Internet and listened to whenever students need to review or study. They provide flexible opportunities for study in a highlyportable format.Many learning styles are accomodated through podcasting, as the mediumcan include audio, video, powerpoints as video, or written PDFs. Podcasts can help students practice and review new knowledge, orand as a result improvetheir overall academic performance.

How are podcasts delivered?
Podcasts are first downloaded to a computer via the Internet. Podcasts can be delivered by a simple click of a hyperlink, or automatically deliveredby the studentsubscribing to a RSS feed.The user can listen to the content immediately, or choose to copy it onto an MP3 player. Podcasts can also be automatically downloaded with Wifi connectivity for Palm handhelds and pocket PCs. In addition, podcasts can also be easily distributed through networking sites such as Podcastalley.

What formats are podcasts in?
The standard format for podcasts is usuallyMP3, which allows for easy transfer to a variety of equipment. Your audience already has all the tools necessary to hear, see and experience your message beyond the classroom. These days all school campuses are bustling with students carrying MP3 players, iPods and of course laptop computers.Podcasts can be played on PC’s, Mcintosh computers, palm computers.

Podcasting is Economical
There is good news for budget conscious teachers, podcasting is an extremely economical medium. First of all students can download your broadcast for free.Secondly, serving up podcastscan be accomplished with minimal costs.The reason being, MP3 recordings and the XML used to identify the recording can be placed on any Web server. As for the end user, it is possible to get a 1GB MP3 player for about $50.00. (It isn’t necessary to always go top dollar and purchase the latest Zune or Apple IPod, despite the cool blitz of advertising. For a review of MP3 players you might try checking out these PC Magazine’s reviews.)

Engaging students on their turf
Listening to a podcast isa natural for today’s technologically saavy student.Podcasts provide a way to enliven lessons using a medium that students are completely familiar and comfortable with.The small portable MP3 players are particularly useful for students with tight time constraints. Lessons can be listened to whenever and wherever the student sees fit. For example, time pressured adults will truly appreciate the opportunity to squeeze in some quality study time in rather unconventional ways. Clever multi-taskers can review the week’s lessons while at the gym, during the morning commute, cleaning up the house, or sipping coffee at the local coffee shop. One is only limited by their imagination thanks to the small, highly portable, and inexpensivequalities of MP3 players.

How do Podcasts work?
Podcasts utilize an XML protocol called RSS €“ which help to identify the author, title and content of the broadcast in metadata. The metadata helps people to understand if they want to subscribe to the broadcast or not. Podcasts are posted to a Web server along with the XML document.

How do I make XML for a Podcast?
The W3C provides clear specifications for RSS (real simple syndication). RSS is an XML application.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Resources for Teachers

1. How Stuff Works: All about Podcasting
2. O’Reilly: What is Podcasting?
3. Podbean.com: Create a podcast and have it hosted in just a few minutes for free.
4. Podcasting Toolbox: 70+ Podcasting Tools and Resources
5. The Ultimate RSS Toolbox: 120+ RSS Resources
6. Apple.com: iPods in education -profiles of universities using the medium
7. PDF: Getting started with iPods in the classroom
8. Apple workshops on Podcasting in education
9. Apple’s distinguished educators’ series using iPods
10. Audacity: Free cross platform audio editor
11. Levilator: A free program that helps keep audio levels constant between speakers on your podcast.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Universities Who Utilize Podcasts
The best way to learn is to be inspired by others. Perhaps listening to these free podcasts from some major universities can help start you on the right path!

1. Stanford University
2. John Hopkins University
3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
4. University of California, Los Angeles
5. Yale University
6. UC Berkley
7. UC San Diego
8. Vanderbilt
9. Caltech
10. University of Edinburgh
11. Oxford
12. Columbia University

………………………………………………………………………….

References
………………………………………………………………………….
Apple.com. (2007). iPod in Education: Learning to Go. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from Apple.com: http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/podcastsfaq.html

Apple.com. (2007). Making a podcast. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from Apple.com: http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/podcaststechspecs.html#metadata

FeedForAll.com. (n.d.). FeedForAll & FeedForAll Mac software. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from Feedforall.com: http://www.feedforall.com/

GigaVox Media. (n.d.). The Levelator. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from Conversationsnetwork.org: http://www.conversationsnetwork.org/levelator

Patterson, L. (2006, October). How things work: The technology underlying podcasts. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from IEEE.org: http://www.computer.org/portal/site/computer/
menuitem.5d61c1d591162e4b0ef1bd108bcd45f3/
index.jsp?&pName=computer_level1_article&The
Cat=1055&path=computer/homepage/
1006&file=howthings.xml&xsl=article.xsl

PCMag.com. (n.d.). MP3 players. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from PCMag.com: http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,2705,2359,00.asp

RSSBoard.org. (n.d.). Really Simple Syndication best practices profile. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from RSSBoard.org: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-profile-1

RSSBoard.org. (n.d.). RSS Validator: Really simple syndication specifications, tutorials, and discussion. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from RSSBoard.org: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-validator

Watson, S. (n.d.). How podcasting works. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from HowStuffWorks.com: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/podcasting.htm

Podcastalley.com. (n.d.). What is a podcast? Retrieved December 11, 2007, from Podcastalley.com: http://www.podcastalley.com/what_is_a_podcast.php

Web 2.0 as we have discussed is quickly becoming… ahh shall we say an overused term. But if you are not tired of it yet, neither am I. So if you’d like, grab my hand and we shall march fearlessly forward. Our mission? To showcase prime examples of Web 2.0 collaborative Websites in a mission to spread the good work of others.

Since there are probably thousands out there by now, obviously this will be a work in progress. It will also be great fun to discover and catalog these.

Wikiversity

“Wikiversity is a Wikimedia Foundation beta project devoted to learning materials and activities. Wikiversity’s beta phase officially began on August 15, 2006 with the English language Wikiversity.”

WetPaint
“Wetpaint powers websites that tap the power of collaborative thinking. The heart of the Wetpaint advantage is its ability to allow anyone €” especially those without technical skill €” to create and contribute to websites written for and by those who share a passion or interest. To do this, Wetpaint combines the best aspects of wikis, blogs, forums and social networks so anyone can click and type on the web.”

Educators will like Wetpaint because they promise ad free wikis.

Go2web20
“A directory of web 2.0 applications and services.” nteresting layout and design. I think you’ll like it.

Quintara
A search engine which uses visualization and tag clouds to find what you are looking for specific to your interests not search algorithms. Not exactly Web 2.0 but nevertheless interesting.

Instructables.com
“The world’s biggest show and tell. Instructables is a web-based documentation platform where passionate people share what they do and how they do it, and learn from and collaborate with others. The seeds of Instructables germinated at the MIT Media Lab as the future founders of Squid Labs built places to share their projects and help others.”

Twine.com
“Twine is a new service that intelligently helps you share, organize and find information with people you trust.

Share more productively. In Twine you can safely share information and knowledge, and collaborate around common interests, activities and goals. Twine helps you better leverage and contribute to the collective intelligence of your network. Use Twine to share more productively with friends, colleagues, groups and teams.

Get more organized. Twine provides one place to tie everything together: emails, bookmarks, documents, contacts, photos, videos, product info, data records, and more. And, because Twine actually understands the meaning of any information you add in, it helps you organize all your stuff automatically. Finally, you can search and browse everything and everyone you know, about anything, in one convenient place”

Trueknowledge.com
“An internet search company based in Cambridge, England. Our technology addresses one of the fundamental problems in internet search: namely that computers (unlike humans) cannot understand the content of web pages. As a result, finding information in the early 21st century still involves a process of guessing keywords that may appear in an appropriate web page and hoping that a search engine retrieves a document with the desired information sufficiently near the top of the list as to be found reasonably quickly. Simply asking a search engine for the desired information in the most natural way possible doesn’t produce a direct response.

Our technology sidesteps this fundamental problem by providing a way for the world’s knowledge to be represented in a form that computers can understand and process, and for ordinary internet users to be able to add to this knowledge base without having to understand how the knowledge is represented.

Powerset.com
“Powerset is a Silicon Valley company building a transformative consumer search engine based on natural language processing.

Our unique innovations in search are rooted in breakthrough technologies that take advantage of the structure and nuances of natural language. Using these advanced techniques, Powerset is building a large-scale search engine that breaks the confines of keyword search.

By making search more natural and intuitive, Powerset is fundamentally changing how we search the web, and delivering higher quality results.”

Freebase
“Freebase, created by Metaweb Technologies, is an open database of the world’s information. It’s built by the community and for the community €“ free for anyone to query, contribute to, build applications on top of, or integrate into their websites.

Already, Freebase covers millions of topics in hundreds of categories. Drawing from large open data sets like Wikipedia, MusicBrainz, and the SEC archives, it contains structured information on many popular topics, including movies, music, people and locations €“ all reconciled and freely available via an open API. This information is supplemented by the efforts of a passionate global community of users who are working together to add structured information on everything from philosophy to European railway stations to the chemical properties of common food ingredients.

By structuring the world’s data in this manner, the Freebase community is creating a global resource that will one day allow people and machines everywhere to access information far more easily and quickly than they can today.”

Hakia
“Hakia is building the Web’s new “meaning-based” (semantic) search engine with the sole purpose of improving search relevancy and interactivity, pushing the current boundaries of Web search. The benefits to the end user are search efficiency, richness of information, and time savings.The basic promise is to bring search results by meaning match – similar to the human brain’s cognitive skills – rather than by the mere occurrence (or popularity) of search terms. hakia’s new technology is a radical departure from the conventional indexing approach, because indexing has severe limitations to handle full-scale semantic search. Hakia’s capabilities will appeal to all Web searchers – especially those engaged in research on knowledge intensive subjects, such as medicine, law, finance, science, and literature.”

VortexDNA
“VortexDNA offers a simple yet powerful way to mathematically calculate alignment with your world based on your core purpose and values. First, the technology generates your numerical profile based on a short series of profound questions. That profile can then be referenced against anything you choose: other people, jobs, even Google „¢ search results.CiteYouLike
Share literature and journal citations that you like with others

LinkedIn
“Find past and present colleagues and classmates quickly.
Discover inside connections when you’re looking for a job or new business opportunity. Get answers. Your network is full of industry experts willing to share advice. Have a question? Just ask

My Space
“MySpace is an online community that lets you meet your friends’ friends. Create a community on MySpace and you can share photos, journals and interests with your growing network of mutual friends!”

ma.gnolia
“At Ma.gnolia, members save websites as bookmarks, just like in their browser. Except with a twist: they also “tag” them, assigning labels that make them easy to find again. So when you search for something, you use words that people choose and look only at websites that people think are worth saving. Suddenly you have access to a human-organized bookmark collection.

digg
“Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. From the biggest online destinations to the most obscure blog, Digg surfaces the best stuff as voted on by our users. You won’t find editors at Digg €” we’re here to provide a place where people can collectively determine the value of content and we’re changing the way people consume information online.”

Facebook
“Founded in February 2004, Facebook is a social utility that helps people communicate more efficiently with their friends, family and coworkers. The company develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of information through the social graph, the digital mapping of people’s real-world social connections. Anyone can sign up for Facebook and interact with the people they know in a trusted environment. Facebook is a part of millions of people’s lives and half of the users return daily. Facebook is a privately-held company and is headquartered in Palo Alto, Calif.”

Blink List
“Make lists & share with others! Or keep em’ private.
Save websites for reference, research, or for fun!
Read those sites later! When you have the time.
Have them appear in your links on your blog instantly!”

ClipMarks
“Clipmarks is a new way to save and share the interesting things you find on the web. Our free browser add-on lets you clip text, images and videos from inside web pages then save, blog, email and print what you clip. The Clipmarks web site is home to a vibrant community of clippers who share their clips, leave comments and pop their favorite clips to the top for everyone to see.”

Reddit
“Reddit is a source for what’s new and popular on the web — personalized for you. Your votes train a filter, so let reddit know what you liked and disliked, because you’ll begin to be recommended links filtered to your tastes. All of the content on reddit is submitted and voted on by users like you”

Stumble Upon
“StumbleUpon helps you discover and share great websites. As you click Stumble, we deliver high-quality pages matched to your personal preferences. These pages have been explicitly recommended by your friends or one of 3,985,818 other websurfers with interests similar to you. Rating these sites you like automatically shares them with like-minded people €“ and helps you discover great sites your friends recommend.

Using search engines to locate relevant content typically means hunting through pages of results. Rather than searching for quality web sites, StumbleUpon members are taken directly to web sites matching their personal interests and preferences. Using a combination of human opinions and machine learning to immediately deliver relevant content, StumbleUpon presents only web sites which have been suggested by other like-minded Stumblers. Each time the ‘Stumble’ button is clicked, the user is presented with a high quality web site based on the collective opinions of other like-minded web surfers.”

Pownce
“Pownce is a way to send messages, files, links, and events to your friends. You’ll create a network of the people you know and then you can share stuff with all of them, just a few of them, or even just one other person really fast.”

Rays of Collective Intelligence within the Web 2.0 environment:

Web 2.0 is aboutWeb usersconnecting together and collectively creating and sharing knowledge. It is an extremely powerful and exciting concept which I find particularly compelling.It is also the basic foundationofthe theory of constructivism. Driscoll (2000),stated that “Learners, are not empty vessels waiting to be filled, but rather active organisms seeking meaning. Knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences. Constructivists are interested in having learners identify and pursue their own learning goals.”

Ok, moving past the theory now. Tagging is an example of how individuals determine how their own content can be organized and found by others of like mind. There is a term for this called “folksonomy”. This term was apparently coined by Thomas Vander Wal (2005).His original definitionfor the term was that “Folksonomy is the result of personal free tagging of information and objects (anything with a URL) for one’s own retrieval. The tagging is done in a social environment (shared and open to others). The act of tagging is done by the person consuming the information.”

However much to the chagrin of the originator of the term… folksonomy seems to have morphed into a new meaning now days and is generally defined as: categorizing things through “collaborative, social tagging”.

Here is another definition from Wikipedia, which I generally try to shy away from as using a solid resource, but nevertheless here it is:Folksonomies are intended to make a body of information increasingly easy to search, discover, and navigate over time. A well-developed folksonomy is ideally accessible as a shared vocabulary that is both originated by, and familiar to, its primary users.

Examples of Tagging & OrganizingCollective Intelligence

43things.com for example, is a rather clever little Website which works by individual’s simply posting their goals they would like to accomplish and then adding their own keyword tags to those goals. Then individuals around the world interested in the same goals can therefore find one another and share their thoughts. This is an intriguing concept to be sure, and a terrific way to find and develop group support and a sense of belonging. Creating a sense of community and defining social presence, is by the way, key for eliminating isolation within online learning environments.

Del.icio.us is immensely popular social bookmarking Website. Basically it is a huge storehouse of all the member’s favorite bookmarks. Once you post your favorite bookmarks obviously they are accessible by any computer. One also utilizes tags to help organize and figure out that favorite bookmark you made last week.

Other examples of tagging sites which provide a new way for people to collectively share, and connect socially include Flickr. With no specific technical knowledge one can share their photographs of family, friends, adventures and projects. In doing so one can organize, search and share stories with others around the world. The best thing it is free and also doesn’t require specific technical knowledge. However there are upgrade packages available for power users.

Now to end our discussion, here is a clever video which helps to describe Web 2.0 by Mike Wesch. Dr. Wesch is a”cultural anthropologist and media ecologist exploring the impacts of new media on human interaction.”

References
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Driscoll. (2000). Psychology for learning for instruction. Allyn and Bacon: New York.

Del.icio.us. (2007) What is Del.icio.us? Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://del.icio.us/about/43things.com

Flickr.com. (2007). About Flickr. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from
http://flickr.com/about/

43things.com. (2007) What do you want to do with your life? Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.43things.com/about/view/learn_more

Wikipedia.com (2007). Folksonomy. Retrieved November 26, 2007 fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/folksonomy.

Vanderwal.net (2005). Folksonomy definition and Wikipedia. Retrieved November 27, 2007 from http://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1750.

Wesch, M. (2007). Web 2.0: The machine is us/ing us. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE&feature=related

Today we are awash in key worded blogs, RSS feeds and automated agents which seek out content based on our requirements, and bring it back to us on a regular basis.

But at the beginning of this millenium, the idea of pushing information to us rather than hunting for it was a brand new concept. In May 2001 Scientific American published an article entitled the “Semantic Web” by Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler and Ora Lassila. At that time, I must confess to reading that particular article over and over, knowing intuitively somehow that it was very important for me to understand its message but not yet knowing how to apply it to my work in the Web. The most striking part of the article that left me spell bound was this quote:

Properly designed, the Semantic Web can assist the evolution of human knowledge as a whole.

This statement was quite profound and also foretelling. Read it again, absorb it, and you too will instinctively start to sense how important semantic applications really are.

Semantics according to Merriam-Webster (1986) originates from the Greek word semantikos. Semantics literally means: “significant, to signify, mean, or relating meaning in language. It is the study of meanings.” (Slightly digressing for your amusement, I find it ironic that I gathered this definition from my ancient print dictionary. I purchased it with the first $15.00 I ever made about a thousand years ago, during the age known as BTW = Before the Web.)

Ok back to learning…

The authors of the Semantic Web article; which include the originator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, spoke of how in the beginning Web pages were basically designed for people to read, but had no mechanism for computers to truly comprehend the content (Tim Berners-Lee et al., 2001 ). Of course, computers could scan Web page html to figure out the structure and layout of the page, and make some distinctions reading the header and title, but computer scripts couldn’t really understand or produce meaningful associations about the content on a Web page. In the beginning there was really no ability to actually “process the semantics.” Computers just DIDN’T GET IT yet. The capacity to know what they were processing or how to organize information based on the meaning just wasn’t there.

How does the Semantic Web work?

In order to make Web pages more palatable for machine consumption, we utilize markup languages like XML (eXtensible Markup Language) and RDF (Resource Description Framework) For example when a blog writer annotates their Web pages with tags, they may not realize it, but they are utilizing XML. Their tags are an indication of what the content is about.

XML is the way to exchange general purpose metadata. Therefore content can easily be detected by computer scripts which translate the tags and use them in a variety of ways, including organization. But even though XML can enable a user to give their own content definitions to documents it doesn’t quite get us to what the structures really mean. This is where RDF steps into play. RDF helps to express deeper meaning through a structure similar to the “subject, verb and object of an elementary sentence.” (Tim Berners-Lee et al., 2001)

Thanks a wonderfully written article by Altova (2007) we can gain some moreinsight on how the Semantic Web works.

In the Semantic Web data itself becomes part of the Web and is able to be processed independently of application, platform, or domain. This is in contrast to the World Wide Web as we know it today, which contains virtually boundless information in the form of documents. We can use computers to search for these documents, but they still have to be read and interpreted by humans before any useful information can be extrapolated. Computers can present you with information but can’t understand what the information is well enough to display the data that is most relevant in a given circumstance. The Semantic Web, on the other hand, is about having data as well as documents on the Web so that machines can process, transform, assemble, and even act on the data in useful ways.

Implementing the Semantic Web requires adding semantic metadata, or data that describes data, to information resources. This will allow machines to effectively process the data based on the semantic information that describes it. When there is enough semantic information associated with data, computers can make inferences about the data, i.e., understand what a data resource is and how it relates to other data.

The first step required for machines to understand data is to get that data into a uniform format, where, for instance, a field labeled “street” always has the same format and contains the same type of information, and so on. This type of functionality can be found today on Web sites that use forms that allow users to enter information and run a query, such as airline Web sites that allow visitors to search for and book flights based on a variety of criteria. However, considering the amount and variety of data available from different sources today, this method of data typing does not scale beyond very specific applications.

The next step towards the Semantic Web requires that data from multiple domains is classified based on its properties and its relationship with other data. This is where Semantic Web technologies such as RDF, RDFS, and OWL come in.

Resource Description Framework (RDF)
An official W3C recommendation, RDF is an XML-based standard for describing resources that exist on the Web, intranets, and extranets. RDF builds on existing XML and URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) technologies, using a URI to identify every resource, and using URIs to make statements about resources. RDF statements describe a resource (identified by a URI), the resource’s properties, and the values of those properties. RDF statements are often referred to as “triples” that consist of a subject, predicate, and object, which correspond to a resource (subject) a property (predicate), and a property value (object). Below is an example of an RDF statement in plain English:
[resource] [property] [value]
The secret agent is Niki Devgood
[subject] [predicate] [object]

Overall, RDFS is a simple vocabulary language for expressing the relationships between resources. Building upon RFDS is OWL, which is a much richer, more expressive vocabulary for defining Semantic Web ontologies.

Web Ontology Language (OWL)
OWL is a third W3C specification for creating Semantic Web applications. Building upon RDF and RDFS, OWL defines the types of relationships that can be expressed in RDF using an XML vocabulary to indicate the hierarchies and relationships between different resources. In fact, this is the very definition of “ontology” in the context of the Semantic Web: a schema that formally defines the hierarchies and relationships between different resources. Semantic Web ontologies consist of a taxonomy and a set of inference rules from which machines can make logical conclusions.

A taxonomy in this context is system of classification, such as the scientific kingdom/phylum/class/order/etc. system for classifying plants and animals that groups resources into classes and sub-classes based on their relationships and shared properties.

Since taxonomies (systems of classification) express the hierarchical relationships that exist between resources, we can use OWL to assign properties to classes of resources and allow their subclasses to inherit the same properties. OWL also utilizes the XML Schema datatypes and supports class axioms such as subClassOf, disjointWith, etc., and class descriptions such as unionOf, intersectionOf, etc. Many other advanced concepts are included in OWL, making it the richest standard ontology description language available today.

Semantic Web Present and Future
It’s important to note that implementation of RDF, OWL, and the Semantic Web as a whole will be a gradual process. Questions about what the Semantic Web is and how it can benefit businesses and individuals are similar to initial confusion about why we needed HTTP and the Web before “WWW” was a staple of our daily vocabulary. But considering how those technologies have proliferated, it’s likely that the Semantic Web vision is one that will be realized, even if it’s on a small scale initially.

Let’s close with a video of Tim Berners-Lee, Director of the World Wide Web Consortium describing his vision of the Semantic Web:

References
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Berners-Lee, T. Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (May 2001). The Semantic Web: A new form of Web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities.Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2

Altova.com (2007). What is the Semantic Web? Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://www.altova.com/semantic_web.html

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Want to learn more?

W3C Semantic Web
Semantic Web Case Studies
W3C Semantic Webon XML-Tim Berners-Lee
The Semantic Web Road Map – Tim Berners-Lee
Info Mesh: Semantic Web
HP – Intro to Semantic Web Technologies
RDF Tutorial
Semantic Web in Breadth
W3C Semantic Web Presentation 2002
The Semantic Web is closer than you think- O’Reilly
Ontologies Come of Age – Stanford University – Deborah L. McGuinness

Comparative Organizer: Situated Cognition
Author:Diane Michel

Representative theorists

1. Jean Lave €” A social anthropologist whose studies focus on learning through social interaction and situated learning. Significant breakthroughs achieved by “reconceiving” ideas of “learning, learners, and educational institutions”. Doesn’t believe that learning only exists in a person’s mind but is a part of, and is transformed by one’s social interactions. Theories touch upon cognition and perceptions transforming as a result of every day life and one’s interactions within their community of practice. Working in conjunction with Etienne Wenger developed the ground breaking book entitled Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (1991).

2. Etienne Wenger €” Primarily known for his work on communities of practice. Developed the concept along with Jean Lave while studying social apprenticeships and learning. Explores the ideas that human knowledge is fundamentally acquired by social interaction. Cognition, perception and action occur within a social context. Learning is not “just a one-to-one relationship with a master, but a relationship with a whole community of people with apprentices at different levels.”

3. Lev S. Vygotsky €“ Pioneered theories that social interaction was a critical part of cognitive development. Focused on development occurring as a result of the social and cultural context in which it is embedded.

4. Brown, Collins and Duguid €“ Theories focus on cognitive apprenticeships, and knowledge as “situated, being in part a product of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed and used.” Real life situations in which knowledge is used cannot be separated from learning and cognition.

Key-factors that influence learning

1. Learning is a result of social interaction, collaboration and situated practice within an authentic context.

2. Critical to the learning process is the need for connecting to the “real world “. Knowledge taught in an abstract fashion and out of context may create learning that is merely symbolic and inert. Students may be unable to utilize the new knowledge because they lack the understanding of how it pertains to solving real life problems. They may know “what” but they don’t know “how”.

3. By showing and demonstrating the practical, useful qualities of new knowledge, it is therefore given relevance and meaning. It will then have a stronger chance of being used and remembered by the student.

4. Learning is accomplished by doing. Students must be given a chance to participate in relevant activities pertaining to the new material. By being given a chance to practice and do what “experts in a subject matter do”, successful learning of knowledge and its application to the real world is demonstrated.

5. Knowledge is transferred as teachers model behavior and articulate what they are thinking as they perform a specific task. This is intended to reveal their cognitive processes for solving the problem at hand. This helps the student to understand the steps involved, the sequence in which they are performed, and why they are performed.

6. Cognitive apprenticeship €“ learning occurs as an active participant in an authentic community. The community acts as a real world classroom for the learner. Success results from interaction within the group, acceptance and subsequent sharing of meaning & knowledge.

7. Learning cultural processes of problem solving within a community of practice is also an integral part of successful situational learning.

Communities of Practice

1. A community of practice is a group of people that are organized informally or formally that socially interact with each other and engage in common activities or pursuits. They collectively learn from one another as they work in their shared endeavor.

2. The community of practice focuses on a shared mutual goal. Through association and collaboration they develop shared meanings, ideas, resources and tools. Through their sharing of knowledge & problem solving techniques they collectively increase their expertise within their field of practice.

3. Legitimate peripheral participants (accepted members of the group) are allowed to share within the resources of knowledge. Membership implies a shared competence that distinguishes and creates autonomy within the group.

4. Eventually the newer participants of the group progress and evolve into mentors themselves. This process insures the continual renewal and growth of the organization and community at large.

5. Participating within the actual lived practices of a culture leads to stronger understanding of the group and it complexities.

6. Communities of practice lead to the fruitful expansion of knowledge, as true practitioners share, inspire, and solve problems jointly. The unique aspects of an informal culture encourage growth to occur at a faster rate, as traditional boundaries are crossed and former barriers to expertise are removed.

Role of the teacher/instructor in the learning process:
Instructors should…

1. Act as a coach who leads the student to understanding and greater awareness. The teacher is not a dictator of rote information. Provides strategies for the student to solve problems.

2. Create real life situations or scenarios that demonstrate how knowledge can be effectively applied. Learning tasks should be embedded within context and teachers should encourage the type of thinking that would actually be used in the real world.

3. Focus on realistic approaches to problem solving and approaching problems from multiple perspectives. Create activities that reflect the complexities that are present in the real world. Not everything is black and white.

4. Demonstrate and model correct behaviors for performing a task. Articulate the cognitive processes that occur as the problem is being solved. Explain the thought processes, reasoning, and problem solving strategy. Explain how and why they are doing something.

5. Once the student is ready to put into practice their new knowledge, the instructor monitors and acts as coach that assists them with problem solving.

6. Support students through the concept of scaffolding. As they attempt more difficult tasks then they are accustomed to, they will need support, encouragement and guidance. As the learner become more proficient, utilize fading by taking away cues slowly.

7. Encourage experimentation so that the student can try their own methods and strategies. The student should begin to form their own unique mental model to solve problems and thus make their own discoveries.

8. Empower the students to assess the situation, think and work independently. Self sufficiency is the ultimate goal. Encourage them to think and act like they would in a real world situation.

9. For those students involved within a community of practice outside of the school: encourage active participation, social interaction with members, seek out mentors, share group knowledge & resources, and engage in the actual cultural practices and problem solving tasks of the group.

10. Assessment of progress through questioning & review of experience, summary statistics for online learning environments, and completed student portfolios.

Types of learning

1. Collaborative learning through the social construction of knowledge

2. Learning correct processes by example. Learning occurs through situated modeling of expert behaviors and accepted practices.

3. Problem based learning

4. Can be unintentional rather than deliberate

5. Learning “how” in addition to learning “what”

6. Knowledge construction rather than reproduction

7. Learning is co-produced by the active engagement of the learner and the situation they find themselves in.

8. Incidental learning (spontaneous, learning from mistakes, networking, experimental)

9. Cognitive apprenticeship €“ acquiring, developing, and using cognitive tools in an authentic domain

10. Exploration and independent discovery – students try out their own ideas and in the process discover new methods and processes

Basic strategies

1. Show how newly acquired knowledge can be directly applied to the real world.

2. Embed learning opportunities within authentic problem solving environments.

3. Provide a mental model for students to understand cognitive processes and strategies.

4. Verbalize and reveal the exact thinking that is occurring as a sample problem is being solved.

5. Encourage students to think and act in practice situations just as they would in the real world.

6. Support collaborative efforts and social interaction as a means to discover and create knowledge.

7. Articulation & reflection €“ Foster reflective practice. Have students articulate their cognitive processes as they work through a situation. Have them reflect upon their successes and also on how they might improve in the future. Use
   “mistakes” as a way to provide constructive feedback and increase understanding.

8. Gently coach providing feedback, hints and encouragement. The teacher then gradually scales back with hints and advice as the student becomes more independent in their problem solving capabilities. Utilize scaffolding to
   guide the learner from what is currently known to what will be known.

9. Finally, allow students to test out and practice their new knowledge in authenticsituations through lab work, field work, work placements, or membership in a community of practice. Let the student take an active roll in their progress.

10. Students who join within a community of practice should be encouraged to fullyengage themselves, by participating and sharing the knowledge of the group, taking advantage of the resources made available to them: the tools, symbols, and
    expert problem solving processes.

11. Create methods to assess competencies and measure the success and effectiveness of learning.

Major Strengths

1. Anchored instruction within authentic, realistic context.

2. Thinking and doing brings about solidified knowledge that can be actively demonstrated.

3. “Knowing that”and “knowing how” are together within one framework. Thus, knowledge is no longer decentralized and abstracted.

4. Opportunity to actually practice skills and knowledge without the pressures of being expected to have fully mastered the skill set.

5. Learner is more engaged as an active participant in the learning task as opposed to being a passive receiver of knowledge.

6. Introduction to the nuances of a culture within a community of practice.

7. Creates a sense of belonging and identity for the student as they are accepted into a community of practice.

8. Teacher no longer an omniscient authority in the classroom, but rather serves as a guide to knowledge.

9. Ability to assess the student’s successful implementation of knowledge into the real world, by seeing firsthand their actions in performing specific tasks.

10. Providing internships creates a variety of experiences that a school may not be able to provide within the financial, and time constraints of the institution.

11. The opportunities to learn from real world subject matter experts provides deep connections to knowledge and connects the student with reality not abstract notions.

12. By tapping into the idea of learning from communities of practice, students understand that life long learning is achievable from other than the traditional classroom.

13. Weaknesses

14. Financial costs can be significant to find or develop authentic situations for students.

15. Constant monitoring, diagnosis of external situations is time consuming for the instructor especially in dealing with a large group of students.

16. Assessment of progress may be difficult. Traditional paper and pencil tests no longer appropriate to assess learning. Difficult to ascertain exactly what constitutes valid evidence of successful learning within a community of practice.

17. Apprenticeships must be well planned with goals for learning specifically outlined. Achievable goals must be defined and agreed to by all concerned. External apprenticeship experiences can be difficult to monitor.

18. If utilizing a community of practice approach, learning is highly dependent upon the quality of the group, the immediate learning environment, and members’ willingness to share information freely.

19. Apprenticeships/internships can turn negative if allowed to turn into a type of servitude that is solely centered on tedious tasks.

20. The roll of problem solving as in life, may not have clear cut absolute answers.

21. Learning is dependent upon the quality of the supervisor and dedication to the true growth of the apprentice. Can be difficult to tell if the supervisor will indeed provide quality guidance or is just looking for a source of labor.

22. Theoretical “big picture” perspectives and guidance may be left out of the learning process.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
References

• Abdullah, Mardziah Hayati (1999). Problem-Based Learning in Language Instruction: A Constructivist Model. Eric Digest. Retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-2/problem.htm

• Benson, Alexis (2004). Review and Analysis of Vygotsky’s Thought and Language. Retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://web.archive.org/web/20010209010341/129.7.160.115/INST5931/Vygotsky.html

• Brown, Collins, and Duguid. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI?resources/
  museumeducation/situated.html

• Cutshall, Tom (2002). Cognitive Apprenticeship Lesson Plan. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from http://www.arches.uga.edu/~cutshall/edit6400/
  cognitiveapprentlessonplan.html

• Driscoll, Marcy P. (1994), Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

• Lankard, Bettina A. (1995), New Ways of Learning in the Workplace. ERIC Digest No. 161. Retrieved November 13, 2004, from

http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed385778.html

• Lave, Jean. (1999). Chapter 8. Everyday Life. Retrieved November 13, 2004, from http://www.si.umich.edu/ICOS/Presentations/041699

• Murphy, Elizabeth (1997). Characteristics of Constructivist Learning & Teaching. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from http://www.cdli.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle3.html

• University of Western Australia (2000). Alternative Modes of Teaching and Learning. Alternative modes to delivery. Retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://www.csd.uwa.edu.au/altmodes/to_delivery/apprenticeship.html

• Unknown (2004). Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934). Retrieved November 13, 2004 from http://web.archive.org/web/20010802101038/

http://www.bestpraceduc.org/people/LevVygotsky.html

• Unknown (2004). Social Development Theory (L. Vygotsky). Retrieved November 13, 2004 from http://tip.psychology.org/vygotsky.html

• Wenger, Etienne, (2004). Interview with Etienne Wenger on Communities of Practice. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=119473

Building social interaction and facilitating
a sense of community within an OLE.

Author: Diane Michel
March 20, 2006

Abstract:

Learning is a process that occurs within a social context.We learn from one another through the sharing of experiences, collaboration, negotiation and articulating ideas.OLE’s may lead to a sense of isolation by participants who are physically separated from one another.OLE’s need to facilitate social learning by building a sense of community and belonging among students.It is this paper’s intention to understand the importance of learning within a social context, and provide strategies for creating a sense of community within an OLE.

Keywords

OLE, community of learners, sense of community, social interaction, social presence, feelings of isolation in online learning environment, alienation OLE, learning in social context

Introduction: Learning Theory

Social constructivism championed by Vygotsky took the approach that learning is accomplished socially and that people learn through the viewpoints of others (Nicholson, 2005).Young and Collin, (2004) note that knowledge is fostered by interaction and negotiation within a social group.Dabbaugh (2005) touches further by stating that learning can be thought of as an evolving process in which learners participate in shared learning activities.Through social interaction they collectively construct knowledge. Learning in essence involves interaction with others in a group or community.Allert (2004) concurs when stating that learning is actually a result of co-participating within a community.

Dabbaugh (2005) presents that knowledge is brought about by participating within a group or community of practice.It involves inquiry and learning from members of the group.Dabbaugh (2005) also contends that learning occurs through enculturation, which is an understanding of how knowledge is to be used.Young and Collin, (2004) point out that socially constructed knowledge and meaning are built historically and culturally through social interaction.

Social interaction is not just something to make online classes more interesting or motivating.Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems (2003) state that social interaction is a necessary ingredient for collaboration and effective learning.The authors feel that many studies have shown that social interaction is the key for effective group learning.Social interaction is important for feelings of affiliation, forming impressions of others, building social relationships, and developing a true community of learning.

A person interacting with another person in a supportive manner helps the learning process.Slavin (as cited inSmaldino, Russell, Heinich, & Molenda, 2005)points to research in which cooperative social learning was shown to provide better knowledge acquisition, and helped participants to remember content more effectively. Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems (2003) believe that learning on a deep level and remembering what has been learned occurs as a result of interaction and dialogue.

Toporski and Foley (2004) note that learning within a social context also brings about authentic learning which is germane to the cultural context of the group.Blair and Hoy (2006) contribute that effective distance learning favors social and collaborative approaches.

Problem Statement

Learning has been shown to be a socially mediated activity.However learning online is usually accomplished by students and teachers separated from one another by both time and distance.Weisgerber and Butler (2005) note that students used to traditional face-to-face instruction, may be unable to overcome the impersonal feeling of computerized learning environments. Weissman (2003) points out students may feel frustrated working alone without proper access to resources, or social interaction from instructors and fellow students.He also states the quality of communication or lack thereof, in the learning environment can have a large impact on the learner’s motivation.McInnemey and Roberts, (2004) found that students, who study within an online environment, may feel their attempts to socially interact with their instructor and fellow classmates are frustrating. Consequently feelings of isolation result from perceiving themselves as being an “outsider” or not belonging to the group.They found that students frustrated with technical problems, or content difficulties could also have increased feelings of isolation and being alone.Those feelings could adversely affect a student’s decision to continue studies online.Rovai and Wighting (2005) also point out that a sense of isolation and lack of community may be one of the many factors in higher drop out rates for distance education courses over traditional classroom courses.

Rovai and Jordan (2004) suggest isolation, and the subsequent feelings of disconnect-edness and lack of support may lead to student burnout. Their studies also state that students who have insufficient interactions with peers, and teachers may have higher drop out rates.

Rovai (2003) notes that physical separation and distance contribute to a sense of being alone and isolated.He cites literature in which online students report feeling disconnected, isolated, and distracted.They also report increased frustration from the lack of personal attention, which could affect their overall persistence in a distance education program.Rovai and Jordan (2004) report that students who do not feel they fit in with the group are potentially at risk of quitting.

Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2003) present that asynchronous distributed learning groups are typically designed to support communication and collaboration by participants.However, they often have difficulties with achieving the quality and depth of social interaction needed to achieve a feeling of connectedness. The authors contend that there are two reasons for this.The first reason is that just because an OLE has made social interaction technically feasible, it doesn’t necessarily mean learners will use it.The second problem is that instructors ignore socio-emotional support and focus mostly on students completing regimented educational tasks.This is a form of “simulated” interaction that isn’t at the proper level necessary for true group dynamics to occur.

Vonderwell’s (2003) studies of twenty-two online students revealed that some students felt interactions were less personal, and they missed “one-on-one” relationships with their instructors.Some students reported no real social interaction in group discussions.They reported that their learning teams didn’t give a feeling of cohesiveness, and that the teams were basically just groups of people.

Lack of face-to-face interaction in an OLE, also creates additional problems with the nuances of communication.Hall (as cited by Baker 2004) states that it is estimated that 60% of all human interpersonal communication is non-verbal.A host of rich non-verbal clues such as proximity, motion, facial expression, posture, and eye contact that are used to communicate a variety of messages in a typical classroom are absent online.Lack of immediacy, which is a type of pro-social communicative behavior, can also affect an online environment.Mehrabian (as cited by Baker, 2004) states that non-verbal behaviors promote immediacy, and sensory stimulation.These result in more powerful and pro-social interactions that can have a positive influence on learning. Additionally, Csibra andGergeley (2005)state that in face-to-face instruction, both teachers and learners create a baseline for teaching context by sending and receiving various non-verbal signals.Weissman (2003) concurs that online instructors miss out on the benefits of non-verbal communication.A significant amount of clues and indicators of student interest or comprehension are lost, as online instructors can no longer see and measure reactions from student’s eyes, facial expressions, or body language.

Rovai and Wighting (2005) state that students who have a sense of community will feel greater satisfaction with a course, and feel that they have learned more.A virtual world does have the capability of providing a sense of community and reaping the subsequent benefits of social learning.Rovai and Wighting’s (2005) conclusions on a study involving 314 students revealed that students could indeed feel connected and a sense of belonging, despite only knowing one another in a virtual community.

This paper will show that by building a sense of community, one can hope to eliminate feelings of student isolation that have the potential to exist within an OLE.Even though students are separated by distance and time, an OLE can promote feelings of support, belonging, and acceptance, which are essential to social interaction and enhanced learning.A sense of community generates numerous benefits for the students.Those benefits include richer more meaningful collaboration, deeper understanding, facilitation of memory and stronger achievement.Guidelines will be provided on how a sense of community can be created.This will be accomplished by providing examples of successful OLE’s and expanding on what elements within those OLE’s provide a sense of community.It will also present suggestions as to how one can foster community, and what various tools and applications can be used to accomplish this goal.

Significance to the OLE Area of Study

Rovai and Wighting (2005) note that improving students’ sense of community and belonging enhances retention and overall student satisfaction with online studies.Conrad (2005) reported significant academic benefits from purposeful online community building for graduate students.When learners perceive a sense of community, the learning process was facilitated and strengthened through mutual commitment. An environment with a sense of community is more engaging, and is conducive to higher levels of interaction and thought.Values of trust and support, along with welcoming and respecting other’s perspectives are ideals that are important to open and purposeful learning.Rovai and Wighting (2005) report conversely, a sense of alienation, can reduce the sense of community, dampen student achievement and may increase drop out rates.Students dropping out of OLE’s are opportunities forever lost for the student and school.
Since learning occurs and is enhanced through social interaction, it is necessary to build an OLE that facilitates interactivity, community building and collaboration.Without quality interaction the learner suffers, and the promise of the OLE fails.

Sense of Community Defined

Wright (2004) notes that Samuel Sarason was one of the first to coin the phrase,”sense of community in his 1974 book “Psychological Sense of Community”. He defined that a sense of community involved a person having a perception that they were similar to others within a group, and understanding that they were interdependent by giving and doing for other members within that group.They also shared the feeling that the community was a larger, stable entity that they could depend on.

Sense of community and its definition however, is not necessarily well understood in concrete terms.Conrad (2005) reports in her multi-year studies of online graduate students, that the learners themselves sometimes have a difficult time articulating a clear meaning to the word “community”.Some learners have trouble distinguishing between the terms “support” and “community”.Although a sense of community is known to be useful to distance learners, Gilbert (2004) states that he doubts his organization (TLT) will ever reach a unanimous decision as to what the true meaning of community is.Conrad (2005) states that the term “community” is often interchanged with other terms such as community of enquiry, knowledge community, global online community, sense of community, learning community, or communities of practice.But she defines community as a “general sense of connection, belonging, and comfort that develops over time among members of a group who share purpose or commitment to a common goal”.Learners in her classes stated that community came as a result of sharing common purpose, time and space.Learners understood the community as a part of their learning, and appreciated it as being a critical part of their learning successfully online.

With a sense of community, Rovai andWighting ( 2005) point out that students will feel supported by one another and emotionally connected to others.They work cohesively acknowledging the different perspectives that one another brings to the group, and they respect those differences. Rovai (2003) states that those students who have a sense of community will feel connected and trust one another.They are committed to helping one another with their learning goals and they believe that their educational pursuits will be successfully met through that commitment.It can be assumed therefore that students who have a sense of community will care about one another, and will take steps to insure each member’s success.

Benefits of Building a Sense of Community

Rovai (2003) explores in great detail the benefits of a sense of community.His findings indicate that a sense of community enables members to feel “connected” to a group.He notes with this connection there comes a feeling of belonging and acceptance.Rovai goes on to state that a sense of community brings about a feeling of group “spirit” in which friendships are nurtured and bonding occurs.Conrad(2005) found that students enjoyed the support they received from their online community and viewed it as a valuable resource.They considered their fellow members as friends or “like family” whom they could depend upon.In addition, a sense of community opened the doors for intellectual exchange and growth within a nurturing climate.Rovai (2003) elaborates that as time passes in a developing community, members of the group begin to demonstrate genuinely care for one another.With this feeling of acceptance, members begin to build trust and a willingness to open up to others.Confidence is built within the security of an accepting group, which allows students to take risks, admit when gaps in knowledge exist, and ask questions when needed.Even more importantly, students showed the expectation that others will indeed care enough to lend a helping hand when approached.Rovai (2005) found that a community provides support and scaffolding, which in turn allows its members to flourish.Rovai also notes in his earlier studies (2003) a more casual and open environment nurtures diverse interactions.These interactions empower learners to negotiate meaning and explore new perspectives.He relates that subsequent mentoring and knowledge sharing opens the door to increased innovation and problem solving.

Sergiovanni(as cited by Rovai and Jordan, 2004) spoke of the need for authentic community in educational settings.This helps bring learners and teachers together as they share values, meaning, and goals.A sense of community and the shared meaningsdiscussed within context results in more authentic learning.Toporski and Foley (2004) note that it has long been held that learning is best achieved when new knowledge is placed within an authentic context.

Conrad (2005) notes that as a community of learners, members enjoy a humanistic learning lifestyle.This lifestyle contains valuable elements of social support, comfort, tolerance and ease.Learners towards the end of a two-year stay together as both distance and face-to-face learners described their community in terms of a positive, sharing support network that cared for one another.Such a community provided a feeling of “humanness” to their experience, and created a sense of safety and expectation. Conrad notes learners used their community in both a cognitive and emotional sense.The community fostered their quality of learning and also provided comfort to themselves and others.As the sense of community evolved, students were able to help themselves succeed in academic achievement.The connection they enjoyed provided better collaboration on group projects, increased sharing of resources, helpful assistance by others on individual projects, and increased comfort in online discussions and postings.Others reported that it reduced their concerns over grades and competition. At first thought of as a technology that would help online learning, students began to view community as a condition that embraced them as individuals.Resulting relationships moved past course boundaries with students actively supporting one another in other aspects of their lives, and reflecting on the effects of community as if it was created as one of the program’s learning outcomes.

How a Sense of Community can be Created

In her multi-year study of online graduate students Conrad (2005) found that adult learners felt that they, their instructors and the administration were responsible for designing and creating a sense of community.Those who tended to be more enthusiastic and positive about online learning usually included more individuals in who was responsible for creating and maintaining community.They also felt good instructors helped to create a sense of community by being socially present, energetic, responsive to student needs, and being knowledgeable on the subject matter. Perry and Edwards (2005) feel that exemplary instructors can facilitate creating a community of inquiry.Competent online instructors accomplish this through thoughtful social, cognitive and teaching presence.They challenge their students to high standards by engaging in a variety of affirming behaviors.They show encouragement, and value students as individuals.They craft useful and thoughtful responses that show cognitive presence.They affirm students by recognizing potential, validating learners and treating them with respect. White, Roberts and Brannan (as cited by Perry and Edwards, 2005) indicate in order for successful learning to take place, one must first create a “humanized” environment that respects and encourages the learners.

Kreijns, Kirschner and Jochems (2003) suggest that in order to foster a sense of community, instructors should think of how to produce interactions that encourage stronger relationships, group forming and positive interdependence.The instructor should be proactive in monitoring and weaving discussions, and interactions.Conrad (2005) cites a review of literature and surmises that teacher immediacy is one of the key components in creating a sense of community.

In addition, Conrad (2005) states in order to build a sense of community, she indicates students should be given opportunities to meet face-to-face.In blended courses that combined face-to-face residencies of three weeks along with distance courses students reported feeling an “enormous surge” in feelings of connectedness and overall satisfaction with the program in general.By communicating well face-to-face, students were also able to communicate better online and vica versa.Students reported after having the opportunity to interact face-to-face that their online course was more “engaging”.One learner indicated that if students got to know each other well enough on a personal level through face-to-face interaction their online collaboration would become quite powerful.Gilbert (2004) also reports that providing face-to-face interaction in the beginning of a course helps to build community.Through initial meetings, cohorts become familiar with each other’s needs and goals.Those ideas become important to one another and students were able to reflect on those as they planned future activities.There was a persistence of community with reunions of the group occurring even after the course was over.Some students reported feeling lonely, a sense of loss or needing a “fix of community” when they needed to move on from the group.Some even attempted to recreate the group, by meeting up again in forums designed for new learners of a program.The idea of sustaining a community once built is an admirable one.Nicholson (2005) reports that alumni often feel shut out from being able to further contribute ideas to programs they once were members of.Once the final course is taken, communication is effectively cut off and a dynamic, thriving community is reduced to thin air.He advocates allowing alumni to continue being able to contribute to certain forums as a way of extending the community to the professional world.This also provides a medium for sustaining important peer relationships that have developed over the course of program.

Nicholson (2005) elaborates further on the importance of extending the idea of community to the external world.Students belong to more communities than just a specific online course. They include but are not limited to, peer groups, their school or department, and the university.By also opening the doors to expert guests, alumni, other departments, and faculty one extends the scope and power of the community.Communal scaffolding can occur from a variety of sources.New and fresh perspectives from the outside “real world” can help to answer student questions and concerns about their careers and future.By bridging the professional world with the student world, important connections can be formed which benefit both parties.Many professional organizations, and cooperatives that hope to be the new homes of future graduates, would welcome the chance to contribute to the online life of students.

Nicholson (2005) also indicates the importance of bringing people together physically if possible.He suggests providing activities at the start of the program or residency.Some particularly good suggestions include distance students meeting alumni in their local area.Another idea he presents is informing students when faculty or staff members are attending conferences, so that they might arrange an in-person meeting.Field trips of student groups can also allow distant and local students to meet one another in interesting shared learning experiences.

Conrad (2005) indicates that a sense of community grows from the participants themselves, and that it cannot be artificially made or given.Course designers and instructors can create the incubators or space to facilitate community development, but they cannot force it to occur. Kreijns, Kirschner, Paul & Jochems (2003) agree that social interaction cannot be assured just because it is technically feasible to do so.However once created, Conrad believes (2005) a sense of community is a sustainable condition that grows through the bonds of its members.Even when instruction is perceived as poor, those members with a strong sense of community can go “underground” to sustain the group and continue to support one another in their efforts to succeed.

Conrad (2005) found 27 different strategies that helped to grow and build community.They include: regular and active participation by members, willingness to share problem solving activities, personal contact with one another, timely feedback, clear responsive communication, and frequent visits to the OLE.She also found, that members need to be willing to invest adequate time, utilize open and warm communication, and be willing to share their backgrounds in order to build trust.She recommends a climate that encourages honesty, the free exchange of thoughts and ideas, provides trust and support, and is considerate of others.In final, she states members should be encourage one another to participate through supportive dialogue.

Tools for Facilitating a Sense of Community

Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, and Shoemaker (as cited by Nicholson, 2005) studied online MLS students over a one-year period.In their work they found it important to start students off with an initial face-to-face meeting, and provide a combination of synchronous and asynchronous tools, which elicited active involvement from the students.They indicated having many different modes of communication available was an important factor for student success.Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2003) however, contendthat just because a person is placed within a group, it doesn’t guarantee they will collaborate with others.Many instructors just naturally assume interaction will occur after providing various applications for communication.Although the availability of rich media may contribute to a more suitable environment for communication it doesn’t guarantee that it will.Therefore the instructor must be particularly adept at monitoring discussions and being proactive in creating opportunities for social interaction and interdependence.They accomplish this through thoughtful questioning, intervening in discussions when necessary, group forming exercises, and other deliberate processes.In order to build community, Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2003) present that people should be allowed to chat, discuss, argue, and confide.In doing so they find others with common interests €“ talk with them, share information, and listen to one another.Opportunities should be allowed for impromptu encounters, social, and off-task communication.

Another critical component of a communication tool is its indicator of social presence.Swan and Richardson (2003) state that social presence is affected by degree in which the medium can communicate that a person is “real” in an online environment.Student’s perceptions of social presence affect student outcomes, and contribute greatly to their overall satisfaction with a course.Short, Williams and Christie (as cited by Swan & Richardson, 2003) contend that social presence differs among various media.Different types of media will affect the nature and purpose of the interaction.

McInnerney and Roberts (2004) indicate that three protocols can be built into online courses so that a sense of community can be promoted.They propose using synchronous communication tools to compliment asynchronous communication.Wang and Newlin(as cited by McInnerney and Roberts, 2004) advocate synchronous chat rooms to aid in promoting a greater sense of social presence.McInnerney and Roberts (2004) state that synchronous chat rooms and the more free-style type of communication they provide can help promote student’s online sense of self.Utilizing these tools students can evolve to group “insiders” who no longer feel separate from the group.The second protocol they suggest is a warm-up period in which students are encouraged to develop their online sense of “self”, and understand others in the group.Wegerif, (as cited by McInnerney and Roberts, 2004) spoke of how students felt an informal warm up period could help them get comfortable with and develop their online persona.This important time could help them get to know one another in a more relaxed setting, familiarize themselves with their preferred communication style, and understand mutual levels of commitment.An informal period also gives teachers a chance to instruct on how to properly post within a forum and provide gentle corrective guidance.The third protocol that McInnerney and Roberts advocate (2004) is making sure the OLE adheres to certain course guidelines for successful online communication.This includes keeping on target with the objectives of the course, respecting the ideas of others, and providing clear instruction.

Nicholson (2005) believes a sense of community can be created by providing additional pathways for communication.However it is important to remember that community is fostered by the quality of socio-emotional interaction, not the quantity of task-driven interactions (Rovai, 2002).Neverthessless, Nicholson provides various suggestions for synchronous and asynchronous communication to be used by students, faculty, guest experts, and alumni.

Forms of Communication to Promote Sense of Community: (Nicholson 2005)

1. instructor weekly webcasts for Q & A

2. open discussion forums as opposed to only email

3. structured live chat times, instant messengers

4. student web pages

5. conference call round table discussions

6. audio/video introductions by students & teachers

7. office telephone hours

8. informal student discussion areas

9. chat room social hours

10. mailing lists for students with individual interests

11. instant messenger

12. professional forums for alumni, guest speakers

13. in-person meetings, field trips, experiences

14. external expert hybrid meetings for physical/distance

15. residency experiences

16. students put in touch with their local alumni

17. video based chat

It becomes apparent that Nicholson believes in creating strong presence among members of the group.Chats, web casts, round table discussions, video introductions and face-to-face meetings are a vital part of his community building toolkit.However it must be assumed that not all of the tools would be made available for a course.Such an environment would most certainly be too much of a good thing, and create a media and time overload for both students and teachers.

Nicholson (2005) elaborates on the various positive and negative factors of using different types of communication tools.He states that email messages between faculty and students don’t really add anything to the sense of community for a course, and that open forums are preferable so that all can share in the information.Instant messenger software may also help to create a sense of connection among the group. Even if the students don’t use the instant messenger (IM), just seeing the fact that the professor or others are present can help.There are pitfalls for IM including new users being bombarded by messages until discovering they can become “invisible”, or in the case of free IM devices, outside robots sending advertising messages.However if used judicially the author contends that instant messaging creates a sense of social presence that just isn’t available with other technologies.As for live chat software, he states that setting chat room social hours can help to create more spontaneous communication.However he warns that live chat has the potential to be a source of chaos.Some students may unintentionally dominate the conversation by replying to every comment, or others may feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of posts. There are ways to address this however, through products that allow facilitated group chat.Managing chat with guidelines and rules on when and how to post, and also dividing students into small groups can help keep order the environment.Weekly web casts of Q and A sessions with instructors responding to student questions are another possibility of community building synch-ronous communication.

Nicholson warns that social communication can be stifled in an OLE, since it’s main point is to stay focused on content and classroom tasks.In answering this problem, student forum areas should be built where casual discussion and questions can be posted.In addition, students can be designated server space to create their own web pages or upload audio and video clips.

Halladay and Riedel (2004) also take note of the various forms of community building communication.They include items previously mentioned by Nicholson (2005) such as threaded discussions, online chat, personal web pages and instant messaging.But they also include personal blogs, and newsgroups as community building devices.They also note various specific tools that can be used to promote communication that include Voice over IP (VOIP) devices such as NetMeeting, Horizon Live, WebEx, and Groove.

Ham (2005) suggests having OLE students build their own biographical profiles complete with photograph as a way of increasing social presence.Students can review profiles as a way to understand their fellow classmates, and connect with those of similar interests.Profiles would basically be a snapshot of a person’s biography, personal and contact information.Ham notes that strict privacy should be protected, and profiles could be tailored with different types of views depending on the person’s role viewing them.Other ideas to facilitate interaction include creating anonymous types of “water cooler” forums in which students could pose questions that they might not otherwise risk for fear of embarrassment.As for bringing more nuances of communication to life, he suggests using emoticons as a way of indicating emotional responses in typed discussions.A final noteworthy suggestion was for the instructor to post office-hours and providing synchronous IM.This way they could reach out to students, therefore showing social presence and immediacy for their concerns.Providing the correct online tools for seamless communication, and community building can be challenging.When evaluating and implementing online tools, Bates (as cited by Halladay & Riedel, 2004)provided a model called ACTIONS:

1. Access €“ How flexible and accessible is a particular technology for the specific group?
2. Cost €“ What is the unit cost per learner?

3. Learning €“ What is the learning curve for implementation?

4. Interactivity & user friendliness €“ What sorts of interactions does it facilitate?

5. Organizational Issues and barriers to implementation

6. Novelty €“ How new is the technology?

Halladay& Riedel (2004) stress that it is essential that whatever tool is chosen it must be simple and easy to use.Lack of training and familiarity with the application can cause frustration with the class and overall program.The tool should be “transparent”, and students should perceive its use as seamless.It should not have cumbersome installation procedures, or difficult hardware setups.Hardware, software and bandwidth required for operation should not exceed what the average user has.It is critical to remember that the overall goal is for the application to help the learning community, not be a burden.Unforeseen hidden costs, in terms of staff and student time, and continual subscription fees can be a startling reality.

Halladay & Riedel (2004)recommend tracking and monitoring new communication tools in order to evaluate their performance over time.This can be accomplished by creating a database of support issues, time and money expenditures, overall opinions of tool performance, and a record of set-up experiences.In this way the institution can compile viewpoints from a variety of perspectives including students, faculty and staff.It can then use this information as a means to evaluate products, and eventually craft a set of best practices for the institution.This can be a significant help in deciding how online collaborative tools can be improved, which ones provide the best solution, and how support can be bolstered.

On the issue of choosing communication tools, Gilbert (2004) recommends devices he calls “low-threshold applications” (LTA).They are considered low-threshold because they have low costs associated with them in terms of purchase price, training time, support and on-going maintenance.He states that the application should be reliable and accessible by users, easy to learn, inexpensive and non-intimidating.The LTA should be observed to affect the learning process in a positive way.It should not represent increased workload, or unduly challenge the user.

Informal interactions have been shown to be an important element for successful collaboration. (Castillo, Favela, Perez-Fragoso, & Santamaria-del-Angel, 2004). Castillo et al, developed a system called CENTERS, which is an instant messaging and presence awareness system.It was developed to encourage informal interaction within an OLE.

Providing opportunities for informal discussion and interactions help student’s attitudes towards technology.It also increases their interactions with classmates and instructors. Students within the study of CENTERS noted that using the system gave them interaction opportunities equal to that of a traditional face-to-face course. It helped reduce the feelings of isolation students may feel and also increased the amount of collaboration that occurred among learners.The informal interaction improved instructional effectiveness and had a marked affect on student performance and attrition rates.

Students reported that being aware of others connected to the website through CENTERS reduced their feelings of isolation, made them feel as if they were being “accompanied ” as they studied course materials, and closer to the group through their interactions.

Teachers utilizing the system often sent messages to students greeting or welcoming them, which may have helped them establish a stronger social presence.Students who utilized the system interacted more, were willing to take more courses of the same nature, and also recommend the course to fellow students.

Blair and Hoy (2006) note that in their online courses for writing students, smaller class sizes helped to build a better sense of community. Small class sizes also aided in students feeling more comfortable with one another.A level of comfort is required in order for students to give and receive constructive criticism.After reaching a degree of familiarity, the writing students felt more at ease in exchanging drafts or receiving feedback.They report that open forums for students fostered a sense of community by offering them a way to generate ideas, collaborate, and discuss class issues.Within the study they also found creating specific forums helped to define areas for interaction and encourage questions.A FAQ forum provided a means for students to ask about the course or further understand requirements.An introductions area allowed students to get to know one another on a more informal basis.There also was an area for virtual power point presentations so that students could quickly summarize their proposed writing themes, and bounce ideas off one another for major projects.A midterm course assessment in which students could discuss anonymously what was working effectively in the course and what was not, was also an effective technique.Blair and Hoy (2006) also note building community doesn’t happen just because there are discussion forums and required weekly postings.Conrad (2005) also agrees with this point.Blair and Hoy discussed that students all had varying degrees of obligation to others, and different expectations as to interaction.Some students were disappointed not to receive much interaction or helpful ideas from others. They note that there were significant differences in motivation among students.This was especially so among younger students or those who were not used to self-directed learning models.In addressing this, they felt it was important for students to have early dialogues about their overall expectations for critiques, and communication styles.Blair also developed specific guidelines for participation as a way to ensure student activity.Students also took a VARK learning styles inventory and then shared the results of their scores with fellow members.This was done in hopes of shedding light on their preferred modes of learning and communicating.

Blair and Hoy (2006) note that rethinking the metaphors associated with community are necessary for the online environment.Not all communication needs to be accomplished in a public space. A virtual community includes private and public dialogues, which are valued equally by instructors and teachers.In their view it is important to enlarge the concept of community to recognize and provide opportunities for private communication.This concept is particularly important in classes that utilize critiques as part of the learning process. Students can also express their concerns in a non-threatening area.In their studies involving online writing students, they noted that some students preferred working ahead, finishing assignments early and communicating directly with the instructor in order to avoid less motivated classmates.

Conclusions

Social interaction is a necessary ingredient for collaboration and effective learning, therefore building community with an OLE is a noteworthy and worthwhile effort.A sense of community humanizes the online learning experience, and brings distant learners together in a sharing, supportive environment.A climate rich with community is an energetic, and dynamic space in which its members are socially present, caring and responsive to one another’s needs.It encourages active participation; better sharing of resources, and no doubt reduces feelings of isolation and frustration.The quality and depth of social interaction creates connectedness and promotes effective collaboration.It is important to remember that sufficient interaction will not occur just because a variety of tools are available.Community is encouraged and sustained by those who recognize it as being an integral part of the learning process.Students, instructors and administrators together create a community of inquiry, which is affirming to the students, tolerant of different perspectives and enthusiastic about learning.An instructor through their expertise is able to facilitate the process and produce interactions that encourage support, trust, and positive interdependence.

Further research is indicated on how a sense of community can provide tangible, measurable results in terms of increased academic success.Another area of great interest is exploring the extension of community to external groups, and how that may be accomplished.In other words, how can members of the OLE invite experts, alumni, and other professionals into support dialogues with members of their group?How can that be accomplished without being disruptive, and what benefits can be derived from such an undertaking.Lastly, and a very important to consider is, at what point does community building become a distraction from the actual learning process?Can there be too many tools, and/or too many opportunities for social interaction?At what point do we become too zealous in our approach, and reach a technological, and social overload?

In conclusion, building community, no matter if it is a physical place, or a virtual world, allows us as humans to answer to our call for defining our world with and through others.Everything we do, say and learn is accomplished as a result of others or for their benefit.Therefore, endeavors and learning environments, which encourage community, provide more authentic meaning to our learning processes and lives.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

References
Allert, H. (2004). Coherent social systems for learning: an approach for contextualized and community-centred metadata. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2, 1-30.

Baker, J.D. (2004). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom.Internet and Higher Education, 7(1),1-13.

Blair, K., Hoy, C. (2006). Paying attention to adult learners online: The pedagogy and politics of community. Computers and Composition, 23(1),32-48.

Castillo, J.C.,Favela, J., Perez-Fragoso, C., Santamaria-del-Angel, E. (2004).
Information interactions and their implications for online courses. Computers & Education, 2, 149-168.

Csibra, G., Gergely, G. (2005). Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy:processes of change in brain and cognitive development.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintain community in cohort-based online learning.Journal of Distance Education, (20)1, 1-20.

Dabbagh, N., Bannan-Ritland, B.(2005). Online learning:concepts, strategies, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Driscoll, M.P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gilbert, S.W. (2004).If it ain’t broke, improve it.Thoughts on engaging education for us all.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(1), 39-53.

Halladay, M. & Riedel K. (2004). Community building and octive. Best Practices in E-Learning Online Conference, Calgary: University of Calgary. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://www.dltoday.ca/Files/CommunityBuilding_OCTIVE.pdf.

Ham, P. (2005).Applying research to design online learning environments.Proceedings of the Second International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, Bankok, Thailand.International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management 13(1). Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://www.journal.au.edu/ijcim/2005/
specialaug05/PP26.pdf

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research.Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335-353.

McInnemey, J.M., Roberts, T.S. (2004). Online learning: social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 73-81.

Nicholson, S. (2005). A framework for technology selection in a web-based distance education environment: supporting community-building through richer interaction opportunities.Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 46(3),217-233.

Perry B., Edwards, M. (2005). Exemplary online educators: creating a community of inquiry.Turkish Journal of Distance Education 6(2).

Richardson, J.C., Swan, K. (2003).Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. JALN, 7, 68-88.

Rovai, A.P., Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 5(2).

Rovai, A.P., Wighting, M.J., (2005). Feelings of alienation and community among higher education students in a virtual classroom.The Internet and Higher Education, 8, 97-110.

Rovai, A.P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance.International review of research and in open and distance learning. 3(1).

Rovai, A.P. (2003). The relationships of communicator style, personality-based learning style, and classroom community among online graduate students. The Internet and Higher Education, 6 (4), 347-363.

Rovai, A.P. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: a comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2).Retrieved March 2, 2006, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274.

Smaldino, S.E. Russell, J.D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2005). Instructional technology and media for learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Smith, M. K. (2001) Informal Education Archives. ‘Community’ in the encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from
http://www.infed.org/community/community.htm.

Swan, K., Richardson, J.C. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. JALN. 7(1).

Toporski, N.,Foley T. (2004). Design principles for online instruction: a new kind of classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 5 (1). Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde13/articles/toporski.html.

Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences andperspectives of students in an online course: a case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77-90.

Weisgerber, C., Butler S.H. (2005). Towards a theoretical framework for the design of interactive online distance learning systems. Texas Journal ofDistance Learning. 2(2), 44-57.Retrieved March 5, 2006 from
http://www.tjdl.org/articles/v2i2/design/index.cfm.

Wright, S. P. (2004). Exploring psychological sense of community in living-learning programs and in the university as a whole. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved March 3, 2006 from University of Maryland at College Park site, http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/psych/Stephen_Wright_dissertation.pdf

Weisman, E. J. (2003). An evaluation of online learning environments (OLE) on the adult at-risk population. The Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 18, 142-154.

Weller, M.(2005). The distance from isolation: why communities are the logical
conclusion in e-learning. Computers & Education: an International Journal.

Young, R. A., Collin, A. (2004). Introduction:constructivism and social constructionism in the career field.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 373-388.

………………………………………………………………………………………
Copyright: Diane Michel (2006). All Rights Reserved.