Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
people anywhere, they inevitably build virtual
communities with it, just as micro-organisms in-
evitably create colonies (Rheingold 1993, p. 6).
This research provides evidence to support
the work of those interested in the development
of online communities in an educational context
and who recognise that the design of the online
environment has a relationship to the sustainability
of the connections students make with each other.
Unlike most Course Management System based
online learning environments, the MOO provided
the type of environment that supported students'
engagement with each other for a few simple
reasons. As well as providing an environment
that contained the defined learning activities and
specified learning spaces (classrooms), it also
provided a campus-like environment based on
concepts that were familiar to students. This en-
vironment provided the capacity for synchronous
contact that was not monitored (and therefore
represented private space) and the students had
the capacity to create objects that enabled them
to extend a sense of social presence and their own
personality into the MOO. These factors, together
with the modelling of a “relaxed and supportive”
behavioural etiquette or culture in the MOO by
teaching and technical staff, ensured students
made sustainable connections with each other
that supported their learning.
The behaviour of the students in the MOO
confirms the work of Prasolova-Forland and
Divitini (2002). They have argued for the use
of appropriate spatial metaphors to inform the
design of online learning environments. Their
work recognises the vital interplay of the spatial
arrangements and incidental contact in the de-
velopment of connections for learners in a way
that was confirmed by the students in case study
one when they talked about “bumping” into each
other, and by the behaviour of students I observed
in the MOO. According to Prasolova-Forland and
Divitini (2002):
Communication plays a key role in keeping a
community alive. Particularly important is the
communication that is triggered by casual en-
counters. This communication is reported to be
essential for knowledge sharing and strengthening
the ties among community members. The commu-
nication is dependent on spatial arrangements,
e.g. proximity of desks in a laboratory and at-
tendance in the same classroom. A student that
is not physically present in the “territory” of the
community cannot take part in this communica-
tion. (pp. 259 - 260).
Importantly, Prasolova-Forland and Divitini
discuss the implications of using different meta-
phors in the design and labelling of online en-
vironments. They make the distinction between
labels that describe real spaces verses those that
describe the intended purpose of the space. Key
to their argument is the idea that the use of ap-
propriate design metaphors, such as buildings and
campuses, creates online environments that are
familiar to students. The authors suggest this is in
contrast to metaphors that describe the intended
purpose of the space (i.e. a discussion board in a
Blackboard or WebCT unit) which they suggest
focuses 'on the information itself, not the person
behind it', arguing that in these environments there
is a need 'to strengthen the social aspect in such a
system' (Prasolova-Forland and Divitini 2002, p.
262). Focusing on the person behind the informa-
tion exchange requires an engagement with the
environment using a more holistic understanding
of the whole online space. It requires a shift in
focus, moving beyond the electronic “classroom”
to effectively include a student-centred view of a
student's online life.
Focusing on a student feeling comfortable in
a learning environment requires them to know
how to
be
in that environment. This is reflected
in Wilson's (1995) work when he talks about the
outcome of learning not as “knowing that, know
how” or knowing “names for knowledge” but
rather as feeling like “we know our way around”
Search WWH ::
Custom Search