Theory and Design of Distributed
Networked Learning Communities
David McConnell, Vic Lally and
Sheena Banks
University of Sheffield
s.b.banks@shef.ac.uk, v.lally@shef.ac.uk, d.mcconnell@shef.ac.uk
The current interest in distributed networked
learning communities may be explained, in part, by our need to feel we belong
to a group of like-minded people who share out values and beliefs. Distributed
networked learning communities focus on developing a culture of learning where
members support each other and where no one individual (teacher or student) is
responsible for knowing everything.
Lifelong learning practitioners (and those involved in continuing
professional development) have consistently had an interest in designing for
learning communities. The move to Web-based learning environments is now
exercising their minds around the question of theoretical designs for networked
learning environments that support those values and beliefs they hold to be so
important in their practice. Through an in-depth analysis of the theory
underpinning the design of an existing distributed networked learning Masters
degree course, this paper shows how practitioners involved in lifelong learning
courses delivered entirely via the Web can integrate features of computer
supported collaborative learning theory into the design to support the
educational value of community.
The current interest in Internet-based
communities (eg Jones, 1995; Rheingold 1993) might in part be explained by our
need to feel we belong to a group of like-minded people – people who share a
set of values and beliefs about the world we live in. In educational circles,
the idea of community has been a central design feature of many lifelong
learning practitioners. A learning community is one where the focus is on
members supporting each other in a culture of learning. The community tries to
work towards shared understandings. There have been many attempts to
characterise learning communities in the educational literature (see, for
example Beaty et al, 2002; Fox, 2002; McConnell, 2002 (c); Paloff and Pratt,
1999; Perriton et al 2002; Renninger et al, 2002; Reynolds and Hodgson, 2002;
Wenger, 1998). A key feature of the idea is that responsibility for learning is
‘shared’ among community members. No
one individual is responsible for knowing everything; rather, the shared
knowledge and skills are distributed among members. Individually, each contributes to the group endeavor, enabling
the group to accomplish more that the individual members might separately, with
the key gain of deepened understanding of both content and processes by
individual members of the group.
The move to Web-based learning and teaching is
now exercising the minds of lifelong learning practitioners and those involved
in continuing professional development. A key question to answer is: how do we
draw on learning theory to design distributed networked learning so that it
supports those values and beliefs of a community of learners we hold to be so
central to our practice?
A the University of Sheffield, our work has involved us in running a
variety of distributed networked learning events and courses, all of which have
been underpinned by a pedagogy aimed at developing and sustaining virtual
learning communities.
Perhaps the most well thought-out example of this is the Masters in
E-learning, which is run as a completely virtual learning community. It is
offered entirely via the Internet using WebCT, a Web-based virtual learning
environment. WebCT supports asynchronous and synchronous communications and has
a wide variety of tools which can be used to support distributed learning. The
Masters has been running since 1996 and is taken by a wide variety of
professional people who wish to develop their understanding of, and expertise in,
this new form of learning. The Masters is a global programme, with students
from the UK, Eire, mainland Europe, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan
and Australia and Canada.
Current participants include:
· professional
trainers and developers, self employed or in public and private sector
organisations
· teachers
and lecturers in Secondary, Further, Higher and Open Education
· adult
continuing educators
· people
working in libraries and resource centres
· open
and distance learning educators and developers
In the design of this distributed networked
learning course, we aim to help course participants appreciate and understand
the ways in which they can use the Internet and the Web in their professional
practice, and how they can design and evaluate learning events which focus on
group and community work, and which are based on sound principles of active,
problem based learning (McConnell, 2002a) We emphasise the implementation of
innovatory online practice by creating a supportive and creative research
learning community where participants feel free to experiment and “learn by
doing”, while constantly holding a critical perspective on their practice and
the theory underpinning it. The course design draws on various theoretical
perspectives to emphasise the educational need for learners to work in social
learning environments which stress both the situated nature of learning
(Koschmann, 1996; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Packer and Goicoechea, 2000; Salomon,
1998) and the importance of co-production and co-participation (McConnell,
2000; 2002a).
This is linked to the capability of the
Internet and the Web to support group work and provide a virtual environment
for learners to work together, share resources and collaborate. Within this virtual research learning
community perspective, participants have opportunities to:
· have a
wide choice over the content and direction of their learning
· manage
their own learning, and cooperate with others in theirs through processes of
negotiation and discussion
· take a
critical perspective on learning and academic issues with strong relationships
to their professional practice
· focus
on their own learning and development from a critical, reflective perspective,
combined with an understanding of relevant academic ideas and concepts.
Typically, in lifelong learning contexts,
communities of this kind exhibit a variety of learning characteristics which
have to be taken into consideration in the design and implementation of any
networked learning course (McConnell, 2002c):
· The
problems and issues researched by the groups are defined by the groups
themselves through processes of negotiation. The problems are usually complex,
often ill-defined problems which are fertile ground for the production of mutual
understandings and the construction of “shared resolutions” (Schon, 1983).
· The
problems and issues have a personal and professional focus: They are important
to the members of the group, arising from concerns and interests they may have
about their professional practice. The outcomes associated with the group work
will be of benefit to the members in their professional practice.
· They
require negotiation and communication to understand them: because the issues
researched are invariably complex and ill-defined, the members of each group
have to engage in considerable communication in order to understand them and in
order to negotiate changes in their perception of the ‘problem’ and its
resolution as their work progresses. Communication is both task oriented and
socially centred. The groups function both as learning communities (Pedler,
1981; Snell, 1989) which have an interest in sharing, supporting and learning
collaboratively in a social context, and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998)
in which members are actively constructing understandings of what it means to
be professional networked learning practitioners.
· The
problems require an action research approach to investigate them: The groups
are encouraged to view their research and learning as “action research” (Carr
& Kemmis, 1986; Elden &
Chisholm, 1993; Whitehead, 1989; Winter, 1989), and they are introduced to the
concept of action research in an earlier e-seminar. This provides them with a
model of how to work together, which helps guide them in their collaborations.
· They
require a journey of learning: There are no specific pre-defined learning
outcomes. Each group embarks on a learning journey which requires collaboration
but which does not define in exact detail how they should work together or what
the outcomes of their learning should be. In this respect, the groups are
following a long tradition of adult-learning which supports openness and
exploration (Boot & Hodgson, 1987; Cunningham, 1987; Harris, 1987), and
which has a history in experiential learning groups (Reynolds, 1994; Davis
& Denning, 2000).
· They
involve a high degree of reflexivity: Learning in these groups is highly
experiential, and the groups are therefore encouraged to be reflective and to
use this as a source of learning (Boud and Walker, 1998; Moon, 1999).
A means for achieving this is exposure to other
participants’ development within the learning community. Members participate in
developing the learning community perspective, which is based on participants
and tutors taking collective responsibility for the design and evaluation of
the programme, via constant review and modification of the design, procedures
and ways of working.
Participants are recruited annually via a
variety of methods that include extensive course information on a dedicated web
site (http://www.shef.ac.uk/e-learning/). This web site contains full details
of the course, course brochures and application forms and it has an extensive
list of student endorsements and course evaluation information. We also
advertise the course in a national newspaper and send out email adverts to
various lists.
All participants complete an application form
and present a short written statement outlining their reasons for wishing to
take the course. Prospective participants are not normally interviewed, though
if necessary we do this by ‘phone or email. We reply on good references to
support their application. Those taking the course are required to have a first
degree or equivalent professional practice.
Those taking the course often remark that they
chose this particular course because of it’s innovative approach to learning
and teaching, the opportunity to work in collaborative e-groups and
e-communities and the collaborative assessment process.
We estimate that there is an 85-90% completion
rate.
As we have
seen, the course design supports the concepts of learning community and
community of practice. In this design, we encourage participants and tutors to
engage in meaningful practices through cooperative and collaborative learning
processes, and to ensure that knowledge developed is demonstrated in the
context of the participant’s professional practice. We develop a climate where
commenting on each other’s work, and giving and receiving feedback is an
integrated and normal part of the community’s day to day work (McConnell,
2002b). There is a high degree of experiential learning (eg learning about
working in distributed problem based learning groups by taking part in such
groups), and participants are encouraged to be reflective and to use this as a
major source of learning (Boud, 1998; Moon, 1999).
There is a
team of tutors on the course who collectively plan each workshop and make
decisions about the effective running of the course. Each tutor has a learning
set where they work closely with course participants.
The place
of the tutor in this learning community is complex. The tutor exists between
the boundary of the institution, which s/he represents, and that of the
learning community. In the learning community the tutor adopts the ‘role’ of
tutor-participant. This implies at least two things. The first is a sharing of
power with the course participants in which the tutor has to work at ensuring
power is transferred to participants in the community, who in turn have to come
to trust the tutor in that process. Power is shared along a series of
dimensions such as decision making about the focus of the design of learning
events, and assessment, which is collaborative involving the learners
themselves, their peers and the tutor (McConnell, 2002b). The second aspect
which this tutor-participant perspective implies, is the view of the tutor as
learner. Although the tutor has particular expertise which s/he brings to the
learning community as the representative of the institution, the tutor also
presents her/himself as a learner, someone who is genuinely interested in
learning and developing through participation in the community. The concept of
the tutor as “tutor-participant” is important as it signals to the participants
that everyone on the course is a member of the learning community, and that the
idea of community implies a different kind of learning relationship between
tutor and participant. Tutors and participants relate in highly personal ways,
and this relationship shapes a great deal of the learning on this course
(McConnell, 2002a & b).
Problem based learning is carried out through
an action research mode of learning, and is based on a philosophy that
acknowledges that people learn in different ways. The action learning/research focus allows participants to make
choices about the management, focus and direction of their learning. Participants
work in small groups where they are encouraged to view their research and
learning as “action research” (Carr and Kemmis,1986; Elden and Chisholm, 1993;
Whitehead, 1989; Winter, 1989). The earlier e-seminar on action research
provides a conceptual model for realising this.
The issues or problems researched are defined
within each group through processes of negotiation. This usually takes place in
the synchronous chat rooms of WebCT, followed up by more in-depth discussion in
the asynchronous forums. They are usually complex problems which are sometimes
difficult to define. Participants have to share their resolutions of the
problems in an effort to come to mutual understandings.
Two types of learning are supported:
Collaborative learning: where course participants work in small learning sets to
define a problem relating to the practise of distributed networked learning
which is amenable to collaborative group work.
The purpose of this is to help participants:
· experientially
understand and critically evaluate the nature and complexity of collaborative
group work in virtual learning environments. This understanding contributes to
the development of their own professional practice in networked learning
· work
collaboratively on a shared problem which will lead to a portfolio outcome
which can be shared with other learning sets
· critically
reflect on the experience of using a set of self analysis tools. The outcome of
this critical reflection is then made available to the learning set members,
who also offer their ‘assessment’ of each participants’ self analysis.
Cooperative learning: where individuals within a learning set define an agenda for carrying
out a course assignment chosen by themselves in consultation with their peer
learners and tutor. This assignment is designed around a real problem or issue
that they face in their professional practice (or which their organisation
faces) which is amenable to being carried out by action research. The focus of
the problem is always around some aspect of networked learning. This form of
learning is based on principles of self-managed learning, as well as principles
of cooperative learning (McConnell, 2002a)
Participants work cooperatively in virtual
learning environments to help and support each other in:
· defining
the problem and its overall scope
· considering
its appropriateness as an assignment for the Masters which will both illuminate
some aspect of problem based professional practice and also contribute to an
understanding of networked learning.
· offering
each other support in finding resources that may be useful in considering
theoretical underpinnings for analysing the problem or issue being researched,
and in considering the implications for professional networked learning
practice.
· participating
in collaborative (self/peer/tutor) review and assessment procedures where each
participant brings a set of criteria which they would like members to use in
making judgements about their assignment, in addition to the use of a set of
criteria which are offered by the tutor.
The review is an opportunity for participants
and tutor to read each other’s assignment and critically discuss and examine
the issues in it. They offer insights into the meaning of the assignment as a
method for examining the original problem, suggest additional references and
resources that might be useful, and finally offer comment on the extent to
which the assignment meets the writer’s set of criteria and those offered by
the tutor (McConnell, 2002b).
Participant’s work on the course takes place in a
series of four e-workshops on different themes, culminating in a research
dissertation in year two. They are organised into groups of between 6 – 10
members, plus a tutor. They are given a
very broad brief to work to in which they have to agree on a particular issue
to investigate which is acceptable to all members and which requires
collaborative learning within the group.
The issue is defined as anything which is important to the development
of the members’ professional practice and which will allow them to use the
outcomes in real work settings.
The course has gone through several major
designs since its inception in 1996. It was originally designed to support the
professional development of staff in a local further education college who were
involved in trialling the use of telematics learning. At that time we used
email, and then migrated to Lotus Notes. Participants met face-to-face at the
start of each workshop throughout the two year period. The course was then
re-designed to be offered to the general public, still using Lotus Notes but
with reduced face-to-face contact: participants and tutors met face-to-face at
the beginning of each year in a one week residential meeting. The third major re-design
was carried out in order to make the course available to anyone in the world ie
without any face-to-face meetings. This completely virtual re-design was
implemented in 2000 and at the same time we migrated to the WebCT virtual
learning environment.
In designing the two-year course, we have taken
great care to provide a simple yet effective WebCT “home page” which contains
links to the course resources. In the current WebCT Home Page design there are
three sections offering participants a variety of different kinds of resources.
· Resources: this has hyperlinks to a wide variety of useful
resources, including pictures and biographies of each participant, tutor,
course secretary and technician; access to the University of Sheffield library,
CD-ROMS, e-journals (individual papers can be downloaded in PDF files to one’s
own PC); links to all major search engines with evaluations of their
effectiveness; access to specific e-learning Web resources and so on. We
continually up-date and add to these resources.
· Content
and Participation: here we provide
detailed information on the structure and content of each workshop, and access
to a wide variety of asynchronous and synchronous forums for community work,
the work of learning sets and café areas. These forums are the most important
areas on the WebCT site since it is here that negotiations, communications and
production of course work takes place.
· Notices: here up-dated information about the course, the outcomes
of community decision making and the like are posted.
In addition to providing a wide range of online
resources, we still send participants a resource pack of paper copies of
journal articles, books and so on.
Assessment often determines students’
orientation to learning. If it is summative and unilaterally carried out by the
teacher, students often seek to find out what the teacher is looking for, and
work towards that. In CSCL we must design forms of assessment which support,
and reward cooperation. The need to get assessment “right” cannot be over
emphasised. Collaborative assessment strives to bring different viewpoints, and
therefore different values, to the assessment process and in doing so helps to
make the process of assessment more open and accountable (McConnell, 1999;
McConnell, 2002b).
Assessment is part of the learning process on
the course, and forms a major part of the content of the course (by this I mean
that assessment is seen as a formative learning process).Participants’ course
assignments are submitted for triangulated assessment i.e. assessment where
they, their co-workers in the learning set and the set tutor read, comment on
and assess the assignment. Assessment
is on a pass/fail basis. We feel this
approach to assessment is consonant with, and supports, the overall aims and
values of this course. Our research (McConnell, 2002b) indicates that students
involved in networked collaborative assessment actively and critically reflect
on their learning and on the benefits of collaborative assessment. It also
shows that these new Web-based
electronic learning environments are well placed to support the complexity of
this form of assessment. The architecture of networked/e-learning systems such
as Web-CT supports students in the reflective learning and assessment process.
The openness of the collaborative assessment
process is crucial to its success. Whereas most assessment techniques are
closed, involving only the student and their teacher, collaborative assessment
has to take place in an open environment. (cf Ames, 1992 (as quoted in Boud,
2000) who thinks all feedback should be private). Learning relationships have
to be fostered, and trust developed and maintained in order for collaborative
assessment to succeed. The balance between critique and support is very
important, yet at times very fragile. Peers and tutors are involved in
collaborative learning and support throughout this course. But they are also
called on to review and assess each others work. In a learning community or
community of practice this is not only possible but it is desirable. The
community has to be able to reflect on its work, and be critical of each
member’s learning. This I think is achieved with some success in our context.
Participants are aware of the possibility of deluding themselves. But it is my
experience that the openness of this form of assessment, when carried out
thoroughly and conscientiously, maintains a strong check on that.
Overall our research shows the importance
students attach to learning and assessment processes which take place in a
social environment (McConnell, 2002b).
This is a major theme constantly referred to by participants. It is not
only a major factor in supporting and motivating distant, distributed learners
and in helping them overcome feelings of isolation. It also points to the
benefits of social constructionism and social co-participation in learning,
especially in lifelong learning and continuing professional development
contexts. Not only do adult learners enjoy learning in social settings, they
are quick to appreciate the potential benefits afforded by collaboration in the
learning and assessment process. No less so in distributed networked
collaborative learning environments.
The
quality of the course has been assessed as part of a wider quality assessment
exercise recently carried by the UK QAA. In this general assessment process
(the final score was 24/24 excellent) the MEd was critically scrutinised as an
example of new forms of course delivery. In their assessment, the assessors
declared that the course is a highly innovative and creative example of
e-learning.
Through an in-depth case study of a distributed
networked learning course , this paper has shown that practitioners involved in
running lifelong learning courses via the Web can integrate theoretical
features of CSCL designs to support their educational value for community.
The
complexity of networked group learning and the need for negotiation and
communication among learners and teachers in the lifelong learning process
requires a learning design which is open and flexible, and which is supported
by assessment processes which in themselves reflect a sense of community and
promote and reward collaboration. With such a clear understanding of what is
required educationally, it has been shown that it is possible to design such
theoretical features into networked learning environments in ways which allow
for distributed networked learning communities to function effectively and
appropriately.
Beaty, E. Cousin, G. and F. Deepwell (2002) Introducing
Networked Learning via a Community Network: a Teaching and Learning Strategy in
Action. in Banks, S., Goodyear, P., Hodgson, V., and D. McConnell (2002)
(editors) Networked Learning 2002: A Research based conference on e-learning in
Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Sheffield, (ISBN 0902831
41 0), pp685 (published at: www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2002/)
Banks, S., Goodyear, P., Hodgson, V., and D. McConnell
(2002) (editors) Networked Learning 2002: A Research based conference on
e-learning in Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Sheffield,
(ISBN 0902831 41 0), pp685 (published at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2002)
Boot, R. and V. Hodgson (1987). Open Learning : Meaning and
Experience. Beyond Distance Teaching - Towards Open Learning,. V. Hodgson,
Mann, S and Snell, R. Milton Keynes, SRHE/OU Press.
Boud, D. (2000). "Sustainable assessment: Rethinking
assessment for a learning society." Studies in Continuing Education 22(2):
151-167.
Boud, D., Walker, D. (1998). "Promoting Reflection in
Professional Courses: the Challenge of Context." Studies in Higher
Education 23(2): 191-206.
Carr and S. Kemmis (1986). Becoming critical : education,
knowledge and action research. Brighton, Falmer Press.
Cunningham, I. (1987). Openness and learning to learn.
Beyond Distance Teaching, Towards Open Learning. V. Hodgson, S. Mann and R.
Snell, SRHE/OU.
Davis, M. Denning., K. (2000). Online learning: frontiers
in the creation of learning communities. In Proceedings of the Conference:
Networked Learning 2000 : Innovative Approaches to Lifelong Learning and Higher
Education Through the Internet, University of Sheffield.
Elden, M. and R. F. Chisholm (1993). "Emerging
varieties of action research." Human Relations 46(2): 121-142.
Fox, S. (2002)
Networks and Communities: an Actor-Network Critique of Ideas on
Community and Implications for Networked Learning. in Banks, S., Goodyear, P.,
Hodgson, V., and D. McCONNELL (2002) (editors) Networked Learning 2002: A
Research based conference on e-learning in Higher Education and Lifelong
Learning, University of Sheffield, (ISBN 0902831 41 0), pp685 (published at:
www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2002/)
Harris, D. (1987). Openness and Closure in Distance
Education. Brighton, Falmer Press.
Jones, S. (1995) Cybersociety. Thousand Oaks, California,
Sage
Koschmann, T., Ed. (1996). CSCL : Theory and Practice of an
Emerging Paradigm. Malwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning :
Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
McConnell, D. (1999). " Examining a collaborative
assessment process in networked lifelong learning." Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 15(September).
McConnell, D. (2000). Implementing Computer Supported
Cooperative Learning. (2nd edition) London, Kogan Page.
McConnell, D. (2002a)
Action Research and Distributed Problem Based Learning in Continuing
Professional Education. Distance Education,
23(1), 59-83
McConnell, D. (2002b) The Experience of Networked
Collaborative Assessment. Studies in
Continuing Education, 24(1), 73-92.
McConnell, D. (2002c) Complexity, harmony and diversity of
learning in collaborative e-learning continuing professional development
groups. Published in: Stahl, G (editor) (2002) Proceedings of CSCL Conference,
Boulder, USA. Distributed by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillside, New
Jersey, USA (pages 265-274) Published at: http://www.cscl2002.org/home.html
Miller, C. M. L. and M. Parlett (1974). Up to the mark : A
study of the examination game. London, Society for Research into Higher
Education.
Moon, J. A. (1999)
Reflection in Learning and Professional Development. London, Kogan Page.
Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). ‘Sociocultural
and constructivist theories of learning: ontology, not just epistemology.’
Educational Psychologist, 35(4), pp227-241.
Paloff, R. M. K. P. (1999). Building Learning Communities
in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom. San Francisco,
Jossey Bass.
Pedler, M. (1981). Developing the learning community.
Management Self-development : Concepts and Practices. T. Boydell and M. Pedler,
Gower, UK.
Perriton , L and Patrick Reedy (2002) Walk on by: anarchist possibilities for the
reconceptualisation of the virtual community. in Banks, S., Goodyear, P.,
Hodgson, V., and D. McConnell (2002) (editors) Networked Learning 2002: A
Research based conference on e-learning in Higher Education and Lifelong
Learning, University of Sheffield, (ISBN 0902831 41 0), pp685 (published at:
www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2002/)
Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy: Situational
influences on learning. In: Learning strategies and learning styles.
R.R.Schmeck (eds), N.Y., Plenum Press.
Reninger, K. A. W. S., Ed. (2002). Building Virtual
Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Reynolds, M. (1994). Groupwork in education and training:
Ideas in practice. London, Kogan Page.
Reynolds, M. and V. Hodgson, (2002) Networked learning and
ideas of community. in Banks, S., Goodyear, P., Hodgson, V., and D. McConnell
(2002) (editors) Networked Learning 2002: A Research based conference on
e-learning in Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Sheffield,
(ISBN 0902831 41 0), pp685 (published at: www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2002/)
Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community. Reading Mass.,
Addison-Wesley
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D.N. (1998). ‘Individual and
Social Aspects of Learning.’ Review of Educational Research, 23.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: how
professionals think in action. New York, Basic Books.
Snell, R. (1989). "Learning to work in a peer learning
community." Group Relations Training Association Bulletin.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning,
meaning and identity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Whitehead, J. (1989). "How do we improve
research-based professionalism in education ? A question that includes action
research, educational theory and the politics of educational knowledge."
British Educational Research Journal 15(1).
Winter, R. (1989). Learning from experience: principles and
practice in action-research. London, The Falmer Press.