Online community and community of practice

[Joao Alves]

Our assignment is to post our thoughts to the blog about an online
community. In Wenger's text "Communities of Practice - Learning as a
Social System" he writes about communities of practice. Are
communities of practice and online communities exactly the same thing?

[Gabriela Sellart]

I think CoP have a learning objective. Maybe that's the difference.

[Mike Bogle]

Not necessarily, I think. I think the broader notion of CoP is inclusive and applies to all locations where they might exist; online communities are more specific relatively speaking and refer to a medium as well. 

Certainly the nature of the online community is worth considering as well.  For example, Wenger indicates

"A community of practice defines itself along three dimensions:

• What it is about – its joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members
• How it functions - mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity
• What capability it has produced – the shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time."

It would seem conceivable that a community (in fact any community - not just online), is not necessarily a community of practice either.

I'd love to explore and expand on this but am running late for work! Will try to pick this up later this morning :)

Cheers,

Mike Bogle
Em: michael...@gmail.com
Blog: http://techticker.net
SL: Zapp Aeon

[Derek Chirnside]

I do not think so.
Not all communities have some attributes that a community of practice has.
In the wenger model.

Blonging, identity, learning, roles, a practice, glue, rhythms, nurture.
Most of these (I think) need to be present.
They may or may not be there in a little online community that meets up as fans of a music group (no practice) for example.

The question leads to this; in real life, does the distinction matter?

-Derek

2008/8/11 Joao Alves <j.al...@gmail.com>

--
From Derek Chirnside.

[Leigh Blackall]

Hello everyone,

I'm back from a weekend of skiing :) (Photos)

Joao Alves:

Our assignment is to post our thoughts to the blog about an online

community. In Wenger's text "Communities of Practice - Learning as a
Social System" he writes about communities of practice. Are
communities of practice and online communities exactly the same thing?

Mike Bogle:

I think the broader notion of CoP is inclusive and applies to all locations where they might exist; online communities are more specific relatively speaking and refer to a medium as well. 

Gabriela Sellart

I think CoP have a learning objective. Maybe that's the difference. 

Derek Chirnside:
Not all communities have some attributes that a community of practice has. Blonging, identity, learning, roles, a practice, glue, rhythms, nurture.

Most of these (I think) need to be present.
They may or may not be there in a little online community that meets up as fans of a music group (no practice) for example.

I too wonder if there is a difference between an online community and a community of practice. Looking at the words alone (and considering what I know about Wenger) there are small differences..

Wenger does not limit his considerations to communities online

We are not limiting our considerations to practice

So, what are the aspects of Wenger's paper that focus in on community? How do the other readings in the wiki help us expand on our understanding of online community?

--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
SL - Leroy Goalpost
http://learnonline.wordpress.com

[Bronwyn Stuckey]

Hi everyone,

In Wenger's model the community of practice has three interrelated components; domain, community and practice.
So he sees community as a part but not the whole, not all that holds to group together. I agree with this. Whether a group is a CoP or not really depends on the practice. For instance, I am fascinated by forensic science and I love to partake of discussions about it - but I do not work in the field nor ever aspire to, I do not practice it. I have an interest and could talk about the science of it from a spectators view. But a CoP for forensic scientists is made up of thise who practice it and would want to share knoweldge gained from within their practice not just knowledge of it.

To be a CoP you need to be readily able to identify the practice. I think this FOC08 group is on its way to being, even if only temporary (17 weeks),  a CoP.  Facilitation in online communities is our practice and we are all at various stages of our development of that practice - we do all aspire to practice it.

So to me community exists as a component of many kinds of groups - learning communities, CoP, communities of interest, online communities,  etc etc etc and the notion of community is both the same and a little different in each. Does that make sense?

~ Bron

[Russ]

Like any community and a persons belonging, there is the need to
understand the way the community functions and the mores by which it
exists. Learning according to our readings is more then a linear
experience. It is enhanced or reduced and shaped by the context,
socially, and in our case technologically. Online communities don't
appear to be too different.

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Thank you for clarifying the differences between CoPs and online communities.

 

Nellie

http://nelliemuller.blogspot.com/

http://www.integrating-technology.com/pd
http://www.building-relationship.com/education
http://blendedlear.ning.com

[vcautin]

2008/8/10 Bronwyn Stuckey <bronwyn...@gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

In Wenger's model the community of practice has three interrelated components; domain, community and practice.
So he sees community as a part but not the whole, not all that holds to group together. I agree with this. Whether a group is a CoP or not really depends on the practice. For instance, I am fascinated by forensic science and I love to partake of discussions about it - but I do not work in the field nor ever aspire to, I do not practice it. I have an interest and could talk about the science of it from a spectators view. But a CoP for forensic scientists is made up of thise who practice it and would want to share knoweldge gained from within their practice not just knowledge of it.

Dear Bronwyn,
I'm sorry I don't understand if by "practice" here you  mean that it has to be related to a job. 
Is a community of christian parents a CoP? I would say yes if they are commited to raising their children according to christian's principles (what about), then they are mutually engaged(they are commited to the community), and they have a "know how" of best parenting practices.
(I'm testing hypotheses with that example)

Violeta

 

To be a CoP you need to be readily able to identify the practice. I think this FOC08 group is on its way to being, even if only temporary (17 weeks),  a CoP.  Facilitation in online communities is our practice and we are all at various stages of our development of that practice - we do all aspire to practice it.

So to me community exists as a component of many kinds of groups - learning communities, CoP, communities of interest, online communities,  etc etc etc and the notion of community is both the same and a little different in each. Does that make sense?

~ Bron

--
Violeta Cautin
Iquique, Chile

http://fco08violeta.blogspot.com

http://profesoresinnovadores.ning.com
Facebook: Violeta Cautin Epifani

[Bronwyn Stuckey]

Thanks Violetta for offering this fine example of a CoP. Practice does indeed not mean a job or means of earning a living  as such but something that you practice (and care passionatley about) . So raising a child in a Christian faith is a set of beliefs, knowledge actions that these parents all practice. They are not just interested in how parents raise christian children they are doing it. The practice in question is readily identifiable.

For me a worrying area is when people call a class of learners a CoP and say that learning is the practice.  That is really too large and amorphous to be one practice. A class of students learning accounting by engaging in scenarios as practitioners, possibly with real practitioners in the class as mentors is beginning to take on a CoP approach.

For me the dynamicism of CoPs and the difference between them and other groups lies is a distinction made by John Seely Brown.
Seely Brown (2002)  effectively exploits a Bruner analogy to unpack the concepts of practice and knowledge when he describes the differences between learning physics and being a physicist.  "Learning to be a physicist (as opposed to learning about physics) requires cutting a column down the middle of the diagram, looking at the deep interplay between the tacit and explicit. That's where deep expertise lies. Acquiring this expertise requires learning the explicit knowledge of a field, the practices of its community, and the interplay between the two."  (Brown, 2002, p. 20)

Brown, J. S. (2002). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. USDLA Journal, 16(2), 15-28.

What do you think?

~ Bron

[vcautin]

2008/8/10 Bronwyn Stuckey <bronwyn...@gmail.com>

Thanks Violetta for offering this fine example of a CoP. Practice does indeed not mean a job or means of earning a living  as such but something that you practice (and care passionatley about) . So raising a child in a Christian faith is a set of beliefs, knowledge actions that these parents all practice. They are not just interested in how parents raise christian children they are doing it. The practice in question is readily identifiable.

Uff, thank you for helping me learn.
 

For me a worrying area is when people call a class of learners a CoP and say that learning is the practice. 

That is really too large and amorphous to be one practice. A class of students learning accounting by engaging in scenarios as practitioners, possibly with real practitioners in the class as mentors is beginning to take on a CoP approach.

According to what you state this course is not a community of practice of online facilitators. We're going there. I agree.

 

For me the dynamicism of CoPs and the difference between them and other groups lies is a distinction made by John Seely Brown.

 

Seely Brown (2002)  effectively exploits a Bruner analogy to unpack the concepts of practice and knowledge when he describes the differences between learning physics and being a physicist.  "Learning to be a physicist (as opposed to learning about physics) requires cutting a column down the middle of the diagram, looking at the deep interplay between the tacit and explicit. That's where deep expertise lies. Acquiring this expertise requires learning the explicit knowledge of a field, the practices of its community, and the interplay between the two."  (Brown, 2002, p. 20)

Brown, J. S. (2002). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. USDLA Journal, 16(2), 15-28.

What do you think?

I agree.  But that is difficult to put into practice. At least in here (Chile).  Traditional undergraduate programs are heavily based into theory.  For example, I studied 5 years to be a teacher of English.  Only in the fifth year I went to a school to practice the "teaching skills" I had acquired during my 5 years of study. Lucky for me, I had started working as a teacher when I was in third year, but even so I had some problems. Learning about teaching is NOTHING like teaching.

Violeta.
 

[Barbara Dieu]

Hello,
Hope you do not mind me  jumping into the discussion a bit late. Not sure whether this was discussed or not. I have just joined and have been reading the previous posts (have not yet got to the blogs).

> In Wenger's model the community of practice has three interrelated components; domain, community and practice.

If this is the case, to define all other types of community, just change the 3rd component. Please correct me if wrong and forgive me for simplifying it.

a) domain + community + interest = community of interest  = Eg. supporters of Corinthians football team = gather to see the games, follow and discuss games on TV,  behave in a certain way,  write about it (but do not play the game itself)

b) domain + community + learning = community of learning = Eg. a group of people discussing different books over a period of time = learning about sthg together and discussing it  (but not writing the book)

c) domain + community + practice  = Eg.  facilitating online interaction  = learning about it + discussing it together + being and becoming facilitators ( practice it together and on others)

Now, if community is the concept that permeates all three, what are the traits that make it similar to/different from a group or network?

Warm regards from Brazil,
Bee

--
Barbara Dieu
http://dekita.org
http://beespace.net

[Sylvia Currie]

Bee's overview makes sense to me. Some communities clearly fall into one of these categories, and it seems that often communities evolve from interest -- to learning -- to practice. I wonder, is this a developmental model? Does a community start out as a CoP, or does it become one after working through certain stages?

Sylvia
http://blog.webbedfeat.com

[vcautin]

Hi Bee!
I'm really happy you joined this course as well.

Now, if community is the concept that permeates all three, what are the traits that make it similar to/different from a group or network?

That is part of the question that we have to answer this week.
One of the answers that I personally found relevant is this one:
http://servant02.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/on-communities-virtual-learning-communities/

Here the author differentiates a community from networks,  groups and teams by the degree of identification and belonging.  I interpret from the model that a community is much more bound together. 
He describes three important features in community members: responsibility, sharing and  celebration.
 
Regards, Violeta.

2008/8/11 Barbara Dieu <beeo...@gmail.com>

[Barbara Dieu]

> Does a community start out as a CoP, or does it become one after working through certain stages?

Hi Sylvia..good question...and enjoyed how you summed up the course and process of going about it on your blog - most useful for parachuters who have just landed - still trying to fit into the rhythm and context.

and thanks for the warm welcome and the tip, Violeta...   I will check it out and also try to follow the order of the discussions and readings and weave all this into my own experience and questions :-)

Warm regards,

[Bronh]

Violeta
I really like the post you have shared with us about Virtual
Communities. I particularly relate to the following statement:
"Communities are responsible for their own life and functioning.
Responsibility is not left upon the coordinator, facilitator,
moderator or any one single individual to control. Instead, everyone
monitors the way the community lives its spirit;

On Aug 12, 4:44 am, vcautin <violeta.cau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bee!
> I'm really happy you joined this course as well.
>
> Now, if community is the concept that permeates all three, what are the
> traits that make it similar to/different from a group or network?
>
> That is part of the question that we have to answer this week.

> One of the answers that I personally found relevant is this one:http://servant02.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/on-communities-virtual-lear...

>
> Here the author differentiates a community from networks, groups and teams
> by the degree of identification and belonging. I interpret from the model
> that a community is much more bound together.
> He describes three important features in community members: responsibility,
> sharing and celebration.
>
> Regards, Violeta.
>

> 2008/8/11 Barbara Dieu <beeonl...@gmail.com>

>
>
>
> > Hello,
> > Hope you do not mind me jumping into the discussion a bit late. Not sure
> > whether this was discussed or not. I have just joined and have been reading
> > the previous posts (have not yet got to the blogs).
>
> > > In Wenger's model the community of practice has three interrelated

> > components; *domain, community *and *practice*.

[Joao Alves]

Thank you for clarifying my initial doubt about the difference between an online community and a community of practice. I particularly found the link that Violeta mentioned to Greg's blog very clear. Greg's post differentiating communities, groups, teams and networks is very helpful to understand the differences among them.

This thread seems to be a good example of an online community. What do you think?

I very much thank you all.
Joao

P.S. Leaving right now for a few days holiday. Will get in touch with you soon.

2008/8/12 Bronh <bronwyn...@gmail.com>

--
Joao Alves
http://joaocarlosalves.eu

[Derek Chirnside]

2008/8/12 Joao Alves <j.al...@gmail.com>

Thank you for clarifying my initial doubt about the difference between an online community and a community of practice. I particularly found the link that Violeta mentioned to Greg's blog very clear. Greg's post differentiating communities, groups, teams and networks is very helpful to understand the differences among them.

This thread seems to be a good example of an online community. What do you think?

I very much thank you all.
Joao

P.S. Leaving right now for a few days holiday. Will get in touch with you soon.

Joao, some community like behaviour I guess.
I'll be on the road for a few days now as well.
40 members of a choir, band and rock group.
I will pass through Dunedin and if I can sneak away from the kids I will visit Leigh.

-Derek

[Barbara Dieu]

Hi Pedro,
Share the same feeling :-)
Long time no see.

[alexanderhayes]

Great post Bron.

I havent been skiing but the snow is just as cold up this way.

I like the distinctions your making in this 1980's threaded discussion
form about not needing to make distinctions as such.

Interest may be as engaged as someone attaining a PHd in the area.

Interest and practice....a 'practising' artist......someone who does
and creates not someone who aspires and expires.

More often than not I find people who have a spectators view often
have the most profound "awareness" of its place in life....they can
reach high's simply by including something in their frame of reference
without any needs to master it or needing a certificate to prove their
inclusion or supposed attained exclusiveness.

To define what that it is lets us breath a little.....we get so bogged
down in the definitives.

Cults are made of distinctions of difference.

Likewise, COPs always struck me as a politically motivated manifest
within which the battle to diffuse or re-invent the commitee - the
society - the guild - the lengthy pointless conversations where the
majority of those with motivation used the butchers paper and the bad
sandwiches to outmanouvre each other in a tug of war between the fact
of union and the fiction of retort.

Ok....that was one bad example but I've been to plenty of great COP
parties too :)

I reckon that domain, community and practice are not just related
areas of demarcation to create a whole acronym rather aspects of an
inter-related whole just as behaviour is not seperate to a humans
endeavour to manipulate inclusion.

In laymans terms, lets interogate the notion of community and aspire
to engage others online whilst steering clear of the lovefest
language.

'Lest we all expire and find other acronyms to define the dead white
philosophers we aspire to juxtapose.

What you wrote made perfect sense.





On Aug 11, 12:23 pm, "Bronwyn Stuckey" <bronwyn.stuc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> In Wenger's model the community of practice has three interrelated

> components; *domain, community *and *practice*.

> So he sees community as a part but not the whole, not all that holds to
> group together. I agree with this. Whether a group is a CoP or not really
> depends on the practice. For instance, I am fascinated by forensic science
> and I love to partake of discussions about it - but I do not work in the
> field nor ever aspire to, I do not practice it. I have an interest and could
> talk about the science of it from a spectators view. But a CoP for forensic
> scientists is made up of thise who practice it and would want to share
> knoweldge gained from within their practice not just knowledge of it.
>
> To be a CoP you need to be readily able to identify the practice. I think
> this FOC08 group is on its way to being, even if only temporary (17 weeks),
> a CoP. Facilitation in online communities is our practice and we are all at
> various stages of our development of that practice - we do all aspire to
> practice it.
>
> So to me community exists as a component of many kinds of groups - learning
> communities, CoP, communities of interest, online communities, etc etc etc
> and the notion of community is both the same and a little different in each.
> Does that make sense?
>
> ~ Bron
>

> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone,
>

> > I'm back from a weekend of skiing :) (Photos<http://flickr.com/photos/leighblackall/tags/foxpeak/>
> > )

>
> > Joao Alves:
>
> > Our assignment is to post our thoughts to the blog about an online
>
> > community. In Wenger's text "Communities of Practice - Learning as a
> >> Social System" he writes about communities of practice. Are
> >> communities of practice and online communities exactly the same thing?
>
> > Mike Bogle:
> >> I think the broader notion of CoP is inclusive and applies to all
> >> locations where they might exist; online communities are more specific
> >> relatively speaking and refer to a medium as well.
>
> > Gabriela Sellart
> >> I think CoP have a learning objective. Maybe that's the difference.
>
> > Derek Chirnside:
> >> Not all communities have some attributes that a community of practice has.
> >> Blonging, identity, learning, roles, a practice, glue, rhythms, nurture.
> >> Most of these (I think) need to be present.
> >> They may or may not be there in a little online community that meets up as
> >> fans of a music group (no practice) for example.
>
> > I too wonder if there is a difference between an online community and a
> > community of practice. Looking at the words alone (and considering what I
> > know about Wenger) there are small differences..
>

> > Wenger does not limit his considerations to communities *online*
>
> > We are not limiting our considerations to *practice*

>
> > So, what are the aspects of Wenger's paper that focus in on community? How
> > do the other readings in the wiki help us expand on our understanding of
> > online community?
>

> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Mike Bogle <michael.s.bo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Not necessarily, I think. I think the broader notion of CoP is inclusive
> >> and applies to all locations where they might exist; online communities are
> >> more specific relatively speaking and refer to a medium as well.
>
> >> Certainly the nature of the online community is worth considering as
> >> well. For example, Wenger indicates
>
> >> "A community of practice defines itself along three dimensions:
>

> >> - *What it is about* – its *joint enterprise* as understood and

> >> continually renegotiated by its members

> >> - *How it functions* -* **mutual engagement* that bind members

> >> together into a social entity

> >> - *What capability it has produced* – the *shared repertoire* of

> >> communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary, styles,
> >> etc.) that members have developed over time."
>
> >> It would seem conceivable that a community (in fact any community - not
> >> just online), is not necessarily a community of practice either.
>
> >> I'd love to explore and expand on this but am running late for work! Will
> >> try to pick this up later this morning :)
>
> >> Cheers,
>
> >> Mike Bogle

> >> Em: michael.s.bo...@gmail.com

> >> Blog:http://techticker.net
> >> SL: Zapp Aeon
>

[alexanderhayes]

An intriguing use of Moodle.

On Aug 11, 12:52 pm, "NELLIE DEUTSCH"

<nellie.muller.deut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for clarifying the differences between CoPs and online
> communities.
>

> Nelliehttp://nelliemuller.blogspot.com/

>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Bronwyn Stuckey

> <bronwyn.stuc...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> > Hi everyone,
>
> > In Wenger's model the community of practice has three interrelated

> > components; *domain, community *and *practice*.

> > So he sees community as a part but not the whole, not all that holds to
> > group together. I agree with this. Whether a group is a CoP or not really
> > depends on the practice. For instance, I am fascinated by forensic science
> > and I love to partake of discussions about it - but I do not work in the
> > field nor ever aspire to, I do not practice it. I have an interest and could
> > talk about the science of it from a spectators view. But a CoP for forensic
> > scientists is made up of thise who practice it and would want to share
> > knoweldge gained from within their practice not just knowledge of it.
>
> > To be a CoP you need to be readily able to identify the practice. I think
> > this FOC08 group is on its way to being, even if only temporary (17 weeks),
> > a CoP. Facilitation in online communities is our practice and we are all at
> > various stages of our development of that practice - we do all aspire to
> > practice it.
>
> > So to me community exists as a component of many kinds of groups - learning
> > communities, CoP, communities of interest, online communities, etc etc etc
> > and the notion of community is both the same and a little different in each.
> > Does that make sense?
>
> > ~ Bron
>

> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Hello everyone,
>

> >> I'm back from a weekend of skiing :) (Photos<http://flickr.com/photos/leighblackall/tags/foxpeak/>
> >> )

>
> >> Joao Alves:
>
> >> Our assignment is to post our thoughts to the blog about an online
>
> >> community. In Wenger's text "Communities of Practice - Learning as a
> >>> Social System" he writes about communities of practice. Are
> >>> communities of practice and online communities exactly the same thing?
>
> >> Mike Bogle:
> >>> I think the broader notion of CoP is inclusive and applies to all
> >>> locations where they might exist; online communities are more specific
> >>> relatively speaking and refer to a medium as well.
>
> >> Gabriela Sellart
> >>> I think CoP have a learning objective. Maybe that's the difference.
>
> >> Derek Chirnside:
> >>> Not all communities have some attributes that a community of practice
> >>> has. Blonging, identity, learning, roles, a practice, glue, rhythms,
> >>> nurture.
> >>> Most of these (I think) need to be present.
> >>> They may or may not be there in a little online community that meets up
> >>> as fans of a music group (no practice) for example.
>
> >> I too wonder if there is a difference between an online community and a
> >> community of practice. Looking at the words alone (and considering what I
> >> know about Wenger) there are small differences..
>

> >> Wenger does not limit his considerations to communities *online*
>
> >> We are not limiting our considerations to *practice*

>
> >> So, what are the aspects of Wenger's paper that focus in on community? How
> >> do the other readings in the wiki help us expand on our understanding of
> >> online community?
>

> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Mike Bogle <michael.s.bo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> Not necessarily, I think. I think the broader notion of CoP is inclusive
> >>> and applies to all locations where they might exist; online communities are
> >>> more specific relatively speaking and refer to a medium as well.
>
> >>> Certainly the nature of the online community is worth considering as
> >>> well. For example, Wenger indicates
>
> >>> "A community of practice defines itself along three dimensions:
>

> >>> - *What it is about* – its *joint enterprise* as understood and

> >>> continually renegotiated by its members

> >>> - *How it functions* -* **mutual engagement* that bind members

> >>> together into a social entity

> >>> - *What capability it has produced* – the *shared repertoire* of

> >>> communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary, styles,
> >>> etc.) that members have developed over time."
>
> >>> It would seem conceivable that a community (in fact any community - not
> >>> just online), is not necessarily a community of practice either.
>
> >>> I'd love to explore and expand on this but am running late for work! Will
> >>> try to pick this up later this morning :)
>
> >>> Cheers,
>
> >>> Mike Bogle

> >>> Em: michael.s.bo...@gmail.com

> >>> Blog:http://techticker.net
> >>> SL: Zapp Aeon
>

> >>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Joao Alves <j.alve...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Our assignment is to post our thoughts to the blog about an online
> >>>> community. In Wenger's text "Communities of Practice - Learning as a
> >>>> Social System" he writes about communities of practice. Are
> >>>> communities of practice and online communities exactly the same thing?
>
> >> --
> >> --
> >> Leigh Blackall
> >> +64(0)21736539
> >> skype - leigh_blackall
> >> SL - Leroy Goalpost
> >>http://learnonline.wordpress.com
>

> --
> Nellie Deutsch
> Doctoral Student
> Educational Leadership
> Curriculum and Instructionhttp://www.nelliemuller.comhttp://www.integrating-technology.com/pdhttp://www.building-relationship.com/educationhttp://blendedlear.ning.com

[Leigh Blackall]

I like where Bronwyn and Alex are taking this... questioning the use of the word "community" it Wenger's Community of Practice. Before I encountered CoP I always considered a community to include people of all generations, children, parents, grandparents, elders, guests, etc. And I always considered a group of people gathered for professional and practical reasons to be an association, a guild (as Alex suggests), a club. If we were to go back to a traditional understanding of community and ignore for a moment what Wenger has brought to the word, how might we think of an online community differently? Would it be different if we had children and teenagers in the community for example? In this sense, how many of us have really been a part of an online community? Well, I know Minhaaj has.

Unfortunately I have not found much in the way if media and readings to support this idea of 'traditional' community. The Wikipedia entry for community seems to accept that a community is very broad in meaning these days. But the challenge is still there, raised by Bronwyn and Alex..

[Bronwyn Stuckey]

In 1955 the sociologist Hillery tried to find the common definitional components of community. In 94 definitions he could find only one common agreed component - people. He did find in 69 of those definitions that there was commonly people, common ties, social interaction and place. His simple set of components still held true when reviewed by subsequent researchers and commentators  (Hamman, 2000; Poplin, 1979) many years later.

I used these four components in my research into the attributes of community in Internet-mediated communities of practice (IMCoPs). I distinguished the IMCoP from what it call "online community" or "virtual community" because the technology is a connecting strand or mediating influence in the life of the community but may not be the only way of connecting people.
Having researched a  further 25 redefinitions of community I concluded that Hillery's 4 simple components over time and technology are still key to community.

You can read more about this on my Community Capers blog //communitycapers.wordpress.com/ where I have begin presenting my case studies.  You can see the attributes of each of these four components in the respective pages on the Community Capers blog (remember this is about community within IMCoPs)

1. People -  http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/imcop-people/
2. Common ties - http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/common-ties/
3. Social interaction - http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/social-interaction/
4. Place - http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/place/

A few good references...

Hamman, R. (2001a). Online community members are real people, too: Focus on users [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 03/03/05 from http://www.infonortics.com/vc/vc01/slides/hamman.pdf.

Hamman, R. B. (2000). Computer networks linking network communities: A study of the effects of computer network use upon pre-existing communities [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 18/04/04 from http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/mphil/short.html.

Hamman, R. B. (2001b). Computer networks linking network communities. In C. W. M. Mowbray (Ed.), Online Communities (pp. 71-96). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hillery, G. (1955). Definitions of community: areas of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20, 111-123.

Poplin, D. E. (1979). Communities: a survey of theories and methods of research (2nd ed.). New York: MacMillan.

~ Bron

[Leigh Blackall]

But Bronwyn, this only serves to reinforce the idea that a CoP is a community.. what about the children, the grand parents, the pets and the playgrounds? How is a CoP different from an association or club? In the course wiki, the challenge was laid in the opening text:

Most people use the phrase "online community" very loosely. You will hear educationalists use it to refer to communities of practice, classes, groups, professional bodies, teams, networks, you name it - they have all been referred to as communities at some stage, and when they prodimantly operate through the Internet they are called online communities. But what is an online community really - especially if we want to relate the words to their true and common meaning? Is it a group of people who communicate online, and through that connection they share a sense of belonging and responsibility for one another? Is an online community like this necessary for work teams, classes, professional bodies and all those other things that have been called communities? In this course we will be looking for online communities in very different places. It is important that we try and develop an understanding of what exactly we are looking for, and techniques for looking. What is an online community?

But most people seem happy to go with today's status quo of CoP. I think we can dig deeper... or scratch the itch and uncover some controversy

[Bronwyn Stuckey]

Yes Leigh a CoP is a community. Stating that does not deny that fan
clubs are communities, religious groups are communities, white
supremacists are in communities. All of these things can be communities
online. A CoP is only one form of community. CoP should never be
considered the "status quo" as you say - it is one particular type of
community.

But not all groups are communities. A team, a class or a task force
forms for a specific purpose and will likely disband at the end of that
task. it is focused around a task rather than a practice. The team,
class or task force could become a community but it does not have to be
to. Quite often groups like ours here that have formed for a specific
activity will go on to become a community when people realise how much
they had and want to maintain it. But that is not always the case. We
have all been part of a team that we were glad when the need to be
together ended ;-)

How are CoPs different to guilds and associations - I don't think they
are. The difference in terminology is that guilds and associations make
me think of formal organisations or groups. CoPs can be associated with
and as formal organisations but do not have to be. So are guilds and
associations CoPs yes in most cases - are all CoPs associations and
guilds - no.

Does this babbling of mine help or muddy the water more???

Bron

Leigh Blackall wrote:
> But Bronwyn, this only serves to reinforce the idea that a CoP is a
> community.. what about the children, the grand parents, the pets and
> the playgrounds? How is a CoP different from an association or club?
> In the course wiki, the challenge was laid in the opening text:
>

> /Most people use the phrase "online community" very loosely. You

> will hear educationalists use it to refer to communities of
> practice, classes, groups, professional bodies, teams, networks,
> you name it - they have all been referred to as communities at
> some stage, and when they prodimantly operate through the Internet
> they are called online communities. But what is an online
> community really - especially if we want to relate the words to
> their true and common meaning? Is it a group of people who
> communicate online, and through that connection they share a sense
> of belonging and responsibility for one another? Is an online
> community like this necessary for work teams, classes,
> professional bodies and all those other things that have been
> called communities? In this course we will be looking for online
> communities in very different places. It is important that we try
> and develop an understanding of what exactly we are looking for,

> and techniques for looking. What is an online community?/

>
>
> But most people seem happy to go with today's status quo of CoP. I
> think we can dig deeper... or scratch the itch and uncover some
> controversy
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Bronwyn Stuckey

> <bstu...@intraceptives.com.au <mailto:bstu...@intraceptives.com.au>>

> wrote:
>
> In 1955 the sociologist Hillery tried to find the common
> definitional components of community. In 94 definitions he could

> find only one common agreed component - /people/. He did find in
> 69 of those definitions that there was commonly /people/, /common
> ties/, /social interaction /and /place/. His simple set of

> components still held true when reviewed by subsequent researchers
> and commentators (Hamman, 2000; Poplin, 1979) many years later.
>
> I used these four components in my research into the attributes of
> community in Internet-mediated communities of practice (IMCoPs). I
> distinguished the IMCoP from what it call "online community" or
> "virtual community" because the technology is a connecting strand
> or mediating influence in the life of the community but may not be
> the only way of connecting people.
> Having researched a further 25 redefinitions of community I
> concluded that Hillery's 4 simple components over time and
> technology are still key to community.
>
> You can read more about this on my Community Capers blog
> //communitycapers.wordpress.com/

> <http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/> where I have begin

> presenting my case studies. You can see the attributes of each of
> these four components in the respective pages on the Community
> Capers blog (remember this is about community within IMCoPs)
>

> 1. People - http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/imcop-people/
> 2. Common ties - http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/common-ties/
> 3. Social interaction -
> http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/social-interaction/
> 4. Place - http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/place/

>
> A few good references...
>
>
> Hamman, R. (2001a). Online community members are real people, too:
> Focus on users [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 03/03/05 from
> http://www.infonortics.com/vc/vc01/slides/hamman.pdf.
>
> Hamman, R. B. (2000). Computer networks linking network
> communities: A study of the effects of computer network use upon
> pre-existing communities [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 18/04/04
> from http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/mphil/short.html.
>
> Hamman, R. B. (2001b). Computer networks linking network

> communities. In C. W. M. Mowbray (Ed.), /Online Communities /(pp.

> 71-96). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
>
> Hillery, G. (1955). Definitions of community: areas of agreement.

> /Rural Sociology, 20/, 111-123.
>
> Poplin, D. E. (1979). /Communities: a survey of theories and
> methods of research/ (2nd ed.). New York: MacMillan.

>
> ~ Bron
>
>
> Leigh Blackall wrote:
>> I like where Bronwyn and Alex are taking this... questioning the
>> use of the word "community" it Wenger's Community of Practice.
>> Before I encountered CoP I always considered a community to
>> include people of all generations, children, parents,
>> grandparents, elders, guests, etc. And I always considered a
>> group of people gathered for professional and practical reasons
>> to be an association, a guild (as Alex suggests), a club. If we
>> were to go back to a traditional understanding of community and
>> ignore for a moment what Wenger has brought to the word, how
>> might we think of an online community differently? Would it be
>> different if we had children and teenagers in the community for
>> example? In this sense, how many of us have really been a part of
>> an online community? Well, I know Minhaaj has

>> <http://minhaaj.blogspot.com/2008/08/meaning-of-online-community.html>.

>>
>>
>> Unfortunately I have not found much in the way if media and
>> readings to support this idea of 'traditional' community. The
>> Wikipedia entry for community

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community> seems to accept that a

>> community is very broad in meaning these days. But the challenge
>> is still there, raised by Bronwyn and Alex..
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:58 AM, alexanderhayes
>> <alexander...@gmail.com

>> <mailto:alexander...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> An intriguing use of Moodle.
>>
>> On Aug 11, 12:52 pm, "NELLIE DEUTSCH"
>> <nellie.muller.deut...@gmail.com

>> <mailto:nellie.muller.deut...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > Thank you for clarifying the differences between CoPs and
>> online
>> > communities.
>> >
>> > Nelliehttp://nelliemuller.blogspot.com/
>> <http://nelliemuller.blogspot.com/>
>> >
>> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Bronwyn Stuckey
>> > <bronwyn.stuc...@gmail.com

>> <mailto:bronwyn.stuc...@gmail.com>>wrote:

>> <leighblack...@gmail.com <mailto:leighblack...@gmail.com>>wrote:

>> <mailto:michael.s.bo...@gmail.com>>wrote:

>> <mailto:michael.s.bo...@gmail.com>

[Leigh Blackall]

Ok Bron, a CoP is a community. Hopefully Alex will come back soon and join me in my attempts to take the discussion beyond CoP and into what is a community - really. IMHO Minhaaj's post goes closer than any of us have with the question.

[vcautin]

Leigh,
What I understand from that is that you associate the community with the emotional component, the support, the nuturing that they bring to their members ¿? Am I closer?

2008/8/12 Leigh Blackall <leighb...@gmail.com>

[vcautin]

Well Bronwyn, that was Greg's post. But I agree with the idea that community members are responsible for the live of the community.  I do think leadership will arise sooner or later either we want it or not.

I'm going to your blogpost now to see what you wrote about that.

2008/8/11 Bronh <bronwyn...@gmail.com>

[Leigh Blackall]

Hello Violeta, I am breaking my facilitation role by getting involved in the discussion rather than trying to move it along.. it is difficult not to when it is a subject matter you know something about. Some of the best facilitation I have seen is by people who know nothing about the topic. So please consider these last few emails from me as more participation rather than my efforts of facilitation, I sincerely hope I am not compromising my role in the long term here... more on this next week ;)

V wrote:
What I understand from that is that you associate the community with the emotional component, the support, the nurturing that they bring to their members ¿? Am I closer?

I'm not sure. I think what I am getting at certainly carries that with it, but I am more trying to bring the word community back to its basic concept and away from community of practice (CoP) - which I think is a worthwhile thing, but an extension of word community rather than the meaning of it. I think if we can focus on examples of community (rather than examples of CoP) than we should start finding elements in those examples that we base our considerations on in the coming weeks. If we were to focus too much on CoP, I fear we will then start looking for CoP for the rest of the course. We are looking for communities online, of which CoP might be only one type, and perhaps a type that too many of us are familiar with and unwilling to unlearn.

Minhaaj's post talks about an experience with the Linux community, and his interactions with a particular member of that community through his teenage years. I think he posits the idea that interaction across generations might be one of many unique elements in the sense of community the the Linux user have. The element could be significantly different to a CoP or association or club that we have so far discussed. Minhaaj then goes on to point out something possibly overlooked in the consideration of communities online - the numerous instances where prejudices normal in face to face communities, are transcended online. This might be something unique about online communities - the idea that age, race, gender, religion, sexuality, while known about by the members, may not be a big consideration in their community.

Other examples where this can be seen:
Linux community
Wikipedia community
World of Warcraft and other online gaming community
Second Life community

I think Minhaaj's post, and Alex's emails, start to take us into new territory worth thinking about for the duration of this course...

[Amy Lenzo]

Leigh,

I love where your train of thought (looking at “community” beyond the “community of practice” model) is going... And I appreciate your piping in – personally I don’t subscribe to the notion of a good facilitator being “outside” the conversation – and besides, your perspective is too valuable to miss out on!

Your point about online communities potential for transcending age and race and gender is important, but I don’t think these conditions are specific to online community as differentiated from communities of practice, where they may also apply. Interacting online sets up that potential for transcendence in itself.

Actually, I think Violeta is on to something when she brings up the quality of “care” we have for each other in a community. That IS a differentiating factor, and what starts to tilt the balance towards community, even in a community of practice. If I were in a totally “safe” environment I might go so far as to say true communities have something of a shared “communion” about them.  

I’ve been enjoying thinking and blogging about these questions, and I’ve posted an interesting “online community” image on Flickr that shows some of the range of online communities - some of you might want to check it out.

Amy


...o0o...
Amy Lenzo
a...@beautydialogues.com
FOC08 Blog: http://allislight.typepad.com/facilitating_online_commu/





Leigh Blackall8/12/08 6:19 PM

[Daryl Cook]

Hello:

On 13/08/2008, at 1:03 PM, Amy Lenzo wrote:

> I love where your train of thought (looking at “community” beyond
> the “community of practice” model) is going... And I appreciate your
> piping in – personally I don’t subscribe to the notion of a good
> facilitator being “outside” the conversation – and besides, your
> perspective is too valuable to miss out on!

I believe effective facilitation mostly requires you to be neutral or
outside the conversation. But, that isn't *always* practical, and
often the facilitator has something to contribute (such as in this
case). I like the way Leigh has modelled being part of the
conversation as a facilitator - he's made it transparent and let us
know what hat he's wearing (or role is operating from). Thanks Leigh.

Cheers, Daryl

-- Daryl Cook --
email: daryl...@gmail.com
mobile: 0410437938
skype: daryl.cook
_-@
--\ --'
.. .. .. __________(*)'_(*)

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Leigh, I was wondering when you would get involved in the discussions. I think it's tricky for a facilitator to know when to come in, help connect things, and provide examples. However, I think facilitators should be extra careful when using students' names. Any thoughts and experiences with that?

 

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Leigh, I was wondering when you would get involved in the discussions. I think it's tricky for a facilitator to know when to come in, help connect things, and provide examples. However, I think facilitators should be extra careful when using students' names. Any thoughts and experiences with that?

 

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Leigh Blackall <leighb...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Pedro Markun]

Hi Leight, all

I do like to think in terms of 'commons'. I mean of course there has to
be an n+1 people so that communities can exists, but aside from that, I
do belive that there should be some 'common ground' (even if intangible
or digital) in wich the exchanges of knowledge, food, or anything else
happens. Actually, there has to be a common ground in that this
knowledge *belongs to*.

Picking up Minhaaj's example, the fact with Linux online community is
that there is a broader sense that the accumulated knowledge doesn't
belong to one or other person, or group, or network... it belongs to the
community, it is a common thing.

(my english is a little rusty, don't know if I can make myself
understandable)

In a similar sense I do 'run' an online community. My collaborative
newspaper called Jornal de Debates has more than 11k members, but not
all of those are part of this intangible, invisible and completely
unofficial community... and that's simple because they choose not to.

But there's a few (something like ~100 people) wich actually belives
that they are members of a community built within the website, and doing
so they effectively become this community. They treat the website as
their own common space, and make demands acording to that belief. And in
the end they're absolutely right, they do 'own' the site, they do 'run'
the site and that is THEIR common space. The only job left for me was to
act as facilitator so that they can work, and chat, and argue in peace.

As users they could move everywhere they wanted. There's nothing bonding
them to this particular website, aside from the fact that they choose it
to be their common ground of exchanges. Choosing and meeting other
people who has made this same choice, is what created the community.

Anyway, I do agree that the online world can transcend some prejudices,
but that's just because you've somewhat control over what ou show and/or
hide about you. And curiously you do get another kind of prejudice in
between online communities. Like linux against windows/microsoft or even
debian linuxers against slackwares

Just some random thoughts,
Pedro Markun
.

Leigh Blackall wrote:
> Hello Violeta, I am breaking my facilitation role by getting involved
> in the discussion rather than trying to move it along.. it is
> difficult not to when it is a subject matter you know something about.
> Some of the best facilitation I have seen is by people who know
> nothing about the topic. So please consider these last few emails from
> me as more participation rather than my efforts of facilitation, I
> sincerely hope I am not compromising my role in the long term here...
> more on this next week ;)
>
> V wrote:
> What I understand from that is that you associate the community
> with the emotional component, the support, the nurturing that they
> bring to their members ¿? Am I closer?
>
>
> I'm not sure. I think what I am getting at certainly carries that with

> it, but I am more trying to bring the word /community/ back to its

> <mailto:bronwyn...@gmail.com>>

>
>
> Violeta
> I really like the post you have shared with us about Virtual
> Communities. I particularly relate to the following statement:
> "Communities are responsible for their own life and functioning.
> Responsibility is not left upon the coordinator, facilitator,
> moderator or any one single individual to control. Instead,
> everyone
> monitors the way the community lives its spirit;
>
> On Aug 12, 4:44 am, vcautin <violeta.cau...@gmail.com

> <mailto:violeta.cau...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Bee!
> > I'm really happy you joined this course as well.
> >
> > Now, if community is the concept that permeates all three,
> what are the
> > traits that make it similar to/different from a group or
> network?
> >
> > That is part of the question that we have to answer this week.
> > One of the answers that I personally found relevant is this
> one:http://servant02.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/on-communities-virtual-lear...
> >
> > Here the author differentiates a community from networks,
> groups and teams
> > by the degree of identification and belonging. I interpret
> from the model
> > that a community is much more bound together.
> > He describes three important features in community members:
> responsibility,
> > sharing and celebration.
> >
> > Regards, Violeta.
> >
> > 2008/8/11 Barbara Dieu <beeonl...@gmail.com

> <mailto:beeonl...@gmail.com>>

[vcautin]

Glad it was helpful :)
Now I'll go and read your post.

I'm going to your blogpost now to see what you wr

2008/8/11 Bronh <bronwyn...@gmail.com>

[Amy Lenzo]

Hi Daryl.

Thanks for sharing your point of view. You said:
> I believe effective facilitation mostly requires you to be neutral or
> outside the conversation.

I find it very interesting because its so different from mine.

In my world the role of facilitating online community is more like
"stewarding" & "nurturing" than formally "facilitating".

My experience of the function is that it's similar to being a "host": you
create a beautiful space for people to gather, help make them feel welcome
and comfortable with each other, generally encourage participation & help
move the conversation along wherever that's needed, which sometimes means
handling disruptions or "spoilers", and - at the deeper levels - I encourage
and steward (care for and guide) new leadership as it begins to come forward
in the group.

In this model the facilitator is very much a part of the community - people
need to know you and trust you; it would be rather awkward and almost
impossible to fulfill the role in this way otherwise.

Again, I appreciate hearing your perspective, and I'm curious to hear more
from you, as well as from others about how they see this role, particularly
those who facilitate online community themselves.

[Leigh Blackall]

I'm curious to hear more
from you, as well as from others about how they see this role, particularly
those who facilitate online community themselves.

Sounds to me Amy, you are ready to look at the readings for week 4-5 in the course wiki :) Good for some to go ahead, break the ice on the next topic, make ready for the rest of us...

[Daryl Cook]

Hi Amy,

On 14/08/2008, at 5:24 AM, Amy Lenzo wrote:

I find it very interesting because its so different from mine.

I don't think that we view it all that differently to be honest.  Probably a bad choice words on my behalf when I say "outside" of the conversation.  Of course, the facilitator is an integral part of the conversation (helping it to move along; help bring out the silent ones; encourage diversity etc.), and therefore can become an integral part of the community.  

However, I think it is difficult for the facilitator to facilitate and be at the service of the group when they have a particular view point or interest in the content because they can become invested and attached to their views, which can have the effect of closing off the conversation,  or discouraging others to voice their own views.  As a facilitator, we must be aware of our implicit power and how that can effect or influence the  group.  That's why it is important when/if you do drop into voicing an opinion, it should be made explicit about which role you are playing.

In my world the role of facilitating online community is more like

"stewarding" & "nurturing" than formally "facilitating"

I suspect that there is something in this. I'm looking forward to delving in a litter deeper to this topic and understanding the differences and  nuances of facilitating online communities vs. face to face.  Thanks for raising this important point.

Cheers, Daryl

-- Daryl Cook --

[Leigh Blackall]

We may be confusing something here too.. I see FOC08 as primarily a course where my role is to assist people to learn about Facilitating Online. If through the progress of this course a sense of community forms, then great! But as much as I would like to participate as a member of that community - for the duration of the course at least I think I should try and retain a facilitator role for the benefit of everyone who is here to be assisted in learning about it.

I commented on Illya's blog words to this effect - which I think leads us nicely into next week.

I'll announce it in a new thread, but I have also set a meeting time for the start of next week, taking into account the decisions to try and run 2 lots of meetings in an effort to capture more people in different time zones.

Details on the wiki

[Daryl Cook]

Hi Leigh,

On 14/08/2008, at 9:55 AM, Leigh Blackall wrote:

> We may be confusing something here too.. I see FOC08 as primarily a
> course where my role is to assist people to learn about Facilitating
> Online. If through the progress of this course a sense of community
> forms, then great! But as much as I would like to participate as a
> member of that community - for the duration of the course at least I
> think I should try and retain a facilitator role for the benefit of
> everyone who is here to be assisted in learning about it.

Thanks for the clarification. Apologies if, in any way, my previous
remarks about the role of facilitator implied that I was referring to
your role here. It certainly didn't intend that, I was just
interested in unpacking this issue a bit and following the thread in
more detail.

Just want to be clear that I think you modelled this dilemma of
contributor/facilitator really well.

Cheers, D.

[Leigh Blackall]

No apology needed at all Daryl. I think all of this IS an important topic to discuss, and I wouldn't mind at all if you or anyone else used me and my work as a basis to refer tro and critique.

[Amy Lenzo]

Thanks, Leigh. This is a very important distinction to make, and your comment on Illya’s post is stimulating more thinking, which I’ll try to hold until we get into the next week’s curriculum...!! :-)




 

Leigh Blackall8/13/08 4:55 PM

We may be confusing something here too.. I see FOC08 as primarily a course where my role is to assist people to learn about Facilitating Online. If through the progress of this course a sense of community forms, then great! But as much as I would like to participate as a member of that community - for the duration of the course at least I think I should try and retain a facilitator role for the benefit of everyone who is here to be assisted in learning about it.

I commented on Illya's blog <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/illyasoet.wordpress.com/75/>  words to this effect - which I think leads us nicely into next week.

I'll announce it in a new thread, but I have also set a meeting time for the start of next week, taking into account the decisions to try and run 2 lots of meetings in an effort to capture more people in different time zones.

Details on the wiki <http://www.wikieducator.org/Facilitating_online_communities#Wks_4_and_5:_Facilitating.2C_moderating.2C_or_teaching_-_18_-_31_August>

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Daryl Cook <daryl...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Amy Lenzo]

Dear fellow course-mates,

I think I’m missing something when trying to access the Elluminate platform and listen to the audio tapes or enter the meeting room (I’ve used the software for other projects, but can’t seem to get it to work for me here).

It downloads .jnlp files for the recording or meeting, whichever I’ve asked for (actually it seems to get caught in a loop of downloading several of them) and I have to accept a certificate of trust, but then it never loads the audio recording, or opens the meeting space. There is a place to log in, and I log in with my first and last name and no password, as instructed.

Is anyone else having similar problems? Would someone who knows this system be willing to help? I want to be functioning by the 18th, so I can participate in the “live” session, and it would be great to catch up with the taped material. Thanks so much!

Amy

[Leigh Blackall]

Amy, it sounds like you might have to clear your Java cache.

To do this: http://www.elluminate.com/support/faqs/jws_clear_cache.jsp

A video demo for Windows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf7vjl8Yu_4

[alexanderhayes]

The most profound thing happened to me today.

I was 'bumped' by a work colleague which in business terms means that
my involved recommendations for an event were dropped and that person
went off and jumped on someone elses bandwagon at great peril to their
own integrity. They are perfectly entitled to do so and I told them
so ............considering I was to be employed to facilitate a micro-
online nano-talking community after all.......like what ?

In a communal sense the businessman in me said - ignore - and the VET
working self said - crucify the bitch - and the community minded self
said - decline gracefully and inform everyone that you've involved of
your reservations and not hurt nor vilify that persons character
directly.

Why so ?

My advice had in the first instance involved the people whom I admire
and work with constantly through these harder events-driven-look good-
suit-brigade-entourages and that my opinion and recommendations had in
part been acted upon both as an individual seeking connection and as a
professional association being seen to be asking inclusion of others.
a log winded way to say I'd called on my 'community'.

This has happened to me before but in a much differerent way so for me
this is new and profoundly different.....not part of the usual binary
pattern.

I'm used to working for sharks....eating empty rhetoric......fleshing
mandates and mayhem with milestones and other useless acronym creating
gestures yet one thing that really bothers me is I suppose the
senselessness of disrespecting the communal collective conciousness.

Of course SL and RL are one and the same ! Did you think that we'd
created a division between the two realities ?

Not.

The dumb idea that by cutting people who have contributed out of the
picture selflessly one then attains a certain status or enlightment.
So....the closest I have come to seeing this sort of underhanded
behaviour has been in boredrooms where it's difficult to discern a
sneer from a smile.

Like Leigh we have to be careful about citing anything beyond our own
experiential framework without first considering the containers and
roles from though and out of what we speak.

I've divulged one of mine. An interest in justice.

Anger requited.

Practicing anything other than how best to support a mortgage in times
of fear and loathing does not constitute communal contribution. Nor
does the elevated status of Director in a company when the company
itself has no morale in it's staff and the first fire sale that comes
along constitutes bargain and communal resolve to rid itself of
itself.

As is the notions of not-for-profit.

I've seen more profit motives in declaring a not-for-profit that I
have prophecies from prophets who preach doomsdays and other
disorders.

I think what Leigh was getting at is that we need to really rise up to
the challenge and get past these niceties in these threads.

Get beyond fan clubbing the idea that 'community' is anything more
than a term derivative in an online context is short selling the
billion headed snake that emereged from the head of the hippy I once
used to know who has now become a bastard beauracrat.

Get some reality checks going here folks.

Facilitating an online community is more than a proficient use of a
web presenter platform with others.

COPs always struck me as pigs. Itchy, farty smelly things that
dissolved when the funding round suited and when the notions of
pedagogy had been mistakingly used where andragogy would have
sufficed.

Again, I've also participated in some amazingly positive, fruitful
COPs that decided not to call themselves COP's rather groupies and
other socially excepted amorphisms.

Speaking of isms......are we all past connectivisim yet or had I
better pull my head in on that one ?

:)

ps. What is an online community ? Something you escape to when you've
lost contact with your loved ones ? Lets hope not...

On Aug 13, 8:09 am, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But Bronwyn, this only serves to reinforce the idea that a CoP is a
> community.. what about the children, the grand parents, the pets and the
> playgrounds? How is a CoP different from an association or club? In the
> course wiki, the challenge was laid in the opening text:
>

> *Most people use the phrase "online community" very loosely. You will hear

>
> > educationalists use it to refer to communities of practice, classes, groups,
> > professional bodies, teams, networks, you name it - they have all been
> > referred to as communities at some stage, and when they prodimantly operate
> > through the Internet they are called online communities. But what is an
> > online community really - especially if we want to relate the words to their
> > true and common meaning? Is it a group of people who communicate online, and
> > through that connection they share a sense of belonging and responsibility
> > for one another? Is an online community like this necessary for work teams,
> > classes, professional bodies and all those other things that have been
> > called communities? In this course we will be looking for online communities
> > in very different places. It is important that we try and develop an
> > understanding of what exactly we are looking for, and techniques for

> > looking. What is an online community?*

>
> But most people seem happy to go with today's status quo of CoP. I think we
> can dig deeper... or scratch the itch and uncover some controversy
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Bronwyn Stuckey <
>
>
>
> bstuc...@intraceptives.com.au> wrote:
> >  In 1955 the sociologist Hillery tried to find the common definitional
> > components of community. In 94 definitions he could find only one common

> > agreed component - *people*. He did find in 69 of those definitions that
> > there was commonly *people*, *common ties*, *social interaction *and *
> > place*. His simple set of components still held true when reviewed by

> > subsequent researchers and commentators  (Hamman, 2000; Poplin, 1979) many
> > years later.
>
> > I used these four components in my research into the attributes of
> > community in Internet-mediated communities of practice (IMCoPs). I
> > distinguished the IMCoP from what it call "online community" or "virtual
> > community" because the technology is a connecting strand or mediating
> > influence in the life of the community but may not be the only way of
> > connecting people.
> > Having researched a  further 25 redefinitions of community I concluded that
> > Hillery's 4 simple components over time and technology are still key to
> > community.
>
> > You can read more about this on my Community Capers blog //
> > communitycapers.wordpress.com/ where I have begin presenting my case
> > studies.  You can see the attributes of each of these four components in the
> > respective pages on the Community Capers blog (remember this is about
> > community within IMCoPs)
>

> >    1. People -  http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/imcop-people/
> >    2. Common ties -http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/common-ties/

> >    3. Social interaction -
> >    http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/social-interaction/
> >    4. Place -http://communitycapers.wordpress.com/place/

>
> > A few good references...
>
> > Hamman, R. (2001a). Online community members are real people, too: Focus on
> > users [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 03/03/05 from
> >http://www.infonortics.com/vc/vc01/slides/hamman.pdf.
>
> > Hamman, R. B. (2000). Computer networks linking network communities: A
> > study of the effects of computer network use upon pre-existing communities
> > [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 18/04/04 from
> >http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/mphil/short.html.
>
> > Hamman, R. B. (2001b). Computer networks linking network communities. In C.

> > W. M. Mowbray (Ed.), *Online Communities *(pp. 71-96). Upper Saddle River,
> > NJ: Prentice Hall.
> > Hillery, G. (1955). Definitions of community: areas of agreement. *Rural
> > Sociology, 20*, 111-123.
>
> > Poplin, D. E. (1979). *Communities: a survey of theories and methods of
> > research* (2nd ed.). New York: MacMillan.

> > ~ Bron
>
> > Leigh Blackall wrote:
>
> > I like where Bronwyn and Alex are taking this... questioning the use of the
> > word "community" it Wenger's Community of Practice. Before I encountered CoP
> > I always considered a community to include people of all generations,
> > children, parents, grandparents, elders, guests, etc. And I always
> > considered a group of people gathered for professional and practical reasons
> > to be an association, a guild (as Alex suggests), a club. If we were to go
> > back to a traditional understanding of community and ignore for a moment
> > what Wenger has brought to the word, how might we think of an online
> > community differently? Would it be different if we had children and
> > teenagers in the community for example? In this sense, how many of us have

> > really been a part of an online community? Well, I know Minhaaj has<http://minhaaj.blogspot.com/2008/08/meaning-of-online-community.html>.

>
> > Unfortunately I have not found much in the way if media and readings to
> > support this idea of 'traditional' community. The Wikipedia entry for

> > community <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community> seems to accept that a

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Amy Lenzo]

I’ll clear the cache – thanks.
I woke up wondering if a least some of the problem could be that I’m on a Mac rather than a PC... What do you think?


Leigh Blackall8/13/08 8:53 PM

[Amy Lenzo]

I cleared the cache but it didn’t make any difference, so I went through the initial Elluminate “set up” links on the wiki, where I see that the options for operating system don’t include the latest Mac version, which is what I’m running (Leopard, v10.5.4). Bummer!


Amy Lenzo8/14/08 8:06 AM

[Amy Lenzo]

Alexander,

I don't quite understand the details, but I do get that you've been treated
badly by someone you thought was a trusted colleague, and I'm sorry you've
had to experience that disappointment/betrayal.

I was intrigued by many of your comments and hope you go into more detail -
e.g. what do you mean by "connectivism"? And if I've understood you
correctly I agree about the term "community" being ubiquitously associated
with any online utterance simply for marketing and pr purposes.

Amy


alexanderhayes8/14/08 6:42 AM

[Amy Lenzo]

Great points, Daryl. I look forward to the ongoing conversation...


Daryl Cook8/13/08 4:31 PM

[LaDonna Coy]

Hi Amy,

I'm late to the workshop and trying desperately to catch up on the exchanges - you all have been super busy!

I also use a Mac for Elluminate sessions but I'm not running Leopard yet.  Are you by chance using Parallels (so you can run Windows on the Mac too?) If so, you might try it on the PC side with the Internet Explorer browser?

LaDonna

--
LaDonna Coy, MHR, CPS, CDLA
New Media & Prevention Specialist
http://technologyinprevention.blogspot.com
(918) 473-6789 Office
(580) 309-3382 Cell
HC 60 Box 263
Checotah, OK 74426
Skype: ladonnacoy
coye...@gmail.com
Twitter: coyenator

We hold the present and future of our world within our circle of conversation. --Glenna Gerard http://www.glennagerard.net/

When we change the way we communicate, we change society. -- Clay Shirky

[Leigh Blackall]

Alex, that was quite a write! I truly hope others spend the time to decode what you are saying there. It is of course opinion, but one that rings true of my experiences to date, and another Alex-ism attempt to prod the discussion in darker, more dangerous directions. For those who speak (read) English as a second language, Alex's writing is difficult to decode even for the native speaker, but well worth a study. I am sure, when we are old and not so famous, Alex will publish his own handmade book or pros and poetic ramblings, and distribute it to friends in his 'community'. I look forward to my copy.

Yes, if there is anyone out there feeling the need to buck the norm - please do:

I think what Leigh was getting at is that we need to really rise up to
the challenge and get past these niceties in these threads.

A hint at some response to the idea of facilitating online and offline.. do they actually feel the same?:

Of course SL and RL are one and the same ! Did you think that we'd
created a division between the two realities ?

and

Facilitating an online community is more than a proficient use of a
web presenter platform with others.

Is community just a buzz word when considering the contexts in which we most commonly use it these days? Corporates, bureaucratic, committee dominated, disingenuous, marketing...:

Get beyond fan clubbing the idea that 'community' is anything more
than a term derivative in an online context is short selling the
billion headed snake that emereged from the head of the hippy I once
used to know who has now become a bastard beauracrat.

and

COPs always struck me as pigs. Itchy, farty smelly things that
dissolved when the funding round suited and when the notions of
pedagogy had been mistakingly used where andragogy would have
sufficed.

I hope that helps decode some of what Alex says - especially for those speaking English as a second language. I can only imagine how bewildering and perhaps off topic Alex might seem, but quite the contrary - he is right on topic, just singing a different tune.

[Daryl Cook]

Hi Amy,

On 15/08/2008, at 1:25 AM, Amy Lenzo wrote:

> I cleared the cache but it didn’t make any difference, so I went
> through the initial Elluminate “set up” links on the wiki, where I
> see that the options for operating system don’t include the latest
> Mac version, which is what I’m running (Leopard, v10.5.4). Bummer!

I'm also running Leopard 10.5.4 and everything is working okay for
me. Ah, the joys of technology ;)

Cheers, Daryl

[Leigh Blackall]

Amy, can you access a different computer or a different network? If you are trying to connect from a work network, it could be that your network security settings are blocking you. When I get issues like this, I go to an Internet cafe and speak nicely to the attendant...

[Barbara Dieu]

> For those who speak (read) English as a second language...

Thank you for translating, Leigh. Not that I do not understand
Alex...but then I have met him in different contexts and maybe
understand him a bit better than many on this list. Facilitating
online communities must bear this perspective in mind...not only may
people not understand well the language (the words, the culture,
deeper meaning and intention behind it) because it is not their own
but also do not have the same "power" to respond for lack of a
particular jargon.

Also, when you say, Alex, "we need to really rise up to the challenge
and get past these niceties in these threads", let me point you to
Bronislaw Malinowski (1923 - yes, the one I referred to when
discussing edupunk) - he talks about "phatic communion"
"Small talk" is more technically known as "phatic communion" - means
by which "ties of union are created by the mere exchange of words",
the initial linguistic attempt to relate to another individual. In
FOC08, this was done in the introduction page, where Leigh responded
to almost each post. However, little interaction happened among
participants there. People mostly ran in parallel, introducing
themselves, almost never responding or just showing the bonds with
those they know already. I know personally many of the people here
and have also worked with many online - so this is not an
uncomfortable situation for me. However I did feel very pleased when
Sylvia responded to my post and Violeta welcomed me. I noticed that
Marcel Bruyn, (nice to meet you) has sensed the silence from the new
people on the block and latecomers and has tried to bring them into
the conversation.

Trust frames communication (or the lack of it) so it is important
online facilitators become aware of how it is created (or destroyed).
Asking for information or help on how to use the tools or manage the
course is also a kind of phatic communion as it does not involve a
deeper conversation. Now, more than the content (what) , I'd say that
it is important for the facilitator to pay attention to the process
(how) and the why (which is Alex's dimension). However, most people
are not confident enough, do not have a stand or the language to
discuss the whys.

My two cents today :-)

[Marcel Bruyn]

Hello to all and sundry,

Here are some comments on the ongoing discussion of what is an online
community. I am not yet entirely convinced of what I write here, these
are thoughts in progress as I proceed along my learning journey in
this area.

The issue with discussing ‘What is an online community?’ is that it is
a battle with semantics. In many cases a word means something slightly
different to each person and is influenced by their past experiences
of the word and the context in which they have seen it used, and how
they use it in their mind when they think of it. Differences can be
cultural, as well as whether the community resides in an enterprise,
government or social context.

‘Online community’ is hard to define and probably will never achieve a
commonly agreed upon definition because of the wide use of the two
words. It is used in different ways by different people right across
the world. The research of Bronwyn into the definition of community
reflects this; there are some common elements such as common ties,
social interaction and place. Yet, again those terms in themselves
are broad and I think would be found in a huge diversity of
‘groups’ (used as an all-inclusive term) on the internet, whether they
be a book club, computer game community, an association of medical
specialists, and so on.

As humans we love to categorize and it is useful, it aids in
communication. The reality of course is that all ‘groups’ (I use this
term to refer to all groups whether communities, networks, groups,
CoPs, etc.) of people online fall along a spectrum, and these
categorising terms overlap. For example, looking at Stephen Downes’
video there will likely exist ‘groups’ that posses elements from both
columns: groups and networks, and so which term should be used, and
does it really matter?

Another issue is the dynamic nature of most ‘groups’, the key elements
may vary considerably during the lifespan of the ‘group’, so they may
not belong to one category, but rather move between them.

I think that discussing the question is valuable in that it has us all
thinking about the topic. We might work towards a bit more of a shared
understanding in this course and then continue the discussion with our
personal networks, and so on. Also, an online ‘group’ should naturally
use terms (group, network, community, association) that they perceive
best describe themselves.

However, will global ambiguity and diversity of understanding and uses
of the words mean a clear commonly agreed definition will never be
achieved?
Should we accept this and simply accept that it will be a generic term
used to describe a whole swathe of groups, networks, communities, etc?


However, considering the thoughts above (international ambiguity and
natural overlap), is their much point in worrying too much about
nomenclature?

For learning communities themselves (and also for us as well I think),
delineating the key elements of community is where the value lies. A
central question/focus for a community could be: “What elements of
community do we need to develop effectively in order to be ‘alive’ and
achieve our goals”. Though key factors for success can be identified
(trying to finish a report on this for a Masters course) there is also
great value in making it context specific where each community can
(1) identify what its purpose is, what limitations it has, what
the characteristics of its members are, and their needs, etc. and
then
(2) determine to what extent each of the elements (such as:
social capital, allignment with practice, action research, goal
orientation, shared identity, etc.) need to developed, and what needs
to be done socially, technologically and structurally to address these
factors.

In contrast to 'online communities', the term 'Community of Practice',
is easier to define, since, though the words are also widely used, the
two words are inextricably linked (well that is the way I perceive it
anyway, almost as if it were one word), and the term has a specific
origin with its subsequent use in the literature usually aligning with
that of Wenger. With more commonly accepted definition it becomes a
word that carries greater weight. Being part of a CoP can tell us more
than being part of an online community. Of course again, in practice
the term is used widely and in many cases I would imagine the
communities do not uphold the tenents of CoPs at all. But there
appears to more 'substance' than 'fluff'.

To finish: Shakespeare

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"

(Meaning: "What matters is what something is, not what it is called."
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/305250.html)

I partly agree and disagree with this:
YES: It is what the CoP or online community is, and what it is doing
that matters, where the rubber hits the road, what defines it. Tagging
a group with a name such as online community is handy and gives a
rough idea of what it is, and real understanding and benefit comes
from looking at what it is and does.

DISAGREE: we are human and pigeonhole, names need to mean something
since we they influence the way we view things (pejorative terms, such
as: poof, lurker, geek, nerd, redneck are prime examples); names, and
commonly agreed upon definitions, are important since they clarify
communication, reduce misunderstanding and could enhance shared
identity.

Cheers,

Marcel Bruyn
http://eruminating.blogspot.com/

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Hi Bee,

Thank you for sharing what I think is the most important aspect of online facilitation and that is ongoing interaction among students. Faciliation means making things easy for the learner. Learners need to feel welcome and appreciated. I think it is my job as the facilitator to empower and encourage communication among the participants. I believe this is important in both face-to-face and online classes.  I would love to learn how other teachers are developing communication among their students.

 

Nellie

http://nelliemuller.blogspot.com

[Illya Arnet-Clark]

Oh, I feel like there is some serious meat on the stick to chew on now. Bee, (it's lovely to see you here!) our experience in SMIELT is what got me interested in this course since I felt like I was missing some illusive skill in the session. Now, finally, the questions are beginning to crystalize.

Leigh, on my blog you questioned whether this was a community or not. Okay, this is first and foremost a course. I'm not sure if or when I'd call it a community. But I don't know if that is relevant. However, there are perhaps better questions and
I feel a flow of them (don't know if they really are better) coming on: Now I ask, are you a facilitator not not? (I assume you are) What is the difference between faciliating a course versus facilitating a community?

How large is the difference between a business and an educational community?  From what Alex writes, there appears to me to be a huge one. I, however, am only acquiainted with the educational side.
Is this the same way with courses? Do the participants from the various occupational backgrounds have a major inpact on the way the course or community functions? Are they so different, perhaps even more so than being from different geographic areas?

And what is the difference between a moderator and a facilitator in this on-line context?

This still feels like the beginnings, so I'm glad we have more weeks ahead!

Illya
http://illyasoet.wordpress.com

[Leigh Blackall]

Quite a question Illya, is there a difference between facilitating a course versus facilitating a community? What might others say? Are there differences in the experiences and expectations people have in a course than they have in a community generally? And what are the differences between facilitating, moderating, [and teaching] if I can extend the question into next week's challenge? It was a sometimes heated discussion last course when we talked about the differences between facilitation and teaching in particular. My blog post listed in the week's readings was a product of that debate. I wonder if we can find better readings than the ones we have listed on the wiki though? If not, perhaps we'll write them! :)

I hope we can push through these next two weeks of semantic wrangle and in the process uncover more excellent resources such as Bee has recently offered, along with Bronwyn's research and links from many others. The resources listed on the wiki should give us a bit of a start... and don't forget the meetings (details on the wiki also).

[Greg Barcelon]

Indeed a most interesting discussion.

 

In my

blogI have entered my most recent post that refers to “couldn’t the biggest contribution of a Facilitator in a community be that of hospitality? In a community, there will be many participants coming from very diverse backgrounds. Some would be more active and outspoken while others will be monitoring and silent; some would be more experienced and advanced in years while others will be relatively inexperienced and young; some would be extremely articulate and academic (to the point of enjoying heated debates) while others would be inarticulate and pragmatic, etc. The role of the Facilitator could be that of providing the atmosphere where members can optimally interact with one another (i.e., with as many members) and subsequently benefit according to their own needs.” ... [more]

 

Greg B.

The Sanctuary

[alexanderhayes]

Hi Amy,

I'm over the ego-hurt bit and moving on with other business ( of
learning :)

When I was speaking rather less than eloquently about connectivism I
was referring to George Siemens with tongue-in-cheek because it seems
that the lastest ism is his - http://connectivism.ca

I've got a lot of time for George and his ideas which have being
really maturing and becoming integral to some forms of thinking.

The term 'community' in a digital context has always intrigued me. So
much is made of difference simply because the human-computing
mediation offers new language lines and media digestion sources. The
more I read of digital taxonomys and natives/immigrants in online
community the more I'm inclined to say that there are little if any
differences in the depth of relationships and the rapidity of cultural
practices.

The term that I came across today that intrigued me was 'practice
firms' where educational renderings of the business faculty are
simulated in a vocational training setting.

For some reason it seemed to have some semblance to that of
'communities of practice'.

Surely it was a fopar generative of a linguists PHD ?

> ...
>
> read more »

[alexanderhayes]

Yes....it's not everyones taste in tunes and I've received enough
emails this morning to suggest that the uncouthness of the post was
upsetting and offputting for some.

As was the same conversation we were having a while back on the same
affiliated topic back in TALO - http://tinyurl.com/5whfnq

Funny things is that 50% of those that said they were upset with my
contribution dont appear to contribute to this great body of
connections re: the challenge of facilitating online communities.

What I say Leigh is good luck at trying to facilitate an online
community.

Facilitation engenders for me some notion that there is a need or
desire rather ( the feelly bit ) to be managed. Managing and
facilitation are often seen as seperate roles and yet what of the
undercurrent politic that manipulates both roles according to the
norms of the groups that form from it's natural lack of cohesion ?

A good facilitator according to Nancy White is a person who
understands that their humour, intent and contribution may and often
is taken entirely out of context by those even with the most well
wishing nature.

I've experienced a range of emotions from others who have argued from
the very begining about what a community constitutes, how
geographical, gender and cultural differences filter expectations and
more importantly how quickly the 'community' by way of description
factions itself according to it's desire or ability to act
inclusively.

Sure I play with words.

Thats what they are there/their/they're for.

On Aug 15, 7:01 am, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex, that was quite a write! I truly hope others spend the time to decode
> what you are saying there. It is of course opinion, but one that rings true
> of my experiences to date, and another Alex-ism attempt to prod the
> discussion in darker, more dangerous directions. For those who speak (read)
> English as a second language, Alex's writing is difficult to decode even for
> the native speaker, but well worth a study. I am sure, when we are old and
> not so famous, Alex will publish his own handmade book or pros and poetic
> ramblings, and distribute it to friends in his 'community'. I look forward
> to my copy.
>
> Yes, if there is anyone out there feeling the need to buck the norm - please
> do:
>

> *I think what Leigh was getting at is that we need to really rise up to
> the challenge and get past these niceties in these threads.*

>
> A hint at some response to the idea of facilitating online and offline.. do
> they actually feel the same?:
>

> *Of course SL and RL are one and the same ! Did you think that we'd
> created a division between the two realities ?*
>
> and
> *

> Facilitating an online community is more than a proficient use of a

> web presenter platform with others.*

>
> Is community just a buzz word when considering the contexts in which we most
> commonly use it these days? Corporates, bureaucratic, committee dominated,
> disingenuous, marketing...:
>

> *Get beyond fan clubbing the idea that 'community' is anything more

> than a term derivative in an online context is short selling the
> billion headed snake that emereged from the head of the hippy I once
> used to know who has now become a bastard beauracrat.
>

> *and *

>
> COPs always struck me as pigs. Itchy, farty smelly things that
> dissolved when the funding round suited and when the notions of
> pedagogy had been mistakingly used where andragogy would have

> sufficed.*

>
> I hope that helps decode some of what Alex says - especially for those
> speaking English as a second language. I can only imagine how bewildering
> and perhaps off topic Alex might seem, but quite the contrary - he is right
> on topic, just singing a different tune.
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:42 AM, alexanderhayes <
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[alexanderhayes]

Excellent - I would recommend this post.

Bee and I go back a bit for those wondering whether for some reason
we'd crossed swords in a flat field filled with 'f's and other
letters.

It's true bee - the phatic of Edupunk was buried before it started
although I have one thing to point you to which is really quite
astounding and this paralells with what Leigh was suggesting about
taste and understanding. When I claimed the domain at http://www.edupunk.com.au
I wa suprised to learn that James Farmer from Edublogs had claimed
edupunk.com and never intended to do anything with it....unless of
course it caught on and he could monetise it.

Good luck I say....business is educational business. Someone has to
sell books.

However.....bear with me........check out the Flickr pics in the
sidebar of the blog.

I ask you , have we tapped into a different psyche when we see real
people getting real tattoos on the finger, toes and other bits that
are exploring the aesthetics of script and other edupunkian DIY type
creative endeavours ?

Or should we just ignore that community too ?

Does it need facilitated ?

:)

[alexanderhayes]

>How large is the difference between a business and an educational
community? From what Alex writes, there appears to me to be a huge
one. I,
however, am only acquiainted with the educational side. <

Hi Illya,

Well in my estimations anything that constitutes rounding up anyone
for educational purpose harks back to what Chrisnamurti was trying to
assert in 1800 and something-or-other......factoryism's and human re-
purposing.

Inflamatory I know but think of it this way. If as a Facilitator you
werent ( not ) paid, rewarded with something to trade for food and
water, a bed and a shed, you'd pretty quickly fall off the perch. A
business on the other hand is something that is a verb in essence and
an entity to others.

A school is a business no matter which way you look at it.
Transactions are occuring all day long. Knowledge is being traded and
the semantics and feel goods of defining education in wholisms still
acknowledges transaction...enrolment, fees, uniforms, forums,
homework, parent teacher nights etc....

Oh but...yes.....we are not teachers....we are educators.....part of
the collective hive-minded online avatarian community ....nodal in
form....amorphis in structure......illusionary and unreal.

We are by essence I assert a part of both business and
education.....in fact as I'm saying one and the same.

As an ebusiness consultant I find little to seperate either vocation
and yet here I type, unpaid, solitary, machine minded tapping ciphers
and signs into my own history.

Search for ' alexanderhayes' as one word in Google.

What do you find ? is it me ?

Or is the community I'm building , facilitating, managing, creating,
re-positing ?

Probably a bit of both :)

On Aug 15, 8:00 pm, "Illya Arnet-Clark" <illya.ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, I feel like there is some serious meat on the stick to chew on now. Bee,
> (it's lovely to see you here!) our experience in SMIELT is what got me
> interested in this course since I felt like I was missing some illusive
> skill in the session. Now, finally, the questions are beginning to
> crystalize.
>
> Leigh, on my blog you questioned whether this was a community or not. Okay,
> this is first and foremost a course. I'm not sure if or when I'd call it a
> community. But I don't know if that is relevant. However, there are perhaps
> better questions and
> I feel a flow of them (don't know if they really are better) coming on: Now
> I ask, are you a facilitator not not? (I assume you are) What is the
> difference between faciliating a course versus facilitating a community?
>
> How large is the difference between a business and an educational
> community? From what Alex writes, there appears to me to be a huge one. I,
> however, am only acquiainted with the educational side.
> Is this the same way with courses? Do the participants from the various
> occupational backgrounds have a major inpact on the way the course or
> community functions? Are they so different, perhaps even more so than being
> from different geographic areas?
>
> And what is the difference between a moderator and a facilitator in this
> on-line context?
>
> This still feels like the beginnings, so I'm glad we have more weeks ahead!
>

> Illyahttp://illyasoet.wordpress.com

>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:08 AM, NELLIE DEUTSCH <
>

> nellie.muller.deut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Bee,
> > Thank you for sharing what I think is the most important aspect of online
> > facilitation and that is ongoing interaction among students. Faciliation
> > means making things easy for the learner. Learners need to feel welcome and
> > appreciated. I think it is my job as the facilitator to empower and
> > encourage communication among the participants. I believe this is important
> > in both face-to-face and online classes. I would love to learn how other
> > teachers are developing communication among their students.
>
> > Nellie
> >http://nelliemuller.blogspot.com
>

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Alex,

I love this discussion and found the topic on TALO aligns with my reflections on online facilitation, networking, online and offline communities and CoP. I think I finally understand why my posts are being ignored:

"Networks divide people, first from themselves, and then from each

other, on the grounds that this is the efficient way to perform a

task. It may well be, but it is a lousy way to feel good about being

alive."

Here are a few words from a blog post called Coming to Our Senses: "I have been reflecting on mindfulness and how technology and social networking can alienate us from ourselves in my blog for FOC08.  Isn't it time we came to our senses to make sure technology facilitates our lives instead of draining us and keeping us from our true selves as Kabat-Zinn suggests in his book? Kabat-Zinn's sense of humour hits home as he keeps reminding us that we should also consider checking in on ourselves from time to time just to make sure we are still there".

 

In addition, if you have the time, please listen to Michael Wesch (on my blog) and how he engages 200 students.

 

Although I know some are reading my blog entries, no one from the course is relating to the content. I don't want to make the mistake of "mind reading", so I'm going to ask: Why is the facilitator and others not relating to the content of my posts in the google discussions and in my blog? Can we be honest or do we need to sugar coat our thoughts? I prefer honest responses that relate to the content and not the person writing it. You may not like me for what I am saying, but can you please try to separate your thoughts about me and relate to the content. I would love to hear from you and learn about your experiences.

 

Thank you.

Nellie Deutsch

http://nelliemuller.blogspot.com/

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Great ideas, Greg. Facilitators should perhaps strive if it doesn't come naturally, but "The role of the Facilitator could be that of providing the atmosphere where members can optimally interact with one another (i.e., with as many members) and subsequently benefit according to their own needs." ...

 

Interestingly, you were adding your comments to my blog just as I was asking why participants were not responding to the content of my blog.

 

I have added my thoughts to your blog.

 

Thank you for sharing.

 

Nellie

http://nelliemuller.blogspot.com/

[olubodun olufemi]

Hi Nellie, How could facilitator provide the enabling environment/atmosphere for good interaction? Please how could you add comments to someone blog from here? Olufemi. Olubodun Olufemi J. [ CDT; RDT (Nig) M.Ed; Pg Dip. Ed; Pg Dip. E-Teaching & E-course Dev. (UNU/GVU)] University of Lagos, College of Medicine, School of Dental Sciences, P.M.B. 12003, Lagos Nigeria. Mobile:+2348066389422 Office: 23401-4802011 http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/myprofile/curriculum/24747_cv.doc eFacilitator Dodo Village www.nabuur.com --- On Fri, 8/15/08, NELLIE DEUTSCH <nellie.mul...@gmail.com> wrote:

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Hi Olufemi,

The only way to read and add comments to blogs is to go to the WE page for a list of participants' blogs at http://www.wikieducator.org/Facilitating_online_communities/FOC08

Thank you for sharing.

Nellie

http://nelliemuller.blogspot.com/

[vcautin]

Hi all!

What I've taken from this thread:

Some days ago I was crafting a list of characteristics I think must be part of a community, and I didn't know whether  to include "freedom of speech" or not.  I know think it must be included because that's something we cannot take for granted. 
With this I mean that in a community (the way I understand what that is) people should be allowed to express their concerns, their doubts, their true feelings, have arguments, etc etc, without fearing that they might lose something (friendships, jobs, their lives, etc.)

Here in Chile, the smallest political-geographical unit is called a "comuna." Even though I live in a "comuna" I do not feel that I belong to a community.  For me a community is where everyone knows each other and cares about each other.  Where people express freely,  share (material things as well as intangible things like knowledge)  and support each other.
For me that has been difficult to find outside my family and one or two friends. 
I think that's the reason that draw me to the online world.  I was interested in teaching using technology, and I found many people with the same interest online. 
At first I was drawn because  I wanted to talk about technology, but then I found people wanting to talk about other topics I was interested, specially education and free education, free software, etc. etc.
I do feel part of an online community, but not because I signed up for a group or a ning or  whatever site.  I feel part of an online community because I found people online willing to help me and listen to me as I am willing to do that for them. 

Violeta

2008/8/15 alexanderhayes <alexander...@gmail.com>

[Sarah Stewart]

Violeta,  You have absolutely hit the nail on the head for me, about what community is. I have signed up to heaps of Ning 'things' but have quickly lost interest because there is minimal interaction.  That's what always worries me when people say they are going to set up a community or COP. To my mind an online community is not the technilogy but rather how people are with each other.

cheers Sarah

 

I do feel part of an online community, but not because I signed up for a group or a ning or  whatever site.  I feel part of an online community because I found people online willing to help me and listen to me as I am willing to do that for them. 

Violeta

--
Sarah Stewart
http://sarah-stewart.blogspot.com
Skype: sarah.m.stewart
Twitter: SarahStewart

[Illya Arnet-Clark]

Hi Nellie
I am silently reading you. But you are so far ahead of me at the that I need time to process what you are saying. I guess it's the experience of the lurker. The need to read/listen, process and understand before feeling that any kind of appropriate response can be given.

In explaining to my husband what the course is about and the task for weeks 2 and 3, I realize that I am at the beginning of a long path, still at the definition stage. I'm struggling to go beyond this stage and contribute at a deeper level, as I see you doing.

Illya
http://illyasoet.wordpress.com

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Viola said: With this I mean that in a community (the way I understand what that is) people should be allowed to express their concerns, their doubts, their true feelings, have arguments, etc etc, without fearing that they might lose something (friendships, jobs, their lives, etc.)
Viola,

I totally agree with your defintion of what I consider to be an ideal community. I would grladly join a community that had ground rules to encourage effective communication among the members. I have some wonderful friends with whom I am able to express my true feelings freely, but we do not necessarily share the same communities. I belong to many communities, but none fit what I consider to be the ideal community.

 

Thank you.

Nellie

[Illya Arnet-Clark]

Alex,
I guess I'm one of the naive ones out there who haven't had the opportunity to find food for the stomach online. Though I certainly wouldn't object to the opportunity.

I did, in fact google you. Now I'm wondering what this has to do with facilitating. In a class the participants only know a small part of me. I'm sure that if I knew you well, I would recognize your 'presence' in the places I find you, and as a faciliator you are certain to leave a mark as sure as a teacher in a classroom does, or a manager in a firm.

Have I missed the point here?

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Sarah,

I feel the same way. I wish some of the ning and wiki groups I created/and or joined could become what I consider the ideal community. I would be willing to help in any way I can to make that happen. I think the first step would be to find people interested in developing empowering relationships and in interacting with each other in a respectful manner. The rest should be easy once people decide to make the community work.  

 

Warm wishes,

Nellie

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Thank you, Illya. I could relate to all of your thoughts for weeks 2 and 3. I respect others' need to be silent. However, I think there is so much more can be gained by speaking up and adding comments or asking for clarifications on someone's blog. I think it's worth a try.

 

Warm wishes,

Nellie

[vcautin]

Hi Nellie,

I was about to respond to your posts saying that I'm truly behind in my reading and that I'm taking my time to respond to everything I read.

Well I do think that a freedom to express what you're thinking should be a feature of a community. 
Because, how are they going to learn/grow/be nurtured if they are afraid of asking or expressing what they think? 
Or... maybe you're right.  That's what I wish existed... :S
I'm confused again. -.-

2008/8/15 NELLIE DEUTSCH <nellie.mul...@gmail.com>

--
Violeta Cautin
Iquique, Chile

http://fco08violeta.blogspot.com

http://profesoresinnovadores.ning.com
Facebook: Violeta Cautin Epifani

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Hi Violeta,

Thank you for your response. Perhaps there are many definitions for the word community.

 

Nellie

[vcautin]

Well, in the end I guess that's what happens, people group in their communities, where they feel secure and speak the jargon.  At my pace, I'm distancing more and more to the more scientific and learned people in this course, I guess.   :/

2008/8/15 vcautin <violeta...@gmail.com>

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Hi Violeta,

Groups within a community and/or online and traditional classrooms seem to be forming at this stage. I guess that is natural. I'm glad you found your group. However, as a facilitator, I would like to see a great deal of interactions and communication among the participants. 

 
Thank you for sharing.

Nellie

[vcautin]

My group in this course?   I don't think to belong to any group.
What I meant is that I feel I'm getting behind and that there is something that I'm missing here, that I suppose more learned people understand. 
When I thought I was clear with what to me was a community, (which is basically a family), you told me that I was referring to  an ideal community which had a lot of sense since I think that I haven't found a community outside my family and friends.
I then said that that was the reason why I decided to go online, and then I found that some/certain people were really helpful and patient. I felt I could  ask anything, and I didn't feel stupid asking questions.  But I found that not in a group, I found that mailing people to their personal emails and asking questions, and for me that was my community, but then I realized that I do not speak about everything with them.  I do not speak about politics or religion, just about teaching and technology.

Violeta (like the flower)

2008/8/15 NELLIE DEUTSCH <nellie.mul...@gmail.com>

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Violeta (like the flower),

Sorry for the confusion. Your definition is perfect. I just said that for me it would be the ideal
community. I would love to be a member of such a community. I did not mean to say that you were referring to an ideal community. I was using the word "ideal" to mean perfect for  me.

 

Thank you for allowing me to clarify what I meant. I hope I succeeded in clarifying my position.

 

Nellie

 

BTW Sorry for the typo on your name. My send buttom went off before I had a chance to check the spelling.

[Jeffrey Keefer]

Sarah, you said something that makes me pause to consider it in a new light. You said “.  That's what always worries me when people say they are going to set up a community or COP.” I have not really thought about setting up a community of practice in this way before.

 

I wonder if communities can be set up intentionally, or if they simply begin due to situation, need, and people?

 

-----
Jeffrey Keefer
jef...@silenceandvoice.com

 

Blog: http://silenceandvoice.com

Website: http://www.jeffreykeefer.com

 

 

 

From: facilitating-on...@googlegroups.com [mailto:facilitating-on...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sarah Stewart
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 4:02 PM
To: facilitating-on...@googlegroups.com
Subject: ::{{FOC}}:: Re: Online community and community of practice

 

Violeta,  You have absolutely hit the nail on the head for me, about what community is. I have signed up to heaps of Ning 'things' but have quickly lost interest because there is minimal interaction.  That's what always worries me when people say they are going to set up a community or COP. To my mind an online community is not the technilogy but rather how people are with each other.

[Jeffrey Keefer]

Violeta, this is so nicely stated.

 

I think that is what draws me to online communities and discussions as well. I am catching up with these posts sitting with my laptop in my reading chair. I am doing it on my time, in my way, and within my lifestyle. Within all this, I can enter and participate in a manner I could never do face-to-face, where established times and locations often inhibit traditional communities due to the hectic manner of contemporary life and work and teaching and consulting and taking personal time.

 

I wonder if online communities will ever cease to be considered “online,” as there may not be many other options to meet people of similar interest in an immediate vicinity. Perhaps the term “community” may eventually imply the “online” within itself?

 

 

-----
Jeffrey Keefer
jef...@silenceandvoice.com

 

Blog: http://silenceandvoice.com

Website: http://www.jeffreykeefer.com

 

 

 

From: facilitating-on...@googlegroups.com [mailto:facilitating-on...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of vcautin
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 3:52 PM
To: facilitating-on...@googlegroups.com
Subject: ::{{FOC}}:: Re: Online community and community of practice

 

Hi all!

[Sarah Stewart]

Hi Jeffrey

I have always thought COPs cannot be set up deliberately, but rather they form naturally. However, Wenger (in the last workshop I attended) said they could be but..they will only be successful if the people in them interact etc.

I start to bristle when people say they are going to set up a COP as if it is magically going to happen without any thought about a COP is. It seems to me that COP is the in-terminology, but there is actually little understanding about what it is and how it works. A website with various functions like bulletin board is not a COP unless people engage in it with a mutual aim, desire to learn, etc

Sarah

[alexanderhayes]

Later this morning when I get Open Office up and running on my new PC
I'll thoroughly interrogate your blog.

After I've signed the marraige celebrant certification.

You ask;

"....Why is the facilitator and others not relating to the

content of my posts in the google discussions and in my blog? Can we
be

honest or do we need to sugar coat our thoughts?...."

More often that not the sugar coated anything contains an equally
pungent soft centre.

As Leigh asserted earlier it's my opinion I'm speaking from ....so
here's another opinion piece.

A good facilitator of any gathering / community etc. is able to share
the role equally without fear of losing the flow and core impetus of
coming together. Any psychopath can try and de-rail usefull
communication but finally gets consumed by their own ego and stands
mute and silent before the mass.

I'm always amused by the plethora of folk who feel that because they
can skip through an RSS reader's string of headlines that they've
connected with core ideas of the river of information as a valued
prefernce for slowly and individually musing amongst a chosen few.

I read and commented on two peoples blogs last night. Thats all I can
do with any real sense of understanding. You have also asked;


"....can you please try to separate your thoughts about me and relate
to the content."

Seperation would materialise for me like driving car with one foot on
the accelerator and one on the brake equally. The faster I go the the
harder it is to breath.

Each function works as a whole. We all have connectedness as the core
premise for contribution.




On Aug 16, 12:18 am, "NELLIE DEUTSCH"

<nellie.muller.deut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex,
> I love this discussion and found the topic on TALO aligns with my
> reflections on online facilitation, networking, online and offline
> communities and CoP. I think I finally understand why my posts are
> being ignored:
>
> "Networks divide people, first from themselves, and then from each
> other, on the grounds that this is the efficient way to perform a
> task. It may well be, but it is a lousy way to feel good about being
> alive."
>
>  Here are a few words from a blog post called Coming to Our

> Senses<http://nelliemuller.blogspot.com/2008/08/coming-to-our-senses.html>:

> "I have been reflecting on mindfulness and how technology and social
> networking can alienate us from ourselves in my blog for FOC08.  Isn't it
> time we came to our senses to make sure technology facilitates our lives
> instead of draining us and keeping us from our true selves as Kabat-Zinn
> suggests in his book? Kabat-Zinn's sense of humour hits home as he keeps
> reminding us that we should also consider checking in on ourselves from time
> to time just to make sure we are still there".
>
> In addition, if you have the time, please listen to Michael Wesch (on my
> blog) and how he engages 200 students.
>
> Although I know some are reading my blog entries, no one from the course is
> relating to the content. I don't want to make the mistake of "mind reading",
> so I'm going to ask: Why is the facilitator and others not relating to the
> content of my posts in the google discussions and in my blog? Can we be
> honest or do we need to sugar coat our thoughts? I prefer honest responses
> that relate to the content and not the person writing it. You may not like
> me for what I am saying, but can you please try to separate your thoughts
> about me and relate to the content. I would love to hear from you and learn
> about your experiences.
>
> Thank you.

> Nellie Deutschhttp://nelliemuller.blogspot.com/

>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 5:29 AM, alexanderhayes <
>
>
>
> alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes....it's not everyones taste in tunes and I've received enough
> > emails this morning to suggest that the uncouthness of the post was
> > upsetting and offputting for some.
>
> > As was the same conversation we were having a while back on the same

> > affiliated topic back in TALO -http://tinyurl.com/5whfnq

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[alexanderhayes]

Hi Illya,

You'll find more about me online at http://soso.com although the
intent of me saying so is not to big-note rather demostrate individual
web identity as premise to our connectedness as a 'community'.....
both asynchronous and synchronous.

An online community is also for me a constitution ( recognition of the
fact we are engaged in a globally connected open conversation ) that
honours the connection spaces between conversations where no
disernable author is attributed , rather the collective becomes known
as the conversation head. Where chaos reigns, where someone who wants
to write the book can do so, the group that wants to argue about order
can do so, the tech-talk and access noise allowed to filtrate through
the topic threads......openly, not seggregated by fear filters such as
Facebook.

Is Mark from Facebook claiming he has created a community ?
Nope.....just a cash cow.....does he care if anyone thinks it's a
colosall waste of space....ah....no.....is he intersted in permeating
educational filters for commercial intent...bingo ! thats what began
the idea. Reading between the lines seems to me to be that
facilitating anything the Facebook community slows the process down,
mediates widgets, forms groups, hybridises contribution .....creates
sugar coatedness and foul self-centerdness.

In essence what I'm getting at is that the ability to openly author,
to encourage others to find their place doing so and the ability to
connect the threads is the most powerful part of the equation ...not
restricted to that role of facilitator nor educator....who needs one ?

An application is not a community, nor is a competent user of an
application a Facilitator.

Mark making is a creative endeavour. Leaving a mark is an individual
thing. Each mark makes the community.

:)

> > Probably a bit of both :)- Hide quoted text -

[Andrew Chambers]

I've been out of this discussion for quite a while, too much work,
stress and an inability to see its relevence.

In response to you Sarah, I'd say it comes back to basic questions we
are failing to ask. i.e. what is the context for the community and
secondly what are the outcomes you are seeking as facilitator for
yourself and those involved(Whether they are students learning,
participants, co-workers etc).

One reason I have found a lot of this "course" seemingly irrelevent is
that the course is focusing on facilitating online communication but
the contexts in which this occurs are not being stated and thus we
have unclear discussion. My context is higher ed. 50 students in 1
course. Mostly face to face learning but with some online component/
interaction through an LMS/VLE. While we have "community" for 12
weeks, seriously we don't have community beyond that and what
community exists at the time the course runs is only superficial
community. My students are there to learn, not to gain a sense of
community. Community helps but is not critical in this context. People
learn through discourse yes, but utimately they learn "in their heads"
when they connect the dots internally and squirrel away the knowledge
into their long term store. i.e. memory.

I faclitate learning and according to student feedback am very good at
it. How do I facilitate this? It all comes down to personal factors. A
lot of these are going unstated so far in this course. To be honest
though, I don't know what these factors are. I am still puzzling over
them.

Community can exist beyond the individual course however and we do see
this in various forms at the program (of study) level. All students
learning medicine, education, whatever go through the various years
together for example. They form friendships and community. Hmmm... I
wonder if friendship is the spark of community??? I suspect it is.

Enough from me for now. Over to others to discuss this further.

Regards

Andrew (doing some belated catch up)

> > begin due to situation, need, and people?- Hide quoted text -

[alexanderhayes]

Hi Andrew,

In some ways I commiserate with you however as I raised in the thread
a little way back it's not just a bunch of sugar-coated responses and
the predicatble who, what, why, where, when rhetoric that teachers
durge up when they first interact ( didnt we have some awful
educational psychology traing hey ! ?).

The idea I believe is that I'm following Leigh's lead. The wiki serves
as an edu-tourism link through to his organisation so he gets some
kudos for bringing attention to Otago Polytechnic. Likewise attentio
to what Wikieducator is and also what Google groups are.

The difference here is that what you say is open. Trapped in history.
Scrutinised. Digested.

Open web publishing and the tools selected to ENABLE community are
whats on show here but more importantly a vast body of links and
connections grown beyond the boring old distinctions of who's upper-ed
and who's a Criminal Justice tutor.

Give it a go bloke.

Students are there to gain skills in navigating community......right
from the first instruction of dont cross the road without looking in
pre-school.

Think of it this way;

“…When one travels around the world, one notices to what an
extrordinary degree human nature is the same, whether in India or
America, in Europe or Australia. This is especially true in colleges
and universities. We are turning out as if through a mould, a type of
human being whose interest is to find security, to become somebody
important, or to have a good time with as little thought as possible……
conventional education makes independent thinking extremely difficult.
”

Chrisnamurti Snr.

1895 - ‘ Education and the Significance of Life

[Andrew Chambers]

Actually I must admit to something. I should have included it in my
earlier post. Next time the course runs I am hoping to include a 5
week role-play. This will be based on a real life situation the
students will find themselves in in a year or 2 following completion
of their study.
This will be held completely online. Students will assume roles,
triggering events will occur and be acted on. Students will work
together in a virtual community doing seemingly real tasks that will
lead to real assessable outcomes and outcomes that they will be able
to relate to real life. Role-playing which is a form of experiential
learning definately involves community, in fact if community doesn't
form the role-play is likely to fail.

BTW that course is also about use of educational technology...

Some students are likely to be involved in tasks that will get them to
look closely at the various social web 2 technologies. It is also very
likely that they will continue to use and adopt web 2 technologies in
order to communicate within their groups. They were huge facebook
users for example.

However this time I wont attempt to force the technologies into the
learning situations. I want to avoid the "creepy treehouse" effect
which did happen the last time the course was run (See
http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2008/04/09/defining-creepy-tree-house/
amongst other descriptions).

I hope this clarifies things a bit. I do think these new communicative
tools definately have a place, it just needs to be the right place,
the right time, the right context, the right application...

Andrew


On Aug 16, 9:20 pm, alexanderhayes <alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[alexanderhayes]

> Students will assume roles,
triggering events will occur and be acted on. Students will work
together in a virtual community doing seemingly real tasks that will
lead to real assessable outcomes and outcomes that they will be able
to relate to real life.<

Hi Andrew,

How many of your students have a Facebook account ? Credit
card....cell phone....passport.....bank account.....

They are already part of a virtual community. They are walkin-talkin
cyborgs to someone that popped if from outer space 30 years ago.

Glance over this body of communication I'm trying to find a name for -
http://mobilizethis.wikispaces.com

Perhaps all you'd need to to is find a way to join THEIR communities
and tick the boxes that say they can pass go and collect their degrees
now.

:)

On Aug 16, 10:08 pm, Andrew Chambers <a.chamb...@unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> Actually I must admit to something. I should have included it in my
> earlier post. Next time the course runs I am hoping to include a 5
> week role-play. This will be based on a real life situation the
> students will find themselves in in a year or 2 following completion
> of their study.
> This will be held completely online. Students will assume roles,
> triggering events will occur and be acted on. Students will work
> together in a virtual community doing seemingly real tasks that will
> lead to real assessable outcomes and outcomes that they will be able
> to relate to real life. Role-playing which is a form of experiential
> learning definately involves community, in fact if community doesn't
> form the role-play is likely to fail.
>
> BTW that course is also about use of educational technology...
>
> Some students are likely to be involved in tasks that will get them to
> look closely at the various social web 2 technologies. It is also very
> likely that they will continue to use and adopt web 2 technologies in
> order to communicate within their groups. They were huge facebook
> users for example.
>
> However this time I wont attempt to force the technologies into the
> learning situations. I want to avoid the "creepy treehouse" effect

> which did happen the last time the course was run (Seehttp://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2008/04/09/defining-creepy-tree...

[alexanderhayes]

" My group in this course? I don't think to belong to any group."

Sounds remarkable like someone else I spent time with a while back.

http://flickr.com/photos/leighblackall/251036044/

The ensuing conversations that erupt over what constitutes group,
network or individual through even the most learned and scholastic
community memeber into a headspin.

Factions and fractions.

Only one letter can make all the difference.

On Aug 16, 8:09 am, vcautin <violeta.cau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My group in this course?   I don't think to belong to any group.
> What I meant is that I feel I'm getting behind and that there is something
> that I'm missing here, that I suppose more learned people understand.
> When I thought I was clear with what to me was a community, (which is

> basically a family), you told me that I was referring to  an *ideal
> community *which had a lot of sense since I think that I haven't found a

> community outside my family and friends.
> I then said that that was the reason why I decided to go online, and then I
> found that some/certain people were really helpful and patient. I felt I
> could  ask anything, and I didn't feel stupid asking questions.  But I found
> that not in a group, I found that mailing people to their personal emails
> and asking questions, and for me that was my community, but then I realized
> that I do not speak about everything with them.  I do not speak about
> politics or religion, just about teaching and technology.
>
> Violeta (like the flower)
>

> 2008/8/15 NELLIE DEUTSCH <nellie.muller.deut...@gmail.com>

>
>
>
> > Hi Violeta,
> > Groups within a community and/or online and traditional classrooms seem to
> > be forming at this stage. I guess that is natural. I'm glad you found your
> > group. However, as a facilitator, I would like to see a great deal of
> > interactions and communication among the participants.
>
> > Thank you for sharing.
> > Nellie

> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:36 PM, vcautin <violeta.cau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, in the end I guess that's what happens, people group in their
> >> communities, where they feel secure and speak the jargon.  At my pace, I'm
> >> distancing more and more to the more scientific and learned people in this
> >> course, I guess.   :/
>

> >> 2008/8/15 vcautin <violeta.cau...@gmail.com>

>
> >>  Hi Nellie,
>
> >>> I was about to respond to your posts saying that I'm truly behind in my
> >>> reading and that I'm taking my time to respond to everything I read.
>
> >>> Well I do think that a freedom to express what you're thinking should be
> >>> a feature of a community.
> >>> Because, how are they going to learn/grow/be nurtured if they are afraid
> >>> of asking or expressing what they think?
> >>> Or... maybe you're right.  That's what I wish existed... :S
> >>> I'm confused again. -.-
>

> >>> 2008/8/15 NELLIE DEUTSCH <nellie.muller.deut...@gmail.com>

>
> >>>  Viola said: With this I mean that in a community (the way I understand
> >>>> what that is) people should be allowed to express their concerns, their
> >>>> doubts, their true feelings, have arguments, etc etc, without fearing that
> >>>> they might lose something (friendships, jobs, their lives, etc.)
> >>>> Viola,

> >>>> I totally agree with your defintion of what I consider to be an *ideal
> >>>> community*. I would grladly join a community that had ground rules to

> >>>> encourage effective communication among the members. I have some wonderful
> >>>> friends with whom I am able to express my true feelings freely, but we do
> >>>> not necessarily share the same communities. I belong to many communities,
> >>>> but none fit what I consider to be the ideal community.
>
> >>>> Thank you.
> >>>> Nellie

> >>>>> 2008/8/15 alexanderhayes <alexanderhayes1...@gmail.com>

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Andrew,

Thank you for sharing your ideas on FOC08.  I am researching blended learning in higher education and would like to know more about instructors needs. I would be interested in knowing what topics of discussions would be relevant and what your expectations were when you joined FOC08.

 

Thank you.

Nellie
FOC08 Blog: http://nelliemuller.blogspot.com/

 

[Marcel Bruyn]

Hi Andrew and Sarah and Alex,

Mainly responding to your posts here.

With regards to whether a community can be intentionally set up. My
experience and research suggest yes and no.

I see a general order of evolution:
1. A need/purpose arises that is commonly felt or recognised
2. One or two people perceive that this need/purpose is felt by
others. They may attract a few more around them. These are the ones
who 'set up' the community, they are it's initiators or founders. They/
he/she are passionate, energetic and enthusiastic. They hold a shared
vision and are 'evangelistic'.
3. Others that have the same need/purpose who are risk takers, the
'early starters' are attracted to what they perceive is a way to
address that need. Many, particularly if this is their first learning
community, will start off as legitimate peripheral participants (Lave
and Wenger), others (the more experienced, confident and with high
levels of inter-personal intelligence) will be collaboratively and
communicatively active from the start.
4. Participants take on leadership roles of moderating discussions,
running face-to-face events, etc. The facilitator may always be there
since there may be a continued need for administration, maintenance
and encouraging 'aliveness'. Once the community has a sense of shared
identity the facilitator is definitely more nurturer than architect.
Ultimately the CoP initiator should hope to become redundant.

Of course there will be many exceptions to this process, and many
contexts where this does not occur. In some cases there may be no
defined coordinator, but I think cases of democratically formed CoPs
with no definied leader would be rare, and usually composed of
experienced people anyway, some of whom will naturally fill the role
of facilitators though they may not be perceived as such.

In the Professional Learning Community I am involved in there was one
major person who coordinated its formation. We would not exist as a
community without this person, and we would fold at this stage without
this person, though maybe someone would come in and step into his
shoes. We are not yet self-sustaining. SO YES, I think in my
experience and the model suggested above, many communities will be
'set up'.

BUT, when I say that I am referring ONLY to the creation and
organisation of a 'set of conditions' that allow social connections/
social capital/trust/communication to form. The actual relationships
developed cannot be built by any facilitator. I agree Sarah, someone
bandying around that they are going to set up a CoP can be
presumptuous. They may create a base on which a CoP can grow, but they
cannot create or build one as such.

Maybe a CoP should be perceived to be more a VERB than a NOUN (a bit
like love). It is people, doing, relating, connecting, collaborating.
Without the doing there is no CoP.

I realise in the steps mentioned above Andrew, that this is different
to the higher ed. context. Context influences the style, demands and
role of facilitation.

You also wrote: "My students are there to learn, not to gain a sense

of community. Community helps but is not critical in this context."

I see that is the case for CoPs in general. They are a means to an
end.

I like what DuFour has to say on this:

"The goal is not simply learning a new system, but creating conditions
for perpetual learning. It is an environment in which innovation and
experimentation are not viewed as tasks to be accomplished or projects
to be completed; rather they become ways of conducting day-to-day
business - forever. In short, becoming a learning community is less
like getting in shape than staying in shape - not a fad diet but a
commitment to an essential, vital way of life."

DuFour, R. 2001. 1st Organizing Theme: Professional Learning
Communities. The Leadership Academy Developer (Winter 2000-2001).
http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=136

Alex, I get the impression from your words
--- "Perhaps all you'd need to to is find a way to join THEIR

communities and tick the boxes that say they can pass go and collect

their degrees now." ---
that you are taking a broader perspective: life is all about
connecting since we are social beings, so community and today online
community, irrespective of the context, is fundamental to being human
in the 21st Century and should be recognised as such, particularly in
educational settings.

Cheers,

Marcel

[Leigh Blackall]

Hello Andrew. You wrote:

In response to you Sarah, I'd say it comes back to basic questions we
are failing to ask. i.e. what is the context for the community and
secondly what are the outcomes you are seeking as facilitator for
yourself and those involved

I'm not sure I understand. Aren't we preparing to discuss the context for community? In fact, many have begun already. Remember all the tech talk that started off this forum, then punctuated by a push back thread discussing the appropriateness or not of talking about technical set ups. Soon we will begin looking closely at different contexts of online interaction from forums to virtual worlds. Isn't this and won't this be one of the basic question you say we are failing to ask? Or do you mean something different?

As for the second basic question of "what are the outcomes you are seeking as a facilitator..." again, hasn't this course so far offered a back drop for reflecting on this question? We have quite detailed objectives (with implied outcomes that remain to be seen) and so I would say that everyone - especially you now, is reflecting on the question you raise. Again, do I have the wrong end of the stick?

One reason I have found a lot of this "course" seemingly irrelevent is
that the course is focusing on facilitating online communication but
the contexts in which this occurs are not being stated and thus we
have unclear discussion.

I am sorry you already feel that this course is seeming irrelevant, (I'd be keen to hear your other reasons) but I am left simile perplexed... don't the weekly topics outlined in the course wiki set an agenda and focus for us to follow? I must admit, the initial questions are broad and hard to pin down, and the 3 weeks that we are so far into has been a bit like herding cats in trying and keep everyone on topic - but then, I see this email forum as precisely the space where the topic can wonder and flow and allow natural banter. Those in need of more focus, efficient time management, and deliberate action have been advised to focus on the to-do lists and resources on the course wiki, their RSS news readers and the course blog. This email forum was always going to be extra curricula - like the student cafe before and after the lectures (to use your higher ed context you use as a measure of relevance here).

I hope you can set me straight Andrew, the last thing I want is a number of people feeling like this course is not what it was presented as in the wiki, or that it is a below standard curriculum...

--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
SL - Leroy Goalpost
http://learnonline.wordpress.com

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Marcel,

DuFour's professional learning communities aim to improve schools so that schools become learning communities that cater to learners' and their needs. According to DuFour (2004), "To create a professional learning community, focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively, and hold yourself accountable for the results" (p. 1). However, from my understanding, DuFour's professional learning communities refer to K-12. Garrison and Vaughn (2008) refer to higher education. They define an educational community as "a group of individuals whose connection is that of academic purpose and interest who work collaboratively toward intended learning goals and outcomes" (p. 17). Garrison and Vaughn (2008) explain that although the social aspect may be important in creating "the climate that will support the learning process, it is the academic interests that give purpose and shape to the inquiry process" (p. 17, 18). Garrison and Vaugh (2008) call this kind of educational community a community of inquiry. A community of inqury (Col) has three interrelated elements: "social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence" (p. 18). I have been following this framework in a high school setting with my EFL/ESL students very meaningful and engaging for both the students and teacher. I am fining less success with DuFour's professional learning community at my high school. Teachers in my neck of the woods do not feel accountable for student learning and find themselves constantly blaming national educational policies, the educational system, the school administration, parents, and students instead of collaborating and forming professional learning communities that drive change.

 

My goal in this course is to understand the process of facilitating an online community. For me an online community would be a learning community of some kind. The population does not matter, but the process of forming and facilitating such a community, does. I would be interested in facilitating a collaborative learning community as opposed to a disjointed and fragmented group of individuals. My leadership style is both relationship and task oriented. However, I combine both authoritative, servant, transactional, and laisez faire leadership roles. I think the more I learn about my leadership style and about myself as a learner, the easier it may be for me to faciltate an online community effectively.

 

DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a "professional learning community"? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www.simagis.org/prodev/documents/PLC.pdf

 

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughn, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education.

 

[Andrew Chambers]

Leigh,

I suspect my main issue is there is no fixed task or outcome for these
2 weeks. If I tried this in my real course the students would take me
to task. Their has simply been a lot of discussion. I am a very
concrete person. I need a fixed task to do. Had there been a task to
"design a beginners guide about online communities for someone who
does not know about online communities" then we could have actually 1.
created something 2. had a better focus of activity than just
discussion 3. had a real useable outcome 4. Had some really good
discussion over what would be included verse what wouldn't.
I could go on...

Does that make things a bit clearer?

Be aware that I am primarily a trainer by background. Training is a
very practical hands on activity with very concrete outcomes. The
modern era of "social constructivism" is good but only if there are
concrete tasks and activities associated with clear goals and outcomes
(assuming we are using it as part of a learning activity). While I can
sort of see a point to the last 2 weeks, becuase there is no "outcome"
as such other than everyone having different viewpoints and their
being a kind of consensus, I feel the 2 weeks have not been as focused
as they could have been.

I hope this helps you make sense of my comments! I'm not meaning to
put your course down, simply trying to make sense of the direction
ahead...

Andrew

> SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.com- Hide quoted text -

[alexanderhayes]

"...Ultimately the CoP initiator should hope to become redundant."

Nicely stated. It would be difficult I suppose to let go but
ultimately a self sustaining community would be possible without the
founder.

I have been taking a broader perspective and yes, irrespective of what
century we think we are being sold to live in the ideaof connection
is fundamental to being human.

It's nice to see some discussion developing here that I can "hear" the
voice of the writer rather than reading a string of tech talk and
congratulatory back-patting that I see occur in other supposed online
communities.

> Communities. The Leadership Academy Developer (Winter 2000-2001).http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=136

[alexanderhayes]

Hi Leigh,

I at first read into Andrew's comments also as being slightly off-put
or that his expectations had been thwarted somewhat but I think
( correct me Andrew ) that the idea was simply to question why things
weren't being made explicit in this "course".

Maybe something like, " In this course the outcomes.........followed
by
assessment........competencies.....standards......certification.....attainment
" would have sufficed to sate Andrew's desire for extrinsic order,
although what I'm enjoying is the fact that I really haven't a
clue( from what you've put forward as agenda or program) of what the
outcomes are nor could be.

There is obviously a flattening effect being felt across this domain
of communication ( threaded , open , collective ) that isn't apparent
in the blogging ( personal / individual ) and having read 34 blog
entries today almost half of them were just regurgitation of the wiki-
flow and little refelction. The other half have been quite
enlightening and if I was interested inn harvesting links then my
Diigo account would have been going ape.

Blog on.

Anywhere I can input a blog and output a PHd ?

On Aug 17, 1:24 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Nancy White]

If it scratches, it is an itch.

I'm not trying to be flippant, but there is a very practical side to
this "defining" conversation which is the experience of being in a
"community" where there is that binding of people, what they care
about and how they interact with each other and what they care about
over time. Place, in the connected age, is still there, be constantly
redefined and rediscovered. The playground or the flickr stream. The
(at least two subsets of) core members (the children in the playground
-- the parents watching, gossiping with each other) and those
transient to the community (those napping on the park bench, tourists
wandering through, the kid taking a short cut home through the park.)
There is the periphery (they people who also use the park, recognize
the families but don't normally interact but they sure will jump up if
they see a kid fall out of mom's view and lend a hand). The families
come back. They recognize each other. They keep an eye out for who is
missing (is Sue sick?), who is new (hey, welcome to the playground.
We're playing ultinmate frisbee next week with our older kids).

They know they are in community. They don't care what it is called.

What starts to get useful about defining types of communities, this
naming business, for me is to be able to recognize different
facilitation options and patterns. So they become a way to reflect on
something and use that reflection to choose my next step. Not as a way
to restrain the formation. Does that make any sense?

[NELLIE DEUTSCH]

Hi Nancy,
I love your example of a community. It makes a great deal of sense. I am from Israel and the first thing that came to mind as I was reading your description of a community was the kibbutz. For those who are unfamiliar, a Kibbutz means a communal settlement in Hebrew. According to Jewish Virtual Library (2008), "The kibbutz a unique rural community; a society dedicated to mutual aid and social justice; a socioeconomic system based on the principle of joint ownership of property, equality and cooperation of production, consumption and education; the fulfillment of the idea "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"; a home for those who have chosen it". Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2002) and Rubinstein (2007) discuss some of the unique features of the kibbutz and the changes it has undergone since it's establishment. You may find the kibbutz community of interest.


Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2002, November 1). Focus on Israel - Kibbutz.
Retrieved August 18, 2008, from  http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/11/Focus%20on%20Israel-%20Kibbutz

Jewish Virtual Library. (2008). The kibbutz. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/kibbutz.html

Rubinstein, A. (2007, July). Return of the kibbutzim. Jerusalem Post. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1184063443552

--
Nellie Deutsch
Doctoral Student
Educational Leadership
Curriculum and Instruction
http://www.nelliemuller.com

[illya...@gmail.com]

Nellie,
Garrison and Vaughn's definition appeals to me more than DuFour's. I
would tend to think that by way of 'creating a community of inquiry'
this is in fact focusing on learning, and in a much more focused way,
supplying the motivation to find the answers and thus, in the process,
learn.

On 17 Aug., 07:03, "NELLIE DEUTSCH" <nellie.muller.deut...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Marcel,
> DuFour's professional learning communities aim to improve schools so
> that schools become learning communities that cater to learners' and their
> needs. According to DuFour (2004), "To create a professional learning
> community, focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively, and
> hold yourself accountable for the results" (p. 1). However, from

> my understanding, DuFour's *professional learning communities* refer to

> K-12. Garrison and Vaughn (2008) refer to higher education. They

> define an *educational
> community* as "a group of individuals whose connection is that of academic

> purpose and interest who work collaboratively toward intended learning goals
> and outcomes" (p. 17). Garrison and Vaughn (2008) explain that although the
> social aspect may be important in creating "the climate that will support
> the learning process, it is the academic interests that give purpose and
> shape to the inquiry process" (p. 17, 18). Garrison and Vaugh (2008)

> call this kind of educational community a *community of inquiry. *A

> community of inqury (Col) has three interrelated elements: "social presence,
> cognitive presence, and teaching presence" (p. 18). I have been following
> this framework in a high school setting with my EFL/ESL students very
> meaningful and engaging for both the students and teacher. I am fining less
> success with DuFour's professional learning community at my high school.
> Teachers in my neck of the woods do not feel accountable for student
> learning and find themselves constantly blaming national educational
> policies, the educational system, the school administration, parents,
> and students instead of collaborating and forming professional learning
> communities that drive change.
>
> My goal in this course is to understand the process of facilitating an
> online community. For me an online community would be a learning community
> of some kind. The population does not matter, but the process of forming and
> facilitating such a community, does. I would be interested in facilitating a
> collaborative learning community as opposed to a disjointed and fragmented
> group of individuals. My leadership style is both relationship and task
> oriented. However, I combine both authoritative, servant, transactional, and
> laisez faire leadership roles. I think the more I learn about my leadership
> style and about myself as a learner, the easier it may be for me to
> faciltate an online community effectively.
>
> DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a "professional learning community"?

> *Educational
> Leadership, 61*(8), 6-11. Retrieved August 17, 2008, fromhttp://www.simagis.org/prodev/documents/PLC.pdf
> *
> * Garrison, D. R., & Vaughn, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher