Derek and I had similiar thoughts about the presentation material which have been provided and started fleshing out three factors related to student learning communities: background, glue and self-regulated learning. How do these sound? Have you had different experiences across different types of courses or programs?
The resources from the two webinar sessions were interesting to me, because they were a different way of looking at student learning communities and an effort to identify different models. As Derek also noted, the models described, were within disciplines and across disciplines, the latter likely challenging due to institutional barriers. Are there cross-discipline student communities at your institutions?
Stephanie Chu
Posts made by Stephanie Chu
Hi Wendy,
I agree that the role of the instructor or facilitator also needs to occur behind the scenes and sending a private message in a manner which doesn't presume intention raises awareness and puts the responsibility of one's behaviour on the individual. I've also heard of cases where the instructor responded in the online forum for everyone to see and the student 1. withdrew, 2. recognized the potential issue and made efforts to amend it (i.e. apologized), or 3. reacted in defence. The effects it can have on the rest of the class is a feeling of unease or discomfort, depending on what was said by the instructor and how the student responded.
In developing a sense of community among the class, do you also send private messages to encourage or reinforce certain behaviours that support community-building? Or does the reinforcement reside more with the members in the class?
I agree that the role of the instructor or facilitator also needs to occur behind the scenes and sending a private message in a manner which doesn't presume intention raises awareness and puts the responsibility of one's behaviour on the individual. I've also heard of cases where the instructor responded in the online forum for everyone to see and the student 1. withdrew, 2. recognized the potential issue and made efforts to amend it (i.e. apologized), or 3. reacted in defence. The effects it can have on the rest of the class is a feeling of unease or discomfort, depending on what was said by the instructor and how the student responded.
In developing a sense of community among the class, do you also send private messages to encourage or reinforce certain behaviours that support community-building? Or does the reinforcement reside more with the members in the class?
Hi Sharon,
Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm glad to hear that a sense of community was achieved in your course and relationships were forged. I think these relationships are integral to student-life and we're all the more richer when we have them. In other courses, a few of us created our own informal study-groups in order to get through intermediate and multivariate statistics. I still keep in touch with a couple of people from each class.
You mentioned that there were f2f and online interactions. Can you elaborate on the role the instructor took in both the environments? Was there a progressive change in his or her role as the members of the class bonded?
Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm glad to hear that a sense of community was achieved in your course and relationships were forged. I think these relationships are integral to student-life and we're all the more richer when we have them. In other courses, a few of us created our own informal study-groups in order to get through intermediate and multivariate statistics. I still keep in touch with a couple of people from each class.
You mentioned that there were f2f and online interactions. Can you elaborate on the role the instructor took in both the environments? Was there a progressive change in his or her role as the members of the class bonded?
Hi Paul and All,
I thought a bit more about student-centred and student-led communities and Paul, do you recall the online community the TechBC students created to support themselves during their time at TechBC? It was "created by learners for learners..."
Some context: The site was started by some learners in the first group of TechBC learners (~90 total) back in 2000. It wasn't officially sponsored/supported by the Technical University of BC, but staff were welcomed to join as well. The learners created this open forum area for themselves in order to support each other through TechBC's growing-pains such as the effects of rapic course-development and a new curriculum, uncertainty with the new provincial government, TechBC's closure, and the programs' move to SFU. As some of us can recall, those were very fast-paced changing times. The discussion topics were created by the learners and as they were needed. I recall that there was a wide range that focused on academic life and beyond. For example, topics to share experiences about courses (and instructors), issues related to student life, clubs, news stories, buy-and-sell, etc. to more general non-academic interests. The site itself and the content were/are not the property of TechBC or SFU and not supported by the university. Instead, students have taken it upon themselves to keep it going.
Interestingly, I've heard that it's now 6 years later and the community is still running strong. It appears to have evolved with the people and the times and is open to any student at SFU Surrey. I think that this community represents a unique and wonderful example of a student-driven community with their identity as TechBC/SIAT/SFU Surrey students as their bond and their needs and interests drive their forums and topics.
Now, I'm thinking about this example and our discussions about how communities we (as instructors, staff at an institution, etc.) create for students may be "artificial", etc. One thing that strikes me is that perhaps one of the reasons why this TechBC community has sustained itself is because ownership and "regulation" are within the students. I remember some instructors being disappointed after reading some comments about their teaching in this online community and some staff being surprised about the language. Though we knew it was student-led, I think not all of us were prepared for the comments, style and behaviour in the community -- it wasn't what, "you'd expect in an academic community"...
Maybe one of the key factors in a learning community's evolution and longevity is to let it grow on its own? When members feel ownership and accountability, then they take on admin and moderator roles, start identifying guidelines for expected behaviours, and so on. People also come and go; the needs of the group and the breadth of membership (the "glue" that binds members) may broaden. There's a certain fluidness.
A second question: If we're trying to create/design learning communities to support students in their learning or academic career, etc. to what extent is the "community's" development (people-side) possibly curtailed due to the imposed restrictions from the sponsoring institution? For example, students may choose to self-identify through avatars that are modified trademarked graphics, or use non-academic (perhaps inappropriate language), or are very open with their comments about a course/instructor/experience they had -- would this be acceptable in an SFU or BCcampus branded learning community? To what extent do our efforts in creating learning communities for students impose parameters and certain institutional expectations, thus curtailing how people interact, the community's self-identity and its growth and longevity?
I thought a bit more about student-centred and student-led communities and Paul, do you recall the online community the TechBC students created to support themselves during their time at TechBC? It was "created by learners for learners..."
Some context: The site was started by some learners in the first group of TechBC learners (~90 total) back in 2000. It wasn't officially sponsored/supported by the Technical University of BC, but staff were welcomed to join as well. The learners created this open forum area for themselves in order to support each other through TechBC's growing-pains such as the effects of rapic course-development and a new curriculum, uncertainty with the new provincial government, TechBC's closure, and the programs' move to SFU. As some of us can recall, those were very fast-paced changing times. The discussion topics were created by the learners and as they were needed. I recall that there was a wide range that focused on academic life and beyond. For example, topics to share experiences about courses (and instructors), issues related to student life, clubs, news stories, buy-and-sell, etc. to more general non-academic interests. The site itself and the content were/are not the property of TechBC or SFU and not supported by the university. Instead, students have taken it upon themselves to keep it going.
Interestingly, I've heard that it's now 6 years later and the community is still running strong. It appears to have evolved with the people and the times and is open to any student at SFU Surrey. I think that this community represents a unique and wonderful example of a student-driven community with their identity as TechBC/SIAT/SFU Surrey students as their bond and their needs and interests drive their forums and topics.
Now, I'm thinking about this example and our discussions about how communities we (as instructors, staff at an institution, etc.) create for students may be "artificial", etc. One thing that strikes me is that perhaps one of the reasons why this TechBC community has sustained itself is because ownership and "regulation" are within the students. I remember some instructors being disappointed after reading some comments about their teaching in this online community and some staff being surprised about the language. Though we knew it was student-led, I think not all of us were prepared for the comments, style and behaviour in the community -- it wasn't what, "you'd expect in an academic community"...
Maybe one of the key factors in a learning community's evolution and longevity is to let it grow on its own? When members feel ownership and accountability, then they take on admin and moderator roles, start identifying guidelines for expected behaviours, and so on. People also come and go; the needs of the group and the breadth of membership (the "glue" that binds members) may broaden. There's a certain fluidness.
A second question: If we're trying to create/design learning communities to support students in their learning or academic career, etc. to what extent is the "community's" development (people-side) possibly curtailed due to the imposed restrictions from the sponsoring institution? For example, students may choose to self-identify through avatars that are modified trademarked graphics, or use non-academic (perhaps inappropriate language), or are very open with their comments about a course/instructor/experience they had -- would this be acceptable in an SFU or BCcampus branded learning community? To what extent do our efforts in creating learning communities for students impose parameters and certain institutional expectations, thus curtailing how people interact, the community's self-identity and its growth and longevity?
Liz also raised a similiar question to Barb, early in this discussion about a community space for instructors in Business where there was no engagement, and I gather, no exchange in resources.
Picking up on a point Bruce made, "I would be willling to bet the teachers involved are either older teachers uncomfortable with computers and tend to teach in a behavourist style or are teachers who see only disadvantages and pitfalls of newer teaching technologies."
That's definitely a possible reason. Two other factors may be a) the lack of a sense of identity with community members: it isn't clear "who's actually out there", so "*anyone* can access one's work", and b) how easy it is to contribute. Having to upload a file by searching through one's computer, uploading it to a browser, and then providing contextual information, is still time-consuming. Would instructors or working professionals share their work more if it was an easy drag-and-drop process from one's computer into a box, type in a line or two for context, and then it's done?
It sounds like we'd benefit from the literature, as Les requested. I'll try to find some and will post them if I'm successful. Does anyone have sources to help us gain a better grasp about why people may or may not share their work in CoPs or student learning communities?
Picking up on a point Bruce made, "I would be willling to bet the teachers involved are either older teachers uncomfortable with computers and tend to teach in a behavourist style or are teachers who see only disadvantages and pitfalls of newer teaching technologies."
That's definitely a possible reason. Two other factors may be a) the lack of a sense of identity with community members: it isn't clear "who's actually out there", so "*anyone* can access one's work", and b) how easy it is to contribute. Having to upload a file by searching through one's computer, uploading it to a browser, and then providing contextual information, is still time-consuming. Would instructors or working professionals share their work more if it was an easy drag-and-drop process from one's computer into a box, type in a line or two for context, and then it's done?
It sounds like we'd benefit from the literature, as Les requested. I'll try to find some and will post them if I'm successful. Does anyone have sources to help us gain a better grasp about why people may or may not share their work in CoPs or student learning communities?