Online Community as
an effective tools for Knowledge Creation Process
Introduction
With the recent advancement of technologies especially social networking, the usage and exploration of online community has increasingly on demand. Online communities are becoming an accepted part of the lives of Internet users, although
participation in these communities is dependent on the types of people that
form them (Bishop,2007). An online community consists of, people who interact
socially as they strive to satisfy their own needs or perform special roles,
such as leading and moderating (Preece,2000). However, these communities can
take many forms, from websites that provide facilities to discuss particular
subjects or interests to groups of people communicating using instant messaging
tools (Bishop,2003). According to Rapley & Pretty (1999), communities are
often referring as groups of people collaborating and “a sense of community” is
a construct central to the social science of community psychology. Online
communities can be defined as “computer-mediated spaces where there is a
potential for an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on
member-generated content (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997).
There
are many different types of online communities. In recent years, it has been
categorized into Social Networking Sites ( SNS ), Course Management System (CMS
)and Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). Simultaneously, the emergence and
growth of commercial social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook,
Friendster, Linkedln, LiveJournal, and MySpace has been extensive and
widespread (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). In contrast to SNS, course management
systems (CMS), such as Blackboard and Moodle, tend to be very focused and lack
the personal touch and networking capacity that SNSs offer (Brady et al.,
2010). In 2008, a new term emerged in the already crowded e-learning landscape:
MOOC, where lifelong learners can now use various tools to build and manage
their own learning networks, and MOOCs may provide opportunities to test such
networks (Fini, 2009). However, the recent of communities of practice (CoP) has
been used by many educators and learners as a platform to create new knowledge
and sharing best practices. CoP are groups of people who share a concern, a set
of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and
expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis (Wenger et al.,
2002).
Ning
in education (www.ning.com ) can be used most
effectively in distance education courses as a technological tool for improved
communication among students at the higher education level (Brady et al.,
2010).
NING
networks
Ning
was recently mentioned in Dan Klamm’s
Mashable article, 6 Best Practices for
Universities Embracing Social Media, as a
tool for colleges and universities looking to build communities and embrace
social media in a content-rich world. Posted by Jason Rand on October
11, 2011 – 2:25 pm (http://www.ning.com/blog/2011/10/ning-in-education-social-media-today.html).
What is Ning? “ Ning is the world’s largest platform for creating social websites.
Top organizers, marketers, influencers, and activists use Ning to create an
online destination that weaves social conversations in content and inspire
action. As part of the Glam Media family, Ning makes it easy for brands of all shapes and sizes
to build custom and powerful social websites. Ning was co-founded in October
2004 by Chairman Marc Andreessen and was acquired by Glam Media in December 2011.” (Retrieved from http://www.ning.com/about/corporate/history/).
From my
participation in NING networks, below are the features and tools being utilized
in while I am undertaking a course HMLT5203, Applying Theories of Learning to
Instructional Technology with Open University Malaysia (OUM):
NO
|
Features/ Tools
|
Functions
|
1
|
Discussion
/ Forum
|
All
the members are able to post their opinion, sharing their ideas and
expressions according to the topic created for discussions. In this platform,
members are also able to share “hyperlinks” which provides instantly access
to the related websites.
|
2
|
Introduction
|
Provide
information and details on the type of network being created. Normally it is written
by the creator of the network to introduce the group created.
|
3
|
Announcement
|
It is
useful for the creator to insert some latest news or announcement at the
homepage.
|
4
|
Latest
Activity
|
It is
situated at the right side of the screen where all the latest post by the
members will be placed. Thus, once a latest activity
is
being done or accomplished by any member, we would able to know and notice
immediately.
|
5
|
Members
|
A
list of members joining the network. The list is shown with image thumbnails
uploaded by the members.
|
6
|
Video
|
For
member to upload and share whatever video content with other members. It is
integrated with Youtube which provide live video streaming. Besides, it is
well integrated with social websites where members can share this content
through Facebook, Twitter and Google +.
|
7
|
Photo
|
Members
are able to upload any photos and share with others.
|
8
|
Email
|
Be
able to send emails with attachment of files or links to all the members in
the network we participated.
|
9
|
Notification
|
This
function is not situated at the site. It is meant to notify the members
through their personal email regarding the latest post they participated in a
forum discussion.
|
10
|
Search
|
Situated
at the right top corner of the website where members are able to search any
content or subject in the ning network.
|
Table 1: Features and Tools in Ning
Network
Screen
Captures
Figure 1 : Main Page
Figure 2: Forum Discussion
Figure 3: Email Figure 4: Sharing video with other social network
Figure 5: Personal Email
Notification
From the features and
tools available in Ning network, it provided students with the opportunity to
take ownership in their learning while also allowing students to personalize it
to their needs ( Brady et al., 2010). In
the forum discussion, members are able to interact and share their ideas and
opinion at their own pace, anywhere and anytime. Learning and knowledge
production are social processes that are negotiated through interaction (Brooks
& Brooks, 1999; Vygotsky, 1962,1978; Wertsch, 1985). In certain cases,
members are able to communicate through email or forum which encourage
peer-to-peer interaction. In the development of these communities, peer-to-peer
dialogue can “perpetuate and serve as a reinforced foundation for reflective
practice and constructivist discovery” (King, 2002).
The “invitation”
provided in the network is enabling all kinds of expertise whether instructors
or learners to join the network. Knowles et al. (1998) theorise that diverse
backgrounds and experiences among learners contribute to a collaborative
learning process. Bierema & Merriam’s (2002) research points to the ability
of mentoring that occurs online to cross “boundaries of race, class and gender
by targeting marginalized groups in society such as minorities, low income
students, and young girls and women”.
The
video sharing in Ning networks is one of the great tools for knowledge creation
and sharing. With the video live streaming integrated with Youtube, members are
able to watch relevant videos created by instructor or being shared by other
members. Through the sharing, members are able to give their constructive ideas
or opinions and bring to next level of discussion. Knowledge expansion, then,
is a collaborative enterprise (Palloff & Pratt, 1999,2005), and through
shared knowledge building, the community (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999) and
that community’s common history ( Wenger, 1998) are also co-constructed.
The “notification” of emails and also the
“Latest Activity”as mentioned in the Table 1 are important features to ensure
members participation. The second index of online learning communities,
participation, is considered a general measure of successful online discussions
(Guzdial & Turns, 2000). According to Ligorio (2001), the collaborative
dimension of knowledge building comprises the community of learners model and
the community of practices model. Consequently, peripheral participation is
legitimate; that is, even when not directly participating in an activity,
learners can still benefit from observation, analysis, and discussion of that
activity (Ligorio, 2001).
Suggestions
and Recommendations
It is suggested
to include live face-to-face interaction in the network. It is similar with the
recent initiative by Google + using “Hangout” (http://support.google.com/plus/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1215273&topic=1257349&ctx=topic)
where the members are able to connect and share their screen and thus enhance
the collaborative activity such as watching the same video at the same time.
Researchers have found that some people just prefer face-to-face (Meyer,2005)
or online communication (Caplan,2005; Morahan-Martin & Schumacher,2003).
Providing forums for online CoPs to develop along with face-to-face approaches
to faculty socialization, development, and support thus offers flexibility and
accessibility, giving people “option” for developing relationships with their
peers, especially those relationships that are so critical for assimilating
into the academy (Brooks, 2010). In fact, this feature is also part of the
social factors which can drive into more collaborated communities of practice. When organisations are interested in initiating
CoPs,they tend to focus on technical solutions and tools without thinking about
the social or contextual factors. This emphasis on information systems can
often distract from the learning and knowledge sharing goals, which rely on
exchange of tacit and explicit knowledge (Ramalingam, 2005).
Besides real time face-to-face interaction, it is
suggested to add the “chatting” features in the Ning networks. This is
important where the members can communicate instantly through instant messaging
tools with the members who are online at the same time, either pre-arranged
earlier or impromptu. In the survey carried out by Brady et al. (2010), some
respondents said, “getting a response to a question/ comment may not immediate”.
And another respondent also mentioned that, “ it takes time to sit down and
view the information….and respond”. Thus, in order to facilitate the knowledge
creation process, instant feedback and responds are equally important as it is
part of socialization as proposed by Nonaka Nonaka that the
favorable conditions to the creation of knowledge within an organization go
through the SECI method (socialization, externalization, combination, and
internalization phases) (Balestrin et al. 2008).
References
Balestrin, A., Vargas,
L. M., & Fayard, P. (2008). Knowledge creation on small firm network. Journal of Knowledge Management,12(2), 94-106.
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning
communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization
of educational practice. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instrucinal-design theories and models: A new parafigm of instructional
theory (Vol. 2, 269-202_. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bierena, L. L., &
Merriam, S. B. (2002). E-mentoring: Using computer mediated communication to
enhance the mentoring process. Innovative
Higher Education, 26(3), 211-227.
Bishop, J. (2003).
Factors shaping the form of and participation in online communities. Digital Matrix Magazine (July).
Bishop, J. (2007).
Increasing participation in online communities: A framework for human-computer
interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1881-1893.
Boyd, D. M., &
Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 13(1), article 11.
Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html.
Brady, K. P., Holcomb,
L. B., & Smith, B. V. (2010). The use of alternative social networking
sites in higher educational settings: A case study of the e-Learning benefits
of Ning in education. Journal of
Interactive Online Learning, 9(2),
151-160.
Brooks, C. F. (2010).
Toward ‘hybridised’ faculty development for the twenty-first century: Blending
online communities of practice and face to-face meetings in instructional and
professional support programmes. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 261-270.
Brooks, J. G., &
Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of
understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandra, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Caplan, S. E. (2005). A
social skill account of problematic internet use. Journal of Communication, 55(4),
721-736.
Fini, A. (2009). The
technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08
course tools. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5),
1-26.
Guzdial, M. & Turns, J. (2000). Effective
discussion though a computer-mediated anchored forum. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 9, 437-469.
Hazel, J. I. &
Armstrong, A. G. (1997). Net Gain:
Expanding Markets through Virtual Communities. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
King, K. P. (2002).
Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 231-246
Knowles, M. S., Holton,
E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The
adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource
development (5th ed. ). Houston, TX: Gulf Professional Publishing.
Ligoria, M. B. (2001). Integrating communication
formats: Synchronous versus asynchronous and text-based versus visual. Computers
& Education, 37, 103-125.
Meyer, K. A. (2005).
The ebb and flow of online discussion: What Bloom can tell us about our
students’ conversations. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(1),
53-63.
Morahan-Martin,
J., & Schumacher, P. (2003).
Loneliness and social uses of the Internet. Computers
in Human Behavior, 19, 659-671.
Palloff, R. M., &
Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning
communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Palloff, R. M., &
Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability,
supporting sociability. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Ramalingam, B. (2005) Implementing Knowledge
Strategies:Lessons from International Development Agencies, ODI .Working
Paper 244. London: ODI.
Rapley, M., &
Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). Playing procrustes: The interactional production of a
“psychological sense of community”. Journal
of Community Psychology, 27(6),
695-713.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962).
Thought and language (A. Kozulin,
Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).
Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Havard University Press.
Wegner, E., Mcdermott,
R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating
Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business
School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning,
and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge,
MA: Havard University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment