Networked Communities

Networked communities provide another option for students learning math and science with technology. According to Bielaczyc and Collins (1999), as noted in the ETEC 533 course notes, there are four characteristics of networked communities:

  1. Diversity of expertise among its members who are valued for their contributions and given support to develop;
  2. A shared objective of continually advancing the collective knowledge and skills;
  3. An emphasis on learning how to learn; and
  4. Mechanisms for sharing what is learned.
I reviewed a number of networked communities, including Globe, Exploratorium, PBS/Nova Adventures, Hurricane Hunters, World Wildlife Foundation Expeditions: Central African Republic and the Interlaboratory Network. I will analyse Exploratorium and the Interlaboratory Network against the four criteria above to see how well they provide the supports of a networked community.

The first criterion may be the most difficult to achieve in a networked community. It actually has two parts: diversity of expertise among its members, and members are given support to develop. In many of the sites I viewed, it appeared as though two ranks of members existed: the students and the scientists. It appeared as though the scientists were disseminating the information, and the students were receiving it. The Interlaboratory Network appears to be quite new, but at this point it seems as though "experts" (the instructors) will also be disseminating information (or data) for students to analyse. I suspect that in both sites, plans have been made to incorporate features whereby students and others can interact with each other and the "experts", expecially to give support to develop.

The second criterion, a shared objective of advancing knowledge and skills, is assumed among those who use these sites. However, because of the limited amount of two-way communication, it is currently difficult for the students or other users to assist in this process.

The third criterion, the emphasis on learning how to learn, seems to be better addressed in the networked communities. Many of the sites promote inquiry-based learning, and the emphasis in the virtual field trips is on "real science". However, some aspects of learning how to learn are not well-supported at this point. Sugar and Bonk (1998) noted that mentoring strategies such as modeling appropriate communication strategies among participants were absent.

At this point in many networked communities, the fourth criterion, the mechanisms for sharing what is learned, seem somewhat limited and one-way. In many sites, the most interaction that students can have is to write an email to the scientists. Talley (2003, p. 4) noted that online communities need "[a] space for self-expression (blog/journal), and [a] space for debate (listservs, discussion boards, chat rooms)". Very few of the sites that I reviewed had these features. In Exploratorium, for example, the museum had many interesting activities and a lot of great information on the site, but I wasn't able to find a place where visitors to the site could communicate with each other to share information. The Interlaboratory Network also had no mechanism for sharing information, but I suspect that this will be built into the site as it is further developed.

It appears that the idea of networked communities may still be in its infancy. Many of the networked communities do well in placing an emphasis on learning how to learn and striving to advance the collective knowledge, or at least to disseminate knowledge to learners. However, the communities need to include people with more diverse backgrounds and allow for more interactivity in the quest for building knowledge.


References

Bielacyc, K. & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Vol II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [As quoted in ETEC 533 course notes, Module C, Lesson 2, Inquiry e-folio questions.]

Sugar, W. & Bonk, C. (1998). Student role play in the world forum: Analyses of an Arctic adventure learning apprenticeship. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship & discourse (pp. 131-155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Talley, S. (2003). Nurturing online communities [PowerPoint presentation]. Association of Science-Technology Centers Annual Conference, St. Paul, MN., p. 4.