TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

Having just installed OpenOffice on my laptop I was quite surprised to see that extensions are now available for the software. I’m unsure of whether this has always been the case; but it certainly is now.

Of particular interest is the Sun Weblog Publisher 1.1.0. According to the description, the plugin is designed to let OpenOffice users take advantage of the formatting capabilities inherent in the software, and then having done that quickly post the results to their blogs.

Personally speaking this is a really nice option to have. I frequently write blog posts on the train on the way into work in the mornings and then copy and paste the contents into WordPress before publishing it. Unfortunately this often involves reformatting text that previously looked just fine in the original document.

In the case of this plugin you will apparently be able to “use the advanced word processing features of the Writer to create blogs with tables, bullets, hyperlinks, graphics, and spellchecking via the office suite’s spellchecking technology. ”

Documents are created as per normal, then when you’re back online you can quickly publish the post by going to File → Send → To Weblog. You’re then given the option of including a title and category before finalising the post.

The description continues:

“The new Sun Weblog Publisher 1.1 now supports Roller, WordPress, Gerneric ATOM, MovableType (new) and MetaWeblog on servers like WordPress.com (new), Blogger.com, Blogspot.com and Typepad.com (new)”

With this being my very first attempt at this process it remains to be seen what results I’ll have. Let the test begin.

Update: At least this first time through I was only able to publish the post as a draft.  I also discovered after having done that, that there was a fair amount of formatting to correct because it didn’t display very well on screen initially. I’ll experiment with the settings and see if I can improve the process any.  All in all it’s ok, but didn’t improve the posting time any.

While wrapping up my last post on self-directed learning a thought occurred to me that I’d like to explore here.  I’m also hoping to inspire some discussion around the subject since in my mind this could present a key opportunity for higher education moving forward.

I attended a Research Showcase yesterday in which one of the topics covered was Threshold Concepts.  This notion is a new one to me, and to be honest I don’t know much about it; however based on the definition I’ve just uncovered online, a threshold concept is defined as having five characteristics:

1. First, they should be transformative, in that once acquired they should shift perception of the subject.
2. Second, they should be irreversible. Once an individual has begun to perceive the world in terms of a threshold concept it should be inconceivable that they would return to viewing it in a more primitive way.
3. Third, a threshold concept is integrative. Meyer and Land describe this as the capacity of a concept to expose the previously hidden interrelatedness of something.
4. Fourth a threshold concept is bounded. That is, it helps to define the boundaries of a subject area.
5. Fifth, a threshold concept may be counter-intuitive, or lead to knowledge that is inherently counter-intuitive. In grasping a threshold concept a student moves from common sense understanding to an understanding which may conflict with perceptions that have previously seemed self-evidently true.

This has led me to think that perhaps self-directed learning is a Threshold Concept.

Personal Experiences

At least in my own experience, the transformation from a reliance on learning through directed instruction to experiential learning through self-directed exploration took me through all 5 of the above characteristics.

I came to UNSW from a very small, micromanaged private sector company, and had experienced university as a student in a firmly entrenched instructivist model.  I studied Economics at a university of 40,000 people and attended mass lectures in which overhead slides were frequently used, the instructor spoke and students listened.

So when I began at UNSW I was accustomed to being told exactly what I was supposed to do, the way I was meant to do it, when it needed to be completed, and assessed on whether my work was adequate.  The environment I found when I arrived though was diametrically different to this.  There was no instruction, minimal feedback, and an incredible amount of flexibility on what I did, when, and how.

For some time I found this positively excruciating, since I was conditioned to look outside of myself for validation of my work.  When I didn’t receive this information I had a tremendous amount of difficulty knowing what to do next.  In hindsight it was an incredibly difficult period.

According to the Threshold Concepts 2008 Conference website, my experiences characterised the idea of “liminality”:

“Meyer and Land suggest that difficulty in understanding threshold concepts may leave the learner in a state of ‘liminality’, a suspended state or ’stuck place’…”

In the absence of a management structure I was accustomed to, I was in a state of liminality for a number of years.  It was only after making a conscious decision that it was up to me to sort myself out did I start to feel comfortable with what I was doing.  In time this led to a sense of empowerment that has only grown over time.  Now I can’t imagine doing it differently; but it was a very difficult transition.

The Implications for Higher Education

Assuming for a moment that self-directed learning is indeed a threshold concept, in light of my own experiences it would seem that this represents a critical need that higher education could address.

As mentioned earlier though, given the devolved nature of this learning model it would require a much different approach to education as well as a fundamental shift in role from instructor to that of facilitator or moderator, since the student would be informing the instructor on what they would be learning, and how; rather than the other way around.

Given weeks 4 & 5 of my Facilitating Online Communities course is slated to cover facilitating, moderating or teaching I’m hopeful there will be some insightful conversations that might be applicable to this train of thought.

In the meantime if you have thoughts on this idea please jump in and leave a comment - or elaborate on your own blog and link back here so I know where to go for your input.

A post I read yesterday really got me to thinking about curriculum-based instruction versus self-directed learning models.  This post is a reflective writing exercise that seeks to clarify my philosophies on the subject in my own head.

In “Downes on Learning and Web 2.0“, Diego Leal reflects on the following video in which Stephen Downes argues 3 key points:

1. You are at the center of your own personal learning network;
2. To gain from self-directed learning you must be self-directed;
3. These principles should guide how we teach as well as how we learn.

Leal’s thoughts on the video are worth a read, so I recommend you visit his blog for the full run-down.

To a fair degree Downes position flies directly in the face of the traditional model, characterised by a push of information, rather than a pull.  Here mass lectures enable instructors to disseminate information to large quantities of students, with minimal concurrent reciprocal opportunities for them.  The flow of information is largely singular, and is based on the instructors opinions about what students need to or should know, rather than the students’ opinions themselves.

In my opinion, this serves to disempower the learner by placing control of their learning in someone else’s hands, and relegating the student to the role of an information consumer rather than the architect of their own destiny.

To a degree smaller class sizes will afford students more input into the discussion.  Nonetheless, the model still ultimately puts the instructor at the top of the heirarchy, with the lecturer controlling much/most/all of the learning that takes place via established learning outcomes.

This model is not cause for a tremendous sense of ownership in the learning process by the learners themselves, since by definition they rely on the objectives of an external party - in this case the instructor.

The logic behind this learning landscape might be attributed to university accountabilities on accreditation (who they award degrees to), the logistical challenge of facilitating the learning journey of large numbers of people, assumptions regarding student expectations, even liability concerns for workplace competency (for example in the medical field); however the irony in this - at least from my perspective - is that the learning model that is so widely used to educate students is not the one that is used by the staff themselves.

Downes argues that “these principles [on self-directed learning] should guide how we teach as well as how we learn.”  In light of these inconsistencies it seems clear that this just isn’t happening.

This is a generalisation, I admit, however based on my experiences there is a fair amount of validity to it.  Particularly in the research field, much of the work my colleagues and I do amounts to self-directed learning.  In a field where there are many unknowns, there is not necessarily an established, well-worn path.

As a member of the Grateful Dead once said “When you’re on the avante garde, you don’t really know what you’re doing anyway.  You just make it up as you go.”

This analogy is perhaps not a perfect fit, since there are core methodologies used in the research process; but the fact remains that the learning process is largely an exploratory, experiential one in which the outcomes are uncertain.  You cast your net wide and constantly reflect on and evaluate the available information, and in doing so determine the next appropriate step.  You don’t ultimately know whether something will work or not; but that’s where much of the learning process occurs.

Conflict in Generational Paradigms

Innovations in web technology over the last few years have in fact exacerbated the inconsistencies between how we learn and the educational model that higher education and its underlying culture insists on using.

Downes’ video is a good overview in this sense.  Web technologies are now an empowering force in which people can establish or join their own networks and communities - and effectively take an active role in guiding their own learning processes.  These technologies are also extremely collaborative in nature, placing large masses of users at equivalent levels, regardless of existing knowledge or experience.  For all intensive purposes new media (Web 2.0) has dispelled instructivist heirarchies and replaced it with connective learning networks.

It is perhaps not surprising then, that uptake of these new technologies has been slow in higher education.  As I discussed the other day, many of these technologies are inherently out of phase with the current university culture.  So instead of technologies that empower learners such as blogs, wikis and experiential virtual environments, we continue to see use of systems that seek to manage or control learning.  The latter is arguably concerned more with the needs of the instructor and administrators than the learners.

From the standpoint of the existing culture I can understand the concerns and reservation.  The new paradigm brings the entire notion and purpose of instructors and indeed institutions in to question.

As George Siemens wrote yesterday (”Explaining Leads to Information“):

“At one point, we thought content was the value point of universities. Wrong. MIT’s OpenCourseWare initiative changed that. Ok, then the interaction with faculty is the value point. And wrong again. Open communication and collaboration in online environments with networks of peers and experts gave us control over our interactions. Fine. Then the value point is accreditation. Yes, for now. Our ability to rate, review, comment, and provide feedback has increased with the development of the read/write web. I’m not sure how long we can build education’s value on the concept of accreditation. As I’ve frequently suggested, we can glean much insight from a field that has spent more time journeying down the path of shifting value from content to something else: the news/journalism/media industry.”

Personally I don’t feel that universities, educators and facilitators will become obsolete anytime soon.  I do think, though, that it’s critical that this new paradigm be accepted and recognised by the existing culture and that plans be made and implemented that seek to understand and engage with the new methods of learning.  If we are to remain effective in facilitating the learning journeys of university students we must understand where they are coming from both philosophically and pedagogically.

Ultimately the same motives and methods that drive and inform research must be applied to the learning and teaching culture as well.  In research objectivity is key; a theory that is biased towards an outcome jeopardises the entire model.  Assumptions are therefore questioned, tested and retested against new information or circumstances in order to confirm or disprove their accuracy and relevance.  The importance is on realising the true reality, not necessarily the desired one.

Reference:

Stephen Downes’ video is embedded below.  You can also access it directly on Google Video:

A while back a thread emerged in my Facilitating Online Communities course regarding the differences between discussion in forums and email lists and those that occur on or between blogs.  To some, discussion forums were more conducive to indepth discussion than blogs are, and were much easier to follow.  In response to this I posted the following thoughts:

Interestingly I find it far more difficult to keep up with the conversation on discussion forums and email lists than blogs - particularly with respect to the volume of posts that come through. With this google group for example I only manage to read one in 10 messages that comes through (if that) and I feel like I’m really missing out on the conversation.

In that sense I think usage preference really comes into play. It also raises the issue of centralised versus decentralised conversations.

In the case of blogs I think conversations do take place, but it’s of a much different nature than discussion forums. With forums you have one spot where all the activity takes place. In blogs it’s spread across a few or even many different locations. With certain topics it can become what’s known as a “meme” - or a topic that is discussed by numerous people.

I do notice a sort of informal convention with blog-based conversations which is worth mentioning here. Personally speaking, when I have a thought that relates specifically to the post I’m reading - either as feedback, or a suggestion, or an anecdote - I’m likely to leave that as a comment on the post itself. As [a student] was saying, these do tend to be shorter than the blog posts themselves and may not necessarily push the conversation along in a really meaningful way.

However when the content of a post inspires me to in depth reflection I’m more than likely to post something elaborate on my own blog and link to the originating entry as a trackback**. In many ways this does represent an addition to the conversation, but it’s of a much different nature than what you see on discussion forums.

**NB: Trackbacks are notifications sent to the author of a blog indicating someone else has referenced their post. They tend to appear in the comments area as a reference to the new post to help tie the discussions together.

The result in the blogosphere is a conversational “web” in which a topic is being covered and progressed by a decentralised network of bloggers. On the topic of “what constitutes a community” I would argue that edubloggers (bloggers with an educational interest or focus) do constitute a community - but in a much different sense to what most people associate with the term.

So if you can consider blog posts that inform and influence each other as related “conversations”, then the discussions you see in blogging may/could be as considered as considered - or perhaps even more so - than those you see in discussion forums.

That said I can definitely understand why people who favour discussion forums or email lists have an aversion - or at least difficulty acclimating - to the notion if blogs. The whole concept of communication and how conversations take place is inherently different with blogs and in some ways it favours certain usage preferences.

In that sense I think having both blogs and discussion forums/email lists is really important in a course like this, because almost certainly one technology won’t appeal to everyone - so you need to provide a range of
conversational vehicles in order to accommodate the needs and learning preferences of as many people as possible.

#FOC08 - Any Seesmic Users (or potential ones)?
At the risk of throwing another technology into the mix I thought I might introduce Seesmic to my fellow students of Facilitating Online Communities. If you’re interested in exploring Seesmic but aren’t sure how to get started please let me know or leave a comment and we can have a chat.

If you’re on Seesmic already and would like to add me as a contact, I’m located here.

It was a technically frustrating day yesterday.  I recently purchased the newest release of Neverwinter Nights 2 (a role playing game) in the hopes of doing something not work related in the evenings for a change.  Alas it wasn’t meant to be and I instead spent about 6 hours last night rebuilding the machine after a series of interventions that ultimately rendered XP unusable and Ubuntu wiped from the face of the map.

First off it turned out that the $70 game (Neverwinter Nights 2) didn’t support my graphics card, which is too old now apparently.  To add insult to injury, after having installed the software I found that windows explorer kept crashing - rendering XP dead in the water.  Looking at this as an opportunity for the phoenix to rise from the ashes I figured I might as well restore the system and build it from the ground up, because there was a whole lot of legacy stuff from my endless tinkerings there that was undoubtedly clogging things up.

However despite the restore process indicating that only the C:/ drive would be affected by the restore process, I ultimately found that it had completely overwritten the Linux directory and everything in it.

Fortunately for me the one partition that wasn’t overwritten during this debacle is the one partition that had all my data on it.  So the only real thing lost was time.

In the wake of this I’ve decided to explore a different tact to my systems than I have been the last year or so.  Despite my attempts to move to a pure open source/FOSS model founded upon an open distribution (Ubuntu), I’ve found there are some aspects of proprietary computing I just can’t shed yet.  This is not due to personal preference, but rather to a lack of available substitutes.  For example programs like SecondLife just don’t work well on the Linux platform yet.

The result has been a bipolar model in which I’m constantly having to switch between two machines, never quite sure of which my official platform is.

To break from this habit I thought I might compromise and bring as many FOSS programs into the fold as possible.  This goes for my MacBook (which recently died as well), and my Windows XP Media machine.

I can’t ignore the fact this ultimately amounts to giving a prisioner time outside under guard - despite the Free software (free as in freedom and free as in beer), if it’s been implemented in a closed system it’s never truly free.  Yet my circumstances are such that I don’t see any clear alternatives at the moment.

So in the case of my PC I’ve opted to use the following software environment:

• Web browser: Firefox
• Mail Client: Thunderbird
• Office suite: OpenOffice (or Abiword & Gnumeric) NeoOffice on Mac
• Messaging Client: Pidgin or Adium on Mac
• Music Player: Songbird + iPod sync plugin
• Audio editor: Audacity
• Video player: VLC
• Image editor: GIMP
• Media ripper: Handbrake
• File Archiver: 7-Zip
• FTP Client: Filezilla
• PDF Writer: PDF Creator
• PDF Viewer: Sumatra
• HTML editor: NVU

This constitutes by far the majority of my computer usage, with the proprietary exceptions being Skype, SecondLife, and Newsgator RSS readers (which centrally sync my various machines).  My attitude currently is proprietary will only come into play if there is no reasonable FOSS alternative.

There will most likely be some additions and changes as time goes by (I’ll try and keep this updated), but this gives you a pretty good idea of the opportunities that exist,

Call this post a mental brain dump.

My colleagues and I have been spending more and more time in SecondLife lately, and all the while I’ve been experiencing a growing sense of conflict between the potential of the environment and the traditional curriculum-based structures and expectation of higher education.

On the side of untapped, raw potential there are the immersive aspects of SecondLife.  There is an incredible amount of creativity and diversity interwoven into the fabric of SecondLife, and it is truly inspiring to behold.  Those who can enter the realm with an exploratory willingness experience a world of limitless potential.  This translates quite strongly to incredible depth in learning opportunities; however at least based on my experiences so far, they seem to be of a different variety to the targeted, preplanned outcomes that are emphasised in higher education.

I would characterise the learning processed I’ve experienced in SecondLife so far as very holistic and multi-faceted.  Yes there are specific tasks that I’ve learned to do and skills that I’ve acquired - most notably in terms of the construction of structures and landscapes on the island - but on a wider more fundamental level I can’t help but get the feeling my SL experiences thus far have resulted in a more esoteric knowledge that I can’t quite define yet.  This seems to have arisen from the constant interaction with different perspectives, different approaches to the realm, and a social dynamic that is both familiar and exotic at the same time.

It’s not something that is easily defined - let alone assessed or evaluated.  The latter puts it in immediate conflict with the traditional university culture.  If you can’t assess something, how can you grade it; if you can’t grade it, how can you grant credit; if you can’t grant credit how can you award degrees?  Is the inherently social constructivistic culture of SecondLife ultimately out of phase with higher education?  I don’t know.

There are of course the technical issues and infamous learning curve to account for as well.  However in my personal experience, if you can see the value in the process, and the learning that emerges amidst the process - you can recognise SecondLife as a learning journey, rather than a learning objective.

The problem once again though, is that university culture and structure is generally defined on the latter - in the assessment of performance focussed largely on the result, or the end product.  It would almost seem then that - in an age of shrinking course periods - maximising outcomes is seen to take priority over promoting a holistic experience that affords learners the opportunity to follow their own interests throughout its organic development.  How then can you tap the immersive potential in SecondLife without diluting it so far that it loses its potency and value?

I normally don’t link to support resources, but this find has proven so informative I wanted to pass it along.

Linden Labs, the folks who bring us SecondLife, have an amazing support library of videos available for download that cover a wide range of topics.  I only discovered them yesterday but have already watched nearly 20 of them.  They’ve cleared up so much confusion for me!

Anyway the post where I initially found the link was called “‘Inside the Lab’ Podcast, a Discussion on Education in Second Life“.  I’ve yet to read this yet, but that topic alone sounds worth a read.

More importantly the support resources are available via a few different means (see the above link for the full options).  Personally I prefer the podcast option, which is located via this link:

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=151557204

The link looks unusual if you’re not familiar with podcasting, but if you load it in your browser you’ll find you’re notified that the content will be loaded in iTunes and asked to confirm.

The content is appropriate for a range of experience levels - including brand new users.  I think it’s also a really nice example of what support possibilities exist when considering use of video tutorials.

Finally, if you’re considering building in SL but don’t know where to start, the tutorials point to an amazing in-world resource centre known as the Ivory Tower which depicts how the build tools can be used from the most simple block through highly intricate arrangements.

The in-world location of the Ivory Tower is: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Natoma/208/171/26

Might be worth a field trip I think  I’ve already had a quick look and will definitely be heading back again soon.  Most likely later today in fact.

Things just got interesting in the realm of live streaming.  Several months back rumours began to circulate that YouTube was planning to enter the market with their own release.  To existing players the implications of this at the time were significant.  Google’s cash pools combined with YouTube’s user base would represent a formidable opponent which would arguably take over the niche.

The rumour began in February 2008 with a statement by YouTube co-founder, Steve Chen, who was quoted by Pop17’s Saray Meyers as saying “Live video is something we’ve always wanted to do but haven’t had the resources to do correctly, but now with Google we hope to launch something this year.”

In the six months since then, things appear to have changed, and the fate of Ustream.TV, Justin.TV, Yahoo! Live and others is not nearly as sealed as predictors (such as myself) had initially quipped.

According to the Silicon Alley Insider, the prospect of a YouTube live streaming option is no longer on the table:

“…our source says that Google (GOOG) has never really seriously considered a live video service. We’re told that the notion was discussed months after Chen’s statement, but that the idea was tabled, for a variety of reasons. Chief among them: It would add significantly to Google’s infrastructure and bandwidth costs at a time when it’s trying to prove that the $1.65 billion it paid to buy the company will, at some point, pay off.”

The Insider predicts that live video won’t take off  “for at least another year or two.” Personally I think it will either be that or it won’t take off at all.  For most internet users at this point, online video is something to be consumed rather than produced.  Live streaming is one step further out from that in that and appeals to a very niche market.

Unlike on-demand video like YouTube, Google Video, Blip.TV and countless others, in which video files can be called upon at any time and viewed, reviewed, rewound, bookmarked even remixed, viewers of live streaming channels must be present as the broadcast is occuring.  In many cases the clips are available later as pre-recorded files, but it’s far less engaging because replayed instances lack the interactivity that characterises many streaming programs.  Viewers are frequently given the opportunity to discuss the broadcast via a text chat area visible in the same screen, and sometimes even call in via telephone.

Live streaming is also far more difficult to do well than pre-recorded video.  Considerations of  latency, video quality, bandwidth - both client and server side -  and indeed onscreen personality and presentation skills all reflect on the perceived quality of the show.  In an uncertain emerging market where many of these factors are still in their infancy and yet cost of entry and maintenance is high, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Google has backed off.

Perhaps the main exception to this notion is that of Big Media’s entry to live streaming.  In some ways it was a natural progression, because the industry is founded upon the same notion of broadcasting - just via a different means.  From a monetisation standpoint they also have the advantage of an existing advertising model to work with.  Furthermore, with TV historically being a main source of entertainment and information for many people, Big Media has the reputation and importantly content that people are already familiar with.

In the case of YouTube, as the quote says, Google is already “trying to prove that the $1.65 billion it paid to buy the company will, at some point, pay off.”  The prospect of forking out even more money to fund an uncertain venture is obviously seen as too risky.

Then again, Google has shown in recent years that it is willing to play the acquisition game to regain ground in the market.  This enables them to tactically use their resources while minimising risk, since they can sit back and observe the landscape for the solid talent - basically, let others forge new ground, and then buy them out when there is greater likelihood of stability and longevity.

This post is my submission for the Weeks 2-3 assignment for the Facilitating Online Communities course, which asks students to:

Write a post to your blog with your thoughts about the meaning of an online community and its uses. Include a list of identifying features that YOU would look for when assessing an online group or network for features which make it a community.

What is a community?
According to Wikipedia’s article on “Community“:

“The word community is derived from the Latin communitas (meaning the same), which is in turn derived from communis, which means “common, public, shared by all or many”….Communis comes from a combination of the Latin prefix com- (which means “together”) and the word munis (which has to do with the exchange of services), probably originally derived from the Etruscan word munis- (meaning “to endow”, or “to have the charge of”).”

The notion and nature of a community revolves around the holistic or aggregated elements and activities that make it up.  This includes how individuals interact with one another as well as the motives that drive them to do so.  Individuals arrive with their own objectives and interests, but the resulting community is characterised by something much larger than that, and arguably greater than the sum of its parts.

I see online communities in the same light.  As the Wikipedia entry describes, communities are common, public, shared, and characterised by an exchange of some sort - be it knowledge, expertise, services, or support.  The space in which community members congregate and interact is certainly different than communities in the more traditional sense; but the motives that drive the coalescence and resulting dynamic are much the same.

Additionally, of particular significance is the “sense of community” that McMillan and Chavis (1986) argue is characterised by four key elements:  1) membership, 2) influence, 3) integration and fulfillment of needs, and 4) shared emotional connection.

As quoted by Wikipedia, the study describes the development of a dormitory basketball team:

“Someone puts an announcement on the dormitory bulletin board about the formation of an intramural dormitory basketball team.  People attend the organizational meeting as strangers out of their individual needs (integration and fulfillment of needs). The team is bound by place of residence (membership boundaries are set) and spends time together in practice (the contact hypothesis). They play a game and win (successful shared valent event). While playing, members exert energy on behalf of the team (personal investment in the group). As the team continues to win, team members become recognized and congratulated (gaining honor and status for being members).  Someone suggests that they all buy matching shirts and shoes (common symbols) and they do so (influence).”

A critical aspect of this example is the individuals’ transitions from a focus on their own interests (”me/I”) to a sense of community cohesion (”us”).  This, I think, is one of the core differences between collections of individuals that could be classified as a “community” and those that cannot and reflects the notion of a shared identity.  Particularly in the online realm - especially in distributed networks - technical environments can include both communities and non-communities all in the same space - making it potentially difficult to draw hard lines to separate the two.

Online Communities

Unlike traditional communities in which geography is frequently seen as a common denominator, in the online realm communities frequently develop independent of geographical boundaries and can be found in a variety of different technical landscapes.  Most commonly they fall into either centralised and distributed models, which refers to the space in which community members interact with one another.

In the case of the edublogging community this distribution is quite pronounced, with communication and collaboration occurring across countless sites including Twitter, Diigo, Ning, Delicious, blogs, wikis, discussion forums, mailing lists, email, instant messaging, and SecondLife.

In both the centralised and distributed models, the technical framework is a facilitating mechanism for group interaction.  In the case of edubloggers, the common denominator is a shared vested interested in learning and teaching, as well as exploring the educational potential of emerging technology.

Familiarity and Shared Emotional Connection

The distributed model raises another important characteristic that distinguishes communities from non-communities: familiarity.  This relates quite closely to the fourth element of McMillan and Chavis’s study concerning a “shared emotional connection” in that it incorporates emotional and psychological notions of identity and trust.  Two individuals can share common belief systems and professional circumstances, but without a familiarity with one another it’s unlikely that they would develop a shared emotional connection.

Here it becomes clear that the existence of a network does not necessarily imply a community; nor are the two mutually exclusive. In the case of the population of edubloggers, the wider network contains a community within it - in fact it is more than likely that there are a series of communities.  Edubloggers may possess a shared value system, a willingness to work towards a common goal, and occupy a shared space and, but won’t necessarily share the familiarity with one another that is critical for a true community.

Types of Communities

One possible reason for the existence of multiple communities within a shared network may be the in the differing objectives or focus of the members - and as such the overall purpose or use of the community.  The Wikipedia article includes three examples of this:

• Geographic Communities
• Communities of Culture
• Community Organisations

Etienne Wenger introduces the notion of Communities of Practice (CoP) in “Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System” arguing that “a community of practice is…different from a community of interest or a geographical community, neither of which implies a shared practice.”

Communities of Practice, Wenger indicates, are defined by three key 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.

Each example above highlights the significance of context and agreed purpose in the development and lifespan of a community, and the reason why a single population of individuals can result in numerous niches and subcommunities - each of which caters to a different value system, need, demographic, geographc, or purpose.