Comments on: Differentiating Medium from Mission

By: Shane Roberts

Shane Roberts — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:17:26 +0000

You mention online activities are treated to offline ones as a misperception. However I feel that online communities operate under different rules and expectations than those that occur face to face. The concept of virtual, although misliked by some, has some truth as participation is not required to be part of an online community. It is perhaps their inclusion within the community that can be considered virtual.

By: illya arnet-clark

illya arnet-clark — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:28:04 +0000

Hi Mike
I totally agree with you. In fact, I’ve had discussions about this topic and resent having the friendships in the communities that I’m in called ‘virtual’. These are real people and the effort I invest in the communities is certainly real as well. I would do the same thing- reflecting, discussing, giving kind remarks and sharing if we were f2f. And I’ve learned more through online communities than in any other f2f courses within the same timeframe.

In the chaos ensuing at the beginning of the course, I realized that we were building places for us to meet, on a campus much like you describe in your post. However, if one thinks linearly, I’m sure the idea behind online communities is difficult to grasp. It involves a change of mindset on how to communicate per text, and I find it circular. This comes back to your instructor’s quote: Once you know how to think, you’ll know how to act.”

By: Mike Bogle

Mike Bogle — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:15:31 +0000

I had the same reaction when I first read Olubodun’s statement. Then I got to thinking and realised how huge the implications of it were.

By: Mike Bogle

Mike Bogle — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:09:53 +0000

Hi Amy,

Along the lines of the split you mentioned, I think this presents a huge detriment to the community itself because it causes an artificial or arbitrary division in focus to develop in the minds of the learners. In most cases one realm (online versus offline) wins out in priority over the other; and I’d say more often than not it’s the offline activities that end up ahead.

Online interaction and communication then gets relegated to the back seat where it’s given less attention and consideration. As a result it becomes perceived as an add-on that offers learners less depth and interactivity, and which translates to less engagement and therefore reduced learning opportunities.

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy really – in considering online learning as somehow different from or inferior to “regular” learning, you actually ensure it.

I think this relates quite closely to the final point you mentioned about people expressing “a difficulty in conceiving of “real” community existing online”. As a uni instructor of mine was fond of saying “once you know what to think, you’ll know how to act.”

If you’re convinced ‘real’ communities only exist offline, you stand little hope of ever realising otherwise.

Cheers,

Mike

By: Matthew Smith

Matthew Smith — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:50:50 +0000

It seems obvious now that you’ve pointed it out!

By: Amy Lenzo

Amy Lenzo — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:04:56 +0000

I agree wholeheartedly. As you said very eloquently, it’s shared intent that makes a community – whatever the environment in which it occurs.

I notice a popular perception that there’s a fundamental split between “real life” and cyberspace, as if somehow people cease to be human when they interact online. This can be a self-fulfilling projection, of course, but there’s no reason for it to be.

Similarly, many people express a difficulty in conceiving of “real” community existing online, but it’s certainly my own experience that it can and does. When there is common cause, and an intent to find and act on collective meaning, community tend to grow among us, wherever we are.