Building Online Communities for K-12

Building Collaborative Online Communities for K-12

Jason Ravitz
Syracuse, University

Suggested Citation: Ravitz, J. (1995). Building Collaborative Online Communities for K-12 Proceedings of the Midcontinent Institute's Fourth Annual Innovations in Education Conference, Minot State University, Minot, ND., November 9-12, 1995, pp. 71-83. Available: http://www.bie.org/Ravitz/Ravitz_Paper_8_95.html

Abstract

This paper presents observations concerning the development of electronic collaborative environments in K-12 education. Educational research in this area suggests that this use of networks supports a new educational paradigm. The author reviews how this use of networks fits into the broader theory of networking, and discusses various formal discursive models that can support the process of collaboration. It appears that structures are needed to facilitate formal knowledge-building processes, as well as to facilitate informal interpersonal interactions. The author cites examples whenever possible, including one detailed case, and raises some questions for future research.

Overview

This paper provides a brief review of theory and research, and provides examples of using networks for collaborative learning. The impact of computerized technology is being felt across the spectrum of educational technology. Eisenberg and Ely (1993) offer an overview of different ways networks "can change teaching and learning dramatically" (p. 9).

Many researchers are focusing on how computer networks can be used to support socially constructed learning activities, in addition to individual learning. Like Chang and Romiszowski (1994) who contrast "instruction" and "conversation" as two different paradigms of teaching, others have noted this dialectic, particularly with respect to the use of technology:

Unbelievably large-scale integration will continue to make technology more powerful with
the effect of individualizing the learning and communicationprocess. That trend will be
countered (successfully, I hope) by the situated learning/social constructivist movement
in learning theory to use that more powerful technology to support conversation among
communities of practitioners and learners (Jonassen, 1995).

It is necessary to reconceptualize "the computer as a knowledge presentation device to one that supports a pedagogical focus on communications in support of collaborative learning ventures" (Koschmann, et al., 1993). From this perspective "the network's true power comes from the synergy of many dispersed minds working together to solve problems and discuss issues" (Fishman and Pea, 1994).

To the extent that networks are used to form partnerships for social and educational experiences beyond the classroom, one sees a "unique model of network learning" developing based on constructivist theories of education, which maintain that learning takes place through the social construction of knowledge (Collins 1995, Reil 1994). Koschmann, et al. (1993) envision network-based collaborative learning "being used all the way from elementary school classrooms to professional education" (p. 1).

Types of Networks

While our focus is on educational uses of networks, it is important to note that networking itself is a process for "setting up and maintaining relationship links" that has a history independent of education and computers per se (Lipnack & Stamps, 1978, p. 230). An individual is likely to have a "personal" network consisting of friends, family, immediate colleagues and contacts, "linked by patterned communications flows to a given individual" (Rogers, p. 295). Additionally, one may be involved in various "topical" networks, for example, one that includes everyone you know who grows tomatoes (Lipnack & Stamps p. 6). Also, a "peer" network is one through which individuals interact with others confronting similar issues, for example the Principals' Problem Solving Network (PPSN) supported professional development among a group of Canadian school principals (Begley and Murray, 1990).

Another function of networks is to mediate connections between individuals and large amounts of information. A critical role exists for the "network broker" who "re-directed and submitted problems to appropriate individuals" (Begley and Murray, 1990). An advanced type of clearinghouse will provide "a large network of reference librarians and 'on-call' experts (who) share their knowledge resources" (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978, p. 203). A current example of this is the online Question and Answer (Q&A) service provided by AskERIC at Syracuse University.

Some networks represent an attempt to bridge different communities, for example, researchers and teachers, in "an attempt to synthesize" (Mathisen, 1990, p. 426). While collaboration between a small group of committed individuals is relatively easy to accomplish using current technologies, it is much more difficult to establish and maintain an interest among larger numbers of people with different perspectives on issues. One attempt to do this is the National School Network Testbed, which seeks to unite researchers, administrators, teachers, and students in building local infrastructures to improve educational processes (Hunter, 1995).

Structured Collaboration

In this paper, we focus on networks that have been designed for collaborative learning. Here are a few examples cited by Koschmann, et al. (1993):

New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC) Co-NECT School Partnership
Learning through Collaborative Visualization (CoVIS) Project at Northwestern University
Computer Supported Interactive Learning Environments (CSILE) at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE).

Two additional examples include the Knowledge Integration Environment (KIE) project at the University of California, Berkeley, in which students use computers to structure scientific evidence and arguments (Linn, 1995). Additionally, the EnergyNet project is one of many at TERC wherein students collect, organize, and analyze data, then share and discuss their findings with others (Feldman & Nyland, 1994, Feldman, 1995).

Hiltz and Turoff (1978) explain the advantages of working in groups to address issues and problems:

redundancy means people duplicate and check the quality of the group's output;
provides greater resources for problem solving than available to individuals;
division of labor breaks tasks into sub-problems, accelerating problem-solving;
social interaction stimulates thought processes with debate and new perspectives;
the presence of others provides motivational benefits (p. 44-45).

It is clear that today some innovators are trying to engineer this process, analyze it, shape it, and evaluate it in order to change educational systems through networking.

Discursive Methods

What are some processes that have been developed to help formalize the construction of collective knowledge, and to facilitate collaboration? Structural Communication was developed in the late sixties and early seventies to identify the different "viewpoints" that are reflected or that emerge as a result of the discussion among participants concerning a knowledge base (Pusch & Slee, 1990, p. 12).

Another technique that has been developed is the Delphi Method. Hiltz and Turoff (1978) identify this as a predecessor of computerized conferencing; it is used to generate and collate group judgments on a particular topic, and to structure group decision-making instead of letting processes take their own course. This process facilitates the exchange of information and viewpoints by allowing each participant to present opinions and arguments to the group, usually anonymously. Input is then discussed using a facilitator or an agreed-upon process that encourages equity of participation. Next, the group evaluates the different propositions through a collective tally and attempts to interpret the outcome of the vote (pp. 288-89).

Another type of discourse is the debate format, with opposing positions being supported by evidence. This was found to be most effective by Marcia Linn in her work on the KIE project, as opposed to open-ended discussion. Students were more effective in using evidence when arguing a position such as "does light travel forever, yes or no?" as opposed to discussing an open-ended question such as "how far does light travel?" (Linn, 1995). Along with the examples cited above, these represent formal attempts to structure knowledge-building processes.

Interpersonal Communication

Pavel Curtis (1995) argues that the primary use of networking is to support relatively informal interpersonal connections, while providing an appropriate amount of structure to facilitate this interaction. In his view, too many networked environments are empty, lonely places, with structure devoid of life, "the software equivalent of the neutron bomb." The Jupiter Project (1995) is designed to demonstrate the potential of networks to allow people to "be with" others while using an online service. It provides a multi-media interface to computerized conferencing so that one can see and hear others--for fun, teaching, collaboration, or learning by example. It is true that most electronic networks still lack the qualities of face-to-face communication--visual and audio information such as eye-contact, facial expressions, gestures, body movement, immediate psychophysical responses and so on. There is some research into both advantages and disadvantages of this, which will not be discussed here (see Hiltz and Turoff, 1978). With video images over the network, however, even one frame-per-second would be useful, for instance to allow one to see if a person is or is not at his or her desk (Curtis, 1995).

What are the essential components of creating a sense of "place" for conferencing according to Curtis? He offers the following Joint Activity Model:

CO-PRESENCE = shared access, shared context, shared communication;

FLEXIBLE PARTICIPATION = participants can be central, peripheral, or absent, but the "place" continues to exist and grow in recognizable ways. There is a shared history and context that is apparent whether you are lurking, idling, or participating;

RICH STRUCTURE = a "place" is a tool-rich and artifact-rich environment, with a coherent map indicating what happens where (Curtis, 1995).

There is considerable support for each of these aspects being central to electronic networks. Co-presence refers to the ability to make meaningful person-to-person contact. "In a network, a person is always more highly valued that the paper s/he creates or files" (Lipnack & Stamps, p. 8). In one study, participants identified "moral support" as the most helpful aspect of using a collaborative network (Merseth, 1990). Similarly, Grabowski (1990) reports that networks meet the need of graduate students who "may be experiencing feelings of social and intellectual isolation and need outlets to exchange ideas, seek advice, and explore new avenues for thinking" (p. 20).

Flexible participation can be understood in terms of "asynchronous" communication, although it goes deeper into what roles people play, and their level of involvement. Some electronic conferences help participants build a "collective memory" whereby it is possible "for a person to enter a conference discussion late and not lose anything" (Hiltz & Turoff , pp. 38-39). This is quite different, for example, from what happens when one joins a telephone conference call late (Curtis, 1995). Green (1990) reports that the use of networks can improve the content of discussion itself, for instance as compared to professional meetings "where thought is often fleeting, encounters are momentary, responses must be verbal and immediate, and arguments, of necessity, cannot be pursued in depth" (p. 17).

Rounding out the Joint Activity Model, the need for structure is quite clear. Hunter (1994) finds that "most contributions wind up as flotsam and jetsam on a vast chaotic sea of email and newsgroup messages--with little order, discipline, structure, retrievability, review or aggregation" (p. 11). Romiszowski (1990) reports that "approaches to structuring the incoming messages offer considerable benefits over the chronologically sequenced stream of information that results when simple e-mail systems are used" (p. 22). Developing a helpful structure for investigation is particularly relevant to K-12 learning communities. "Because the Internet is somewhat anarchic in its daily commerce, it is necessary to define a safe local space, or identity, for a school network where students can feel like members of a supportive community" (Fishman and Pea, 1994, p. 4).

Learning Community: Focus on The Promised Land

One attempt to build such an environment and community is The Discovery Online Learning Community: Focus on the Promised Land. This is a project sponsored by Discovery Communications, Inc. (DCI), to provide an online supplement to classrooms that viewed the televised "Promised Land" series as part of the "Assignment Discovery" program on the Discovery Channel. The series concerns the migration of African Americans to northern cities in the early part of this century.

The Telecommunity Projects Center (formerly Duggan Associates), working with (DCI), have assembled a team of mentors, teachers, university faculty and students, museum curators, and others from within the African American community who have come together to help high school students and teachers explore issues related to the series. The author has been involved in the design and evaluation of the project, and has worked with AskERIC at Syracuse University, the organization responsible for providing the Internet resources to make the project available online.

Gordin et al. (1994) state that "Learning communities are difficult to build because they have high social and material requirements".

Students access published work, such as, papers, figures, presentations, and analyzed data;
Students access tools and raw data, such as, equipment for production, laboratory procedures and materials, community developed data sets, and analysis tools;
Students dialogue with community members, either written or oral, such as, exchange of letters, email, telephone calls, and interviews;
Performance of joint coordinated activities between students and work-based learning communities, such as performing an experiment together or planning collaborative activities;
Incorporating student work into published archives of a community's work (e.g., when scientist(s) collect and use student collected data). (Gordin, et al., 1994).

The Online Learning Community: Focus on the Promised Land seems to fit into this framework, although a few differences are important to note. First, the focus of the Online Learning Community is more on supporting teachers, partly because teachers are known to have greater online access (Heaviside and Farris, 1995). Additionally, the content of the Promised Land series differs from the scientific inquiries we often see, being more oriented towards the humanities, although not exclusively.

A wealth of information and materials pertaining to the Promised Land series, for example pictures from the Library of Congress, transcripts of expert discussions on the topic, and so on are provided. The community is contributing "data" in the form of oral histories, recipes, and classroom investigations, for example exploring historic population changes that predate the annual census. One tool that has been discussed is to provide a series of maps for exploring population and other data related to geographic movement during the period of the migrations.

Teachers who are interested in developing classroom projects are assigned an expert mentor to support their work, for example there is a national expert on oral histories, and a bronze-casting specialist engaged with classrooms at different schools. It is important to note that participating teachers receive immediate feedback on their initial project ideas and are guided to suitable mentors who can support their inquiry as they develop their projects. The use of mentors is helpful both in facilitating investigations and as a quality-control mechanism (Ravitz et al., 1995).

Participating teachers are given opportunities to freely contact other experts, such as museum curators and history professors, via email. They can also join an on-going archived discussion concerning the series and related topics. The informal nature of this discussion has allowed some unexpected results, for example, a discussion concerning foods taken on the migrations, such as hoecakes. Gomez et al. (1994) state that when people "come together for the purpose of inquiry and knowledge acquisition . . . informal interpersonal interaction among members of the community can facilitate their construction of knowledge" (my emphasis).

Finally, classroom project ideas, proposals, and results are displayed online for viewing by others. This abililty to "publish" work seems to be highly motivating, and creates a lasting testament to the work produced by students. The author is currently exploring ways to use the interactive capability of the Internet to provide students and teachers with additional feedback concerning their work, and to more easily promote assessment-based dialogue between students and others.

Conclusion

This discussion has explored some theories and practices concerning the use of networks for collaborative learning. Support structures are needed for knowledge-building activities, and to support informal interpersonal communication. What remains to be seen is how a balance can be achieved that will best serve different groups of participants. The social dynamics of computer networks is an important aspect to be considered further (Hiltz & Turoff, p. 104). Additionally, much more work is needed concerning how collaborative projcts and their participants will be assessed and evaluated.

Collaboration and networking are related processes, capable of serving a number of different purposes, one of the most challenging being to improve socially constructed learning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Begley, P. T., Murray, P.E. (1990, June). Principals' problem solving network (PPSN): Implementation report on a pilot project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education,Victoria, B.C, Canada.. (ERIC Document Reproducton Service No: ED 325 761)

Collins, A. (in press). Learning communities: A commentary on papers by Brown, Ellery, and Campione and by Riel. In Thinking Practices: Math and Science Learning. J. Greeno and S.Goldman (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Curtis, Pavel. Lecture, Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 3/13/95.

Eisenberg, M. B. and Ely, D. P. (1993). Plugging into the 'Net. Emergency Librarian (November/December), 8-16.

Feldman, A. and Nyland, H. (1994, April). Collaborative inquiry in networked communities: Lessons from the Alice Testbed. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Feldman, A. Meeting, The Educational Research Center (TERC), Cambridge, MA. 7/27/95. Available: http://teaparty.terc.edu.

Fishman, B., and Pea, R.D. (1994). The internetworked school: A policy for the future. Technos: Quarterly of Education and Technology, 3(1), 22-26. Available: http://www.covis.nwu.edu/Papers/Fishman&Pea1993.html.

Florini, B. (1990). Computer conferencing. Instructional Developments: A Journal of the School of Education at Syracuse University, 1(1), 18-19.

Gomez, L., Fishman, B., and Polman, J. (1994, April). Media spaces and their application in K-12 and college learning communities. Panel conducted at the meeting of the Computer Human Interaction special interest group of the Association for Computing Machinery, Boston, MA. Available: http://www.covis.nwu.edu/Papers/CHI'94.html.

Gordin, D., Gomez, L.M., Pea, R.D. and Fishman, B.J. (1994). Using the World Wide Web to build learning communities in K-12. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications. Manuscript submitted for publication. Available: http://www.covis.nwu.edu/Papers/k12web.html.

Grabowski, B. (1990). Social and intellectual exchange through electronic communities in a graduate community. Instructional Developments: A Journal of the School of Education at Syracuse University, 1(1), 19-20.

Green, T. (1990). Philo's Workshop. Instructional Developments: A Journal of the School of Education at Syracuse University, 1(1), 17-18.

Havelock, R.G. (1973). The Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Heaviside, S. and Farris, E. (1995). Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Schools, K-12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Hiltz, S. R., and Turoff, M. (1978). The Network Nation: Human communication via computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hunter, B. (1993). Internetworking: Coordinating technology for systemic reform. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 42-46.

Hunter, B. (1994, in press). Learning and teaching on the Internet: Contributing to educational reform. In Public Access to the Internet, James Keller (ed.), Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Hunter, B. (1995, November). Internetworking and educational reform: The National School Network Testbed. Paper to be presented at the International Networking Conference, '95. Available: http://copernicus.bbn.com:70/testbed2/TBdocs/065.hunter.html.

Jonassen, David H. Interview. Available: http://129.8.48.23/INTRO/Features/ LEADERS/Jonassen.html.

Jupiter Project Team, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. (1995). Not a Highway, but a Place: Joint Activity on the Net. Palo Alto, CA. Available: ftp://ftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/MOO/papers/NII-Scenarios.txt.

Koschmann, T., Newman, D., Woodruff, E., Pea, R.D., and Rowley, P. (1993). Technology and pedagogy for collaborative problem solving as a context for learning: Report on a CSCW '92 Workshop. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 25(4), 57-60. Available: http://www.covis.nwu.edu/Papers/CSCW_Workshop.html.

Linn, Marcia. Meeting, The Educational Research Center (TERC), Cambridge, MA. 7/27/95. Available: http://www.kie.berkeley.edu/KIE.html

Lipnack, J. and Stamps, J. (1982) The First Report and Directory Networking People Connecting with People, Linking Ideas and Resources. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Mathisen, W. C. (1990). The problem-solving community. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 11(4), 410-427.

Merseth, K. M. (1990, June). Beginning teachers and computer networks: A new form of induction support. Research Report 90-9. The National Center for Research on Teacher Education, East Lansing, MI.

Pusch, W. and Slee, E. (1990). Structural Communication: A forgotten application of cognitive theory of instruction. Instructional Developments: A Journal of the School of Education at Syracuse University, 1(2), 11-15.

Ravitz, J., Bramble, D., Gibson, G., Graeff, R., Marcek, L, and Milham, B. (1995). Promised Land Internet Project Evaluation. Unpublished manuscript, Syracuse University.

Riel, M. (in press). Learning communities through computer networking. In Thinking Practices: Math and Science Learning. J. Greeno and S.Goldman (Eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Romiszowski A. and Chang, E. (1994) Hyptertext's contribution to computer-mediated-communication: In search of an instructional model. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of Education, Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation Program.

Romiszowski, A. (1990). Hypertext and its contribution to CMC. Instructional Developments: A Journal of the School of Education at Syracuse University, 1(1), 21-22.