Views From the Gulch

I have just experienced my most positive group work experience - via participation in an online learning community.

I’m the first to admit that I don’t enjoy group work - I have high standards and I don’t like to be in a situation where I have to rely on others to achieve them.  Too often, in both study and work environments, I have found the outcomes of group work not reaching my standards.  While this may be perfectionist tendencies (and something I need to deal with elsewhere) it’s been a reality for me. 

Social constructivist theory holds that we learn best from interacting with others and the environment - debating, sharing, collaborating.  The research recommends this approach for online learning.  Now it was time to put it to the test.  So, it was with a certain amount of trepidation that I approached a group project to design an online learning community

After some initial discussions seven people joined together to form the Mending JuJu project - it was actually two small groups with slightly different aims but with enough similarities in purpose for us to think we could achieve the desired outcome.

The members had met briefly and had interacted online for approximately 6 weeks- via discussion forums, blogs and comments - but had no real affiliations.  The group largely self-selected - people with like interests or aspirations were drawn together to achieve an outcome.  The other similarities are all based around my perceptions of my group members- all looking to utilise e-learning in their work; all busy people with full work, academic and personal lives; a variety of experience in e-learning and all high achievers. 

The group reflected all learning styles - activitsts, reflectors, theorists and pragmatists.  All contributed actively to the group processes and learning.  We shared our strengths, learnt from each other and contributed to the group goal.

The group went through Tuckman’s stages of group development - we formed, we stormed (a little - maybe more internally than externally), we normed and then we performed - and achieved our stated objective to the satisfaction of all members.  We are yet to adjourn/mourn, although this is likely to come as our studies draw to a close.

What helped this group to form and function so effectively?  This is a question I find fascinating - especially as almost all members expressed similar reticence with group projects.  There are a number of factors that I think contributed to the effectiveness of the group which I wish to reflect on and explore in more depth over the coming weeks.  These include:

• A stated group charter where we learnt more about each others aspirations, concerns, strengths and limitations, perhaps engendering a sense of trust among the team members
• Self-selection by members
• A common goal - both in terms of the project outcome and our personal goals
• A shared theoretical basis - of social constructivism and e-learning community design
• The mix of learning styles, and personalities
• A common personality trait - high achievers
• A common background in adult education and a commitment to developing our own knowledge and practices as educators
• The impact of e-learning technologies and “virtual” group work

 Maybe it was one or more of these factors, maybe it was just a serendipitous event.  Regardless of the cause I now have a new perspective on group work and am looking forward to my next experience.

Informal learning occurs regularly in our workplaces.  For example staff with a learning need will often consult a more experienced, longer serving staff member to gain advice and resolve the problem.  This is an informal learning activity.  Unfortunately it is often not recognised or valued as such by organisations. 

Communities of practice, particularly online communities, are a way to recognise and validate informal learning in the workplace.  This involves learning professionals working to foster an enabling culture within the organisation that validates informal learning and accepts involvement in CoPs as a valuable and legitimate learning experience.  The next role is to leverage the technology to support the learning process, and achieve the most effective learning outcomes.   The careful design of the community, incorporating all a structured, theoretical basis, “best practice approaches” to CoP’s and the best technological solutions for both the community and the organisation, is vital.

This morning I received a notification from the community I monitored for Assignment 1.2.

One of my observation of the community was to question whether it had reached the end of its life cycle.  Today, the moderator was asking just that.

“It has been really quiet in here of late and I wonder if the community has reached full maturity now and no longer requires this type of discussion forum activity? Nowadays I find myself more often than not putting aside time to participate in a one hour online live event that is relevant to me in my work rather than spending much time in asynchronous (any time) for a (community) such as this one. Is that true for you too?”

In the few hours since the post there have been two replies.

1) “The EDNA Groups are really great communities, but it has sort of run off the rails. Some contributors use the areas for show and tell and not for discussions and learning. While others can’t support what they believe in. As I have said many time, “If we all agree we will learn nothing”. I really believe while this place is used in the way is has been it may be for the best that it closes. Like most adult learning no one wants to learn they just want to tell everyone what they know and expect other to gush with awe. Thanks for the memories”

2) “I think the difference is, we used to have a moderator who stimulated discussion, and now we don’t.”

Both responses support my observations in Assignment 1.2 and the rationale behind some of my suggestions for the design of an e-learning community in Assignment 2.   While it’s sad to see this particular community facing closure it’s also been interesting timing to see the theory I’ve been studying in this journey turning into reality. 

Yesterday I was approached by a peer from another organisation about his plans for establishing a network of trainers/assessors using social networking software.  The request was made because of my current studies and some discussions we had had on this topic.  My peer had suggested the idea to his colleagues but been soundly dismissed.  This surprised me as I know the group and had thought they were quite innovative in their operations.

This got me to thinking about the group I’ve been observing as part of my studies.  There is a paucity of postings to this community and I had been thinking about what motivates people to contribute and what doesn’t.  Research has shown that it is only 1% of participants in a community who make regular contributions and 90% are lurkers (Nielsen, 2006).  This is similar to some of the change management statistics I’ve seen - 20% early radaptors; 60% move slowly & 20% won’t move.

So - how do we motivate some of the 60% to at least lurk and maybe post?  This is where the social constructivists come in - learning by observing, interacting, creating knowledge.  A community needs to provide appropriate models; build on the participant’s existing level of knowledge; get other “thought leaders” to contribute; have a variety of presentation media; make it interesting; provide rules of conduct/netiquette; have strong facilitation/moderation.  The list goes on. 

But what happens when this occurs and there’s still no response, as in the community I have observed?  What else do we need to do to motivate people to contribute?  While at some point we need to recognise that at some time the lifespan of the community needs to be recognised and the community ended, how do we keep the lifeforce going for sufficient time to allow members to benefit from participation?

I think one possibility is incorporating a change management strategy into the community design - as well as the educational design features.  This will involve overt support all levels of management of an organisation, managers modelling behaviours by contributing to the community and an ongoing promotional campaign for the community.

I have posted Assignment 1.2 - Analysis of a Selected Learning Community.  Click here to view this work.

 I have posted Assignment 1.1 - Selecting A Learning Community.  Click here to view my thoughts.