This resource is based on discussions that took place during the “Cut the Community Claptrap” event moderated by Bronwyn Stuckey between 24 and 28 September 2002. The discussion explored web architectures and structures that can effectively support or deliver resources and professional development to teachers.

"So now everyone wants to be a bleeding heart in a community. All I want to do is find the useful resources on the web not join a commune!”

Manager

Recognise this argument in your workplace? Ever stopped to think that in some part Mr Manager is correct?

Here are some of the ideas that came out of the lively discussion within the group:

On “portals”, “networks”, “interest groups” and “community”…

• The online community is not a panacea and it’s not the only way to use the online environment.
• Some online “communities” are really “networks.” Some networks are portals.
• ‘Network’ suggests a broadcast delivery model and weaker interpersonal ties. Interest groups are more “give and take. Communities have strong bonds developed through collaboration.
• John Seely Brown [http://www.johnseelybrown.com/] describes the nodes or "hubs" as being the communities and these communities can be connected within a network.
• An online repository is valued because of its goodies. But the value added that encourages you to go there is the extra stuff. Think of Amazon.com for example with its reviews and ratings – better than bookshop!
• Sometimes people just need raw information, for example those in the legal world. Sometimes you just want to get in, get the info and get out.
• Maybe sites that only “serve out” are OK in the corporate world but they are not ideal for an educational setting.
• A community can’t be built – it can only grow.
• You’ve got to give people ownership of a community if it to be truly successful. It’s also got to grow with them.
• How large can a sustainable community can be?
• One person suggested that an online community space needs to be dynamic, interesting and fulfil the needs of a diverse group. 100 community visitors will have 100 different reasons for visiting. The moderator responded that the “one stop shop” is actually not a good idea in her opinion. That it is naive and perhaps almost greedy to desire to be “all things” on the web simply because you can. It is better to provide more specialised activity
• We are still locked in "pull" technology (request or retrieve from the web) rather than "push" technology (delivered to the user). This seems to keep a lot of people fairly and squarely in the consumer camp for the moment.
• One contributor described setting up an online repository of learning resources for teachers to use materials from and to share their own. She’s going to start a forum, but knows no one will use it. She knows everyone will use the resources provided, but will not share their own. Teachers are busy enough, she says – a resource only site is fine. But as the future of teaching and learning is going to be learner driven, content free and collaborative, it is scary that many teachers can’t even think about going there!
• The future of education is not in resources. MIT proved this when they announced the spending of $100 million dollars to make their online teaching resources feely available to the world. People don't go to MIT for resources - they go there to be around great minds and the dialogue that is part of that.
• Recommended: a web product that allows you to email to a discussion space - http://www.quicktopic.com. People can use the technology they are familiar with and contribute to a dialogue in a very simple way. Replies can be on the web site or emailed.

On designing a learning community…

• You’ve got to listen to your users and cater to their needs.
• A good designer should be able to anticipate the future needs of users as well. Ask them what they want to be doing with the site in 2,3,5,10 years time.
• One contributor describes seeing lecturers self-design “some truly clunky cruddy looking sites that go ballistic” – the learners love them. But have also seen very well designed sites fail. They say they are not convinced that design is a huge factor in a site or community’s success, it’s more about 'heart'.
• It's not the architecture but the people inside the community that makes it successful.
• One person recommends “thin design” - providing frameworks which leave enough emptiness for exploration, but enough structure for focus.
• Is it important to clean out old postings etc to create “space” in a community and encourage people to hurry up and read stuff.
• One person used to summarise then delete forum posts but then read somewhere that 'to summarise is to stop conversation.'
• Maybe deleting stuff is disempowering for the users?
• One person deletes the frivolous social chatty stuff, but the techno, problem solving, useful stuff stays there longer. It also converts well to resources, links and archived sections.
• Online Community 'web shui' means that the community is engaging, current, flexible and above all else populated. It does need to be emptied on occasions.
• Less invasive techniques of space clearing to ensure good web shui could be:
  a) Have the group decide what should be archived and when? eg give them admin rights.
  b) Have a 'Brains Trust' who provide the guidance and make the decisions about the culling – have a discussion forum for this purpose.
  c) Have the communicators themselves form into small mentoring and leadership groups ie divide the hub into groups.
  d) Send the entire communication 'knowledge bank' to participants from time to time before deleting eg zip file of a WebCT backup.
• When the space is 'empty' people pass on by. When the space is 'busy' people look in to see what's happening. But this can be cyclical.
• One person said the best Community they have participated in was managed in tiers:
  -  first level - administrators and leaders
  -  second level - mentors
  -  third level - group mentors
  -  fourth level - groups of participants
  Each level communicated down the tree having received their advice from the level above. Each level reported back up the tree having gathered feedback from the levels below.
• Novices can really “get into” online very quickly if they have experienced people around as support.
• Recommended: article - Developing Your e-Learning for Your Learners
  http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage/sub_page.cfm?section=3&list_item=7&page=1

We know communities are “good for you,” but how do we get teachers to participate?...

• The contributor to an online community learns by reflecting on and articulating their practice. Before online communities these professional conversations probably took place in staffrooms, tearooms and the pub on Friday night. The internet can extend these networks in time and space. What it doesn't have, though, is the intimacy or spontaneity of the informal settings.
• Infiltrate online groups of early adopters by putting new learners in one at a time.
• People need to be “scaffolded” or supported, not only in the use of the technology, but also in the basic human act of sharing and collaborating.
• If you can first get people to join together online then you can build in the social scaffolding. Social scaffolding is about building relationships that allow people to work and think and learn together in open ways.
• Gilly Salmon's phases for e-moderating are not unlike the stages Etienne Wenger proposes for community of practice development. Each recognises the importance of the social and the development of identity in the beginning.
• Recommended: Bill Snyder and Etienne Wenger’s book on Cultivating Communities of Practice.
  1. Start with a small group. (Many communities are now focussing on smaller “nodes”)
  2. Give them something meaningful and constructive to do together. (Maybe Marie Jasinski/ Thiagi's email games?)
• The skill level of the teachers one participant works with:
  Most can use email – but may not be able to manage attachments proficiently.
  Many are unable to manage files.
  Many don’t know how a network works or how to use the task bar.

Games to help participation

• Online games should be not too deep but not totally frivolous either (we are all too busy to just play -sadly)
• Email games - Email is familiar and comfortable and games are fun and non-threatening.

Email bingo
Ask participants to email information about themselves eg favourite colour, food, sport, hobby etc. This then forms a 'bingo card' which participants use to match people with clues. It can take place mainly through email, with some information available online. Participants get to know each other, have a bit of fun and gain familiarity with the online environment.
 
The LOAG Game
This game worked well at NET*Working:
Step 1: LAOG - How can you ensure this community will be completely ineffective?
Step 2: Give a deadline and collate all input.
Step 3: From LAOG to GOAL - How can you ensure this community will be completely effective?
Participants take each "LOAG" and re-frame into a GOAL.
Step 4: Collect all GOALS. You could then publish, or have another step to get people to vote on the top 5 goals from the list.
They can then be used as group generated norms.

Benefits:
 - it allows people to get their issues and concerns out in a safe and often anonymous way (depends if you use email, forums, chat or F2F though)
- it's a JOLT, an unexpected twist. The responsibility is on the participants to turn the LAOGs around.
- you get a list of participant generated goals that can be used for tips, strategies, norms etc. It promotes ownership.

RAMES not GAMES
Use the descriptor RAMES instead of GAMES. These strategies tend to be engaging but not always fun.

We found that people can easily associate games with frivolity when the topic and the results can be deadly serious! If you re-frame them and set them up well, they can be useful and quite productive.

What's RAMES? Reusable Asynchronous Multiplayer Experiential Strategies!

• Recommended: Gilly Salmon's "e-tivities" book.
  E-tivities are bite-sized activities that give people a chance to explore each other and their knowledge of the content. They usually involve some conversation, reflection, association and a sense of completion.

Contributors:
Mary Aquino, Steve Fisher, Martha Goldman, Louise Housden, Marie Jasinski, Carole McCulloch, Sue Shaw, Bronwyn Stuckey, Robby Weatherley