User:Habsalltheway

Online communities offer many opportunities for students and educators to connect with each other to expand their knowledge and receive instantaneous feedback, critique, and moral support about ideas, research, curriculum, and education. Much debate revolves around when a particular learning community began or if in fact a community has been established in the virtual world. As well, the research on the effects and benefits of online communities is mixed. Despite this, online communities are in extensive use and will challenge educators to rethink how they assess and evaluate their students given the number of online communities created by students. These online communities being created to allow for students to work on assignments together which much more ease and speed instead of meeting of meeting face to face. Complicating the debate surrounding criteria for the establishment and existence of online communities is the differences between learning communities and communities of practice (CoPs).

Online learning communities require access to technology and the ability to use it effectively, it requires membership, shared goals, shared purposes, the ability to retain and project identity, shared knowledge, member participation or contributions, and trust. Stuckey, Hedberg, & Lockyer (2002) argue that “some may confuse an online portal, database, network, listserv, or interest group for a learning community In contrast to learning communities, Stuckey et al. contend that learning portals and hubs have varied members, limited connections between members, and a mentality of users as consumers of information not generators or contributors of knowledge (i.e., they are passive users).” Online communities are interactive, where sharing of knowledge among community members takes place and where knowledge is created, consumed, shared, and expanded.

According to Wenger et al. (2002), a community of practice “describes a group of people, who form relationships that are essentially focused on shared objectives, concerns, interests, ideas, or a common set of problems related to a practice, domain, or topic. Members of a CoP are part of a social network that share a fervent concern about a topic or idea and who deepen their knowledge of this topic by continuing to interact about it. As a social network, a CoP lives for and through the relationships and the ties that connect people to one another.”

An online CoP is similar to an online community in that there is a need for trust, mutual understanding, respect, cooperation, and the development of knowledge. What distinguishes an online CoP from an online community is that in the CoP there is a passion for innovation and knowledge creation towards developing a more solid practice. There is a shared vision and an ongoing effort for improving practices through participation in an online CoP. Members will usually continue to meet face-to-face when possible in a CoP whereas in an online learning community members are (for the most part) are unknown to each other and there is a weak responsibility by individuals to the community. According to Hung and Nichani (2002) “CoPs are characterized by tight-knit groups of people who know each other well. They have been working together for some time, and they are bound together by their shared practice and identity”.

Although online CoPs are increasing in number, educators are still hesitant to enter into CoPs for a number of reasons: •	Culture of Sharing and Trust – some people do not share information very well and lack trust in the technology (medium). •	Values of Teaching & Learning – some teachers isolate themselves and do not contribute to the building of their profession. Others are reluctant to continue to learn. •	Subject Area Limitations – people do not feel they can contribute because of limited knowledge (joining a community of practice concerning a subject they do not feel comfortable with). •	Time – lack of time to participate online •	Copyright Fears – fear that their work will be scrutinized and vulnerable for others to use or copy. •	Quality Concerns – distrust in others contributions or the quality and safe use of technology •	ICT skills – lacking skills (older generation) •	Limitations and availability of technology (and costs!) – Technology may not be available or within cost expectations.

Wenger (1998) detailed five specific stages of community development. Initially there is a stage where people see the potential of working together and sharing ideas after finding each other’s communalities and joint interests (i.e., “Potential Phase”). Next, these interests may coalesce into a more formalized CoP with a purpose, membership, and schedule (i.e., “Coalescing Phase”). In the third stage, the identity of the CoP is more firmly established, relationships are built and maintained among members, experiences are documented, trust and commitment emerge, and new members are initiated (i.e., “Active Phase I”). Near the end of this stage, relationships and connections are more explicitly pursued outside the CoP as members interact with other practices within the company or other companies (i.e., “Active Phase II”). Fourth, member engagement in that CoP is no longer as intense and some activities dissipate or are closed out and perhaps archived (i.e., “Dispersed Phase”). Finally, when the community ceases to exist, there are some people who attempt to preserve and remember it through stories and rituals (i.e., “Memorable Phase”). In order for a CoP to be successful, members need to maintain trust, identity, and interaction between members which allows the CoP to remain somewhere in the third stage. CoPs require members to develop strong lasting ties and individually feel a strong responsibility to the success and continuance of the community.

When a CoP is functioning well (in the “Active Phase”) a number of interactions increase and in many cases the CoP forms links with other CoPs and professionals. In phase three a number of activities are taking place according to Wenger •	Problem solving and knowledge creation •	Seeking members with similar experiences or expertise •	Reusing or discussing assets •	Coordination of projects •	Mapping knowledge and identifying gaps •	Discussing new and ongoing developments •	Documentation and archiving of projects •	Negotiation of ideas •	Encouraging innovation and evaluation of practices

In order for an online community of practice to be successful, the technology supporting it needs to meet the needs of the community (and support it’s identity) as well as the needs of the individual (and support their identity). Wenger (2001) outlines that a technology steward is a good prerequisite for a successful online CoP. The technology steward role requires understanding of the relevant technologies for communities, the inventiveness of the technology for serving the community perspective, and supporting the way the community uses technology and ideas about the technology which come from inside the community. Once the technology to support the CoP is in place, Wenger states that ongoing monitoring by the technology steward is essential to ensure for ease of use and learning, to search for possible opportunities for evolution of the technology, and to ensure ease of use for participants from the user’s perspective.

Examples of technologies, both synchronous and asynchronous, that have been developed for online communities include Communispace (http://www.communispace.com/),  CommunityZero (http://www.ramius.net/products/communityzero/index.cfm), iCohere (http://www.icohere.com/), and Web Crossing (http://www.webcrossing.com/Home/).

Other technologies which have been adapted for Cop and not specifically designed for CoPs include eRoom, Groove, Quickplace, Blackboard, Moodle, WebCity, Livelink, Meetme, Mindshare, SharePoint, or WebSphere, PhP Nuke, Plone, Vignette, WebEx, PlaceWare, HorizonLive, and NetMeeting. MSN Messenger, Usenet, and Yahoo Groups are also used.

Bibliography.

Hung, D. & Nichani, M. (2002) Differentiating between communities of practices (CoPs) and quasi-communities: can CoPs exist online? International Journal on E-Learning, v1 i3 p23 (7).

Stuckey, B., Hedberg, J., & Lockyer, L. (2002). The case for community: On-line and ongoing professional support for communities of practice. University of Wollongong. New South Wales, Australia.

Wenger (2001) Supporting Communities of Practice. A Survey of Community-Oriented Technologies. Retrieved June 4th, 2008 from http://www.ewenger.com/tech/

Wenger et al. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Some examples of Communities of Practice

Etienne Wegner provides some examples from his work concerning CoPs. http://www.knowledgelab.dk/now/e-portfolio/etienne_wenger

	IBM - http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/lesser.html 	World Bank Environment Group http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/PrintFriendly/C25602B2AE95CDCC85256D21006C2F36?Opendocument 	Environment and Natural Resource Management – Government of Canada. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-101449-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html 	SEEP Network - Small Enterprise Education and Promotion (SEEP) Network http://communities.seepnetwork.org/hamed