Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Indicators Of Community Table


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Indicators Of Community Table

  1. 1. Indicators of Community In our evaluation of relational and transient communities on Cloudworks, our interest is in the process of evolution from loosely tied webs or networks to the more cohesive productive groups that can be seen to emerge from repeated and iterative collaborative activity that happens within, across and between groups from more established Communities of Practice. The indicators identified are those we believe promote this evolution i.e. the factors which support the development of emerging Communities of Practice. Community definition: “ a persistent, sustained [socio-technical] network of individuals who share and develop an overlapping knowledge base, set of beliefs, values, history and experiences focused on a common practice and/ or mutual enterprise” Barab, A., Kling, B., & Gray, J.H., (2003) p. 23 (Italics in original) Community Evaluation question Evaluation methodologies Success looks like... Indicators Participation Did participants take on any special roles or duties Analysis of user activity over time. Sustained activity People learn through (e.g. leader, conflict resolution, social facilitator)? and core groups identified on the basis of frequency participation (Tu and Corry, • Sustained over time What was the hierarchical structure? Were these of posting and rate of response received to 2001; 2002) • Commitment from a effective in promoting and supporting collaborative messages posted, or via text-based social net-work core group of activity? analysis.(Herring, 2004, p. 356) Participation is sustained participants Was there a core group of participants, who without encouragement from • Emerging roles and contributed regularly? How far did a core group of Roles and hierarchy can be adduced through developers. hierarchy participants encourage the engagement and activity participation patterns and speech analysis (e.g., of others? Herring & Nix, 1997, which considers the different Discussion and debate are How far did participants make repeated acts performed by group leaders and non-leaders). vibrant. ‘Buzz’ (Gratton, 2007) contributions? Did they continue to contribute into the wider Cloudworks space? Commitment demonstrated through repeated and sustained interaction (Erickson, 1997) Cohesion Were people polite and friendly to others? Was Observed verbal humour (Baym, 1995), jokes, People trust each other (Clifton, there evidence of a willingness to listen and learn banter and playfulness. Sociality characterized by 1999) and have fun. • Support and from others? combination of work and play (Wittel, 2001)
  2. 2. tolerance Were less confident participants encouraged to Support(Herring, 1994) and tolerance(Walzer 1997) • Turn taking and participate further? Can this kind of behaviour be through speech act analysis focusing , for example, response seen to impact on engagement? on acts of positive politeness openness, curiosity, • Humour and Did participants take turns in discussions and and respect - a willingness to listen and learn playfulness respond to each others’ comments? Reciprocity through analysis of turn initiation and Did participants ask or answer questions of others? response (Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997) Identity Did participants use similar vocabulary and Group self-awareness can be demonstrated in its People feel a sense of shared phraseology? members’ references to the group as a group i.e. “us ownership for the community • Group self- Was a similar tone and style used? verses them” language, particularly in statements and connection with others. awareness Was the style and tone used inclusive or exclusive of such as, “We do things this way here” (implying an • Shared language other groups? awareness that they might be done differently and vocabulary When asked, did participants feel like they were elsewhere) • Sense of part of a community? What factors made them feel Shared language Baym identifies 4 types of Community this way? ‘consistent and distinctive language practices’ that indicate the emergence of a coherent online community: group specific vocabulary; forms of non-verbal communication; genres; and humour (Baym 2003, p1016) A ‘sense of community’ can be captured in user surveys and interviews. The concept is personal and based on feelings and personal values and is likely to be influenced by a range of factors which should also be captured. Creative capability Did visitors to the site understand the purpose of Igniting purpose - Areas of significantly higher Innovation is developed through what they were doing? activity indicating flashpoints of interest and new combinations of ideas, • Igniting purpose Did they feel drawn to participate and get involved? engagement (Gratton, 2001, Engestrom, 2007) knowledge and insights. • Multiple points of Were multiple points of view expressed? Contradictions in terms of experience and view expressed and Did people from different types of roles and knowledge. New meanings and contradicted or workplaces contribute? Multiple points of view expressed and contradicted understandings are constructed challenged Did people find participating engaging, interesting or challenged. Evidence of networks of relationships collaboratively • Creation of and relevant to them? cross teams, disciplines, function and organisations. knowledge links and Were links made between concepts and ideas? People find participation patterns Did participants attempt to connect their knowledge exciting, interesting, fulfilling and experience to that of others? and relevant to them. Did participants challenge existing knowledge and practices and work with others to conceive alternatives?
  3. 3. References Barab, A., Kling, B., & Gray, J.H., (2003) Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Baym, N (1995). The performance of humour in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(2). Online Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14 (1), 133-156. Engeström, Y (2007), From Communities of Practice to Wildfire Activities and Mycorrhizae, Transcript of lecture given at the ’Talking Practice’ event, Practice-based Professional Learning Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Paper 11 Erickson, T (1997). Social Interaction on the Net: Virtual Community as Participatory Genre Online Gratton, L. (2007). Hot Spots: Why some Companies Buzz With Energy and Innovation – and Others Don’t. Financial Times Prentice Hall. Chapter 1 available online Herring, S., (2004). Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis: An Approach to Researching Online Behaviour in Barab et al Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning p356-357 Jenkins, H., (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st Century, Mit Pr. Tu, C.-H., & Corry, M. (2001). A paradigm shift for online community research. Distance Education Journal, 22 (2), 245-263. Tu, C.-H., & Corry, M. (2002). Research in online learning community, Online Walzer, M. (1997). On Toleration. Yale University Press: New Haven Wittel, A. (2001). Toward a Network Sociality Theory, Culture & Society (SAGE) Vol.18(6):51-76 Also: McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online Learning: Social Interaction and the Creation of a Sense of Community. Educational Technology & Society, 7 (3), 73-81. Online