This document discusses several topics related to online learning communities and knowledge creation, including social presence, social capital, connectors between learning networks, and designing collaborative activities. It proposes ideas for future research, such as identifying the roles of connectors, measuring their influence on learning outcomes, understanding the importance of strong and weak social ties, and designing online environments and activities that minimize technology problems and accommodate learner diversity. References are provided for many of the concepts and models discussed.

1. Future Directions – clear signposts but
missing evidence? Group 2 FDI Presentation

2. ‘Social presence’- challenges to TEL
How does it all add up?
…move away from seeing learning largely as an individual cognitive process…
Do learners want to move to if a high percentage of learners were to dislike
group work?
Where is the evidence to support this approach?
A contrast between the work of McConnell and the research of
others, so what is the answer?
And how do we research this?
Research into SOCIAL CAPITAL may help to understand what is going on
(Daniel, Schwier & McCalla, 2003) but this needs to be applied to virtual
communities. So what is social capital?

3. ‘Social capital’- challenges to TEL
…an imprecise social construct…
…emerged from a rather murky swamp…
Kelland & Kanuka (2007) discuss the polarized
perspectives and lack of consensus on the use of
technology in differing contexts.
So this provides a challenge in the social capital,
hierarchical structure of the design team even before
the finished product has got to the students (Jameson
et al. 2006)

4. Production of knowledge in an online
learning community
Theoretical framework:
Social constructivism - people gain
knowledge and make sense of
experiences through communication
(Vygotsky, 1978)
Characteristics of online learning communities are:
“Engaging in collaborative learning and the resultant
reflective practice involved in transformative learning
differentiate the online learning community and lend it its
power in the learning process.” (Palloff & Pratt, 2007)

5. The most commonly used Model to analyse knowledge creation through interaction
offered by Gunawardena et al. (1997) includes five phases:
Phase I Sharing and comparing of information
Phase II The discovery and exploration of dissonance or
inconsistency among ideas, concepts or statements
Phase III Negotiation of meaning/co-construction of knowledge
Phase IV Testing and modification of proposed synthesis or co-construction
Phase V Agreement statement(s)/applications of newly
constructed meaning
Interaction Analysis Model (Gunawardena et al., 1997)

6. Connectors, learning ties & borders
Connectors: who are they? What motivates them to cross borders? And what is their influence on social
presence, social capital, and knowledge creation?
“Connectedness is the extent to which people form and maintain close acquaintances with others from
different groups within a larger social network” (Kotowski and dos Santos 2010).
Networked learning leads to an array of benefits and new opportunities for learners to cross borders
and connect with other learners, whether they are novices or experts. However, there seems to be a
gap in educational research on:
1. how connectors influence a learning network
2. what motivates connectors to cross borders (i.e. connect to
participants within other communities, networks)
3. how connectors bridging borders go beyond the internet, and
4. how connections and connectors relate to learning outcomes
or knowledge creation

7. Connectors, learning ties & borders
Strong and weak ties
Research suggests that networked learners rely on weak ties with competent people they can trust (Schreur
et al. 2013). How important are strong and weak ties when connecting?
● ‘Strong ties’ exist between people in a network who have close, regular, and repeated contact, and
often have a powerful influence on the individuals involved
● ‘Weak ties’ exist between people who may interact less, or may be located at a
greater distance (physical and/or virtual) in a network, and with whom we
interact less often. But weak ties have an important role in distributing new
knowledge. (Carvalho & Goodyear, 2014)
The notion of ‘weak ties’ was developed by Granovetter (1973),
who identified that they had an important role in enabling
information to pass across a network

8. Connectors, learning ties & borders
Ideas for future research
How can we identify, classify, and analyse connectors’ roles in a learning network?
How can we measure the efficacy of connectors as stakeholders of learning outcomes?
Can we / what can we learn from “web analytics”?
Issues such as student knowledge level and context play
important roles in the analysis of educational data,
something web analytics can not provide (Petropoulou et
al. 2010)
Can we / what can we learn from Social Network Analysis and
models like the Stakeholder Salience Model (SSM) to help
educators identify “potential stakeholders” from social media
(Mitchell et al., 1997; Sedereviciute & Valentin 2011)?
Further development of analytical frameworks is needed

9. Creating & sustaining a learning community
Ideas for future research
● If instructors need to understand their role both in terms of fostering sense of community and also in
modeling the social behavior that is expected of online students to motivate and engage them (Anderson,
Rourke, Archer, & Garrison, 2001)...
...then what are the roles and responsibilities of participants in a learning community? To what extent / in
what ways does participants’ understanding of the role and responsibilities influence participation?
● If collaborative assignments and sharing activities can support the
development of a sense of belonging (Barab, Thomas, & Merrill, 1999),
accommodate diversity and encourage the emergence of multiple
perspectives (Wilson, Ludwidg-Hardman, Thornam, & Dunlap, 2004)...
...then what are the design principles for effective collaborative
assignments and sharing activities? How do you design for collaboration?

10. Creating & sustaining a learning community
Ideas for future research
● If there are three levels of community in online courses - group, class and beyond class (Liu et al. 2007)...
...then what is the role of community in networked learning? Note the distinction between between a social
network and a community (Wenger et al. 2011):
"The network aspect refers to the set of relationships, personal interactions, and connections among
participants who have personal reasons to connect. It is viewed as a set of nodes and links with
affordances for learning, such as information flows, helpful linkages, joint problem solving, and
knowledge creation.
The community aspect refers to the development of a shared
identity around a topic or set of challenges. It represents a
collective intention - however tacit and distributed - to steward a
domain of knowledge and to sustain learning about it." (p. 9).

11. Creating & sustaining a learning community
Ideas for future research
● If it is unlikely that a sense of community will develop in an online group if participants do not want it (Liu
et al. 2007)...
...then how can an online tutor determine whether it is worth investing time and effort in community-building
activities?
● If problems with technology (such as poor connection / functionality / reliability) can inhibit the
development of sense of community in online groups (Hill, 2001; Kearsley, 2000; Lock, 2002)...
...then what principles might inform the design of online environments /
activities which accommodate and minimise these problems?
● If you are intending to create and sustain a learning community…
...then what are the mechanisms by which new members are
attracted and recruited? Who will be responsible for this? And how
often will new members need to be identified and added?

12. Human factors influencing online behaviour
Ideas for future research
● McConnell (2006) notes that sometimes one in five do not have a positive experience of collaborative
online learning, suggesting that collaborative online learning is not a catch all. Is this a failing of
collaborative online learning or is there something missing in the behaviour of the one in five?
● Jones and Healing (2010) highlight the dangers of assuming that technological change leads to changes in
attitudes and behaviours. Research into the extent to which technological change really influences
behaviour will help address the apparent conundrum that the net generation may not be able for online
learning.
● The roles that students adopt online can influence their participation (Kellend and Kanuka, 2007),
suggesting the need for further research into online personas and their influence on participation
● The extent to which culture is a factor in determining online behaviour (Kellend and Kanuka, 2007) and
participation is obviously a source of future research.
● With a nod to Anderson (2008), future research on online behaviour will likely continue to focus on
practice rather than theory. Although sufficient practice research is enabling the community to start
laying down some theory.

13. References
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, R. and Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Teaching Presence in a Computer Conferencing Context.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 5(2).
Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. AU
Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-
Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Barab, S. A., Thomas, M. K., & Merill, H. (1999). Online learning: From information dissemination to building a shared sense of
community. Unpublished Manuscript. Indiana University Bloomington.
Carvalho, L. and Goodyear, P. (2014). The Architecture of Productive Learning Networks. Routledge, New York.
Daniel, B., Schwier, R., & McCalla, G. (2003). Social capital in virtual learning communities and distributed communities of practice.
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 29(3), 113-139.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology. 78(6),
pp.1360-1380.
Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., and Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a Global Online Debate
and the Development of an In teraction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction
of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research. Vol.
17, Number 4.

14. References
Hill, J. R. (2001). Building community in web-based learning environments: Strategies and techniques. Retrieved October 11th,
2014, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw01/papers/refereed/hill/paper.html
Jameson, J., Ferrell, G., Kelly, J., Walker, S. and Ryan, M. (2006). Building trust and shared knowledge in communities of e-learning
practice: Collaborative leadership in the JISC Elisa and Camel lifelong learning projects. British Journal of Educational Technology.
37 (6), pp. 949–967.
Jones, C., & Healing, G. (2010). Net Generation Students: Agency and Choice and the New Technologies. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 26(5), 344–356. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00370.x
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kelland, J. and Kanuka, H. (2007). “We just disagree:” Using deliberative inquiry to seek consensus about the effects of e-learning
on higher education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. Volume 33(3).
Kotowski, M. & dos Santos, G. (2010). The role of the connector in bridging borders through
virtual communities. Journal of Borderlands Studies. 25(3-4), pp.150-158.
Liu, X., Magjuka, R.J., Bonk, C.J., & Seung-hee, L. (2007). Does Sense of Community Matter?
An Examination of Participants’ Perceptions of Building Learning Communities in Online
Courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 8(1) pp.9-24.

15. References
Lock, J. V. (2002). Laying the groundwork for the development of learning communities within online courses. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education. 3(4), pp.395-408.
McConnell, D.. (2006). E-Learning Groups And Communities. Open University Press. Retrieved 12 October 2014, from
<http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=95464>
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle
of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review. 22(4), pp. 853-886.
Palloff, R. and Pratt, K. (2007). Building Online Learning Communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco,
Wiley.
Schreurs, B., Teplovs, C., Ferguson, R., De Laat, M. and Buckingham Shum, S. (2013). Visualizing
social learning ties by type and topic: rationale and concept demonstrator. In: Third Conference
on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2013), 8-12 April 2013, Leuven, Belgium, ACM, pp.33–
37.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in
communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Ruud de Moor Centrum, The Netherlands.

16. References
Wilson, B.G., Ludwig-Hardman, S., Thornam, C., & Dunlap, J.C. (2004). Bounded community: Designing and facilitating learning
communities in formal courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 5(3).