D. Matthew Boyer draft date: 3 December 2008 Future draft to be presented at AERA 2009 Poster Session: Design Thinking: Across Formal and Informal Learning Environments Designing for Community: Understanding Sense of Community in Virtual Learning Environments As teachers increasingly go online to support their professional learning, they are met with a wide array of opportunities for engaging in what researchers and developers have termed online community. In 2004’s Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (Barab et al., 2004), as with other reports of research surrounding online communities, various authors investigate what community means in virtual environments. Comparing these online groups to physical-world communities of practice, researchers continue to explore the ways in which virtual environments can support professional learning communities. What is not clear is exactly what community means for researchers, designers, and participants. This paper begins to summarize various aspects of community that authors have identified, in an attempt to create a framework for understanding not only what community means in a virtual learning environment, but also how designers who seek to build online community can approach the creation of their online environments. This framework supports our understanding of sense of community, an individual participant’s thoughts and feelings about their identity and connection to the online group. While the broad term community is discussed, the purpose of this paper is to focus on creating both conceptual and operational descriptions of sense of community. Through an interpretation of current Boyer page 1 of 31 literature, as well as analysis of an online learning environment intentionally designed to support a sense of community in participants, this research provides a design framework that both informs and is informed by research, and suggests ideas for practical design applications. I begin with an overview of several areas related to community in virtual learning environments, specifically research around communities of practice, teacher professional development in learning communities, and virtual communities. From this foundational information, I present a framework to identify the aspects of a virtual learning community that contribute to understanding an individual’s sense of community. I discuss this emerging framework as it is informed by research, as it looks in practice, and as it may be intentionally designed. Purpose As is evidenced by scholarly investigations into online community from a variety of research perspectives (Barab et al., 2001; Dede, 2004; Gray, 2004; Neff, 2002; Palinscar et al., 1998; Preece, 2000; Riel & Polin, 2004; Schlager & Schank, 1997; Selwyn, 2000; Smith & Kollock, 1999), we as researchers have been intrigued by the possibility of taking what we know about physical world communities and using that knowledge to create virtual environments that support similar types of connection and communication between community members. The ability to facilitate organizations online has led to the use of virtual environments to support professional learning, from virtual organizations like TappedIn (Schlager et al., 2002) and the Apple Learning Interchange, to online courses for graduate work or other ongoing professional development. Boyer page 2 of 31 The purpose of this research is to sift through the ever-increasing body of research on online learning and virtual communities in order to identify the important characteristics for those seeking to analyze, design, or construct virtual environments that support an individual’s sense of community. This paper presents an important clarification: central to the creation of a sustained, supportive community of practice, whether physical or virtual, is attention to a set of issues related to developing a sense of community in individual participants. These issues are combined in a research and design framework that can be used to inform ongoing research on virtual learning environments as well as facilitate the development of future online projects. Process Before developing this framework, I began by examining foundational research on a variety of areas related to online communities of practice for teacher professional development. Summative information about these areas is presented in the Perspective section of this paper. From this background information, I move to a discussion of the framework itself, presenting six aspects that contribute to our understanding of sense of community. To build this framework, I used existing research to inform the different aspects, along with information from an analysis of an online graduate course designed to support a sense of community in individual participants. Through this two-pronged approach, I was able to refine my observations of the virtual learning environment with research literature from previous studies. The resulting framework is a conceptual overview, meant to assist researchers in their Boyer page 3 of 31 analysis and designers in their creation of virtual learning environments that seek to develop a sense of community. Perspective To understand how an individual’s sense of community can contribute to their successful participation in virtual learning environments, it is necessary to reflect upon foundational research into areas related to communities of practice and professional learning. The following section presents information on the areas of communities of practice, teacher professional learning, and virtual communities. This foundational research helps us to understand not simply what community means in a broader sense, but also why community can be such a powerful concept when developing learning environments and activities. Communities of Practice Communities of practice have existed as long as man has created social structures around building collective knowledge. From the time of apprenticeship-based guilds and communities of artisans, there have existed groups of people seeking to engage in discourse around common experiences and share in the construction of new understanding toward collective goals. More recently, industries and organizations have developed their own communities of practice, geared toward the development of communal understanding and the creation of new knowledge. These communities are pervasive to our culture, existing in endless iterations (Wenger et al., 2002). Boyer page 4 of 31 These communities are important to our continued expansion as a knowledge-based society, as groups come together to create a dynamic structure for investigation and creation. In these communities, knowledge is not simply an information artifact, but rather a dynamic process of co-creation where learning is a living process, socially constructed through discourse and sharing. At times, understanding is tacit to the group, existing as the underpinnings of the community’s creation and central to their ability to function. Other times, the knowledge created becomes explicit, in that it is shared between members and possibly outside of the community itself. Communities of practice exist across many dimensions, including time, location, participants, size and purpose. For example, a group of twenty teachers may come together for a five-day professional development workshop at their school with the task of creating a scope and sequence for a future unit of study. In another example, four architects situated in separate cities around the globe use communication technologies to complete a building design over a period of months. These communities can continue past their current iterations or choose to dissolve once their task is completed; the community of practice defines its own structure and sustainability. In one model of communities of practice, there are three criteria for examining these communities: domain, community and practice (Wenger et al., 2002). Domain refers to the common ground shared by the participants. Community involves the social interactions that become the foundation for the construction of new knowledge. Practice includes several variables: framework, ideas, tools and information. Framework defines the component structures for communication and sharing, while ideas are the concepts and topics for investigation. Tools Boyer page 5 of 31 can be anything from communication technologies to the physical implements used to create and display the information as artifacts. Put another way, communities of practice involve the creation of shared knowledge and beliefs, while bringing together individual histories that intertwine to construct interdependent participants involved in a communal enterprise. The participants develop relationships that respect individual differences and viewpoints, but allow for everyone to interact within an ongoing and reproducible endeavor (Barab et al., 2004). A community of practice exists through ongoing interaction focused on the sharing of information toward the social construction of new knowledge. Situated in practice, the members engage with archival and current material while interacting with each other (Anderson et al., 2000). Through this communal work, an individual participant creates an identity that is related to their role in the community, but can also come to understand the purpose and importance of their work within larger contexts (Gray, 2004). Teacher Professional Development through Professional Learning Communities Under many current models of teacher professional development, teachers are asked to leave their classrooms to participate in educational activities designed to improve their teaching and have a positive impact on student learning and achievement. They are removed from the very situations they wish to improve and provided with provocative panaceas that promise positive change. When they return to their classrooms, the status quo environment that has inhibited the Boyer page 6 of 31 development of organically instigated change by its very structure, teachers are expected to integrate their newfound knowledge into faulty existing structures. It is customary to assume that teachers can implement change without providing environmental or systemic change. They are removed from their practice, provided with episodic anecdotes of innovation, and then returned to the realities of their classrooms (Grossman et al., 2001). Professional development must be informed by new perspectives and constructed toward appropriate goals. Rather than episodic, it must be a career-long process with ongoing involvement. Instead of removing it from the classroom, it must occur in context, or at the very least, be tied directly to context for positive transfer of training to occur. It must begin with the work of the teacher. It must focus on student knowledge and achievement. It must be appropriate to the current stage of the teacher’s career (Schlager & Fusco, 2004). For change in professional practice to occur, it must be change that is self-sustaining and generative (Franke et al., 1998). Teachers can only practice the changes they have encountered when their environment provides ongoing support for innovations to take hold and prosper. Also, the practices must be part of continual growth, in which necessity requires investigation and this inquiry leads to further change. Change in the system does not occur without change to the individual, but change in the individual cannot happen if the system does not provide room for this to develop (Christiansen & Ramadevi, 2002). This interrelationship necessitates a communal and systemic approach to change. Boyer page 7 of 31 Collaboration between teachers supports the very things that current professional development activities lack: ongoing cognitive and emotional support for teachers (Marx et al., 1998). In such professional learning communities, teachers are able to learn new information, converse about their new understanding, and explore and reflect upon current and new practices. They support each other as they attempt to integrate innovations, while providing the environment to take risks and experiment with new ideas. In these types of community, teachers have opportunities to participate in both formal and informal learning experiences. A more structured focus on a particular topic may provide the attention to a necessary innovation, while engaging in informal exchanges provide the necessary connections that help to create and sustain a community of practice (Palinscar et al., 1998). Through these formal and informal experiences, participants have the opportunity to connect to new content, new practices, new colleagues, new curricula, and deeper opportunities for learning (Cox, 2004). Teacher professional development situated in professional learning communities can involve a wide range of participants, but can be most effective when there is a diversity of individuals who each bring their expertise and experiences to the group. For example, a community that involves both classroom teachers and university researchers and students allows participants to not only use their individual strengths, but also try on different roles, developing their individual understanding through the different perspectives of other community members. Teachers can learn from the research-based knowledge of university participants, and the university Boyer page 8 of 31 participants can place their academic understanding within the context of classrooms and practice (Putnam & Borko, 2000). Within these communities, there is the possibility that each group will create its shared goals and choose to focus on specific or general topics to develop through their interactions. This mutual investigation of a topic can have either a cohort or issue focus, engaging in communal professional discourse toward more general understanding or progressing toward a prescribed goal centered on a particular topic (Sherer et al., 2003). Current norms of professional practice can inhibit the development of such professional communities of teachers. Most teachers are accustomed to practicing in private, with little interference from peers (Thomas et al., 1998). They do not engage in critical analysis of their own work, let alone allow others to reflect critically on their professional practices. For many teachers, collegial discourse is not the norm, and must be supported through policy and practices that seek to re-conceptualize the ways in which teachers view their communal practice. Virtual Communities of Practice Building on educational research on situated learning and distributed cognition, researchers and practitioners have discussed the nature of communities of practice as it pertains to teacher communities and professional development (e.g., Barab et al., 2004; Schlager & Fusco, 2004). Many of these models began with the work of Lave and Wenger focused on physical, face-toface communities that support participant learning in deeply contextual environments (Lave, Boyer page 9 of 31 1991; Wenger, 1996). With the integration of networked technologies into education, however, these conversations have turned to the use of technology to create virtual communities of practice that connect users beyond the constraints of distance and time. Using ICT to support the development of virtual communities of practice extends the opportunities implicit in physical, face-to-face communities. Fundamentally similar to their faceto-face relatives, virtual communities of practice rely on synchronous and asynchronous ICT to facilitate group interactions. A virtual community of practice requires ongoing interaction focused on the sharing of information toward the social construction of new knowledge (Barab et al., 2004). Allowing participants to be geographically distant but virtually collocated, virtual communities use current activities, digital resources, and archived content, to support participant interactions. Working with others in the virtual environment, the individual has an identity within the community, with the opportunity to view their individual role within the context of the collective purposes of the group. Virtual communities of practice may occur in a variety of online settings, however, instructional designers constructing virtual learning environments need to understand more specifically the issues related to a user-centered approach to designing for community. Rather than focus broadly on a general community approach, a framework of design issues that contribute to a sense of community supports the creation of virtual learning environments that are focused on the individual student (user, participant). While different authors seem to each take new perspectives on the topic, the framework presented in this paper seeks to organize related aspects into more conceptually-forgiving categories. Boyer page 10 of 31 Creating the Framework Given this continued focus on online community among researchers and designers, a goal of this research is to extend beyond amorphous discussions of concepts to create a practical, accessible framework that identifies important aspects for researchers and designers. What is presented in this paper as a set of six important issues is a summation of ongoing research, infused with analysis of a virtual learning environment designed to support an individual sense of community. Researchers and designers who focus on an individual sense of community can use the following aspects as they analyze and build for a sense of community. Understanding the factors that contribute or detract from an individual’s sense of community in a virtual learning environment provide a lens for understanding, conceptually and operationally, what place community has in virtual learning environments and how best to support it. Analyzing an existing virtual learning environment was an important component for creating the framework. The six issues, without practical application and examples, are simply an inert list of issues. As this framework is meant to provide a lens for research and a support for designers, it is necessary that each aspect be understandable in both theoretical and practical ways. As I present the framework, Although I begin each section with interpretation and summation from existing research, I also provide analysis related to the virtual learning environment. This is meant to illuminate the practical, usable nature of the framework in its use as a research and design tool. Boyer page 11 of 31 The virtual learning environment that I used was a course-based environment constructed for the MAET Action Research 2005-2006 online group, the online ANGEL (ANGEL Learning, 2006) course used for CEP 894D, involving members of the Master of Arts in Educational Technology (MAET) program at Michigan State University. The participants are classroom teachers enrolled as students in the MAET program who are participating in this online course. A subset of members of this course consented to have their interactions analyzed as well as be interviewed for their impressions about the course. Students who consented to participate also filled out an online survey related to their experiences in CEP894D. The survey included items focusing on user beliefs about their own interactions in the online group as well as reflections on group interactions. It is available in Appendix A. The following conceptual framework, then, is a presentation of research literature along with interpretive analysis of one virtual learning environment. As is evident, aspects of the framework often tie closely with each other, creating an interconnected set of issues for researchers and designers. I present each aspect with attention to both the theoretical and practical. After this analysis, I provide a brief discussion related to how designers can understand and use the framework aspects in their constructions. A Framework for Understanding a Sense of Community Understanding an individual’s sense of community in a virtual learning environment involves six interconnected aspects. They are: Boyer page 12 of 31 • • • • • • task centrality common purpose engaged presence role connectedness activity continuity and collocation tool and vocabulary fluency The following discussion presents each issue from the perspectives of current research literature as well as application in a virtual learning environment. Task Centrality Task centrality refers to what value the user places on the activities that she can or must perform in the environment. A higher centrality of task means that the user views the activity in which they are engaging to be important to their involvement in the virtual environment. Task centrality includes the concept of participation structures for providing varied access points for participation (Riel & Polin, 2004) and is connected to the common purpose of the environment impacted by user beliefs and designer decisions. Considering CEP894D, none of the survey participants felt that they were unable to engage with the tasks facilitated by the environment, which would include discussion forums, downloading content, accessing emails, and synchronous chat. Different teams chose to use different Boyer page 13 of 31 technologies, although only a few groups chose to use synchronous technologies within the ANGEL framework. In attempting to find consensus on their beliefs about the course activities, there was a broad range of comments about what their instructors asked them to “do” in the virtual environment. Some felt that some discussion activities were too prescriptive or lacked a clear purpose other than “busywork,” indicating some disagreement about the nature and importance of the course activities. Eleven of the fourteen participants felt that technology facilitated their group process well or very well. No participant felt that technology functioned poorly in this capacity. This is connected to the idea of common purpose, in that the ability of each member of the group to communicate and make their communications accessible and usable by others in the group influences the ability of the group to perform necessary and expected coursework tasks. Common Purpose Commonality of purpose contributes to an individual’s sense of community when that individual user believes she shares in a common endeavor with others in the virtual environment. A common purpose can include a shared goal among users in the online group (Johnson, 2001), but can be broader to encompass variations on individual goals. So long as the user views their personal goals productively related to those of the explicit common goals or implicit personal Boyer page 14 of 31 goals of other users, their exists a common purpose for their continued participation in the environment. Survey participants reported a wide range of purposes for their participation in CEP894D. Most believed that their participation was somehow tied to their development as researchers, and half mentioned a focus on their use of technology as practitioners. When asked about their instructors’ goals, there were many different interpretations as well. Some believed the course was meant to build students’ capacities to perform ongoing, action research As for their own goals, some students spoke directly to the necessity of taking the course to accomplish the requirements for the Master’s degree. Others responded with a focus on their professional learning, and many included how their improved learning would impact their classroom practice and interactions with parents. Only two commented that completion of the action research project (ARP) was their initial expectation for participating in CEP894D, while almost all responded that the ARP became the focus of their continued involvement throughout the project. Engaged Presence Continued participation in a common purpose is one aspect of supporting individual users as they create a more engaged presence in the virtual environment. Constructing their individual identity online by presenting activity artifacts for others to view and interpret, users are able to use different technologies to present a virtual identity. In professional learning environments, users Boyer page 15 of 31 share professional and personal information they deem important for their fellow users to know about them. Without the physical world cues that help us to form our perceptions of others, user must construct their own identities and interpret those of others based on a smaller set of information (Donath, 1999). An engaged presence goes beyond having a clearly identifiable identity in the virtual environment to include issues of depth and types of interactions and the importance of an individual’s role in the environment. To facilitate the construction of their professional identities in the virtual learning environment, participants were expected to have URLs on their ANGEL profile page that link to their professional portfolio. How often students access other students’ information in order to form a professional identity (albeit amorphous and ill-defined) of participants they do not know in the physical world was unclear. It seems, however, that the materials from which students could use this was limited to others’ abilities to share their information in an accessible and useful manner, meaning that the range of information varied to a degree but was present nonetheless. To the extent which the amount of interactions could be an indicator for how engaged in the activities, groups, and communications participants are in the virtual environment, it is again unclear how the majority of student felt due to the low level of participants. From the study participants, however, it was clear that they felt their level of participation and involvement was the same or above that of the other members of their team. This could be one indicator for how individuals perceive not only their identity and engagement, but also how they see their role compared to others in the group. Boyer page 16 of 31 An important consideration for this sample population is that, within the virtual environment of CEP894D, many participants knew other team and class members from their physical cohorts in East Lansing, Traverse City, and Plymouth. This factor, making the learning environment for some students hybrid rather than completely virtual, does not have a clear interpretation from the data collected. Role Connectedness Role connectedness can contribute to an individual’s sense of community by further engaging the user through their virtual identity. In a course-based virtual learning environment, teachers have an explicit role as students in an academic course, but there is the additional role of reflective practitioner who engages in ongoing professional development. Activity structures in the environment are designed to support both roles, while implicitly supporting the development of the latter. Given that users are expected to contribute and interact because of their role as students, different users may have different beliefs about this role. Relationships between users in different roles may take longer than in physically collocated communities, given the asynchronicity of communication (Wellman & Gulia, 1999), but can develop into close, nuanced relationship that require attention and activity. While issues of trust are important to several aspects of the framework, trust is especially important for connecting the perceived and explicit roles of participants in the virtual learning environment (Rovai, 2002). Users who feel their participation is important to the interconnected interactions in the virtual environment may be more apt to continue on a path of productive engagement. Boyer page 17 of 31 Implicit in the design of the group structure in CEP894D is that each participant is equally responsible for group. Perhaps not overtly stated, the implication of individual grades for coursework provides the means to interpret individual contribution as vital to group success. The course instructors reinforce individual roles in digital materials that describe the course information along with particular descriptions of course project. It would seem to be difficult for an individual to be interacting with team members but not feel some connectedness of their role to the functioning of the team. That is what some participants reported, feeling little to no connection to teammates and the functioning of their team. They viewed their participation as significantly independent without a clear role connected to the process of team goals. Obviously, this is not predictive of what types of roles motivate individuals to participate; however, research specifically targeting the function of roles and their interconnectedness could provide important information for the explicit and prescriptive aspects of role definition and interdependence. In CEP894D, groups were expected to create norms for their interactions. These norms appear to have provided the necessary structure for facilitating the continuity of participation in team activities. While individual levels of contribution fluctuate over time, study participants seem, for the most part, to have abided by the norms set by their teams. In one sense, this can be interpreted as clarity of roles and expectation of continued participation. Boyer page 18 of 31 Activity Continuity and Collocation Continuity of activity refers to this path of productive engagement. Integrating design decisions related to both content and technologies, the virtual environment provides the structure for users’ continued involvement. Content is informed by the instructional design underpinning the environment and informs the activity structure employed. The technologies used can help to support or inhibit the activity, so issues of interface design become important for creating activity structures that support ongoing activity. Collocation of the activities can occur in a variety of settings, both physical and virtual, however, designing for virtual collocation bounds the activity. The virtual space becomes a metaphor for other physical collaborative spaces, and provides a central environment for interacting with professionals regardless of geographic location (Bringelson & Carey, 2000) There is an explicit ebb and flow to the pace of activities presented in CEP894D defined by their presentation and description from instructors to students. At times, more ongoing, highly participatory asynchronous discussions are expected, when at others the instructors require more summative, prescriptive individual submissions for course assignments related to ARPs. Survey responses rarely focused on the change in activity. Rather, many reported a change in their expectations and level of commitment. In more open-ended virtual learning environments, such as TappedIn or Apple Learning Interchange, the continuity of activity may be more forgiving in the facilitation of group and individual progress. In the course-based structure of CEP894D with a clear start and finish to the Boyer page 19 of 31 work to be done for the course, however, a sustained environment that, continuing past the temporal end of the course, supports the continuation of any existing community of practice may not be expected by the participants. Even when clearly stated as an objective for the virtual learning environment, this conception seems foreign to the reinforced notion of temporally bounded coursework. Tool and Vocabulary Fluency User interactions with activities in the virtual environment are related to their fluency with the technology tools as well as with the shared vocabulary used by others in the environment. How tools are designed for an environment is an important consideration, along with how new activities and tools are introduced into the environment, are important design issues that impact and are influenced by user fluency (Schlager & Fusco, 2004). Attempting to support user fluency with the vocabulary used by other in the virtual environment can be addressed with assistance structures (e.g., faq’s), shared glossaries, or inline links. The goal is to provide the user with an unhindered entry point to interactions in the environment, thereby lessening external factors that may negatively impact their continued participation in the virtual environment. As mentioned previously, the survey participants responded that the technology tools were no significant hindrance to the functioning of their groups. Unfortunately, there was no data collection item devoted to vocabulary fluency, although all of the study participants appeared to have completed their assigned activities, implying that fluency with vocabulary related to the course did not hinder involvement. Boyer page 20 of 31 Summary As much as these aspects provide a way toward understanding sense of community as a design concept, they cannot provide a precise definition for how each participant will their individual sense of community. To some individuals, certain aspects are more important than others. While one participant may have more interactions with individual activities rather than dynamic conversations with other participants in the virtual environment, they may still feel a strong connection to other users and the group. As dynamic systems, virtual learning environments cannot be designed to guarantee that each user will feel an identical sense of community. The value of this framework, then, lies not in a prescriptive definition for sense of community, but rather in the usage of the framework to inform research and design. Considering this set of issues as they design and implement a virtual learning environment to support course-based professional learning, instructional designers can retain a user-centered design focus while seeking to support the development of communities of practice within the course environment. Ultimately, understanding what design aspects contribute to an individual sense of community can provide important feedback about the success of the virtual learning environment. Designing for a Sense of Community This leads us to a brief discussion of how this framework can be used to inform future designs. Instructors or instructional designers who create purposeful, structured learning environments Boyer page 21 of 31 using a variety of tools, including instructional methodologies and prescriptive instructional design models, can use this framework to better understand and support a sense of community among individuals in the given virtual learning environment. As mentioned previously, this framework is not intended to be prescriptive; rather, it illuminates important considerations for designers as they visualize and construct activities and opportunities for interaction among participants. Task Centrality To engage learners with activities, it is important that they have a clear connection to the common purpose of the group. At the task level, it is vital that time spent is perceived as time well spent. Toward this goal, designers should make explicit, frequent connections between interactions online and their perceived benefit from a variety of viewpoints. Sharing their understandings through various lenses, as teacher, as student, as researcher, as member of their larger school community, what do these issues we are discussing mean? Engaging students in the how and the why helps to develop the who, what, when and where. Developing tasks that are described and hopefully perceived as moving toward explicit individual and common goals should be the focus of the instructional design. Common Purpose To achieve a greater understanding and connection to the common purpose of the group, virtual learning environments that seek to develop an individual sense of community in each participant Boyer page 22 of 31 should have both explicit and implicit goals. Explicit goals are those shared by the instructional designers with the students. They are accessible and often repeated in various forms. Although individual users will have their own goals, to contribute to their sense of presence, a participant must be connected to the common goal of the group. Explicit representations of the common goal provide ongoing points for the individual to stay connected to the group. Implicit goals are also important, as they inform the choices that designers make throughout the life of the virtual environment. These are the goals that drive the activities and activity structures in the online course. Whether this is conceived as a pedagogical framework or content-based model, more importantly is that design decisions are made consistently within the implied purpose of the project. Engaged Presence Creating a more engaged sense of presence relies on connecting a participant’s activity to their interpretations of their own and others’ roles and identities in the online space. Presence, then, is not simply the amount of activity, in its ongoing ebb and flow, but also the way that the user interprets this activity. Providing motivating activities that tie the user’s role to the workings of others in the environment contributes to an immersive, interconnected presence in the environment. For interactions to initiate and flourish, individuals must be present in the environment, which means more than just logging into the virtual space. Who they are and what they are doing in the space contributes to how engaged and necessary they feel toward the online group. Boyer page 23 of 31 Role Connectedness Returning to idea from the CEP894D participants who felt that they had similar or higher levels of participation when compared to other students on their team, it is interesting to consider the possibility that evaluating others in a virtual group can strongly influence connectedness to the group. Once an individual student begins to form judgments about other participants as a result of consciously or unconsciously processing their perceptions about other users, she moves into a more hierarchical, administrative perspective where she is not only interacting but also providing support and commentary. In groups where norms were clearly defined and posted publicly, participants have a clearer distinction of their own role and the roles of others. As these roles interconnect, individuals become tied to each other, depending on individual contributions to support collective endeavors. Activity Continuity and Collocation Perhaps course-based professional learning environments would be best served by explicitly engaging responses from participants about the course structure and how best to spend the encapsulated structure of the course. This concept is deeply engrained in both teachers and students, and could possibly be a used to create more intensive, short range team facilitation that uses the strengths of an individual’s sense of community to connect them deeply with course activities and classmates. Boyer page 24 of 31 Activity continuity is dependent on an individual user’s level of comfort and understanding of the technology tools and the language used to communicate with other members of the community. Having consistent, important reasons to use the technologies present in order to communicate with team members who are only virtually collocated allows individuals the opportunity to complete activities in an efficient, unobtrusive manner. Tool and Vocabulary Fluency Tool fluency becomes an issue for an individual’s sense of community when inexperience with a specific technology inhibits participation in course activities. Providing support for learning to use tools effectively is an important instructional design consideration, and can be typically be facilitated by resources found outside the virtual learning environment. Facilitating an independent-learning model that expects student use of tutorials and other learning materials to support their own development can produce self-regulated learning of technologies, an important component to developing fluency. Vocabulary fluency can be an issue when instructors or fellow students ambiguous, incorrect, or novel vocabulary in their communication. Creating a shared lexicon for terminology used in the facilitation of activities and discussions in the virtual space can support individuals as they seek to become more comfortable using context and content specific vocabulary. Understanding how to use the technology tools ties back to task centrality and the ability to complete the coursework tasks expected by teammates and instructors. Vocabulary can mean Boyer page 25 of 31 terms related to digital technologies or subject area, and being fluent in the language of the communications means a greater chance for individuals to understand, interpret, and share ideas. Discussion This framework for conceptually and operationally understanding sense of community as it pertains to individual participants in a virtual learning environment is just a beginning. The true test of its validity and functionality is the way that it is used in future research and development projects. As it currently exists, it is meant as a guide for those seeking to analyze current online groups or those who would like to design future environments in a way that can help build a sense of community in participants. Through this process of application and analysis, it is my hope that the framework continues to develop in ways that help us better understand what community means and how to design for it in our online interactions. With all of the discourse surrounding learning communities, both physical or virtual, the term community has lost clarity in its meaning. Some writers may refer to any grouping of people as a community, distorting its original descriptions in the research literature. To be a useful construct for research and development, we as researchers must clearly identify what we mean by community for professional learning, before we can attempt to intentionally create online environments that seek to support professional learning communities. This was the primary motivation for this study: to develop a framework for researching, evaluating and designing toward an individual sense of community. Although some researchers Boyer page 26 of 31 have created related frameworks for observing online communities, this project took the approach of summating available conceptualizations and examples using it to reflect on a virtual learning environment designed with the explicit goal of supporting professional community. While the design framework presented in this project supports the view that instructional designers should be focused on user-centered designs that support an individual sense of community, it is not a large leap to move from theoretically desiring a community of practice toward more practical, design-based applications of the theories. As was evident in using this framework for understanding an individual’s sense of community as it pertains to the design of the virtual learning environment, there are many associated issues to discuss and research. To form a more balanced conceptual understanding of community that influences more practical design applications, it is necessary to apply this design framework to a variety of virtual learning environments. Without understanding how each aspect applies to different contexts, attempting to create a summative conceptual definition for sense of community is premature. One future direction for this research is to apply the framework to the creation of a virtual learning environment, using design-based methodology to both inform the design process and reflect on the ongoing research. As this framework is focused on design decisions, it seems important to implement the ideas through a design project, and reflect through empirical research. An individual’s sense of community is only one area of an instructional design puzzle that confronts teachers who create virtual learning environments to support online learning. Even when instructors do not explicitly design for an individual’s sense of community, many of the Boyer page 27 of 31 aspects presented in the framework pertain to how individuals contribute to and gain from the virtual learning environment. Understanding how sense of community can be used to inform the design of these environments is an important consideration for any instructional designers using ICT to support learning. Boyer page 28 of 31 References Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11-13. ANGEL Learning. (2006). ANGEL learning management suite. Retrieved 17 December 2006, 2006, from http://www.angellearning.com/ Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (2004). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Barab, S., MaKinster, J., Moore, J. A., Cunningham, D. J., & The ILF Design Team. (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry learning forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 7196. Barab, S., MaKinster, J., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities: Building online community. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bringelson, L. S., & Carey, T. (2000). Different (key)strokes for different folks: Designing online venues for professional communities. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 5864. Christiansen, H., & Ramadevi, S. (2002). Reeducating the educator : Global perspectives on community building. Albany: State University of New York Press. Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. In M. D. Cox & L. RIchlin (Eds.), Building faculty learning communities (Vol. 97, pp. 5-23). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Dede, C. (2004). Distributed-learning communities as a model for educating teachers. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Online. Donath, J. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace. New York: Routledge. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansell, E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding teacher's self-sustaining generative change in the context of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 67-80. Gray, B. (2004). Informal learning in an online community of practice. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 20-35. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942. Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 45-60. Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1998). New technologies for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 33-52. Neff, M. D. (2002). Online knowledge communities and their role in organizational learning. In K. E. Rudestam & J. Schoenholtz-Read (Eds.), Handbook of online learning : Innovations in higher education and corporate training (pp. 335-352). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Boyer page 29 of 31 Palinscar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Marano, N., Ford, D., & Brown, N. (1998). Designing a community of practice: Principles and practices of the gisml community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 5-19. Preece, J. (2000). Online communities : Designing usability, supporting sociability. New York: John Wiley. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say abotu research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Online learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rovai, A. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1). Schlager, M., & Fusco, J. (2004). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? In S. Barab, R. Kling & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schlager, M. S., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. K. (2002). Evolution of an on-line education community of practice. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 129-158). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schlager, M. S., & Schank, P. K. (1997). Tapped in: A new on-line teacher community concept for the next generation of internet technology. Paper presented at the CSCL'97: The Second International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Toronto. Selwyn, N. (2000). Creating a "Connected" Community? Teachers' use of an electronic discussion group. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 750-778. Sherer, P., Shea, T. P., & Kristensen, E. (2003). Online communities of practice: A catalyst for faculty development. Innovative Higher Education, 27(3), 183-194. Smith, M. A., & Kollock, P. (1999). Communities in cyberspace. London ; New York: Routledge. Thomas, G., Wineburg, S., Grossman, P., Myhre, O., & Woolworth, S. (1998). In the company of colleagues: An interim report on the development of a community of teacher learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 21-32. Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don't ride alone. In M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace. New York: Routledge. Wenger, E. (1996). Communities of practice: The social fabric of a learning organization. The Healthcare Forum Journal, 39(4), 20-25. Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice : A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wineburg, S., & Grossman, P. (1998). Creating a community of learners among high school teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 350-353. Boyer page 30 of 31 Appendix A Aspects of Community in an Online Course: Student Survey 1. What do you think the instructors of CEP894D would like you to get out of this course? :: TEXT BOX 2. What do you think you are getting or will get out of this course? :: TEXT BOX 3. Rank the following on a five-point scale: a. a. how you think your project team works together as a group. :: 5 PT LIKERT – VERY POORLY – POORLY – NEUTRAL – WELL – VERY WELL b. how you are engaging with others in your group :: 5 PT LIKERT – VERY POORLY – POORLY – NEUTRAL – WELL – VERY WELL c. how others in your group are engaging with group assignments :: 5 PT LIKERT – VERY POORLY – POORLY – NEUTRAL – WELL – VERY WELL d. How you feel you are engaging with course tasks and responsibilities :: 5 PT LIKERT – VERY POORLY – POORLY – NEUTRAL – WELL – VERY WELL e. how other students in the course are engaging with course assignments :: 5 PT LIKERT – VERY POORLY – POORLY – NEUTRAL – WELL – VERY WELL f. how you feel technology supports your ability to work with your group ::: 5 PT LIKERT – VERY POORLY – POORLY – NEUTRAL – WELL – VERY WELL g. Optional: Briefly explain your response. :: TEXT BOX 4. What were your goals and expectations for participating in CEP894D? Have they changed over time and, if so, how? :: TEXT BOX 5. Please provide any further comments that you would like to share about your involvement with CEP894D. :: TEXT BOX Boyer page 31 of 31