Virtual Learning Communities

Richard A. Schwier, Ed.D.

Educational Communications and Technology
28 Campus Drive
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canada S7N 0X1
Email: richard.schwier@usask.ca
Phone: (306) 966-7641
Fax: (306) 966-7658

Schwier, R.A. (in press). Virtual learning communities. In G. Anglin (Ed.)

Instructional technology: Past, present, future (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Virtual Learning Communities 2

Virtual Learning Communities

The terms “learning environments” and “learner interaction” are used to describe the context and
nature of communication in virtual instruction and multimedia learning (Kristof & Satran, 1995;
Schneiderman, 1998). In most cases, writers adopt a product orientation to multimedia learning, so
the descriptions of learning environments and interaction are restricted to human-computer
engagement. What may be most confining about thinking about electronic types of learning
environments this way is that it fails to consider the development of community among learners.
Learners are assumed to engage only the medium, not each other; products are interactive, yet they
fail to promote the development of socially engaged learners.
We can use the notion of community to discuss richer, deeper, more complex types of interplay
among learners than we can by labeling such exchanges as interaction—an impoverished label for
something that is potentially more profound. As electronic technologies mature to permit easier
access to other learners, they demand a reconsideration of the nature of interpersonal engagement in
the design of learning materials. The language of community offers one way of thinking about the
type of engagement that happens when groups of learners use technology to engage each other
(Moller, 1998; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Schwier, 2001; Wellman & Gulia, 1996). When interpersonal
communication is introduced into a virtual learning environment, there is a risk of promoting
human-computer interaction without the concomitant elements required to turn a virtual learning
environment into a virtual learning community. This chapter will explore what those elements are,
consider how to grow virtual learning communities, and describe the typical lifecycles of virtual
learning communities.

What are Virtual Learning Communities?

The metaphor of community has been used to describe a wide range of contexts, from communities
of practice in the corporate world (Godz, 1995; Wenger, 1998) to virtual community networks
(Brook & Boal, 1995; Cohill, 1997; Horn, 1997; Rheingold, 1993; Schuler, 1996). Borrowing from
Kowch and Schwier (1997), communities are collections of people who are bound together for some
reason, and the reason defines the boundary of the community. A learning community emerges
when people are drawn together to learn, so a learning community is a group of individuals engaged
intentionally and collectively in the transaction or transformation of knowledge. Although learning
communities emphasize outcomes in education, their power resides in their ability to take advantage
of, and in some cases invent, a process for exchanging ideas and learning collectively. Virtual
learning communities happen when the process of learning takes place outside the boundaries of face
to face contact, typically electronically.
All of this sounds so nice and cozy on the surface. Communities are idealized; they conjure up
memories of warm summer evenings, the dance of fireflies, and happy greetings exchanged by
neighbors. Of course each of us conjures up somewhat different visions of community, but the point
is that all of our conjurings are fictional. Few of us actually experienced the community we dream
about, yet we have little trouble extending our imperfect visions to virtual learning communities.
We assume that learners will want to come together, that they will be mutually supportive, and they
will be driven to learn. But it is important to realize that communities, and particularly virtual
learning communities, are not inherently good, desirable or ideal. For example, the American
populace exhibited a strong sense of community when it imprisoned Japanese-Americans during the
Virtual Learning Communities 3

Second World War, and when it persecuted suspected communists in the 1950’s (D’Antonio, as
cited in Schuler, 1996, p. 68). Rather than describing an idealized state, community is a label for
describing a temporary state of affairs; a context within which people encounter one another and
negotiate the interplay of their unique yet related agendas.
When technology mediates a community, the nature of interaction within the community changes.
Yet, we understand little about how people in virtual environments are influenced by those
environments. For example, we might suppose that people who are connected to each other
electronically are enriching their interpersonal network of relationships, whereas some research
suggests that electronic saturation may actually contribute to depression and a sense of isolation
among participants (Kraut, Paterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukophadhyay, & Scherlia, 1998). Social
critics of technology voice concerns that the values and strengths of communities are undermined by
the very technology that offers new ways of interacting with others (Ehrenfeld, 1996; Selznik, 1996).
With equal force, critics of distance learning warn that technology-based courses can emphasize
transmission of information and isolate learners by placing technological barriers between learners
and real people (Farrow, 1999; Kessell, 1999, Moller, 1998). Perhaps it is a matter of understanding
that mediated communication is fundamentally different from other types of interpersonal
communication, and acknowledging that electronic communication, with all of its advantages and
disadvantages, will influence the development of a virtual learning community.

Starting a Virtual Learning Community

Several features contribute to turning a virtual gathering place for people into a virtual learning
community. First, we need to realize that building a community is not an organizational engineering
task—rather, the challenge is one of motivating participants to create a community and giving them
an opportunity to do it. Clark (1998) uses the apt term “growing a community” in place of “building”
or “constructing” a community to emphasize the organic nature of doing this kind of work.
Ultimately, communities are built or dismantled by those in the communities, not by the people
organizing or managing them. It is therefore a matter of providing an appropriate structure and
sufficient support -- the conditions for a community to develop. The development of these conditions
may employ some of the systematic processes of instructional design such as analysis, assessment,
design and development (Moller, 1998), but it is important to recognize that these procedures
provide only a starting point, not a prescription for developing a community of learners.
The amount of emphasis placed on community in a learning environment may be partly attributed to
the epistemological assumptions driving course design. Predetermined content is often seen to be
what courses are about, and that content is defined and bounded externally in formal learning
environments. Learning might manifest itself differently depending on the context of the community
in which it is created, such as whether communities are bounded or unbounded. Wilson, Ludwig-
Hardman, Thornam and Dunlap (2004) distinguished between bounded and unbounded learning
communities, and suggested that bounded learning communities are created across courses in higher
education or corporate settings. Furthermore, bounded learning communities emerge in direct
response to guidance provided by an instructor who is supported by a resource base. Instructional
designers, brought up in the traditions of cognitive psychology and models of ID, often emphasize
bounded environments—their structure, sequence and control of the learning environment—over the
spontaneous, messy, and unpredictable aspects of interpersonal interactions and exploration (Kenny,
Zhang, Schwier & Campbell, 2004).
Virtual Learning Communities 4

Among the structural and support systems needed for a community to grow, Clark (1998)
emphasizes that a virtual community needs a leader or leaders. These people may act as facilitators,
listmoms, hosts, educators, managers, coaches or electronic gurus, but however named, they are
essential to the success of a virtual learning community. The leader sets the agenda and the tone for
the virtual learning community, and is the person known to all of the members of the community as
the touchstone for protocol and administrative issues. For example, on listservs the leader could be
the person whom members contact for information about unsubscribing from the list. This person
might also intervene if a disagreement between members is monopolizing the list and suggest that
the discussants move to a private area to argue. In a healthy and well-established virtual community,
members of the community handle most "policing" of the community themselves, but the judicious
intervention of a community leader can be invaluable.
It is also critically important that support technologies become transparent and allow participants to
concentrate on the tasks, relationships and ideas at hand, and creating a balance between content and
community (Schwier & Dykes, 2004; in press). Using technology for interpersonal communication
is foreign and unnatural for many participants. Anything in the system that emphasizes technology
or makes technology a hurdle in the system is less likely to succeed. Cohill (1997) even suggests that
it is a bad idea to demonstrate electronic systems for people; that the only way to successful adoption
of virtual communication is by having people actually sit down and use them with a mentor helping
along each step of the way. Extensive usability testing should be implemented at each stage of
development with the explicit goal of increasing the transparency of the interface.
A safe and open protocol of interpersonal contact (either in 'cyberspace' or in person) is essential to
building trust in a community of learners. Sharing and learning can promote dialogue only when
there is group consensus about how members will be treated within the community. People need to
feel comfortable to participate, and unless the invitation to participate is explicit, and the boundaries
of acceptable behavior are shared and understood, people will not be as likely to take risks in their
communication with other members of the community. It is reasonable to publish written codes of
conduct to keep communities on track (Bruckman, 1996). In any community, and noticeably in
virtual learning communities, relatively few members conduct most communication. Quite a
number of people “lurk” on the fringes of conversations. Eavesdropping is a reasonable activity for
many community members. Even though they can be encouraged to contribute to the learning
community, it is reasonable to expect that they will do so only when they are ready and feel the
need.
Communication is at the heart of any community, but especially virtual communities. In terrestrial
communities, communication is one of several necessary elements; in virtual communities
communication is the actual brick and mortar of the community. Virtual communities are built out
of words and language; communication literally holds virtual communities together. When
communication ends in a terrestrial community, the community slowly dissolves. When
communication ends in a virtual community, that community abruptly ends. A statement describing
the purpose of “The Well” draws the distinction clearly:
The WELL is a place made of words, an extraordinary word palace
with thousands upon thousands of topics of interest.
(http://www.well.com/where_well.html)
Virtual Learning Communities 5

In a discussion of the nature of communication in on-line communities, Clark (1998) makes a

persuasive case for the use of narrative in virtual learning communities. He argues that because
virtual communities are worlds of words, then the stories we tell are a powerful and appropriate
vehicle of expression. He advocates the use of specific techniques, such as “Tell us about your
week” to initiate stories and discussions, and to humanize the interactions among participants and
promote intimacy in the community.

Nurturing a Virtual Learning Community

Once a community begins, how can it be nurtured? Selznik (1996) identified seven important
elements of communities: history, identity, mutuality, plurality, autonomy, participation, and
integration. For virtual learning communities, I have added four elements to Selznik’s list: an
orientation to the future, technology, social capital and learning. These eleven elements underscore
the idea that communities are complex and multidimensional.
• Historicity. Communities are stronger when they share history and culture. Conversely, they are
weak when they are based on general interests and abstract ideas.
• Identity. Successful communities foster a sense of shared identity. Successful virtual learning
communities need to have boundaries—an identity or recognized focus.
• Mutuality. Communities spring from, and are maintained by interdependence and reciprocity.
Participants construct purposes, intentions and the protocol for interaction.
• Plurality. Communities draw much of their vitality from "intermediate associations" such as
families, churches, and other peripheral groups.
• Autonomy. Within the emphasis on group identity, it is important that communities also respect
and protect individual identity.
• Participation. Social participation in the community, especially participation that promotes self-
determination, supports autonomy and sustains the community.
• Future orientation. Learning communities are not static; they create movement in a direction.
Learning communities "open trajectories of participation that place engagement in its practice in
the context of a valued future” (Wenger, 1998, p.215).
• Technology. In virtual learning communities, technology facilitates and development of
community, but also inhibits its growth. It acts as the conduit for discourse among participants,
and it is the medium of engagement that binds the community together. At the same time,
technology can be a barrier to communication and can exclude some people from the community
who cannot afford or use communications technology.
• Social capital. Social capital is an imprecise social construct that highlights the central
importance of networks of strong personal relationships that develop over a period of time. Such
relationships, it is argued, provide a basis for trust, cooperation, and collective action (Daniel,
Schwier, & McCalla, 2003; Daniel, McCalla, & Schwier, 2005).
Virtual Learning Communities 6

• Learning. Learning is a central element of virtual learning communities, although the nature of
the learning can be broadly defined and contextual.
• Integration. All of the above elements depend on supportive norms, beliefs and practices, and
the separate elements should be complementary.
It is probably apparent that these ten elements are not realized by chance. Virtual learning
communities do not just happen; but neither are they created. What we are attempting to do as
educators is promote the development of virtual learning communities by nurturing the conditions
under which they can arise. We can wheedle, cajole, beg, whine, and nag learners to become
involved, but ultimately it is the learners who will determine whether a virtual learning community
springs from the ooze. Still, there is much that can be done to support these elements. An important
principle to growing a virtual learning community is to be deliberate, to think about and do things
purposefully to foster community growth. A sampling of ideas arising from these ten elements is
presented in Table 1.

---------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 here
---------------------------------------

Members of Virtual Learning Communities

Who belongs to virtual learning communities? Certainly, membership in formal learning
communities, such as university courses, is determined to a large extent by program requirements
and course designs, and these groups will differ significantly from those found in informal
(voluntary) learning communities (Schwier & Daniel, in press). A virtual learning community
usually depends on the participation of relatively autonomous, independent individuals. Outside
mandatory attendance required by some educational institutions, participants can not only leave the
community, they can sometimes participate in the community without revealing who they are to the
other participants. Autonomy and independence present difficult challenges for educators who want
to grow and maintain a learning community. At the same time, communities depend on the
interdependence of their participants for their survival. "The challenge for educators is to learn how
to create a system in which people can enter into relations that are determined by problems or shared
ambitions, and that are not overburdened by rules or structure" (Heckscher & Donnellson, 1994, p.
24). Enough structure is necessary to give shape and facilitate communication in the community, but
the members of the community should not feel constrained by the structure. Clark (1998) makes the
point that it is important to control the growth of an online learning community, but equally
important not to control the group.

Two notions orbit the idea of membership in a virtual learning community: engagement and
alignment (after Wenger, 1998). First, engagement. It is important to recognize that in a virtual
learning community engagement may vary among members. An individual can operate on the
periphery of a virtual learning community and still be a part of the group, and can even learn a great
Virtual Learning Communities 7

deal by engaging the ideas and observing the interactions of other members. Knowledge in a
learning community is not necessarily concentrated at its core; people operating on the margins of a
virtual learning community comprise a great deal of what can be considered the knowledge of the
community. But to become a contributing member of a community, some kind of engagement has to
happen, and ultimately it is important for the tacit knowledge held by community members on the
periphery of the community to be made explicit. If this does not happen, then it mitigates the
effectiveness of the community.
The second central notion is alignment. When individuals engage a virtual community, some
measure of alignment occurs. Individuals align personal, private purposes with the collective, public
purposes of the community. In this way, alignment coordinates personal and communal intentions.
But personal and community alignment is a dynamic process. An individual's personal intentions
alter the community, and the community massages the personal intentions of individuals.

Lifecycles of Virtual Learning Communities

It is reasonable to think of learning communities as having a life, one that goes through fairly
predictable stages. Misanchuk, Anderson, Craner, Eddy and Smith (2000) suggest that learning
communities evolve from simple cohorts by employing "increasing levels of student interaction and
commitment" (p.1). In learning communities, this interaction is characterized by different ways of
working together, and students move through discussion to cooperation and collaboration as the
learning community emerges.
The formative stage in the life of a virtual learning community is characterized by the attraction of
new members. The identity of the community is malleable, and participants are typically somewhat
tentative as they try out communicating and making connections with other community members.
This stage of development requires a great deal of leadership. The leader at this stage is trying to set
the tone of the community, attract and welcome new members to the community, and lay out the
purpose and guidelines for participation with the group as it forms. At this point, the virtual learning
community will be evolving from what its creators first imagined into what it will ultimately
become. The purpose may change, expand or constrict, and it is the first place in which the
members will either successfully or unsuccessfully impose their will on the makeup of the
community. Users will test the boundaries of the community and determine whether they will
remain as members. If required to be members, they will be deciding how significant the
community will be to them, or how they can shape it into something they can use. In all, it is a time
of testing, negotiating, and shaping, and the match between the purpose of the community and the
importance of that purpose to members will determine the length of its survival and the strength of
its influence.
The mature stage of life in the virtual community is ultimately achieved once the purpose, shape and
operation of the community are settled. At this point the leader doesn’t have to play as central a role
in negotiating the purpose and monitoring the activities of members. The purpose and codes of
conduct are known, and the members of the community exercise their control over the community
by doing much of the monitoring. A common indicator that a virtual community has reached a stage
of maturity is when the members of the community tell a new member what the boundaries of
acceptable behavior are, and describe the purpose of the community to the novitiate. In later stages
of maturity, the community is more institutionalized and entrenched. Codes of conduct are more
Virtual Learning Communities 8

rigid, as are the boundaries around acceptable topics and modes of expression. A mature community
may start to take on the trappings of terrestrial communities, and become much more formal in its
operation. This may be characterized by the introduction of some form of governing body or fund
raising activities, for example.
Ultimately most virtual communities will be challenged to change, to undertake a metamorphosis
and become a new entity with a focus that is different from the original conception of what the
virtual learning community would become. It is likely that one feature of this stage will be
resistance to change by some members of the community—those who most closely identify with the
virtual community may fight for its preservation; the focus may turn to maintaining the organization
rather than extending its purpose or mission. One of the possibilities at this stage of life is that the
virtual learning community enters a period of natural decline. Ultimately, the death of a virtual
learning community, or other similar organizations, may be good thing for everyone involved. It can
allow organizers and members to move on to something else. The death of a virtual community is
different from the death of a physical community. Despite the sense of loss and failure that some
people inevitably feel, when a virtual learning community dies people are free to move without
uprooting the rest of their lives as they do when physical communities perish. This is not to suggest
that virtual communities are unimportant to individuals; they may in fact become as important as
geographic communities to some members. But is the message for community architects “learn to
adapt or prepare to die?” In most cases, yes. There may be the rare virtual community that becomes
so entrenched that it will survive without significant change, but most virtual communities will face
greater volatility. The important message is that we need to plan to address the stages of life in
learning communities when we create them.

Conclusion
If educators choose to promote the development of virtual learning communities, a number of issues
emerge. Some issues are financial and logistic—how does one assemble the technological,
organizational, and personal systems necessary to construct and maintain a communication system?
But the more important questions center on the design, implementation, pedagogy and effects of
virtual learning communities, the socio-educational aspects of learning through this means of
communication.
This chapter does not suggest that using technology to support the development of virtual learning
communities will address the many challenges faced by schools and other institutionalized learning
communities. In fact, it is quite possible that virtual learning communities will remain largely
irrelevant to formal, institution-based education or at least marginalized by school systems. But
many people are already technologically literate, and many already participate in informal virtual
learning communities outside institutionalized educational systems. Using the ideas inherent in
community when we construct learning environments offers a way of using technology that is
consistent with social constructivist approaches in education, and suggests that virtual learning
communities can contribute to the way we respond to the challenge of building dynamic, engaging
and authentic online learning environments.
Virtual Learning Communities 9

References
Brook, J., & Boal, I.A. (1995). Resisting the virtual life: The culture and politics of information. San
Francisco: City Lights Books.
Bruckman, A. (1996). Finding one’s own [space] in cyberspace. Technology Review, 99(1), 48.
Retrieved October 26, 2005 from http://www.techreview.com/articles/jan96/Bruckman.html.
Clark, C. J. (1998). Let your online learning community grow: Three design principles for growing
successful email listservs and online forums in educational settings. [On-line]. Available:
http://et.sdsu.edu/cclark/papers/pop.html.
Cohill, A.M. (1997). "Success factors of the Blacksburg Electronic Village", In A.M. Cohill & A.L.
Kavanaugh (Eds.), Community networks: Lessons from Blacksburg, Virginia (pp. 297-318).
Norwood, MA: Artech House.

Daniel, B., McCalla, G., & Schwier, R.A. (2005). Mining Data and Modelling Social Capital in
Virtual Learning Communities. Proceedings of the Association for Artificial Intelligence in
Education (AIED – 2005).
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.
Ehrenfeld, D. (1996). "Pseudocommunities", In W. Vitek & W. Jackson (Eds.), Rooted in the land
(pp. 20-24). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Farrow, C.S. (1999, January 9). The electronic buffalo: A web tale. On Campus News, University of
Saskatchewan, pp. 5.
Gozdz, K. (1995). Community building: Renewing spirit and learning in business. San Francisco:
Sterling and Stone.
Heckscher , C., & Donnellon, A.M. (1994). The post-bureaucratic organization. London, UK: Sage
Publications.
Horn, S. (1997). Cyberville: Clicks, culture, and the creation of an online town. New York: Warner
Books.
Kenny, R.F., Zhang Z., Schwier, R.A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional
designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning
and Technology, 31(1), 9-26.
Kessell, S. (1999). Postgraduate courses on the WWW: Teaching the teachers and educating the
professors. Retrieved on October 26, 2005 from http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/development/.

Kowch, E, & Schwier, R.A. (1997). Considerations in the construction of technology-based virtual
learning communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 26(1), 1-12.
Virtual Learning Communities 10

Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay,T., & Scherlis, W. (1998).
Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological
well-being? American Psychologist, 53( 9), 1017-1031. Retrieved on October 26, 2005 from
http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp5391017.html.
Kristof, R., & Satran, A. (1995). Interactivity by design. Mountain View, CA: Adobe Press.
Misanchuk, M., Anderson, T., Craner, J., Eddy, P., & Smith, C.L. (2000, October). Strategies for
creating and supporting a community of learners. Paper presented at the Annual Convention
of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, Colorado.
Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance education.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 115-122.
Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Palloff, R.M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies
for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. New York:
Harper Perennial.
Schneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer
interaction. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Schuler, D. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. New York: Addison Wesley.
Schwier, R.A. (2001). Catalysts, emphases and elements of virtual learning communities:
Implications for research and practice. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 5-
18.
Schwier, R.A., & Daniel, B.K. (in press). Did we become a community? Multiple methods for
identifying community and its constituent elements in formal online learning environments.
In N. Lambropoulos, & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), User- evaluation and online communities.
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Schwier, R., & Dykes, M. (2004). The Struggle for Community and Content in Virtual Learning
Communities. Proceedings of Ed-Media 2004 (pp. 2976-2982), Lugano, Switzerland.
Schwier, R.A., & Dykes, M.E. (in press) The continuing struggle for community and content in
blended technology courses in higher education. In M. Bullen, M., & D. Janes (Eds.),
Making the transition to e-learning: Issues and strategies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Selznick, P. (1996). "In search of community", In W. Vitek & W. Jackson (Eds.), Rooted in the land
(pp. 195-203). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1996). Net surfers don't ride alone: Virtual communities as
communities. Retrieved on October 26, 2005 from
http://www.acm.org/~ccp/references/wellman/wellman.html).
Virtual Learning Communities 11

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, B.G., Ludwig-Hard-Hardman, S. Thorman, C.L., & Dunlap, J.C. (2004). Bounded
community: Designing and facilitating learning communities in formal courses. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(3). Retrieved April 1, 2005 from
http://cade.athabascau.ca/vo5.3/wilson
Virtual Learning Communities 12

Table 1. Implications of community elements for virtual learning communities (adapted from Schwier, 2001).

Element Implications for Virtual Learning Communities

Historicity Incorporate what members have done in the past, and make their stories
part of the community culture. Mention the culture, value and context of
the virtual community. Make public the history of the community.

Identity Use team-building exercises, develop community logos, and publicly

acknowledge accomplishments by the group and individual members
within the community. Articulate the focus or purpose of the community,
and outline the requirements and rituals accompanying membership in
the community.

Mutuality Include group exercises, assignments, activities that require each member
to contribute to the final product. Ask leading questions that encourage
members of the community to invest in concerns held by other members,
and to share ideas and possible solutions.

Plurality Encourage membership and participation from and association with

groups related to the learning focus. These might include businesses,
professional associations, or groups in other countries exploring similar
issues.

Autonomy Foster individual expression and comment explicitly on its value. Set up
protocol for respectful communication and reach consensus in the group.
Create strategies for settling disputes or inappropriate behavior.

Participation Allow members of the group to shape learning agendas. Give guidance to
new community members, and promote opportunities for established
members to go outside the boundaries of the learning event or focus.
Encourage lurkers and spectators to engage others.

Future Identify the direction of learning. Ask participants to describe ways they
will use what they have learned in the community in the future. Conduct
"visioning" exercises to determine new initiatives to be undertaken by the
community.

Technology Employ technology that allows meaningful communication, and which is

easy for participants to use. Promote communication approaches that are
compatible with older, less costly equipment where communities intend
to be inclusive.

Social capital Conduct awareness and trust building exercises repeatedly in the
operation of a course. Emphasize the importance of building personal
relationships as a deliberate outcome of the learning.

Learning Remind participants of learning intentions, and intervene when

interaction drifts too far away from the learning focus. Encourage
individuals on the periphery of the community to contribute their tacit
knowledge to the explicit knowledge of the community.

Integration Articulate a set of belief statements, and identify group norms as they
evolve. Adopt and firmly adhere to a learner-centered philosophy, and
Virtual Learning Communities 13

employ pedagogy that supports individual expression while building a

group identity.