Jones and Preece (2006)

Jones and Preece (2006)
Online communities for teachers and lifelong learners
1. How do the authors define online communities? Is this different from the way you have encountered the term being used elsewhere?
The term is defined from one stated by Preece (2000): a group of people with aims, guided by policies and supported by computer technology. The key aspects highlighted are ‘people, purpose, policies, computing technology’ and it is suggested that these components should be focused on to create a successful online community. I was interested to note the author’s distinction between COPs and COI and, while I don’t necessarily agree with the assumption of COP being substantially organisational-bound, I do see the necessity to differentiate here.
This definition fits with my understanding of an online community; the flexibility to survive as a solely online entity, but with the capability to exist in a ‘real world’ set-up or to survive in any format between these brands.

2. Note that the Dublin group met in the pub to maintain social cohesion. What challenges does this raise for research methods that might be adopted to track this behaviour?
The research was to analyse online communities; by meeting and being an observer in the ‘real world’ activities of the teacher’s group, the researchers will gain insights into the interactions of the group, which may make it impossible to compare the group’s online interactions to those of a ‘virtual’ group. In tracking on line behaviour, the researcher can remain ‘invisible; not so in the ‘real world’, where the physical presence of ‘others’ could alter the dynamics, interactions and actions of the group.
Additionally, the researchers will have put ‘names to face’ and interpretations of future contributions of individuals could be altered due to this additional knowledge of an individual. As stated in the report, the teacher’s group created the collaboration by meeting face-to-face; very difficult to compare this to groups where collaboration is negotiated online.
? What is meant by the phrase ‘…healthy…community…?’ This is used on a couple of occasions in the paper?
Characteristics of the framework;
Sociability – interactions; personal characteristics; attitude; recognition; reciprocity; social presence
Usability – features and functions of software; information resources; navigation tools; access; format of dialogue
The Conole et al model would not really be useful in relation to this reading, as the emphasis here is not on learning. The Jones and Preece framework was built up to analyse, develop and maintain existing online (and/or blended) groups and their interactions, regardless of any learning outcomes or intentions. The Conole el al. framework looked at pedagogical processes, tools and techniques, and appeared to be aimed at developing education and learning online in a formal manner. The Jones and Preece frame work fits into a socially situated group; but possibly activity based for the Dublin teachers. This appears to highlight the individual, information and non-reflective components for the knee injuries group and the social, experience and reflection components for the teaching group.
Jones, A. and Preece, J. (2006) ‘Online communities for teachers and lifelong learners: a framework for comparing similarities and identifying differences in communities of practice and communities of interest’, International Journal of Learning Technology, vol. 2, no. 2–3, pp. 112–37.