A great deal of my academic work examines how individuals behave in collective settings (e.g., teams, working groups, projects etc.). My research is rooted in organizational behavior literature, where the terms cooperation and collaboration are used in an interchangeable manner. In fact, I also have not paid much attention to the differences between these two concepts. This was so until I started to go through the reading material assigned for the Topic 3 of the ONL course. In their article, Brindley et al. (2009) refer to an earlier categorical framework by Siemens (2002) where the intensity of interaction among learners is conceptualized as a continuum ranging from mere communication to the development of community where members work with a strong sense of common purpose. In between these two extreme, we have collaboration and cooperation. The former refers to the situation where members work on the basis of division of labor, whereas the latter represents a tighter context where individuals work synchronously towards the completion of the collective task. The undertone of this article is that, as the learning environment evolves closer to community, the quality and quantity of information sharing and knowledge development would be higher, which would lead to long-term learning at both individual and group levels. In fact, this was also reflected in my fellow learners blogs where people shared their personal experiences with collaborative learning environments, step-by-step guidelines to create a learning community and possible challenges thereof.
Although being a part of learning community has a strong face value and intuitive appeal, K. Oddone’s lectures on Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) gave me an alternative perspective. In particular, despite the benefits accrued by a shared sense of solidarity and belonging, learning communities have clear boundaries which creates some kind of an exclusivity. In other words, because of their inward focus, learning communities are prone to become closed loops which may eventually lead to inertia and group thinking. Thus, what makes learning communities a great context of learning (i.e., strong ties among members who share the same goals) could subsequently undermine their ability to remain flexible and dynamic. Seen from this perspective, PLNs offer a wider choice set and a more fertile ground for learners to come across with novel and innovative ideas. Yet, based on Oddone’s framework, PLNs could be more aptly characterized by individual members who are motivated by egocentric needs and pursue their own individual goals. Thus, in my own reading, there is an inherent tradeoff here: a learning ecology can not be one of a community and network at the same time. Means and motivations of participation in these two types of ecologies are different. Therefore, when designing the structure of a learning environment, teachers need to make choices between factors that pull them to different directions.
These two sides of the coin presents some kind of a conundrum: shall we strive for creating a learning community where flexibility, diversity and openness shall be compromised in order to create an environment that is based on trust, accountability and deeper interactions and information exchange?
References
Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. M. & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3).
Siemens, G. (2002). Interaction. E-Learning Course. October 8, 2002. Available online at: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Interaction.htm
