OK, most people are going to regard this as a pretty good article about online learning communities, and it is a pretty good article. But it embodies some important errors found in the state of the art. The article correctly identifies the need for online learning communities as a means of capturing the informal or tacit knowledge that circulates within an organization or group. But then, like most accounts of online learning communities, it describes a fairly structured or formal approach to their creation, so much so that the resulting product would resemble a classroom much more than a community. Take a look at the "people approaches" described in the article, where clearly defined roles, "including the instructor, subgroups, group leaders or facilitators" are recommended, for example. Or look at the "process approach" where community leaders should create "guidelines for online and offline etiquette and obtain agreement on the behavior that will lead to successful group and individual learning outcomes." Now I ask, does that resemble how tacit knowledge is shared in the workplace or even at school? Not even close. I think there are two major things to remember, things that dictate a very different approach than is recommended here. First, informal learning is informal, so don't try to structure it with roles and behaviours. Second, informal learning is not separate, but rather, integrated into day-to-day activities. The learning is a part of and a natural outgrowth of other activities. Putting it into a nice formalized box somewhere separate from everything else simply ruins it.
Today: 6 Total: 89 [Direct link] [Share]
