<p>The purpose of this project is to support a personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning experience. Central to the study introduced here is the <a href="http://communitiesofinquiry.com/sub/coi_model.html">model of a community of inquiry</a> that constitutes four elements essential to an educational experience: </p> <ul> <li><a href="http://communitiesofinquiry.com/sub/cognitive.html">Cognitive Presence</a></li> <li><a href="http://communitiesofinquiry.com/sub/social.html">Social Presence</a></li> <li><a href="http://communitiesofinquiry.com/sub/teaching.html">Teaching Presence</a></li> <li><a href="http://communitiesofinquiry.com/sub/methodology.html">Methodology</a></li></ul>

1. Audio feedback was perceived to be more effective than text-based feedback for conveying nuance; 2. Audio feedback was associated with feelings of increased involvement and enhanced learning community interactions; 3. Audio feedback was associated with increased retention of content; and 4. Audio feedback was associated with the perception that the instructor cared more about the student. Document analysis revealed that students were three times more likely to apply content for which audio commenting was provided in class projects than was the case for content for which text based commenting was provided. Audio commenting was also found to significantly increase the level at which students applied such content.

"To put it into perspective only two to four percent of the world's botanical and zoological species are in serious danger, whereas it's 50 percent of languages. The language crisis hasn't attracted the same degree of public awareness".

Nonverbal communication adds nuance or richness of meaning that cannot be communicated by verbal elements alone. Given time and experience, some of the same richness of real-time, face-to-face communication can occur in a virtual, text-based medium.

<p>When you hold a meeting over chat, develop an idea on a wiki, discuss solutions to problems on a discussion board, or collectively edit a document, you leave little traces of the process everywhere. There are transcripts, different versions of documents, and there is an actual record of who made what comment and contributed what material.</p> <p>In a f2f meeting, we rely on a person to take notes. We all know that Meeting Minutes are nothing more then a list of decisions and action items. Meeting minutes do not reflect the decision process, the tension a topic may have induced, or the crazy idea that got thrown on the table and very quickly was swept under the rug. Meeting minutes are the sanitized version of what really happened. Sometimes, they are so sanitized as to be completely useless to those who were not in attendance.</p> <p>Conducting committee work on the web can be dirty, it can be chaotic, and, in most instances, it is open for all the world to see. Moving committee work to the web is the picture of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency">radical transparency</a> and that scares people. Big organizations hate admitting failure and process can look like failure.</p> <p>We have to get over the idea that conducting our work in the open is bad. We have to get over the idea that f2f meetings are the most productive way to work. They are not. They never will be. Get over it already.</p>

Equally, and perhaps more importantly, the PLE concept focuses on the individual learner. All well and good, but the concept (or perhaps just the name) doesn’t give great emphasis to the fact that individuals contribute to the learning of others. Whilst PLEs clearly accept the importance of the networks learners establish in supporting their own learning, there’s also the significant fact that the very nature of the emerging technologies that support PLEs also play a huge role in allowing each learner to help others learn – the community nurturing learning and giving rise to an almost greater conciousness that helps support, develop and nourish learning amongst all the community participants.

At this point I’m not completely sure whether I’m introducing a new concept here or simply posting a plea for help but it does strike me that there’s a wider entity beyond the PLE and VLE – the idea of sharing learning – helping others in a mutually supportive community to foster learning and encourage participation – to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts – <strong>a shared learning environment</strong>.

A problem with the PLE, VLE, CMS etc - is they imply separate entities; whereas the SLE paints a picture of using the tools most suitable for the job, from both the user and institutional prospective, then working together and sharing across boundaries - surely a worthy goal?

Community and context are the two critical factors in developing e-learning environments.

Anyone who can access the Internet can be part of the knowledge-access, knowledge-building, information-exchanging culture, regardless of location.

Learning communities do not have to be built through face-to-face interactions. They can be realized using nontraditional electronic communication.

Research suggests that in order for busy teachers to use an asynchronous learning environment they must feel part of a shared vision, have a sense of ownership of some part of the site, and benefit from the shared perspectives of others (Robertson, 2007).&nbsp; Providing the kind of scaffolding that has these features is challenging.&nbsp; Teachers are not typically given the time or the venue to share, discuss, or see examples of pedagogical alternatives for their classroom on any kind of regular basis (Darling-Hammond, 1997).

<p>Although our sample size is rather small, the findings of this study suggest that most participants (community college faculty members, mentor, and intern teachers) recognized the value of blogging as a platform for sharing resources and ideas and reflecting on personal experiences. Several teachers were planning to use blogging with their own students. </p> <p>Blogging seemed to at least indirectly benefit most&nbsp; PLC-MAP teachers in terms of integrating technology into their own teaching practices. </p>

As it turned out, this was one of the best courses, online or onsite, I have ever taught. Not only did I witness enormous engagement among almost all of the students, but the level of learning was much higher than in previous years.

The feedback from the students on the course was very positive, better than I had received for the onsite course in previous years. One of my favorite written student comments was, "… I don't know how this course could be taught as effectively in the classroom."

As Chris says often, “Technology is not additive; technology is transformative.”

Finally, the one real head twister that I got yesterday was during Chris’s own session when he was talking about how his thinking is moving away from the “having kids publish globally to the world” product piece of all of this a “let’s focus on the process of community building and publishing within the walls” approach.

The culture of sharing and participation that is created within the local community is more important almost that making those connections outside.

J<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Surowiecki">ames Surowiecki</a> explored a similar concept in Wisdom of the Crowds. Surowiecki's book is often misunderstood. He makes the point that people do not <em>think together</em> in coming to certain conclusions, but rather than people think on their own and the value of the collaborative comes in the connection and combination of ideas. Each person retains their own identity and ideas, but they are shaped and influenced by the work of others.

Collective intelligence places the collective first. Connective intelligence places the individual node first.

<p>Bloggers reported a greater sense of belonging to a group of like-minded people and feeling more confident they could rely on others for help.</p> <p>All respondents, whether or not they blogged, reported feeling less anxious, depressed and stressed after two months of online social networking.</p>