2009. Online Mobile Communities to Facilitate the

Transcription

D 3.1 Literature Review on Online Communities
Grant Agreement Number 224369
Project Acronym
Come In
Project title
Online Mobile Communities to Facilitate the
Social Inclusion of Young Marginalised People
Project Coordinator
Pilar Pérez / Project Manager / Atos Origin
Tel / Fax:
+34 91 214 9362 / +34 91 214 9362
e-mail:
[email protected]
Project website
www.comein-project.eu
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Doc. Identifier: D 3.1 Literature Review on Online Communities
Deliverable Number
D 3.1
Deliverable Title
Literature Review on Online Communities
Status
Draft
Work Package
3
Dissemination level
PU
Date of submission
23/12/2008
Author(s)
Jean Johnson, Jonny Dyer, Carole Chapman,
Richard Hebenton, Ben Lockyer and Kate
Luck
Contributor(s)
I-TRUST
Peer Reviewer(s)
ZSI
Keywords
Online Community, Mobile Devices,
Marginalised Young People
Document Status Sheet
Issue
Date
V01
2008.12.23 Initial draft
V02
2009.01.19 Final draft
Grant Agreement nº 224369
Comment
Author
PUBLIC
2/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Table of Contents
Ta ble of C ont e nts ............................................................................. 3
Li st of Ta bles .................................................................................... 6
Li st of Fi gur es .................................................................................. 6
1
Exec ut ive S umm ar y ..................................................................... 7
2
Int r oduct ion a n d Ove rv ie w of t he L ite rat ur e ................................ 8
2.1 Definitions of Terms.............................................................................................................. 8
2.1.1 Youth .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.2 Marginalised Youth........................................................................................................ 9
2.1.3 NEETs (“Not in Education, Employment or Training”)................................................ 9
2.2 Accepted Definitions for WP3 ............................................................................................ 10
2.2.1 Online Community ....................................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Online Learning Community ....................................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Social Networks ........................................................................................................... 12
2.2.4 Social Software............................................................................................................ 13
2.2.5 Web 2.0 ........................................................................................................................ 14
2.2.6 Mobile Web 2.0............................................................................................................ 15
2.2.7 Social Capital............................................................................................................... 16
2.2.8 Edutainment................................................................................................................. 17
2.2.9 Netiquette..................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.10 User Defined Content ............................................................................................... 18
3
Forma l and Inf orm al O nline C om m un it ie s ................................. 19
3.1 Comparisons of Formal and Informal Online Communities............................................. 19
3.2 Prevalence of use of Online Communities amongst Young People ............................... 21
3.3 Young People’s Use of Online Communities and Popular Social Networking Sites ..... 25
3.3.1 Facebook ..................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.2 MySpace ...................................................................................................................... 27
3.3.3 Bebo ............................................................................................................................. 28
3.3.4 Wikipedia...................................................................................................................... 28
3.3.5 YouTube....................................................................................................................... 29
3.3.6 Second Life .................................................................................................................. 29
3.3.7 Habbo Hotel ................................................................................................................. 30
3.3.8 LinkedIn........................................................................................................................ 31
3.4 Health and Safety issues ................................................................................................... 31
3.5 Psycho-Social Issues ......................................................................................................... 33
PUBLIC
3/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
4
Onli ne C om m u nit ies a nd L ea rn in g ............................................ 36
4.1 Contemporary Constructivist Pedagogy – e-learning ...................................................... 37
5
M obi le O nl ine Co m mu nities ....................................................... 42
5.1 Prevalence of Mobile Communities................................................................................... 42
5.2 Other Relevant Research into Existing Mobile Online Communities.............................. 44
5.2.1 Ericsson Online Community ....................................................................................... 47
5.2.2 Rabble .......................................................................................................................... 47
5.2.3 GyPSii .......................................................................................................................... 48
5.2.4 Dodgeball ..................................................................................................................... 48
5.2.5 MobilED........................................................................................................................ 48
5.2.6 Socialight...................................................................................................................... 49
5.2.7 SuperClubsPLUS and GoldStarCafe ......................................................................... 49
6
What Mak es a n O nl i ne Co mm u n ity S ucc essf ul? ........................ 50
6.1 Penetration of Online Communities................................................................................... 50
6.2 General Characteristics of Online Communities .............................................................. 51
6.3 Characteristics of Successful Online Learning Communities.......................................... 55
6.4 Characteristics of Successful Mobile Communities ......................................................... 60
6.5 Core Characteristics as Viewed by Academics................................................................ 63
6.5.1 Whittaker et al.............................................................................................................. 63
6.5.2 Mimeles ........................................................................................................................ 63
6.5.3 Lazar and Preece ........................................................................................................ 64
6.5.4 Hernandes and Fresneda ........................................................................................... 65
6.5.5 Farrior ........................................................................................................................... 65
6.5.6 Brooks and Oliver ........................................................................................................ 66
7
Ca se St udie s on O nl i ne Lea rn in g .............................................. 69
7.1 Notschool.net ...................................................................................................................... 69
7.2 Not School – Not Home – Schome ................................................................................... 70
7.3 Nisai Virtual Academy ........................................................................................................ 71
7.4 Mixopolis – Intercultural Online-Portal for Young People ................................................ 72
7.5 TeleMentoring ..................................................................................................................... 74
7.6 Cyberhus ............................................................................................................................. 75
8
Cha ract er ist ic s of S ucc essf ul O nline C o mm unit ie s .................. 77
8.1 List of Shared Features of the Most Successful Online Communities............................ 77
8.1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 77
8.1.2 Participation ................................................................................................................. 79
8.1.3 Netiquette / Code of Conduct ..................................................................................... 80
8.1.4 Design / User Friendly................................................................................................. 80
PUBLIC
4/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
8.1.5 Technology .................................................................................................................. 81
8.1.6 Roles ............................................................................................................................ 82
8.1.7 Subgroups.................................................................................................................... 82
9
Conclusio n ................................................................................. 83
10
Ap pe ndic es .............................................................................. 87
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................ 87
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................ 88
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................ 89
12
Bi bli og ra phy ............................................................................ 92
PUBLIC
5/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
List of Tables
Table 1. Teen Internet Activities............................................................................... 22
Table 2. Users of Social Networking Sites are more likely to create content ............ 24
Table 3. Growth of Selected Social Networking Sites .............................................. 25
Table 4. Growth of Facebook................................................................................... 26
Table 5. Students’ use of Facebook......................................................................... 26
Table 6. Users of Mobile Social Networks................................................................ 42
Table 7. Selected academics against selected successful characteristics ............... 77
List of Figures
Figure 1. Salmon’s five-stage model of elearning .................................................... 38
Figure 2. Facebook and MySpace mobile interfaces................................................ 45
Figure 3. Subercaze et al.’s Platform for Use-case “Video sharing” ......................... 62
PUBLIC
6/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
1
Executive Summary
This review is of the published literature that identifies the common characteristics of
successful online communities, particularly those transferable to a mobile platform.
Identifying these characteristics will assist the ComeIn project in its overall aim of
designing and implementing a mobile learning platform for Marginalised Young
People (MYP). More information is available at: www.comein-project.eu. ‘This
package will inform WP 5 (Cellular Platform Infrastructure) and feed into WP 4
(Content design and interface for online communities for mobile devices).’
There is limited published material that deals solely with online communities for
marginalised youth, therefore this review has identified the research that is best fit to
the ComeIn criteria. There is considerable published literature on the characteristics
of successful online communities, although there is little consensus amongst
academics regarding their characteristics. This review attempts to identify the
successful characteristics of different community types: general online communities,
learning communities and mobile communities. It then analyses the core overall
characteristics that apply to all online communities, particularly in respect to
marginalised youth. Finally, the review synthesises the main characteristics
highlighted by the current literature and attempts to distinguish those that are
transferable to a mobile platform.
Evolving technology means that some of the older literature is dated, so this literature
review identifies those features that are still relevant. Due to the constant flux of
research on use of mobile phones and social networking sites, this review
concentrates on current research studies.
The research and articles summarised in this review have identified many of the
general successful characteristics of online communities including: purpose,
participation, code of conduct, usable design, technology, user roles and subgroups.
These factors have been recognised in Table 7.
Purpose has been identified as a salient factor. Without purpose there are no
participants, or only fleeting participation. Purposeful structure can help to establish a
meaningful and relevant community. While purpose may be what attracts individuals
or groups to a community, participation is core and continual participation makes a
community successful.
For participation to exist the technological structure of the site must suit the
requirements of the community. The design must incorporate usability, roles within
the online space must be clearly defined and subgroups offered to both extend and
concentrate the purpose of the online space.
These characteristics, identified through this literature review, are key components
for the development of successful online communities.
PUBLIC
7/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
2
Introduction and Overview of the Literature
The purpose of this literature review is to ensure that the ComeIn project is familiar
with literature relevant to formal and informal online communities for the 14 - 21 age
group:
It will:
•
develop an overview of relevant literature including sources such as Internet
sources and online forums
•
examine what characteristics make an online community successful for this
age group
•
develop a list of the features of both formal and informal online communities
•
focus ideas to enable the development of a framework for task 3.2
•
inform the further development of the ComeIn project, particularly WP4 and
WP5
The literature review will seek to discover how success has been interpreted in
existing online communities. Analysing the existing literature and developing an
understanding of some in depth case studies a list of key features can be identified
within a pan European context.
2.1 Definitions of Terms
WP2 has defined key concepts relevant to the ComeIn project. These include:
2.1.1 Youth
Youth, from both a sociological and physiological standpoint, is regarded as a social
construction. According to Colley 1 et al. (2007) youth can be seen to be as either a
transitional period to adulthood or a juncture within one’s life. However, the definition
varies depending on culture and has changed dramatically through time.
1
Colley, H; Boetzelen, P; Hoskins, B & Pareva, T (2007) Social inclusion and young people: breaking
down the barriers Available at: http://www.youth-partnership.net/export/sites/default/youthpartnership/documents/Research/2007_Social_inclusion_young_people.pdf [accessed 17th December
2008]
PUBLIC
8/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Youth is mainly described as the transition from childhood to adulthood (Tully2,
2002). It is considered to be transitional rather than a clear-cut age range (Walther3,
2006). Understanding youth in terms of age is more related to policy-favoured
definitions. The United Nations4 define youth as the age range spanning from 15 to
24 years. The ComeIn target group is the range between 14 and 21 years (WP 25). It
is policy-defined due to its foundation in education.
2.1.2 Marginalised Youth
For the ComeIn Study the consortium adopts the following definition for marginalised
youth: “young people with fewer opportunities”.6
The target group are specifically youth:
a) of compulsory school age but outside formal education
b) of post-compulsory school age and not in education, employment or training
{NEETs}
Due to the lack of information regarding MYP and their involvement in online
communities, this literature review will deal with research that best fits the age
bracket of 14-21 years old, stipulated in the ComeIn project. However, as with the
previous Work Package 2 (WP 2), the review will have “young people with fewer
opportunities”7 in mind throughout the exploration.
2.1.3 NEETs8 (“Not in Education, Employment or Training”)
This term is already defined in WP 29
The young people who are NEET at some point between 16-18 years of age are
likely to belong to one of three categories:
2
Tully, C. (2002), Youth in motion: Communicative and mobile. A commentary from the perspective of
youth sociology Available at: http://logic.itsc.cuhk.edu.hk/~b114299/young/2002/2-ClausTully.htm
[accessed 17th December 2008]
3
Walther, A. (2006), Regimes of youth transitions Available at: http://you.sagepub.com/cgi/content
/abstract/14/2/119 [accessed 17th December 2008]
4
United Nations (2007), World Youth Report 2007 Available at: http://books.google.com/books
?id=yKhFUpop1hoC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=united+nations+defintion+of+youth&source=web&ots=R
eLbnRDBsp&sig=9RNvrhpuasYb8jQGXiSkNRLa_nY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=resul
th
t#PPP1,M1 [accessed 17 December 2008]
5
ComeIn Project (2008), Online Mobile Communities to Facilitate the Social Inclusion of Young
Marginalised People, p.11
6
Ibid p.10
7
Unterfrauner, E. & Marschalek, I. (2008), D 2.1 Report on state-of-the-art framework for analysing
marginalised youth, p. 15
8
Johnson, J & Dyer, J (2008) Citizens Online & National Centre for Social Research. (NATCEN: 2, 4
and 6). Digital Exclusion Profiling of Vulnerable Groups
9
Ibid p.16
PUBLIC
9/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
Core NEET – those with social and behavioural problems including those who
come from families where unemployment is the norm.
•
Floating NEET – young people who lack direction, motivation and tend to
have spells of being NEET in between further education courses or
employment with no training. This group contributes to the issue of NEET
churn (repeated failure and drop out from education/training/work back into
NEET status).
•
Transition/gap year NEET – those young people who have often chosen to
take time out before progressing onto further or higher education
opportunities, and are likely to return to education, training or employment,
but it is not always clear when this will occur.
2.2 Accepted Definitions for WP3
Further key concepts are defined within this literature review, which are relevant to
the work of WP3, 4 and 5. These definitions have been drawn from existing literature
to support detailed analysis of a number of existing online communities.
2.2.1 Online Community
Online communities can be defined in terms of Wenger’s10 (2004) concept of
communities of practice. He defines three key characteristics of communities of
practice as (see Appendix A):
•
Domain. The distinction between a community and a community of practice is
that the latter has a shared domain of interest. ‘The domain is not necessarily
something recognisable as ‘expertise’ outside the community.’
•
Community. In the common pursuit of their interest, members engage with
one another. They begin to build relationships, which invokes discussion,
sharing information and ultimately learning from each other.
•
Practice. Once set up, the members become practitioners. They share
experiences, which can be assessed to deal with individual situations.
Moule11 (2006) and Brown12 (2005) describe Wenger’s essential dimensions to a
community as: mutual engagement, joint enterprise and shared repertoire. To
maintain a community there must be regular interaction, whether through formal
10
Wenger, E. (2004), Communities of practice- a brief introduction Available from:
http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm [Accessed 10th November 2008]
11
Moule, P. (2006), Developing the Communities of Practice, Framework for On-Line Learning The
Electronic Journal of e- Learning Volume 4 Issue 2, pp 133 – 140 Available at:
http://www.ejel.org/volume-4/v4-i2/moule.pdf [Accessed 25th November 2008]
12
Brown, R. (2005), Pragmatic Suggestions for Growing On-line Communities of Practice Available at:
http://www.associatedcolleges-tc.org/cotf/COTFXI/materials/Pragmatic-handout.pdf [Accessed 10th
November 2008]
PUBLIC
10/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
meetings or informal exchange.
According to Wenger13 et al. (2005) communities of practice evolve as technology
improves. Wenger believes there has been a significant shift since the introduction
of Web 2.0. Communities of practice are no longer limited by location, as long as
there is appropriate technology for their needs, they can communicate across the
globe. There are now tools that can help manage emerging relationships and
configure unique ways in which to interact. Wenger14 (2005) believed that the
technology should suit the design of the community, recognising that the uncontrolled
updating to the latest technology could cause a power shift. The technology should
encourage mutual engagement.
Following from Wenger’s community of practice, Rheingold15 (1993) defined a virtual
community as a social aggregation that has emerged online, which is able to carry
public discussion for a long duration. The community members are able to form
relationships through this discussion. Rheingold16 (2002) later updated his
description, Virtual communities are social environments organised around shared
interests, many-to-many communication, web-based media (which is always
evolving) and relatively uncoupled with physical life.
Alternatively, Fernback17 and Thompson (1995) defined an online community as a
social relationship constructed in cyberspace through repeated contact within set
boundaries. Similarly, Koh18 and Kim (2001) defined an online community as a group
of people with a common interest or goal within cyberspace.
Mimeles 19 (2006) defines an online community as an organisation’s presence on the
Internet, which contains some or all of the following:
•
•
•
a communication and information exchange forum
a self-service resource centre
organisational tools for managing system requirements
An online community has also been defined as “a group of persons with similar
interests and goals which build a common knowledge base through social interaction
13
Wenger, E; White, N; Smith, J. & Rowe, K. (2005), Technology for communities Available at:
http://technologyforcommunities.com/CEFRIO_Book_Chapter_v_5.2.pdf [Accessed 2nd December
2008]
14
2008]
15
Rheingold, H. (1993), The Virtual Community [e-book] Perseus Books. Available at:
http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/ [Accessed 14th November 2008]
16
Rheingold, H. (2002), Mobile Virtual Communities. Available at: http://www.vodafone.com
/flash/receiver/06/articles/pdf/02.pdf [Accessed 17th November 2008]
17
Fernback, J & Thompson, B (1995), Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure? Available at:
http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html [Accessed 14th November 2008]
18
Koh, J & Kim, YG (2001), Sense of Virtual Community: Determinants and the Moderating Role of the
Virtual Community Origin. Available at: http://cq-pan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/Reading/ICIS_
2001/01TRP14.pdf [Accessed 14th November 2008]
19
Mimeles D. (2006), Building Successful Online Communities. Available at:
th
www.ccfbest.org/webtechnology/onlinecommunities.htm, [Accessed 5 November 2008]
PUBLIC
11/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
and participation on the basis of an Information and Communication Technology.”
(Dimai20, n.d.)
Although Laine21 (2006) believed that a virtual community consists of people
interacting (sharing a common interest, problem or task, in respect to a code of
conduct via a technological platform), Daniel22 (2002) suggests that virtual
communities are not bound together by common interests alone, it is a collection of
factors that constitute community.
Finally Baker23 (n.d.) describes an online community as, ‘a computer-mediated space
where groups of people come together for some common purpose or activity over a
period of time forming webs of personal relationships.’24
For the purposes of this literature review the terms online community and virtual
community are used as interchangeable; where a referenced author has discussed
virtual communities we interpreted this to mean online communities (within the
context of the Internet).
2.2.2 Online Learning Community
“An online learning community is a group of people who communicate with each
other on the Internet to share information, learn more about a topic, and/or work on a
project of mutual interest” (Mason,25 2005).
Similarly, Seufert 26 et al. (2002) define online learning communities as “ensembles of
agents, who share a common language, world, values in terms of pedagogical
approach and knowledge to be acquired and pursue a common learning goal by
communicating and cooperating through electronic media in the learning process.”27
2.2.3 Social Networks
20
Dimai, B. & Ebner, M. (n.d.), Community without a vision won’t work. p. 3, Available at:
th
http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ci/mm/mm1/dimai_ebner%20paper.pdf, [Accessed 6 November 2008]
21
Laine, M. (2006), Key Success Factors of Virtual Communities. Available at: http://users.tkk.fi/
~molaine3/ml_mastersthesis_310506_public.pdf [Accessed 27th November 2008]
22
Daniel, B (2002), Building Social Capital in Virtual Learning Communities Available at:
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/daniel/daniel.pdf [Accessed 26th November
2008]
23
Baker, T (n.d.), Online Communities: A Brief Overview Available at: http://www.sedi.org/dataregv2unified/capnet-summarypapers/online%20communities%20paper.pdf [Accessed 24th November 2008]
24
Ibid p.5
25
Mason, A. (2005), Effectiveness and delight in an online learning community: A learner-centred
approach p.1. Available at: http://videolinq.tafe.net/learning2005/papers/mason.pdf [Accessed 25th
November 2008]
26
Seufert, S; Lechner, U; & Stanoevska, K. (2002), A Reference Model for Online Learning
Communities International Journal on E-learning January-March 2002 pp.42-55. Available at:
http://sciltest.unisg.ch/seufert/docs/reference-model-online-learning-communities.pdf [Accessed 27th
November 2008]
27
Ibid p.47
PUBLIC
12/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Chayko28 (2007) interpreted a social network as; “a set of linked individuals whose
patterns of connectedness form a channel through which information, influence,
emotional intensity and sociability can be measured and charted.”29
“Social networks refer to groups of individuals or organizations that are connected in
one or more ways, such as friendship, kinship, values or even financial exchange…
The Internet has revolutionised social networks by giving them a platform that made
it simple and easy for people to connect with each other.”30
Social Networks provide members with an avenue to communicate with one another
through an interactive means. The service allows users to personalise their pages
(Steifvater31, 2008).
According to Johnson32 and Dyer (2008) social networking is a new phenomenon
made possible on a global scale with Web 2 technologies. Participation is significant
with some of the more popular sites boasting membership of millions of users.
Although many are simply online social spaces, others are platforms of choice for
cultural or interest groups and friends to meet for the exchange of ideas and
information. Parallels can be drawn between social networks and online communities
of practice, challenging thinking about learning and pedagogical approaches that use
the Internet as a tool.
Although it can be difficult to distinguish between social networks and online
communities some authors consider there to be differences. For the purpose of this
literature review the discussion has been extended to include social networks. This is
valid because the age group identified for the ComeIn project are users of social
networks, as well as online communities. For the purposes of this literature review
the terms are considered to be interchangeable although differences are accepted.
2.2.4 Social Software
‘Social software’ refers to software that supports group communication; it can include
software that supports activites from email to a 3D virtual environments. The
commonality of all social software is that it is distinctive to the Internet (Shirky,33
2003). In its simplest form it is software that supports group interaction. However
28
Chayko, M. (2007), The Portable Community: Envisioning and Examining Mobile Social
Connectedness Available at: http://www.cse.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/portable_community.pdf
[Accessed 18th November 2008]
29
Ibid p.375
30
Goh, R & Silverman, M. (2008), Business Person’s Guide to Online Social Networking p1Available at:
http://www.duoconsulting.com/downloads/contribute/Guide_to_OnlineSocialNetworking.pdf [Accessed
26th November 2008]
31
Steifvater, E (2008), MySpace and YouTube and Blogs, Oh My! Enhancing Your Youth Program With
Web 2.0 Tools Youth Impact (Volume 2). Available at: http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/
files/Youth-Impact-vol-2.pdf [Accessed 19th November 2008]
32
Johnson, J. & Dyer, J. (2008) The development of formal and informal learning online through online
communities of practice and social networking. Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on ELearning held in Agia Napa, Cyprus.
33
Shirky, C (2003), Social Software and the Politics of Groups Available at:
http://shirky.com/writings/group_politics.html [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
PUBLIC
13/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
more succinctly it is that which supports, extends and derives value from human
social behaviour (Allen34, 2005).
Social software is therefore defined as any software applications that are used for
social interactions, examples of which are: email, instant messaging, forums and
blogs (The Virtual Toolshed,35 2006).
It is also a tool for augmenting and facilitating social connections and information
collaboration and interchange. It includes all software that develops and maintains
social structures within online communities (Sloep36, 2006).
2.2.5 Web 2.0
The term Web 2.0 came into wide use following the first O’Reilly Media Web 2.0
conference in October 200437 and is a collective term to cover web browser centric
developments that enabled community based enhancements to exist in collaborative
forums.
Web 2.0 tools are described by Duffy38 (2008) as; “delivering (and allowing users to
use) applications entirely through an Internet browser… users own the content on a
site and exercise control over it… an architecture of participation that encourages
users to contribute a rich, interactive, user-friendly interface social-networking
functions.”39
Anderson40 (2007) defines Web 2.0 as the consequence of web technologies, or
‘Web 1.0’, being utilised fully. He adds that the intention of the Web was always to
connect people. Web 2.0 allows greater social connectivity by enabling users to
contribute to and edit the ‘information space’. Alternatively Best41 (2006) considers
Web 2.0 to be the term used to summarise new technologies and applications in the
World Wide Web. These new technologies and applications connect people
asynchronously, allowing sharing and collaboration of information, ideas or concepts.
34
Allen, C (2005) Innovation and Social Software Available at: http://web.lifewithalacrity.com/
christophera/FVHA_Social_Software_Keynote_Presentation.pdf [accessed 15th December 2008]
35
The Virtual Toolshed (2006). Online Communities. Available at: http://www.lulu.com/items
/volume_21/362000/362551/1/print/VT-OnlineCommunities.pdf [Accessed 21st November 2008]
36
Sloep, P (2006) Peer-tutoring for informal learning in ad hoc, transient communities Available at:
http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/690/1/Peter%20Sloep%20-%20Social%20Software-Edinburgh.pdf
th
[accessed 15 December 2008]
37
O'Reilly, T (2005) What Is Web 2.0- Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of
Software Available at: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web20.html?page=2 [accessed 16th December 2008]
38
Duffy, P. (2008), Engaging the YouTube Google-Eyed Generation: Strategies for Using Web 2.0 in
Teaching and Learning, Electronic Journal of E-learning, Vol 6 (2), p.267. Available at:
http://www.ejel.org/Volume-6/v6-i2/Duffy.pdf [Accessed 11th November 2008]
39
Ibid
40
Anderson, P. (2007), What is Web 2.0? Ideas technologies and implications for education. JISC
Technology & Standards Watch. Available at:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf [Accessed 11th November 2008]
41
Best, D. (2006), Web 2.0 Next Big Thing or Next Big Internet Bubble? Available at: http://page.mi.fuberlin.de/best/uni/WIS/Web2.pdf [Accessed 11th November 2008]
PUBLIC
14/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Web 2.0 is defined by Millard42 and Ross (2006) as diverse applications and websites
encouraging openness, community and interaction from their users. They describe
the evolution of these tools to be naturally ‘shaped’ by the communities they serve
and user needs. Similarly Steifvater43 (2008) considers Web 2.0 technology to
facilitate communication, collaboration and connection between Internet users. It
converts Internet users from inactive readers to active engaged participants.
Web 2.0 might suggest a new version of the World Wide Web has been developed,
but in practice (as seen in the definitions above) Web 2.0 refers to changes in the
way software developers and users utilise the web rather than simply technological
developments.
Care needs to be taken in using the term Web 2.0. For example, Tim Berners-Lee in
an interview with Laningham44 (2006) has publicly questioned whether the term Web
2.0 is relevant, as most of the technological components related to Web 2.0 have
existed since the early development of the World Wide Web.
2.2.6 Mobile Web 2.0
Mobile Web 2.0 is defined by Jeon45 and Lee (2008) as the fusion between mobile
devices and Web 2.0 technology. Although this is not universally fully available
because of technological constraints, there has been some porting of Web 2.0
technologies onto mobile devices. The Apple iPhone46 has the potential for a fully
operative social networking service and Facebook has demonstrated that social
networking platforms can be applied to mobile devices.
According to Jans47 and Calvi (n.d.) Mobile 2.0 is the implementation of Web 2.0 on
mobile platform. The introduction of Web 2.0 applications to mobile device is
dependent upon their sociability, usability and accessibility.
Cochrane48 (2008) considers Mobile Web 2.0 devices to be ‘lifestyle tools’. He adds
‘the ubiquitous connection to Web 2.0 tools, collaborative communication and user
generated content creation capabilities of these devices make them ideal tools for
42
Millard, D. E. & Ross, M. (2006), Web 2.0: hypertext by any other name? Available at:
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13085/1/Web2-short-final.pdf [Accessed 11th November 2008].
43
Web 2.0 Tools Youth Impact (Volume 2) Available at: http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/
files/Youth-Impact-vol-2.pdf [Accessed 19th November 2008]
44
Laningham, S. (2006), developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee Originator of the Web and
director of the World Wide Web Consortium talks about where we've come, and about the challenges
and opportunities ahead. Available at: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cmth
int082206.txt [Accessed 16 December 2008]
45
Jeon, J. & Lee, S. (2008), Technical Trends of Mobile Web 2.0: What Next? Available at:
http://www.research.att.com/~rjana/MobEA2008/final/mobea2008_submission_6-1.pdf [Accessed 20th
November 2008]
46
See Glossay
47
Jans, G. & Calvi, L. (n.d.), How to develop a Mobile 2.0 application Available at:
http://soc.kuleuven.be/com/mediac/cuo/admin/upload/How%20to%20develop%20a%20mobile%202.0%
20application.pdf [accessed 03/12/08]
48
Cochrane, T. (2008), Mobile Web 2.0: The new frontier. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of
educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Available at:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/cochrane.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2008]
PUBLIC
15/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
facilitating social constructivist learning environments across multiple learning
contexts’.
Although Mobile Web 2.0 is difficult to define (because many of the core
characteristics of Web 2.0 cannot yet be replicated onto a mobile platform), Chard49
(2008) believes there are common features and functions between mobile and web
technology. Mobile Web 2.0 technology delivers advanced sharing and functional
learning based on user-generated content and social networks for the common
pursuit of knowledge and information sharing.
2.2.7 Social Capital
Blanchard50 and Horan (2000) describe social capital as the features of social
organisation that promote coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. These
features are networks, norms, and social trust.
“Social capital refers to the stock of social trust, norms and networks that people can
draw upon to solve common problems... social capital implies connections among
individuals and the value accrued from this connection. It consists of social networks
and norms of reciprocity and the trust that arises from social interaction” (Daniel,51
2002).
Quan-Haase52 and Wellman (2002) consider social capital to be a mixture of
interpersonal communication patterns and the amount of active or passive
engagement people spend in and on their community. They add the Internet is
supplementing social capital because of its ability to “increase existing patterns of
social contact and civic involvement”53.
Applicable to individuals and groups, tied together internally or externally, Adler54 and
Kwon (2002) state, “social capital is the sum of resources available to an individual or
group by virtue of their location in the structure of their more or less durable social
relations"55.
49
Chard, I. (2008), Share, Collaborate, Exploit – Defining Mobile Web 2.0. Available at:
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/d.quercia/others/mobile2.pdf [Accessed 4th December 2008]
50
Blanchard, A. & Horan, T. (2000), Virtual Communities and Social Capital Available at: http://www.igipub.com/downloads/excerpts/garson.pdf [Accessed 27th November 2008]
51
Daniel, B (2002), Building Social Capital in Virtual Learning Communities p5 Available at:
2008]
52
Quan-Haase, A. & Wellman, B. (2002), How does the Internet effect social capital? Forthcoming in
Marleen Huysman and Volker Wulf, (Eds.). IT and Social Capital. Toronto, University of Toronto.
Available at: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/internetsocialcapital/Net_SC-09.PDF
[Accessed 19 December 2008]
53
Ibid
54
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002), Social capital: Prospect for a new concept. Academy of
Management Review, 27 (1), p. 17–40. Available at:
http://poverty2.forumone.com/files/11990_socialcapital_prospects.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2008]
55
Ibid
PUBLIC
16/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
2.2.8 Edutainment
The success of e-learning56 has hinged on student motivation (Heiden57 2007);
offering the student an interactive and imaginative environment for learning, which is
important to keep them motivated. Heiden58 (2007) believes that the more creative
the learning environment for both formal and informal learning is, the more students
are likely to engage with the content.
Wiberg59 and Jegers (2003) define edutainment as a marriage of education and
entertainment. Entertainment is used as a basis for creating a successful learning
environment. Television programmes and websites are two example mediums for
edutainment.
Addis 60 (2005) expands on Wilberg and Jeger (ibid) to add that edutainment’s use of
interactive technology to bring together some form of pedagogy and fun allows
material to be contemporarily perceived by learners in more than one sense and can
enrich the learning environment.
Combining teaching and games to attract students’ attention, Wang61 et al. (2007)
think the advantage of edutainment is its ability to encourage students’ interest in
learning through interactive activities. They also note it has the potential to improve
the quality of teaching offered and train ‘creative ideation’.
2.2.9 Netiquette
Netiquette is a portmanteau of “net etiquette”; it is therefore a set of rules of
behaviour to be observed whilst online (Shea62, 2006). Adherence to Netiquette helps
newcomers avoid social blunders. When entering into a new culture (in this case in
cyberspace) it is easy to offend without meaning to do so. Conventions of basic
social engagement help to facilitate social interaction.
Epsilon Concepts 63 (2007) define netiquette as using technology beneficially to
convey knowledge and information courteously. Many of the rules that govern our
communication techniques in reality should govern our online behaviour. The
principles of etiquette are generally applied in context of the web.
56
See Glossary
Heiden, W (2007), An Edutainment Approach to Academic Teaching. Available at: http://www2.inf.fhbrs.de/~wheide2m/publ/ShkodraICT07/acadeduShkodra07.pdf [Accessed 17th November 2008]
58
Ibid
59
Wiberg, C. & Jegers, K. (2003), Satisfaction and Learnability in Edutainment: A usability study of the
knowledge game ‘Laser Challenge’ at the Nobel e-museum. Available at: http://www.informatik
.umu.se/~colsson/cwkjhci03.pdf [Accessed 17th November 2008]
60
Addia, M. (2002) New Technologies and Cultural Consumption: Edutainment is Born! European
Journal of Marketing, 39 (7/8), p. 729 – 736.
61
Wang, Q., Tan, W. & Song, B. (2007), Research and Design of Edutainment. Information
Technologies and Applications in Education, p. 502 – 505.
62
Shea, V. (2006), Netiquette- Introduction Available at:
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/introduction.html [Accessed 5th December 2008]
63
Epsilon Concepts (2007), Netiquette: Be Remarkable Online Available at:
http://www.epsilonconcepts.com/upload/file/Netiquette.pdf [accessed 05/12/08]
57
PUBLIC
17/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Derived from Internet and etiquette, Pallen64 (1995) defines netiquette as the rules of
behaviour, or codes of net conduct, that govern online communication and considers
these rules to be similar to those followed when interacting ‘face-to-face’ and acting
respectively of others. He suggests good netiquette helps create supportive online
atmospheres of mutual responsibility.
Scheuerman65 and Taylor (1997) consider netiquette to be part of a new era of
communication developed online to enhance the instant interaction process. They
suggest that netiquette also influences Internet users’ perceptions of what they read,
for example the overuse of capital letters can be interpreted as ‘shouting’.
2.2.10 User Defined Content
User defined content is described by Johnson66 and Dyer (2005) as that which allows
users to define and amend the structure of the environment, in correspondence with
their demands.
According to Steifvater67 (2008), “as digital media technologies become more
affordable and accessible to the general public, end-users gain opportunities to
create and add text, images, and audio and video material to Web sites… Materials,
comments, ratings, and reviews added by users to wikis, blogs and Web sites can
also be considered user-generated content”.
Jenson68 (2007) describes user-generated content as media content made by
“ordinary users of websites, TV channels and the like”. User-generated content
encompasses a variety of technologies, applications and services such as “blogging,
digital video, photographs from mobile telephones, podcasting, wikis, etc.”.
Cha69 et al. (2001) claim the advent of user-generated content is reshaping how the
Internet is used, particularly the online video market. No longer limited to reading
material online, with a fast content production rate, “nowadays, hundreds of millions
of Internet users are self-publishing consumers”70. For the purposes of the literature
review user-generated and user-defined content are used as terms, which are
interchangeable.
64
Pallen, M. (1995) Guide to the Internet: Introducing the Internet. British Medical Journal, 311, p. 1422
– 1424. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7017/1422 [Accessed 19 December 2008]
65
Scheuermann, L. & Taylor, G. (1997), Netiquette. Internet Research: Electronic Networking
Applications and Policy, 7 (4), p. 269 – 273.
66
Johnson, J. & Dyer, J. (2005), User-defined content in a constructivist learning environment Available
at: http://www.formatex.org/micte2005/169.pdf [Accessed 24th November 2008]
67
Web 2.0 Tools Youth Impact (Volume 2). Available at: http://www.nationalserviceresources.org
/files/Youth-Impact-vol-2.pdf [Accessed 19th November 2008]
68
Jenson, J. F. (2007), User Generated Content – a mega-trend in the new media landscape.
Interactive TV: a Shared Experience. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Available at:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~lartur/euroitv07_ajp/Tutorials0.htm [Accessed 19 December 2008]
69
Cha, M., Kwak, H., Rodriguez, P. Ahn, Y. & Moon, S. (2001), I Tube, You Tube, Everybody Tubes:
Analyzing the World’s Largest User Generate Content Video System. Internet Measurement
Conference. Available at: http://an.kaist.ac.kr/traces/papers/imc131-cha.pdf [Accessed 19 December
2008]
70
Ibid
PUBLIC
18/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
3
Formal and Informal Online Communities
3.1 Comparisons of Formal and Informal Online Communities
Online communities consist of the people and the material that they exchange. It is
through the online conversations that individuals experience a sense of community
(Arguello71 et al., 2006).
Matzat 72 et al. (2000) suggests three characteristics that distinguish different kinds of
online communities:
•
•
•
Multifunctional;
Social function; and
Original main function.
The more multifunctional the community is the larger the attraction and future loyalty,
however there is the problem of focus. The community must be guided in the
direction of original main purpose. Therefore the formality of the of the community
should be built around its overall function (Matzat73 et al., 2000).
The function of the community governs its formality; it is dependent upon the social
capital. There is a distinct difference between formal and informal social capital.
Formal social capital relates to civic participation within the context of a conventional
organisation, whereas informal social capital is a social support mechanism.
Informal social bonds are the more prevalent. Therefore, whether an online
community is formal or informal depends on its social capital (Wallace74 and Pichler,
2007). However, formal and informal social capital are linked and complementary,
which implies that although a community is formal, the sub-groups and discussions
can be informal. The authors go on to say that online communities, whether formal or
informal, are generally those that foster information sharing with a clear social facet.
As long as the group is not uncharacteristically exclusive, then the group should be
successful. The more multifunctional the community is, the larger the attraction and
future loyalty, however there is the problem of focus. For success the community
must be guided into direction of original main purpose. The formality of a community
does not regulate its future success.
For an online community to be considered formal, internal parameters that structure
the virtual space are required (Butler75 et al., 2002). Formal online communities are
71
Arguello, J; Butler, B; Joyce, E; Kraut, R; Ling, K; & Wang, X. (2006), Talk to Me: Foundations for
Successful Individual-Group Interactions in Online Communities. Available at: http://www.cs.cmu.edu
/~jaime/CHI06ArguelloJ.pdf [Accessed 19th November 2008]
72
Matzat, U. & de Vos, H. (2000), Online Communities: Which conditions make them successful?
Available at: http://www.ppsw.rug.nl/matzat/online-communities.pdf [Accessed 6th November 2008]
73
Ibid
74
Wallace, C. & Pichler, F. (2007), Patterns of Formal and Informal Social Capital in Europe Available
at: http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/7/4/4/pages177447/ p1774471.php [Accessed 1st December 2008]
75
Butler, B., et al. (2002), Community Effort in Online Groups:Who Does the Work and Why? Available
PUBLIC
19/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
mostly used for purposeful conventions and have distinguished user roles, such as
moderators to observe and review communications between group members
(Misanchuk 76 et al., 2001; Schwier,77 n.d.). In contrast, an informal online community
is less ‘restricted’ and brings members together ‘ad-hoc’ with no clear hierarchical
structure of users (Misanchuk78 et al., 2001; Kavanaugh79 et al., 2005).
Van de Wijngaert80 and Jager (2007) suggest that if an online community is
structurally intended for personal social interactions then it is informal. If it is a
projected organisational network then it is formal.
This definition is contended, as some scholars maintain that all social networks are
informal, although the organisations that are embedded in the network are formal.
The “social networks and formal associations are intertwined with each other”
(Kadushin81 and Kotler-Berkowitz, 2006). Formal associations are empirically and
conceptually different to informal social networks.
Kietzmann82 (2004) states that, “modes of communication, whether formal (perhaps
hierarchically determined) channels or informal (such as CoP [Communities of
Practice] oriented communication, grapevine, gossip) can be verbal or non-verbal,
can include local face-to-face or face-to-group interaction, or distant interaction via
audio, visual and written communication”83.
There is little research data available on the formality of online communities;
therefore there is little reason to distinguish between the two for the rest of the
literature review. Seemingly, it is possible to have a formal community, which
incorporates informal discourse within it.
at: http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/butler.pdf [Accessed 20th November 2008]
76
Misanchuk, M., et al. (2001), Building community in an online learning environment: communication,
cooperation and collaboration. Available at: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~itconf/ proceed01/19.html [Accessed
20th November 2008]
77
Schwier, R. A. (n.d.), Shaping the Metaphor of Community in Online Learning Environments.
Available at: http://cde.athabascau.ca/ISEC2002/papers/schwier.pdf [Accessed 20th November 2008]
78
Misanchuk, M., et al. (2001), Building community in an online learning environment: communication,
cooperation and collaboration. Available at: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/ 19.html [Accessed
20th November 2008]
79
Kavanugh, A., et al (2005), Community Networks: Where Offline Communities Meet Online. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (4). Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/
kavanaugh.html [Accessed 20th November 2008]
80
van de Wijngaert, L. & Jager, C. (2007), Correlating Formal and Informal Relations Through
Communication Networks Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication
Association, TBA, San Francisco, CA Online Available at: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p169486
_index.html [Accessed 20th November 2008]
81
Kadushin, C. & Kotler-Berkowitz, L. (2006), Informal social networks and formal organisational
membership among American Jews: findings from the National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01
Available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_4_67/ai_n21167309 [Accessed 20th
November 2008]
82
Kietzmann, J. (2004), Mobile Communities of Practice Available at:
http://www.carstensorensen.com/download/Kietzmann2004.pdf [Accessed 18th November 2008]
83
Ibid p.5
PUBLIC
20/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
3.2 Prevalence of use of Online Communities amongst Young
People
Preece84 et al. (2003) discuss how the technologies of the Internet and the tools
available have developed over time, which has greatly increased participation in
online communities amongst young people; from emails to instant messaging
services and websites. “Online communities appeared in a variety of media, which
were gradually integrated into single environments. Graphical, three-dimensional
environments such as the Palace Casino (www.palace.com) and later Activeworlds
(www.activeworlds.com) started to appear.”85
MP3, Internet phoning, video streaming, photographs, web cams, blogs, sound and
voice control, and wikis have been integrated into online communities. Clarke86,
Hunter and Wells (2008) highlight several Web 2.0 technologies and through their
student and staff research, at Sheffield Hallam University, they have suggested how
these benefit students and increase the desire to participate:
•
Screencasts are video files compiling the changes made to the online
community website over time. This is essential for students that require
additional technical aid in using the community.
•
Podcasts are a series of audio or video files that are distributed via the
Internet by a syndicated download. Podcasts provided by tutors, of various
work, were deemed extremely beneficial for students who have missed
sessions or even if they are going back over previous work.
•
Blogs are regular maintained commentaries of topics. They encourage
students to share ideas, useful links and any relevant topic-related material.
However, their research suggested that blogs were not currently being
effectively used.
•
A wiki is a page designed to allow users to contribute or modify its content.
Wikis allow students to collaborate over content of an overall article. Wikis
can be incorporated into teaching process as a group task, editing and
contributing to the page.
•
E-Portfolios allow students to collate materials collected into a personal
electronic format. Research showed that students who had set up an ePortfolio, as it allowed potential employers to view their work, found it easier
to gain work placements.
84
Preece, J., Maloney-Krichmar, D. & Abras, C. (2003), History and emergence of online communities,
p. 4, Available at: http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/paper/6%20Final%20Enc%
th
20preece%20et%20al.pdf [Accessed 6 November 2008]
85
Ibid
86
Clarke, J; Hunter, J. & Wells, M. (2008), Enhancing the Student Experience Using Web 2.0
Technologies (Wikis, Blogs and Webcam Recordings) to Encourage Student Engagement and to
th
Develop Collaborative Learning: A Case Study. 7 European Conference on e-Learning, University of
th
Cyprus 5-6 November 2008. Academic Publishing Ltd: Reading, UK
PUBLIC
21/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
Webcams allow students to relive their own and classmates’ presentations.
Individuals can assess their performance and get feedback from others.
As previously stated most research does not consistently cover the defined age
group of the ComeIn project. However, the research of Lenhart87 et al. (2007) shows
that American teenagers aged 12 – 17 years old use the Internet mainly to visit
websites about movies, TV shows, music groups or sports stars (81%). Notably
amongst the data, 68% of the age group surveyed use instant messaging and 55%
use social networking sites (see table 1).
Table 1. Teen Internet Activities
Teen Internet Activities88
Do you ever…?
Go to websites about movies, TV shows, music groups, or sports stars
Get information about news and current events
Send or receive instant messages (IM)
Watch video sharing sites
Use an online social networking site like MySpace or Facebook
Get information about a college or university you are thinking of
attending
Play computer or console games online
Buy things online, such as books, clothes, and music
Look for health, dieting, or physical fitness information
Download a podcast
Visit chatrooms
Online
Teens
(n=886)
81%
77%
68%
57%
55%
55%
49%
38%
28%
19%
18%
Subrahmanyam 89 et al. (2008) conducted a study at the upper end of the ComeIn
target age group (mean age 21.5 years old), in a ‘large urban university’ (UCLA in
America) to establish how young people, or 'emerging adults', used online social
networks. The research focused on determining: what young people do on social
networks; who they interact with; how their social networking activities relate to their
other online activities (i.e. instant messaging); how their online social networking
overlap with their face-to-face networking or 'offline activities'; and finally how online
social networks and online communication relate to young people's development.
87
Lenhart, A; Madden, M; Rankin Macgill, A; & Smith, A. (2007), Teens and Social Media- The use of
social media gains a greater foothold in teen life as they embrace the conversational nature of
interactive online media Pew Internet Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens
_Social_Media_Final.pdf [Accessed 3rd December 2008]
88
89
Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N. & Espinoza, G. (2008), Online and offline social
networks: Use of Social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 29 (6), pp.420-433. Elsevier.
PUBLIC
22/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
110 young people completed the survey. The findings show that on the day the
survey was completed 63% spent some time on social networking websites. Of these
36% spent 30 minutes or less, 18% spent 1 hour, 6% spent 2-3 hours and 3% spent
4 or more hours on these sites. Other popular online activities were sending email
(92%) and web browsing (81%). Online gaming and use of chat rooms were the least
used activities. All online activities were predominantly used for 30 minutes or less.
Additionally, the sample spent more time online (91%) than offline studying (79%);
the most popular offline activity. 88% of the social networking site users updated their
MySpace profile the most often, in contrast to the 8% preferring Facebook and 4%
using Xanga, Youtube or other. This research displays the prevalence of online
social networking in young adults and similar research supports their findings.
Another study by Pfeil90 et al. (2008) explored the similarities and differences in social
capital amongst older MySpace users (aged over 60) and young MySpace users
(aged between 13 to 19). The research aimed to answer “what influence does age
difference have on how friendship networks are built, and on the number of friends
that users have?” Also, “how do different media and facilities, used on MySpace by
each age group, influence the way in which different age groups represent
themselves?” An automated web crawler developed by Pfeil (ibid) collected data
[from 50 MySpace user profile pages] for each age group with an equal divide of
male/female users. Data was then gathered from these users friends' profiles,
totalling a data set of approximately 6,000 profiles. The findings showed that the
social networking site was employed by young users to ‘maintain and nurture’ social
capital from relationships formed offline. 61.9% of their friends were in their
immediate age range, mostly between 16-18. Few users in this age group had
friends older than 20. Additionally, female users had more friends (median 103) than
male users (median 43).
The digital youth project91 gathered a large amount of research; they collated from
659 interviews, focus groups comprising of 67 participants, 50 research-related
events (such as conventions, summer camps, award ceremonies and others), a
questionnaire completed by 402 participants of which 363 were below the age of 25
and 5,194 observational hours on social networking sites (Ito et al.92, 2008). Their
research found that young people wanted to be constantly in touch with their peers.
The sites that they used were generally in line with their need to communicate.
Social networking sites have become popular because they offer avenues to engage
and be updated on the status of friends. Teens are mostly aware of the safety
aspects of online communities and rarely wish to reach out to strangers. The
research showed that further to this many teens believed that adult participation in
teen orientated online activities were inappropriate and ‘creepy.’
90
Pfeil, U., Arjan, R. & Panayiotis, Z. (2008), Age differences in online social networking – A study of
user profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in MySpace. Computers in
Human Behavior. Elsevier
th
91
Available at: http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/ [accessed 7 January 2009]
92
Ito, M; Horst, H; Bittanti, M; Boyd, D; Herr-Stephenson, B; Lange, G; Pascoe, C; & Robinson, L (2008)
Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project Available at:
http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouth-WhitePaper.pdf [accessed 15th
December 2008]
PUBLIC
23/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Lenhart93 et al. (2007) surveyed a random sample of 886 teenagers in the USA aged
12 – 17 years. They found that 93% of the respondents had Internet access and 63%
of these were content creators. The data also indicated that 55% of online teens had
social networking profiles and many integrated their content, creating activities into
these sites. The survey showed that teen users of social networking sites are more
likely to create a variety of different content (refer to table 2).
Table 2. Users of Social Networking Sites are more likely to create content
Users of Social Networking Sites are more likely to create all kinds of content94
Content- Creating Activities
Post pictures for others to see
Share own artistic work
Create/work on own blog
Maintain a webpage
Create/work on webpage for
others
Remix content
Post videos for others to see
Online teens who use
SNS
73%
53%
42%
42%
41%
Online teens who do
not use SNS
16%
22%
11%
8%
23%
32%
22%
18%
6%
The survey found that 32% blogged95 daily and 59% of teens read blogs on a daily
basis. These various young people were more likely to blog if they were involved in
several extracurricular activities. As well as blogging, 39% of teens shared content
such as artwork, photos, stories, or videos. The survey also found that teenagers are
now more aware of e-safety than previously, with 66% of teen social networkers
restricting access to their profiles and content. Teens have also been seen to limit
the personal information they make publicly available with 56% providing false
information and only 11% show both their first and last names.
According to Bowes96 (2002), “when formal independent research was conducted [by
the VECO97 project surveying 100 participants of their community about online
learning activities]… results indicated that 20% were active participants, 45% active
lurkers [those who mainly read but post rarely and only if it is advantageous to
themselves] and 34% passive lurkers”98. This suggests that online communities’
93
interactive online media Pew Internet Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Social
_Media_Final.pdf [Accessed 3rd December 2008]
94
95
See Glossary
96
Bowes, J. (2002), Building Online Communities for Professional Networks Global Summit, 2002, p.74.
Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN007784 .pdf
97
th
Available at: http://www.veco.ash.org.au [Accessed 12 November 2008]
98
Bowes, J. (2002), Building Online Communities for Professional Networks Global Summit, 2002, p.74.
Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN007784 .pdf
PUBLIC
24/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
participants are mainly lurkers 99, and that figures relating to community usage are not
conclusive. This data is derived from sources pertaining to young people in general.
Information specifically regarding MYP’s is not readily available. Although there is
similarity of age profile, it is recognised that data derived solely from MYPs may
generate a slight derivation in results.
3.3 Young People’s Use of Online Communities and Popular
Social Networking Sites
Young people have been demonstrated to make use of a number of popular online
communities. The number and population size of these communities varies
significantly and one of the objectives of this literature review is to identify the sites
that correspond to our particular demographic. We can then attempt to discern what
it is about each particular online community that makes it successful. Below is a
tabulated list of selected social networking sites and their size.
Table 3. Growth of Selected Social Networking Sites
Total Internet : Total Audience
Social Networking
Facebook.com
MySpace.com
HI5.com
Friendster.com
Orkut
Bebo.com
Skyrock Network
Total Unique Visitors (000)
June 2007
June 2008
% Change
777,310
860,514
11%
464,437
580,510
25%
52,167
132,105
153%
114,147
117,582
3%
28,174
56,367
100%
24,675
37,080
50%
24,120
34,028
41%
18,200
24,017
32%
17,638
21,041
19%
3.3.1 Facebook
Facebook 100 is a social networking site, which gives users the ability to connect and
share information with millions of people worldwide. The users are able to keep up
with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos and videos, share links and video,
and learn. According to previous research by Goh101 and Silverman (2008) Facebook
is the second most-trafficked social media site, with over 80 million active users.
From January 2007 to January 2008 Facebook had over 60 million active monthly
users, an average of 250,000 new registrations a day and an average 3% growth a
99
See Glossary
Available at: http://www.facebook.com/facebook [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
101
Goh, R. & Silverman, M (2008), Business Person’s Guide to Online Social Networking Available at:
http://www.duoconsulting.com/downloads/contribute/Guide_to_OnlineSocialNetworking.pdf [Accessed
26th November 2008]
100
PUBLIC
25/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
week over the past year. It has over 65 billion page views a month and half of its
users visit daily spending an average 20 minutes on the site (Owyang102, 2008).
Recent data from ComScore103 (June 2008) suggests that Facebook has grown
exponentially since January 2008 (see table 4). Data indicates that Facebook now
has 123.9 million unique visitors a month, making it the most trafficked social
networking site currently.
Table 4. Growth of Facebook
Facebook.com
North America
Europe
Asia Pacific
Middle East – Africa
Latin America
Total Unique Visitors (000)
June 2007
June 2008
% Change
52,167
132,105
153%
35,698
49,298
38%
8,751
35,263
303%
3,712
20,712
458%
2,974
14,951
403%
1,033
11,931
1055%
70,000 participants of university age (usually 18 to 22 years) took part in a survey
conducted by Lewis 104 (2007), which found that Facebook was the most popular
social networking site among U.K. students. Students were found to use Facebook
mainly for keeping in touch with friends.
Table 5. Students’ use of Facebook
102
Owyang, J. (2008), Social Network Stats: Facebook, MySpace, Reunion (Jan, 2008) Forrester
Research Available at: http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/01/09/social-network-stats-facebookmyspace-reunion-jan-2008/ [Accessed 27th November 2008]
103
Available at: http://news.zdnet.com/2424-1035_22-207724.html [Accessed 27th November 2008]
104
Lewis, B (2007) Social Networking Sites and Students: Monitoring social network websites and the
explosive rise of Facebook amongst students Available at: http://www.opinionpanel.co.uk/clientUpload
/pdf/SocialNetworkResearch.pdf [accessed 17th December 2008]
PUBLIC
26/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
The Facebook105 platform for mobile devices provides a limited version compared to
the version available on a standard computer. The profile page is adjusted to
optimise viewing on a mobile device. Mobile users can directly interact with other
Facebook users through SMS.106 Facebook mobile platform has set policies
regarding user-generated content as it does with its main site.
It has been claimed that Facebook is a successful mobile social networking
community because it offers an integrated Web and WAP Community with
communication through both channels (Kirkpatrick107, 2008 and Heldt108, Broll and
Lehmann, 2008). Facebook announced on 10th November 2008 that users of its
mobile site, m.facebook.com, increased from 5 million last year to 15 million this
year. Although this is less than 10% of the total number of Facebook users, it
suggests that there is mass interest in mobile social networking platforms.
It is the opinion of Odell109 et al. (2008) that Facebook could be a viable personal
learning environment, as users can learn with others, control resources, manage
their activities, integrate their learning and contribute to their personal learning.
“Whilst Mazer110 et al.’s (2007) findings suggest positive value for the use of
Facebook, only 6% of the 133 respondents classified teacher use of Facebook as
‘very appropriate’ and 35% ‘somewhat appropriate’… student respondents were
consistently enthusiastic about using Facebook and wanted it to continue, even
though some of them had reservations at the beginning of the experience.”111
According to Odell112 et al. (2008) although students have expressed some concern
over virtual learning environments, they have remained positive toward Facebook as
such a medium. “Self-disclosure through profiles and interaction on a Facebook site
should have positive impact on the whole group interaction.”113
3.3.2 MySpace
“MySpace is an online community that lets you meet your friends' friends.”114
MySpace is a community where individuals can share photos, journals and interests
with one’s social network. It is designed to incorporate everyone: friends who talk
online; single people meeting other singles; family tree creation, business links,
105
Available at: http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/Mobile [Accessed 3rd December 2008]
See Glossary
107
Kirkpatrick, M. (2008), Facebook Mobile Sees 3x Growth to 15 Million Users This Year. Available at:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_mobile_sees_3x_growth.php [Accessed 3rd
December 2008]
108
Ibid
109
th
Odell, A., Nevin, P. & Roberts, H. (2008), Education in your face(book)! 7 European Conference in
th
e-Learning, University of Cyprus 5-6 November 2008, pp. 271-273. Academic Publishing Ltd: Reading,
UK
110
Mazer, J.P; Murphy, R.E. & Simonds, C. (2007), “I’ll see you on Facebook: The Effects of ComputerMediated Self-Disclosure on Student Motivation, Affective Learning, and Classroom Climate”,
Communication Education, Vol.56 (1).
111
th
Odell, A., Nevin, P. & Roberts, H. (2008), Education in your face(book)! 7 European Conference on
th
UK
112
Ibid, p.271
113
Ibid
114
Available at: http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=misc.aboutus [Accessed 2nd December
2008]
106
PUBLIC
27/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
reunions with lost friends; and connecting classmates and study partners. MySpace
is very popular having over 110 million active users monthly. On average 300,000
users sign up every week. Up until June 2008 the site held the record for the most
amount of page views in one day - 4.5 billion. There are over 60,000 artists and
bands on MySpace Music Acts, many of whom have been discovered through the
application (Owyang115, 2008).
MySpace mobile has recorded over 7 million unique visitors in its first six months
according to eMarketer116 mobile social networking figures. This shows that the
demand for MySpace on mobile phones is extremely high even in the early stages of
its development. MySpace117 offers a host of services on the mobile platform for all
mobile Web 2.0 handsets, including; message management, viewing photo albums,
viewing friends, friend searches and commenting/blogging. Similarly to Facebook,
MySpace offers a representative sample of the facilities of the computer-based site.
3.3.3 Bebo
According to Aitken118 (2008) Bebo119 is a social networking site that offers three
major attractions to young people: easy-to-use profile design, unlimited photo
storage and finally a warm welcome with ready-to-use networks set up for schools
and colleges. She highlights that the active population of Bebo is 22.8 million, which
is larger than the population of Australia. The majority of the site’s users are from the
UK (11.4 million of them), and of those from the UK on average they visit the
community 15 times for a total of 258 minutes per month.
Bebo has implemented a mobile social platform for their users (Knight120, 2008).
Users can upload and share the content they create using their mobile devises. Bebo
has further incorporated text and phone messaging capabilities to the service,
allowing members to save money.
3.3.4 Wikipedia
Many consider wiki sites to be online community websites as users contribute,
maintain and comment on all of the content. Wikipedia121 is the world’s largest free
encyclopaedia and is the largest wiki community site in the world. Although Wikipedia
115
Owyang, J. (2008), Social Network Stats: Facebook, MySpace, Reunion (Jan, 2008) Forrester
Research Available at: http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/01/09/social-network-stats-facebookmyspace-reunion-jan-2008/ [Accessed 27th November 2008]
116
Gauntt, J (2008), Everyone is talking about mobile social networking. Available at:
http://corp.airg.com/news/in_the_news/documents/eMarketer_05082008.pdf [accessed 7th January
2009]
117
Available at: m.myspace.com
118
Aitken, L (2008) Bebo, Bebo, Bebo, Bebo Available at: http://www.contagiousmagazine.com
/resources/Contagious_Extracts_15.pdf [accessed 17th December 2008]
th
119
Available at: http://www.bebo.com/ [accessed 7 January 2009]
120
Knight, K (2008) Bebo, Intercasting partner for mobile-social platform Available at:
http://www.bizreport.com/2008/02/bebo_intercasting_partner_for_mobilesocial_platform.html [accessed
17th December 2008]
th
121
Available at: http://www.wikipedia.org/ [accessed 7 January 2009]
PUBLIC
28/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
seemingly has the problem of verifying the accuracy of all its published information,
the issue is claimed to be unproblematic because community members crosscheck
the validity of all contributions. Users actively participate because of a number of
social rewarding techniques that Wikipedia offers. They range from: amount of
references; provide links to related sites, rating of articles; distinguishes good from
bad articles, and most viewed articles; helps author’s reputation grow. All of these
are incentives for participation (Hoisl122, Aigner and Miksch, 2007).
Wikipedia is now available as a phone application; the text can be accessed, read
and edited using Upvise123 or Wapedia124.
3.3.5 YouTube
YouTube125 is the Internet’s leading video sharing website. The site allows people to
upload and share video clips; and these can be accessed across the Internet through
websites, mobile devices, blogs, and email. As well as the video sharing tools, the
site contains a community of interactive users. The users can set up profiles and
discuss videos. YouTube has developed from the evolution of Web 2.0. ‘Wired
[magazine] cites an average of 65,000 uploads and 100 million videos viewed per
day on YouTube’ (Duffy,126 2008).
In a survey of 20 selected communities within YouTube, comprising between 100 to
500 users, Yu127 et al. (2007) attempted to establish insights into community
mentality. They found that in general the more movies uploaded by an individual, the
more influential they are likely to be. They also discerned that YouTube is, in the
most part, not ‘social’. Comments about videos do not tend to connect people.
However, their results indicate that YouTube communities could be more social when
combined with an established network of friends.
3.3.6 Second Life
Second Life128 is regarded as a social networking site as it allows social exchange
within a cultural context. The 3D virtual world is designed to facilitate opportunities for
identity, play and self-expression. The key to success in the Second Life129 world is
collaboration; to have a successful ‘Second Life,’ people must work together (Global
122
Hoisl, B; Aigner, W. & Miksch, S. (2007), Social Rewarding in Wiki Systems- Motivating the
Community Available at: http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/imperia/md/content/department/ike/ike_
publications/2007/refereedconferenceandworkshoparticles/hoisl_2007_hcii_social-rewarding.pdf
[Accessed 21st November 2008]
123
Information Available at: http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/Wikipedia_mobile_access [Accessed 21st
November 2008]
124
Ibid
125
Available at: http://uk.youtube.com/t/about [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
126
Duffy, P. (2008), Engaging the YouTube Google-Eyed Generation: Strategies for Using Web 2.0 in
Teaching and Learning, p.123 Available at: http://www.ejel.org/Volume-6/v6-i2/Duffy.pdf [Accessed 11th
November 2008]
127
Yu, P; Hu, M; & Nayeoung, K (2007) Social network analysis YouTube Available at: http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~ladamic/courses/si508f07/projects/youtube.pdf [accessed 19th December 2008]
th
128
Available at: http://secondlife.com/ [accessed 19 December 2008]
129
Available at: http://secondlife.com/ [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
PUBLIC
29/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Kids 130, 2007). Second Life is a virtual community that provides users with an avatar.
The virtual environment is similar to that of real life and users can interact with others
in this online world. Its residents create the 3D virtual world; it is inhabited by millions
of people across the globe, which means that there are infinite possibilities.
According to Kelton131 (2007) over 26% of Second Life account holders are aged
between 18 and 24 years old. Therefore it is the perfect environment for learning,
with the potential to engage these young adults with interactive learning. Due to
Second Life’s flexibility it is a tool that can be applied to support a variety of students.
Second Life can be a medium for education and a range of pedagogical approaches.
Its collaborative environment promotes learning. Because Second Life’s features are
asynchronous it is considered to have greater potential to have a transformative
impact on education (Global Kids 132, 2007). Educators can navigate Second Life as a
social network and train their students to find information in the same way, facilitating
information instead of simply conveying it to a passive audience. Learners are then
able to teach one another in an informal way as required. There is potential for
distance learning as an avatar can use virtual classroom or conference to project
work or lesson.
The 3D virtual community can provide a suitable environment for interactive learning
in a creative and collaborative fashion (Avanzato133, 2007). There are many potential
benefits of implementing learning courses in Second Life. One key benefit is that
Second Life provides a platform for students to interact with other students across
the globe. It is also free (for the first avatar), allows constant access, gives access to
a mass of online material, provides several communication techniques and supports
programming.
Second Life has a ‘de-babbler’ device, which translates languages. This means that
there are no restrictions on learning; a member from any European State could
theoretically teach each other their language using English as a common language
(Stevens, 134 2006).
3.3.7 Habbo Hotel
Habbo hotel135, similar to Second Life, is an interactive virtual world designed for
children between 10 and 15 years old. The Finnish-based platform had reached 80
130
Global Kids (2007), Best Practices in Using Virtual Worlds For Education, Global Kids Inc. Available
at: http://www.holymeatballs.org/pdfs/BestPractices.pdf [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
131
Kelton, AJ (2007) Second life: Reaching into the Virtual World for Real-World Learning Available at:
http://www.it.udel.edu/SecondLifeERB.pdf [accessed 15th December 2008]
132
Global Kids (2007), Best Practices in Using Virtual Worlds For Education, Global Kids Inc. Available
at: http://www.holymeatballs.org/pdfs/BestPractices.pdf [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
133
Avanzato, R (2007) Second Life Virtual Community- Resources for Educators Available at:
http://www.asee.org/activities/organizations/sections/proceedings/MiddleAtlantic/2007fall/13-SecondLife-Virtual-Community.pdf [accessed 15th December 2008]
134
Stevens, V (2006) Second Life in Education and Language Learning. Available at: http://teslej.org/ej39/int.html [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
th
135
Available at: http://www.habbo.co.uk/ [accessed 17 December 2008]
PUBLIC
30/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
million registrations by September 2008 (Reding136, 2008). According to Johnson137
and Toiskallio (2007), it incorporates a software product for digital communities, a
social networking platform for children and a playful yet non-violent environment that
parents can trust. Habbo originally used multimedia CD-ROMs and Internet chat
rooms, however with the implementation of Web 2.0 and particularly the shockwave
plug-in, enabled the web browser version to flourish.
In a study carried out by Johnson138 and Toiskallio (2007) on 10,613 Habbo users it
was found that 75% were aged between 10-14 years old, and that 90% did not want
to pay for the service. From this research they found that the basic fundamentals of
the virtual world are users creating content and interacting with others. Due to these
foundations many of the virtual worlds are believed to have qualities that support
contemporary pedagogy (Esteves139, 2006).
3.3.8 LinkedIn
LinkedIn140 is a social network of over 30 million business professionals from around
the world. The site allows users to create profiles that summarise professional and
academic achievements. Using the network you can: find potential clients; be
headhunted; search for latest job opportunities; discover connections that assist in
acquiring jobs; post and distribute job listings; find high-quality candidates; and make
introductions. LinkedIn has grown exponentially by 300% per annum; the
determinate factor for this growth is sociality and this is also the key to the social
networks success (Todor141, 2007). The success of LinkedIn is due to the mass
participation and common interest.
This example of a popular online business community (although not extensively used
currently by the target demographic) is potentially relevant and valuable to the
ComeIn project as it seeks to address its objective; to make MYPs employable and
to involve them in enterprise.
3.4 Health and Safety issues
136
Reding, V (2008) Social Networking in Europe: success and challenges Available at:
http://akgul.bilkent.edu.tr/eu/SPEECH-08-465_EN.pdf [accessed 17th December 2008]
137
Johnson, M & Toiskallio, K (2007) Who are the Habbo Hotel users – and what are they doing there?
Available at: http://www.consumer2007.info/wp-content/uploads/innovation%2016-%20Johnson.pdf
th
138
Ibid.
139
Esteves, M; Morgado, L; Martins; P; Fonseca, B (2006) The use of Collaborative Virtual
Environments to provide student’s contextualisation in programming Available at: http://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/02/88/PDF/m-ICTE2006EstevesMorgadoMartinsFonseca.pdf [accessed 17th
December 2008]
140
Available at: http://www.linkedin.com/static?key=company_info [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
141
Todor, J. (2007), Social Networks and Online Communities Create Elastic Ties and Surprisingly
Powerful Pay-Offs Available at: http://www.thewhetstoneedge.com/papers/socialnetworks.pdf [Accessed
24th November 2008]
PUBLIC
31/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Online safety is an important feature of online communities as personal identity and
other attributes are frequently shared. Some communities support privacy settings so
that information can be shared between groups. Recent research by the UK Office of
Communications (Ofcom, 142 2008) found that young people do not regard privacy and
safety as a main concern while using social networks. 34% of 16-24 year olds
willingly posted personal information, photographs and other content. 44% of 16+
year olds left their privacy settings ‘open’ meaning anyone could access their
profiles. 17% of 16+ year olds spoke to people they did not know.
Lazar143 and Preece (2002) believe that “For users to communicate freely, they must
feel that their privacy is protected”. Formal privacy statements should be made
describing how personal information will be used, for example whether it will be sold
on to other companies. They also say that one of the best security techniques is to
encourage the user to be more expressive, to show others that there is a physical
person behind alias.
Odell144 et al. (2008) suggests that there is a belief that both the institution and the
student’s reputation could be at risk if online communities are also used as learning
platforms; the large amount of open disclosure on social networking sites can leave
users open to identity theft. They also raise concerns that the concept of friendship
between tutor and student may overstep the boundaries of a suitable relationship.
There is a ‘need to act responsibly’. Having a tutor as a friend on Facebook allows
them to access your profile, which may be detrimental to the relationship.
Many experts believe that the safety precautions taken to protect young people from
potential dangers are excessive. “The educational and psychosocial benefits of this
type of communication [on social networking sites] can far outweigh the potential
dangers” (Tynes 145, 2007). Social networking sites can facilitate personal identity
exploration, provide social cognitive skills, and satisfy the need of young people for
social support, intimacy, and autonomy. By promoting relevant safe Internet
behaviour, parents can feel more comfortable about their children using online
community sites.
From the research in this area it seems that online communities need to have
sufficient safety features. Many potential participants may be put off by the potential
dangers; however implementing strong protection policies may discourage young
people from taking part in an online community. The literature also suggests that
there should be specific regulations governing the community to restrict abusive
language and discourage harmful behaviour.
142
Ofcom (2008), Social Networking: A quantitative and qualitative research report into attitudes,
behaviours and use. Available at: www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss
th
/socialnetworking/report.pdf [Accessed 7 November 2008]
143
Lazar, J. & Preece, J. (2002), Social Considerations in Online Communities: Usability, Sociability,
and Success Factors, p. 21. Available at: www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/Papers/herre_chapter03.pdf
th
[Accessed 5 November 2008]
144
th
th
e-Learning, University of Cyprus 5-6 November 2008, p. 272. Academic Publishing Ltd: Reading, UK
145
Tynes, B (2007) Internet Safety Gone Wild? Sacrificing the educational and psychological benefits of
online social environments Journal of Adolescent Research p575 Available at: http://faculty.
th
washington.edu/thurlow/guestlectures/tas/tynes(2007).pdf [accessed 18 December 2008]
PUBLIC
32/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
The Bryon Report (Byron146, 2008) argues that the digital divide between parents and
children has meant that parents feel unable to manage possible Internet risks; due to
the risk-averse nature of human culture, parents are stopping their children’s
developmental drive to socialise. However, to help us measure and manage the
digital risks, we must discern whether the advantages and possible development that
technology has on young people is greater than the probability of risk. Precautions
should be implemented, but young people’s access to the Internet should not be
stopped. In respect to MYPs Byron states that, “there is evidence to suggest that the
parents of children from more socially disadvantaged backgrounds are less able to
protect against the risks of the Internet and require additional support” (Byron147,
2008).
3.5 Psycho-Social Issues
Broß148, Sack and Meinel (2007) believe that, “Hiding one’s true identity through the
use of pseudonyms would encourage participation in virtual communities. The sheer
sense of community, as well as the ability to identify with the virtual community
enhance the likelihood of members contribution and participation”149.
The available time and topical interest levels of discussion govern participation. The
users need to have the time and inclination to communicate; therefore potential users
should have available information and help with any new technology to reduce the
amount of time it takes to participate. Most experts ‘believe that, in order to allow a
community to reap its full benefits, the first thing the organization management team
and sponsor should act upon is its operational leadership.’150 Therefore, to protect
and nourish the development of community some formal leadership should be in
place. There are several factors, summarised by Broß151, Sack and Meinel (2007),
which are incentives for participation:
•
Leader involvement - helps to foster an active community, as it promotes
collaboration and trust.
•
Offline interaction - provides a strong base for community relationships.
•
Usefulness - the community must provide content that is useful to audience,
otherwise is no value in joining.
146
Bryon, T. (2008), Safer Children in a Digital World- The Report of the Byron Review. Available at:
th
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/byronreview/pdfs/Final%20Report%20Bookmarked.pdf [accessed 19
December 2008]
147
Ibid. pp. 7-8
148
Broß, J; Sack, H. & Meinel, C. (2007), Encouraging Participation in Virtual Communities: The “ITsummit-blog” Case. Available at: http://users.minet.uni-jena.de/~sack/Material/eSociety2007.pdf
149
Ibid
150
Bourhis, A; Dube, L. & Jacob, R. (2005), The Success of Virtual Communities of Practice: The
Leadership Factor, p.31. Available at: http://www.ejkm.com/volume-3/v3i1/v3-i1-art3-bourhis.pdf
151
Ibid
PUBLIC
33/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
IT-infrastructure - should be of a high quality and the technological platform
should foster communication efficiently with a site that is easy to use.
“User-to-user communication is key. While your organisational objective is to
increase your ability to communicate with people, the participants are likely primarily
interested in talking to one another” (Cohen,152 2008). He outlines several attributes
to encourage relationships:
•
Privacy Protection - carefully establishing communicative techniques that
consider peoples privacy settings.
•
Rich User Identities - consider allowing user to personalize their page, so
interaction is easier.
•
Groups and Discussion Lists - allow members, once you have large numbers,
to set up spaces to discuss more specific interests.
•
Leverage Off-line Events - ensure that members also meet face-to-face.
On the other hand Matzat153 and de Vos (2000) warn that constant use of online
communities can foster uninhibited and anti-normative behaviour, de-personalisation,
or a reduction in social interaction all together. They also address the issue of trust.
The use of an online community requires the individual to place a certain amount of
trust in other people, which can have positive personal gains. There may, however,
be incentives for someone else to abuse that trust. There are a large number of
examples of abuse of trust, for instance companies selling personal information to
other companies, or intentionally giving out inaccurate information during discussion.
Each individual member of an online community may also have a different opinion of
what is appropriate ‘netiquette’, which may cause conflict.
Melinger154 (n.d.) of Socialight suggest that the use of social networking sites and
particularly social networking sites on mobile devices can have a serious detrimental
effect on a person’s mental and sociological health. Melinger155 (n.d.) has attempted
to design a community that endorses face-to-face communication.
Social networking sites provide us with long-lasting insights into the identity of young
people. Teens are modelling identity using their social networking profiles; they are
able to present themselves in a way they may not feel comfortable with, in public life
(Boyd156, 2007). Teenagers also have the sense of shared community identity. Social
acceptance in a community is an important characteristic for smooth transition to
adulthood.
152
Cohen, A. (2008), Characteristics of Successful Online Communities, Available at:
th
http://www.idealware.org/articles/successful_communities.php, [Accessed 5 November 2008]
153
Available at: http://www.ppsw.rug.nl/matzat/online-communities.pdf, [Accessed 6th November 2008]
154
Melinger, D. (n.d.), Socialight: Social Network, meet Mobile Network Available at:
http://bionicdan.net/depot/socialight_chapter.pdf [Accessed 4th December 2008]
155
Ibid.
156
Boyd, D (2007) Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage
Social Life Available at: http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf [accessed 17th December
2008]
PUBLIC
34/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
From her research, Lenhart157 (2006) found that social networking sites are popular
among teenagers as they provide an alternative way of expression and the activities
involved they find appealing. Most of the content that young people post is
expressive and full of idealism. Although there are risks with expressing themselves
so openly, the positives may outweigh the negatives. Many of the young people
interviewed in the Pew Internet Study158 (2007), were aware of the dangers of social
networking sites and have taken steps to address these issues.
From all the research above it would appear that participation is one of the principal
factors in a successful online community. Community members are interested in an
easy to navigate, simple community, which satisfies their goals. The design of the
community must reflect the needs of its audience to encourage information sharing
and collaboration.
157
Lenhart, A (2006) Testimony by Amanda Lenhart Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/
ppt/Pew%20Internet%20Project%20SNS%20testimony%20-%207%2007%2006%20-%20submitted.pdf
th
158
Lenhart, A; Madden, M; Rankin Macgill, A; & Smith, A (2007) Teens and Social Media- The use of
interactive online media Pew Internet Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_
Teens_Social_Media_Final.pdf [accessed 03/12/08]
PUBLIC
35/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
4
Online Communities and Learning
According to Sendaula159 and Biswas (2004), “it is not uncommon for high school and
college students to spend hours on-line, playing video games and chatting in multiple
chat-rooms. One possible way to get their interest and attention to their academic
matters is the use of interactive learning systems with appropriate tutoring and
mentoring.” Teenagers have embraced peer-to-peer written communication through
social networking pages, emails, instant messaging and text messaging. Some
believe that these modes of communication are inspiring a new generation of
appreciative writers. Arafeh160 et al. (2008) suggest that although 60% of teens do not
think of electronic texts as writing, this disassociation is erroneous. Teens are
motivated to post when it is expected of them, the topic is relevant to them and if the
there is an audience interested in their contribution. Laurillard161 (2002) identifies
three ways in which a successful online community can deliver media to students:
•
Narrative - The delivery of information is one way.
•
Interactive - There is an interaction with the resource.
•
Adaptive - The resource changes because of the interaction with it from the
user.
The author also further identifies two types of collaborative media:
•
Communicative - The key characteristics is that participants communicate.
•
Productive - The focus is that the participants create content on delivery.
It is important to provide good delivery techniques because student attrition is a
major problem for virtual learning environments; a large percentage of students
receive low results because their participation reduces (Stanford-Bowers 162, 2008).
Belgrove163, Griffin, & Makepeace (2008) outlined the development of an online
159
Sendaula, M. & Biswas, S. (2004), Curriculum Deceleration and On-Line Learning Communities for
Working Students. Available at: http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2004/papers/1385.pdf [Accessed 20th
November 2008]
160
Arafeh, S; Lenhart, A; Smith, A. & Rankin Macgill, A. (2008), Writing, Technology and Teens. Pew
Research Centre Publications. Available at: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/808/writing-technology-andteens [Accessed 24th November 2008]
161
Laurillard, D. (2002), Rethinking University Teaching (2nd ed.) Routledge. Available at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RDsOAAAAQAAJ&dq=Laurillard+D+(2002)+Rethinking+University+
Teaching+(2nd+edition&pg=PP1&ots=Pc-2VLmc3R&source=bn&sig=96qO0TwG6FH
th
SrJ5BLGPV1m86lcs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPR6,M1 [Accessed 11
November 2008]
162
Stanford-Bowers, D. (2008), Persistence in Online Classes: A Study of Perceptions among
Community College Stakeholders MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 1,
2008 Available at: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no1/stanford-bowers0308.pdf [accessed 21/11/08]
163
Belgrove, M; Griffin, J; & Makepeace, B. (2008), Using e-learning Tools to Build a Community of
th
Distance Learners: A Progress Review and Call for Collaboration. The University of Cyprus, 7
PUBLIC
36/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
community for long distance learning. The University of East London has
implemented this community to help students keep up-to-date with their studies.
“The purpose of this community has evolved during its tenure and has been seen
variously as a social space for students, an asynchronous online helpdesk and a
repository for resources relating to effective online learning.”164 The success of any
virtual learning community is dependent upon its formation. Brook165 and Oliver
(2002) state that online learning can only be fostered effectively in well-constructed
collaborative environments.
4.1 Contemporary Constructivist Pedagogy – e-learning
Odin166 (n.d.) summarises Salmon’s167 (2005) model of e-learning as follows:
Stage 1- a welcome message to encourage members of learning community.
Ensuring that the students are comfortable accessing relevant information and
navigating learning environment.
Stage 2- encourage social interaction, provide structure and netiquette guidelines for
group. Attempt to get user to participate using engaging statements.
Stage 3- ensures that users exchange information and read relevant materials. The
information exchange should be followed up by discussions and reports on findings.
Stage 4- the learning environment should provide more activities and forums to
facilitate the learning process. This stage should prompt course-related discussions.
Stage 5- finally the last stage involves a more detailed form of interaction, where the
users generate discussion content, share skills and information, and reflect upon
their own learning process.
th
European Conference on e-Learning, University of Cyprus 5-6 November 2008, p. 91. Academic
Publishing Ltd: Reading, UK
164
Ibid
165
Brook, C. & Oliver, R. (2002), Supporting the Development of Learning Communities in Online
Settings. Available at: http://elrond.scam.ecu.edu.au/oliver/2002/edmedia2.pdf [Accessed 21st
November 2008]
166
Odin, J. (n.d.), Does e-moderating an active online classroom create? Available at:
http://www.aln.org/resources/reviews/pdf/review2.pdf [Accessed 24th November 2008]
167
Salmon, G. (2005), Learning Submarines: Raising the Periscopes. Available at:
http://nw2000.flexiblelearning.net.au/main/key03.htm [Accessed 16th December 2008]
PUBLIC
37/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Figure 1. Salmon’s five-stage model of teaching and learning online through
elearning
Knox168 and Gerrard (2007) support Salmon’s five-stage model of e-learning,
however from their research they have found that not all students can successfully
reach stage four in ideal way, but that student interaction is collaborative. An online
learning community matures once the users realise that they all have shared
commitment and interact to facilitate this aim (Stanford-Bowers 169, 2008). Salmon’s170
(2005) theory provides a durable framework for online learning. It offers a paradigm
incorporating contemporary theory and practice into the community learning process.
For Dimai171 and Ebner (n.d.), “the possibility to bring teachers and students more in
touch and the promotion of student-student as well as student-teacher dialogues
seem to be a great promise of elearning in higher education.”172 They also claim that
as many young people feel that it is better to communicate with someone physically,
168
Knox, H. & Gerrard, C. (2007), Building an Online Learning Community: What Does it Take to Make
it Work? Available at: http://journals.ucfv.ca/rr/RR11/article-PDFs/gerrard-knox.pdf [Accessed 25th
November 2008]
169
2008. Available at: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no1/stanford-bowers0308.pdf [Accessed 21st November
2008]
170
Salmon, G. (2005), Learning Submarines: Raising the Periscopes. Available at:
http://nw2000.flexiblelearning.net.au/main/key03.htm [Accessed 16th December 2008]
171
Dimai, B. & Ebner, M. (n.d.), Community without a vision won’t work. p.6, Available at: http://
th
www.inter-disciplinary.net/ci/mm/mm1/dimai_ebner%20paper.pdf [Accessed 6 Novemeber 2008]
172
Ibid
PUBLIC
38/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
elearning must offer some sort of personal online socialisation. During the learning
process it is important to break students down into related sub-groups, so that they
can contact relevant members for advice or information.
Student attrition is a major problem for virtual learning environments; a large
percentage of students receive low results because their participation reduces.
Therefore, Stanford-Bowers 173 (2008) suggests that online courses designed around
the student offer greater satisfaction. The students comprising online learning
communities only acquire the benefits of online learning once they understand their
obligation to share content and interact with others.
According to Fooks 174 (2006), once students are participating, it is essential, to get
students to contribute thoughtfully. He suggests that to avoid lurking, the participation
levels expected should be defined prior to the beginning of the course. Although it is
not advised to have an over-authoritarian approach, students will know the
contribution rates expected of them. However, Buckley175et al. (2005); and Johnson176
and Dyer (2005) believe that an environment that promotes the user defining their
own content and structure, rather than ICT models that rely on heavily text-orientated
structure, are the most effective online learning environments. User-generated
content is a fundamental catalyst for student interaction. Johnson177 and Dyer (2005)
said, “research has found that a simple on-line delivery mechanism for content does
not serve to re-engage this group of young people in learning and the social
interactions of a virtual learning community are needed.” They found that learners
engage more with creative sociable educative areas such as music. For young
people to engage with learning material, “new pedagogies are needed as the digital
age develops which reflect collaboration, internalising thinking, reflection and
iteration rather than the concept of the taught lesson”178 Mason179 (2005) shares
Johnson and Dyer’s (ibid) constructivist approach to pedagogies. “To ensure
effective teaching and learning, online teachers should have a social constructivist
philosophy, which involves taking on the role as a facilitator of their students'
learning.”180
173
Community College Stakeholders, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 1,
2008]
174
Fooks, L. (2006), Some Key Success Factors of an Online Learning Community. Available at: http://
lfooks.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/online_success_factors_wp.pdf [Accessed 27th November 2008]
175
Buckley, D; Conahan, S. & Munoz (2005), Lessons Learned: Community Standards – The Early
Lessons of Mobile Community – Building Wireless Business Forecast December 2005 Available at:
http://www.motricity.com/pdf/pr/05_1205.pdf?PHPSESSID=11c4a05123f8fcdf24028ec06c2fb5a7
176
Johnson, J. & Dyer, J. (2005), User-defined content in a constructivist learning environment p.8.
Available at: http://www.formatex.org/micte2005/169.pdf [Accessed 24th November 2008]
177
Johnson, J. & Dyer, J. Using multimedia in an on-line community for disenfranchised youth.
Proceedings of the Digimedia Conference 2005 held in Cairo, Egypt.
178
Ibid p.14
179
approach, p.5. Available at: http://videolinq.tafe.net/learning2005/papers/mason.pdf [Accessed 25th
November 2008]
180
Ibid.
PUBLIC
39/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
New forms of media have meant that there has been a shift in the way that young
people socialise and learn (Ito181 et al., 2008). However, to successfully engage
young people the design of the community must facilitate these contemporary
characteristics. Online learning is mainly self-directed and therefore positive
outcomes arise from personal involvement. “The most important factors are the
availability of technical resources and a context that allows for a degree of freedom
and autonomy for self-directed learning and exploration.”182
According to Seufert 183 et al. (2002) a successful online learning platform that
comprises contemporary constructivist pedagogy must have the following
characteristics
•
A means to present factual knowledge coupled with creative thinking.
•
Support for students learning; both subject and process-orientated.
•
Supervision and guidance for navigating course.
•
Provided assistance for complex learning environment.
•
An ability to foster a long lasting community that can continually evolve.
Research by Preece, 184 Maloney-Krichmar and Abras (2003) acknowledges that
education has already evolved due to the development of online learning
communities: ‘Online learning communities have sprung up in the form of distance
education classes, knowledge-building communities and technological cyber schools,
a kind of virtual clubhouses where children can experiment with technology and
learn.’
It is the opinion of Mason185 (2005) and Carroll186 et al. (2008) that virtual learning
environments were initially developed as delivery vehicles for information. However,
recently they have become more interactive environments with a higher audience
181
Ito, M; Horst, H; Bittanti, M; Boyd, D; Herr-Stephenson, B; Lange, G; Pascoe, C; & Robinson, L
(2008) Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project
Available at: http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouth-WhitePaper.pdf [accessed
15th December 2008]
182
(2008) Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project p22
15th December 2008]
183
Seufert, S; Lechner, U; & Stanoevska, K. (2002), A Reference Model for Online Learning
Communities International Journal on E-learning January-March 2002, pp.42-55. Available at:
http://sciltest.unisg.ch/seufert/docs/reference-model-online-learning-communities.pdf [Accessed 27th
November 2008]
184
Preece, J., Maloney-Krichmar, D. & Abras, C. (2003), History and emergence of online communities,
pp. 6-7. Available at:
th
http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/paper/6%20Final%20Enc%20preece%20et%20al.pdf [Accessed 6
November 2008]
185
approach. Available at: http://videolinq.tafe.net/learning2005/papers/mason.pdf [Accessed 25th
November 2008]
186
Carroll, F; Kop, R. & Wooward, C. (2008), Sowing the Seeds of Learner Autonomy: Transforming the
th
VLE into a Third Place Through the use of Web 2.0 Tools - 7 European Conference in e-Learning,
Cyprus (2008) edited by Williams, R. Academic Publishing Limited: Reading, UK.
PUBLIC
40/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
penetration, which has led to more engagement. It has allowed learners to work
independently but also encourages interaction. The authors state that development
of new technology (such as Web 2.0) has meant that communication areas of online
learning communities can incorporate tools that allow students to collaborate more
effectively. Such tool sets should include both asynchronous and synchronous
communication tools for a successful online learning community.
Due to the literacy levels of teens, Daniel187 (2002) suggested that virtual learning
communities need set parameters for language and culture. The use of language is
important as it encourages members to communicate effectively. The culture of the
site should be to socialise, to encourage learning. A hospitable environment should
be maintained to promote participation; according to the author the crux of the
community is the sharing of resources.
Examples of virtual learning environments that make use of Web 2.0 technology are
WebCT and Blackboard (although now merged February 2006188), which according
to Altany 189 and Franke (2002) have pedagogical features that determine their
success. WebCT and Blackboard have integrated mail and discussion tools, which
are used at institutions discretion. The chat room feature incorporates an interactive
white board, to be used as a Virtual Classroom. Assessment tools, on both virtual
learning platforms, allow students to turn in their work online with notification receipt,
track their progress and receiving grade through service. The systems offer
uploading tools, which allow course content and material to be posted for students to
read, summarise or print. WebCT has personalisation features; the student can
customise their background to suit their needs. Both community applications have
homepages for announcements and additional resource information.
Research into providing a general online community for trainee teachers (Gutke190
and Albion, 2008; and Olofsson191, 2007), found that the members had better support
and advice through the community than if it did not exist. The users could use the
bank of experiences to solve their issues. The research found that the online
discussion area was the most useful resource.
187
Daniel, B. (2002), Building Social Capital in Virtual Learning Communities Available at:
2008]
188
Press Release- Blackboard Inc.'s Merger with WebCT, Inc. Receives Regulatory Clearance Available
at: http://www.blackboard.com/company/press/release.aspx?id=812824 [Accessed 20th November
2008]
189
Altany, A. & Franke, T. (2002), WebCT vs. Blackboard: Report of the Course Management Task
Force. Available at: www.wcu.edu/it/cio/planning/cmsfinalreport.pdf [Accessed 20th November 2008]
190
Gutke, H. & Albion, P. (2008), Exploring the worth of online communities and e-mentoring programs
for beginning teachers Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education 19th International
Conference (2008), Las Vegas. Available at:
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/3994/1/Gutke_Albion_SITE_20008.pdf [Accessed 25th November 2008]
191
Olofsson, A. (2007), Participation in an Educational Online Learning Community Available at:
http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_4/4.pdf [Accessed 25th November 2008]
PUBLIC
41/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
5
Mobile Online Communities
5.1 Prevalence of Mobile Communities
Social networking sites have targeted the wireless mobile market because of the high
market penetration of the mobile phone. Mobile phones provide a platform for instant
access to social networks and according to Kharif192 (2006) there is already a
significant demand for uploading photo pictures to social networking sites, and that
this is a natural progression from larger computers.
Table 6. Users of Mobile Social Networks193
An online survey (conducted by Heldt 194, Broll and Lehmann, 2008) found that 71.1%
of participants do not use their phones for Internet data services. Furthermore, it
revealed that 88.9% of all participants were not aware of any mobile online
communities. However, of those that are aware 86.7% are members of online
communities. “The main outcome of the questionnaire was that people expect a high
level of security and their goal is to communicate with their friends.”195
192
Kharif, O. (2006), Social Networking Goes Mobile Business Week Online Available at:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060530_170086.htm [Accessed 24th
November 2008]
193
Goldhammer, K.; Wiegand, A.; Becker, D.; & Schmid, M. (2008), Goldmedia Mobile Life Report
st
2012, Mobile Life in the 21 Century, Status Quo and Outlook, p.22. Bitkom.
194
Heldt, S; Broll, G. & Lehmann, P. (2008), Mobile Communities – Requirements and Features for
Success. Available at:
http://www.medien.ifi.lmu.de/pubdb/publications/pub/heldt2008miux/heldt2008miux.pdf [Accessed 17th
November 2008]
195
Ibid
PUBLIC
42/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Rheingold196 (2002); Ryan197 and McGovern (2003); Chard198 (2008); and
Schweitzer199 (n.d.) perceive mobile online communities as a logical progression from
larger computers, comprising both the positive characteristics of mobile technology
and of virtual communities. The main attraction of these is that the community and
resources of which they are composed are instantly accessible. As billions of SMS
messages are sent everyday, mobile communities can exploit this communication
market. Users of online communities will be in constant contact with virtual
community applications on mobile devices. Chayko200 (2007) concurs, further
highlighting the importance of personal availability and the value of having a
continuous source of material at your disposal anywhere and at anytime.
According to Kietzmann201 (2004) and Chincholle202 et al. (2008) there has been a
technical shift in communication, both in the UK and with Ericsson users worldwide,
from writing and speaking to texting and emailing. The features of mobile devices are
becoming more advanced and already people can work on the move, changing the
structure of the working day. Mobile enabled workers are now available continually,
able return calls, emails and text messages from their mobile devices.
Mobile social networks permit users to access information and communicate with
other members of the community. The main distinction between the web version and
the phone version is the mobility or access anywhere (Markides203 and Coetzee,
2008). “Mobile devices are the perfect gateways between real- and cyberspace.
Their high availability ensures that almost everybody can populate the new square
that connects cyberstreets with concrete roads” (Kuhn204 and Wattenhofer, 2006).
Modern mobile phones are considered to be social networking devices, as they have
a range of tools such as contact numbers and messaging facilities. In the opinion of
the authors, sharing files among phone users is simpler than uploading from a
computer and a good virtual community could accommodate this.
196
Rheingold, H (2002), Mobile Virtual Communities. Available at:
http://www.vodafone.com/flash/receiver/06/articles/pdf/02.pdf [Accessed 17th November 2008]
197
Ryan, C. & McGovern, J. (2003), Next Generation Virtual Communication. Available at:
http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~caspar/ATcrc/1.2/ATRCRPaperCommunity.pdf [Accessed 27th November
2008]
198
Chard, I. (2008), Share, Collaborate, Exploit – Defining Mobile Web 2.0 Available at:
199
Schweitzer, S. (n.d.), Functionalities of Online Communities of Practice. Available at:
http://java.cs.vt.edu/public/classes/communities/uploads/schweitzer_project_draft.pdf [Accessed 21th
November 2008]
200
Connectedness. Available at: http://www.cse.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/portable_community.pdf
201
Kietzmann, J. (2004), Mobile Communities of Practice. Available at:
202
Chincholle, D; Bjorn, M; Norlin, C. & Lindqvist, M. (2008), Chat on a phone, not a PC clone: IMSbased mobile community service, Ericsson Review No. 1, 2008, p.14. Available at:
http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/corpinfo/publications/review/2008_01/files/2_Chat_on_phone.pdf
203
Markides, B. & Coetzee, M. (2008), Trusted information sharing for mobile social networks Available
at: http://www.cs.uct.ac.za/Research/DNA/microweb/WCITD2008/proceedings/papers/p12.pdf
[Accessed 3rd December 2008]
204
Kuhn, M. & Wattenhofer, R. (2006), Community-Aware Mobile Networking. Available at:
http://www.dcg.ethz.ch/publications/mspe06.pdf [Accessed 17th November 2008]
PUBLIC
43/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
5.2 Other Relevant Research into Existing Mobile Online
Communities
In a recent survey conducted by ABI Research205, out of 500 members of social
networks 46% had visited a mobile social network. Of those surveyed, 70% had
visited MySpace mobile application, 67% had visited Facebook mobile application
and no other social networking site was visited by more than 15%. This indicates the
large gap between these two leading sites and all other social networking sites
(Business Wire206, 2008).
To put this research into context, Ericsson207 carried out qualitative research in
November 2006, using 75 men and women aged between 15 - 25, to understand the
current technological needs of mobile phone users. According to Chincholle208 et al.
(2008) “the service concept was developed using a user-centred design (UCD)
process that takes an iterative approach to design, implementation and evaluation.”
The perceived purpose of mobile phones and computers is to stay connected with
friends. However, mobile phones allow users to interact while on the move. “Despite
low initial interest for MSN-like chatting using a mobile phone, the response to the
service prototype during usability testing and in-depth interviews was much more
positive.”209 They conclude that the research only highlighted minor usability issues,
concerning user interface and slight functional improvements. The major issue
encountered was that users preferred to keep PC contacts and phone contacts
separate: “Consequently, end-users do not particularly want a PC service which has
been imported to the mobile phone. Instead, they perceived the IMS-based concept
as a service optimized for the mobile phone and its unique functionality. More
specifically, it can provide a set of tools for a community.”210
Other theorists share this point. Wenger211 et al. (2005) and Kietzmann212 (2004)
comment that mobile communities of practice require more than just a mobile phone.
Their success is dependent upon various aspects. There is an issue of appropriation
of devices; the mobile must suit the intention of the communities communication
needs. Kietzmann (2005) also suggests that although appropriate technology must
be available, “technology by itself does not create knowledge, learning,
205
Available at: http://www.abiresearch.com/home.jsp [Accessed 20th November 2008]
Business Wire (2008), MySpace and Facebook Fast Becoming the Leading Mobile Social Networks,
th
Says ABI Research, 6 October 2008. Available at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_Oct_6/ai_n29478467 [Accessed 20th November
2008]
207
th
Available at: http://www.ericsson.com [Accessed 12 November 2008]
208
Chincholle, D.; Bjorn, M.; Norlin, C. & Lindqvist, M. (2008), Chat on a phone, not a PC clone: IMSbased mobile community service, Ericsson Review No. 1, 2008, p.14. Available at:
209
Ibid
210
Ibid
211
2008]
212
Kietzmann, J. (2004), Mobile Communities of Practice, p.16. Available at:
206
PUBLIC
44/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
communication or community development.”213 The management of mobile
communities should facilitate the relationship between people and technology and
provide relevant training.
The design of a mobile device restricts certain social functions and applications
found on a Web-based versions (Ziv 214 and Mulloth, 2007 and Buckley 215, Conahan
and Munoz 2005). Limitations on design, due mainly to screen size and memory,
mean that designing a suitable interactive interface is essential. Social networking
sites like MySpace and Facebook have accomplished this (as shown in figure 2).
Figure 2. Facebook and MySpace mobile interfaces.
Facebook Interface216
MySpace Interface217
Cultivating an online mobile community requires an assessment of the principles that
govern any community of practice (Wenger’s 218, 2004; Moule219, 2006; and Brown220,
2005). Providing an environment that can promote social interactions is key, yet
knowing one’s technological limits is a fundamental prerequisite of any success.
Mobile Web 2.0 is still developing but has already provided opportunities for
successful mobile communities such as Facebook, MySpace and those mentioned in
section 5.2.
213
Ibid
Ziv, N & Mulloth, B. (2006), An Exploration on Mobile Social Networking: Dodgeball as a Case in
Point p.6. Available at: http://www.poly.edu/management/_doc/nina/socialnetworking21.pdf [Accessed
26th November 2008]
215
Lessons of Mobile Community – Building Wireless Business Forecast December 2005. Available at:
th
216
Available at: http://www.flytip.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/ facebookmobile.jpg
217
Available at: http://www.pocketnow.com/html/portal/news/0000004726/NewsImage/
MySpaceMobile1.gif
218
219
220
November 2008]
214
PUBLIC
45/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
The possibility of future successful mobile community platforms is supported by ABI
research, 221 which has projected that by 2013 the mobile social networking market
will generate revenues of $3.3 billion. They project that there will be in excess of 140
million subscribers worldwide. This depicts the projected future mass demand that
the mobile social networking market has and will have. Chard222 (2008) illustrates the
current Mobile Web 2.0 global market, incorporating mobile social networking/usergenerated content, mobile search and mobile instant messaging, being worth $5.5bn.
He forecasts that this market will be worth up to $22.4bn by 2013.
In a survey conducted between May and June 2008 by ICM Research
(commissioned by Shine Communications on behalf of Vodafone, and analysed by
Haddon223 (2008)): Of the 709 participants (all Internet users) 94% had a mobile
phone and 18% had various forms of Smartphone.224 Of these device owners, a
further 18% had never used email and 25% had never visited websites on their
phones.
Only 24% of all Internet enabled phone users had ever used them to access social
networking sites, and 7% had used them regularly. However, of the 18 - 24 year olds,
20% use their phones to access social networking sites regularly. Of these phone
community users, Facebook dominates the market with 49%, in comparison to the
second largest MySpace with only 14%.
When asked which online mobile features the participants were likely to use; 74%
said email, 70% said websites, 60% said instant messaging and 34% said social
networking. Of those who did not use the Internet on their phones 42% mentioned
screen size, 37% mentioned the lack of a keyboard, but 81% were simply not
interested even if price was not a factor.
Of the 709 people in the survey, 298 were users of social networking sites. The
survey found that a fifth of these were putting a reasonable amount of effort into their
profiles, which is high for a relatively new service. Haddon225 (2008) concludes that if
a quarter of Internet users have visited social networking sites with their mobile
phones then there is a good amount of interest. The main bulk of the interest is
concentrated in young adults, as social networking services have a perceived
integration into their lives.
Relating this discussion to mobile learning, mobile communities can aid online
learning communities as they add value to the educational setup. The strength of a
mobile learning community is that it provides instant information while students are
on the move (El Morr226 and Kawash, 2007).
221
Available at: http://www.abiresearch.com [Accessed 25th November 2008]
223
Haddon, L. (2008), Mobile Access to Social Networking Sites: A UK Survey. Available at:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/pdf/Mobileandsocialnetworking.pdf [Accessed 26th
November 2008]
224
See Glossary
225
Ibid
226
El Morr, C. & Kawash, J. (2007), Mobile virtual communities research: a synthesis of current trends
and a look at future perspectives. Available at: http://www.yorku.ca/elmorr/Journals/2007-IJWBCMobile%20Virtual%20Communities%20Research-Trends%20and%20Perspectives.pdf [Accessed 26th
November 2008]
222
PUBLIC
46/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
There are several important characteristics of mobile online learning communities
proposed by El Morr227 and Kawash (2007). The user interface should be friendly and
display all operators’ requirements. There should be set guidelines of suitable
behaviour as well as maintained privacy and data security provisions. Each user
should have a way of personalising their learning environment; a profile is an
example of this. Finally, trust binds all these together and is extremely important to
the success of the community.
Glasson228 and Evans (n.d.) are conducting research to find whether or not it is viable
to use Web 2.0 and mobile phone technology to establish educative connections.
They are using mobile phones as educative devices to provide African
schoolteachers with material to teach children Western Science.
Although there are several perceivable obstacles with providing a mobile virtual
community, from all the research it appears that this is a viable prospect. The
research shows that young people are the target demographic for these enterprises,
and with the right design the community could be successful. Due to the limited
memory, screen space and functions of a mobile phone it seems that purpose and
design should be categorically linked. We have already dealt with some of the larger
online communities (such as MySpace and Facebook, which can now be accessed
via home computer or mobile phone) in previous sections. However, below are
further examples of online communities, which have been developed specifically for
mobile devices.
5.2.1 Ericsson Online Community
“In 2006, Ericsson Research developed and implemented an IMS-based (IP
Multimedia Subsystem) service prototype for mobile communities. The service
simultaneously supports IM (Instant Messaging), voice calls, live video sharing, and
presence information.” Chincholle229 et al. (2008) distinguish Ericsson’s target
market, for the prototype, as teenagers and young adults. Experience has shown
these mobile phone users are usually the first to integrate new technology into their
lives.
5.2.2 Rabble
Rabble230 has integrated a mobile blog into its community service package. The
platform allows users post and upload pictures to community from mobile. It is paired
with its web counterpart. Rabble, has been successful, however the mobile platform
227
Ibid
Glasson, G & Evans, M (n.d.), Connecting Community Elders and Schools in Malawi Using Mobile
Phones and Web 2.0 Technologies. Available at:
http://www.mmp.soe.vt.edu/Download/ma_aste_present.pdf [Accessed 12th November 2008]
229
Chincholle, D; Bjorn, M; Norlin, C. & Lindqvist, M. (2008), Chat on a phone, not a PC clone: IMSbased mobile community service, Ericsson Review No. 1, 2008, p.14. Available at:
230
th
Available at: http://rabble.com/ [Accessed 20 November 2008]
228
PUBLIC
47/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
has mostly been used for asynchronous SMS messaging rather than real-time
instant messaging.
5.2.3 GyPSii
GyPSii231 is a geo-location social network using web-connected mobile devices. The
GyPSii platform is available on Windows Mobile for Pocket Net Phones, Symbian
S60 Nokia and Samsung, Blackberry Smartphone and will soon be available on
iPhones.
The application incorporates user-generated content with a GPS proximity search.
After uploading content, individuals can search for friends on site and use tools to
find out their geographical location. The service also provides maps and navigation
applications for finding a point of interest.
5.2.4 Dodgeball
Dodgeball232 is a mobile social networking service that offers location-based
services. Now owned by Google, Dodgeball uses a mixture of social networking
tools, SMS messages, and mapping software. The premise is that users send
messages to a service, which informs their friend list of their whereabouts.
Although in an early stage, the community is flourishing, and has been expanded to
22 cities across America. The application has the potential to evolve in to a
worldwide community, especially prevalent in cities (Ziv 233 and Mulloth, 2006).
5.2.5 MobilED
The MobilED scheme is designed at providing educative material using current
mobile technology (Ford234 and Leinonen, 2006). Designed for South African
children, the service provides an audio-Wiki answering specific SMS-messages. It
can be applied to both formal and informal learning environments, as it is similar
concept to visual Wikipedia. Although the MobilED project is not necessarily
considered a community, it does fuse learning and mobile technology.
‘The approach of the MobilED project is to integrate research-based ideas of using
mobile technologies in teaching/learning with active scenarios of real learning
231
GyPSii (2008), GyPSii’s Location Based Mobile Social Networking GyPSii Product Description
Available at: http://corporate.gypsii.com/docs/GyPSiiProductDescription050508.pdf [Accessed 25th
November 2008]
232
Available at: http://www.dodgeball.com/home [Accessed 26th November 2008]
233
Ziv, N. & Mulloth, B. (2006), An Exploration on Mobile Social Networking: Dodgeball as a Case in
Point. Available at: http://www.poly.edu/management/_doc/nina/socialnetworking21.pdf [Accessed 26th
November 2008]
234
Ford, M. & Leinonen, T. (2006), MobilED – A Mobile Tools and Services Platform for Formal and
Informal Learning. Available at: http://www2.uiah.fi/~tleinone/mobiled/merryl_teemu_mlearn2006.pdf
PUBLIC
48/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
programs.’235
5.2.6 Socialight
Socialight 236 is a mobile community platform that is made up of many applications, it
is described as ‘a place-based messaging system.’ The Socialight platform provides
media storage and administration, social networking database. It also tracks
locations of users with a GPS system. Snippets of messages are sent to users and
the only way to totally access the information is to get closer to the location from
whence it was published, encouraging face-to-face communication.
5.2.7 SuperClubsPLUS and GoldStarCafe
SuperClubsPLUS and GoldStarCafe237 are online learning communities, run by
Intuitive Media and previously funded by the UK Department for Education and Skills
(now known as DCSF - Department for Children, Schools and Families). They are
safe social learning networks designed for various age groups. GoldStarCafe is
designed for 11-16 year olds, whereas SuperClubsPLUS is for 6-12 year olds. The
environments are built to facilitate a range of creative learning across the National
Curriculum. Their communities can be integrated while still in school to broaden the
traditional student learning.
SuperClubsPLUS238 and GoldStarCafe have introduced a mobile platform to support
their students. Web-enabled handsets allow the users to access their email,
contribute to discussions and communicate with friends. These projects are in early
development and therefore there has been little analysis of their success.
235
Ibid p.8
Melinger, D. (n.d.), Socialight: Social Network, meet Mobile Network Available at:
237
th
Available at: http://www.intuitivemedia.com/ [Accessed 18 December 2008]
238
Intuitive Media (n.d.), SuperClubsPLUS & GoldStarCafe go Mobile. Available at:
http://www.intuitivemedia.com/ta.html [Accessed 21th November 2008]
236
PUBLIC
49/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
6
What Makes an Online Community Successful?
6.1 Penetration of Online Communities
“Communities in general are seen by their members to serve specific purposes…
The term Online Community of Practice thus involves an online platform where
people share their knowledge and interests (primarily) on a virtual basis” (Petter239 et
al., 2007). The reason for the variety of different online communities is that they all
have a specific purpose (Lambropoulos240 and Zaphiris, 2007). This governs how
they are established and the technology that they require. The purpose of the
community gives the community a reason to exist and a motivation for people to join
and participate.
A virtual community consists of people, a shared purpose, policies, and computer
systems (Hernandes 241 and Fresneda, 2003). “An online community can have the
right tools, the right chat platform and the right ethos, but if community members are
not participating the community will not flourish.”242
There are two identifiers of success (Bourhis,243 Dube and Jacob, 2005; McGamon,
2008; and Laine, 244 2006) - they are effectiveness and health. To be effective the
community must be reaching its projected objectives, be a benefit to its members,
and provide value. A communitiy is healthy if the members are satisfied and there
are high activity levels.’245
According to Lazar246 and Preece (2002) and Laine247 (2006) due to these sites being
239
Petter, C; Reich, K; & Helling, K. (2007), Social Software and the Establishment of Virtual
Communities of Practice in the Tourism Sector, p.3, Available at:
www.futurestudies.org/english/images/stories/down/cop_elearnignpapers.pdf [Accessed 10th November
2008]
240
Lambropoulos, N & Zaphiris, P (2007) User-centered design of online learning communities
Available at: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/clear/download/Paper/lambropoulos_mcnaught.pdf [accessed 15th
December 2008]
241
Hernandes, C. & Fresneda, P. (2003), Main Critical Success Factors for the Establishment and
Operation of Virtual Communities of Practice. Available at:
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/download/743/kmss03_32.pdf [Accessed 27th November 2008]
242
Bishop, J. (2006), Increasing participation in online communities: A framework for human-computer
interaction. Abstract from Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007), p.1887. Available at:
http://zaphod.mindlab.umd.edu/docSeminar/pdfs/sdarticle.pdf [Accessed 14th November 2008]
243
Leadership Factor. Available at: http://www.ejkm.com/volume-3/v3i1/v3-i1-art3-bourhis.pdf [Accessed
17th November 2008]
244
Laine, M. (2006), Key Success Factors of Virtual Communities. Available at:
http://users.tkk.fi/~molaine3/ml_mastersthesis_310506_public.pdf [Accessed 27th November 2008]
245
McCamon, M. (2008), Leveraging the Facebook phenomenon in Education Communities. p.3
Available at: http://www.imodules.com/s/539/images/editor_documents/Leveraging_Facebook.pdf
246
and Success Factors, p. 17. Available at: www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/Papers/herre_chapter03.pdf
th
247
Laine, M. (2006), Key Success Factors of Virtual Communities Available at:
PUBLIC
50/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
a relatively new sensation, ‘there is no formula for a thriving online community’.
‘There is no one size fits all situation approach for developing online communities…
a lot of intuition and improvisation is required” (Bowes, 2002)’248 Similarly, Laine249
(2006) stated that there are so many influencing variables that it is difficult to give an
ideal model of what an online community should be like. This review does indicate
that a number of principles
6.2 General Characteristics of Online Communities
Online communities are inherently social, and most users participate through
messaging tools. According to Bishop250 (2006), a necessary characteristic for
maintaining social interaction is order. Regulating discussion may decrease the
sociability of the community but will stop unwarranted behaviour and off-topic
dialogue. Therefore, a community has to have the right balance between freedom
and regulation.
Bowes 251 (2002) has a contrasting opinion; she considers the core characteristic of a
successful online community to be communication. As communication is the primary
characteristic of an online community, technology should be decided in conjunction
with this. She believes that sophisticated environments do not necessarily make for
best online communities and that email is the most ideal communication tool.
Similarly, Cohen252 (2008) states that a successful online community needs more
than just the software package; creating the site might take a short period, but having
an actual online community may take much longer. He also says that the planning
behind an online community is extremely important; you must know the activities and
maintain standards. “Success depends on describing a vision for the community that
includes a good mix of best practices and features.”253 Nichani254 (2000) agrees;
“although the tools do play an important role, the main criterion for creating a
successful online learning community depends more on the energy, creativity and
approach of its hosts on being able to achieve the goals of the community by
facilitating rich online as well as offline interactions.”255
248
Bowes, J. (2002), Building Online Communities for Professional Networks Global Summit, 2002,
p.71. Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN007784.pdf
249
Laine, M. (2006), Key Success Factors of Virtual Communities Available at:
250
interaction abstract from Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007). Available at:
251
Bowes, J. (2002), Building Online Communities for Professional Networks Global Summit, 2002,
p.71. Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN007784.pdf
252
th
http://www.idealware.org/articles/successful_communities.php [Accessed 5 November 2008]
253
Ibid
254
Nichani, M (2000), Learning through social interactions (Online communities), p.11. Available at:
http://www.elearningpost.com/images/uploads/comm.pdf [Accessed 14th November 2008]
255
Ibid
PUBLIC
51/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Conversely, Bourhis 256 et al. (2005) believe that the most successful online
communities are those that incorporate good structural leadership. The leader of the
community should be heavily involved and devote an appropriate amount of time and
effort to support community development. Similarly, Oh257 and Lee (2005) summarise
successful online communities as those that deal with challenges they face. They
outline four main areas that need addressing: communication, motivation, leadership
and technology. It is important to have a discursive, well-managed and diverse
community environment.
The community should foster dissemination of knowledge for it to be successful
(Kondartova258 and Goldfarb, 2004). There are three main objectives of an online
community, according to the authors, which are: content creation, participation and
facilitation of communication and interaction. The design of the virtual community
should facilitate this content creation and apportion. It is essential that the
functionality of the design of the community represents the overall purpose.
To attract your audience content is key (Baker,259 n.d.; Broß260 et al., 2007; Bishop261,
2005; Nagele262, 2005; and Marathe, 263 2002). The content must be compelling (as it
drives the community) as well as being in context. Without having relevant but unique
content, the community will not discuss topics, there will be no social interaction and
there will be no relationships formed. One way in which to foster good discursive
environment is to moderate the contributions. By providing a good distributed
moderation model people can be encouraged to participate in discussions.
Bruckman264 and Jensen’s (2002) define success of an online community as being a
prolonged level of member activity and engagement. In online communities in which
participation is genuinely voluntary, success is somewhat easier to judge. If people
choose to participate, they likely think that they are benefiting from the experience in
some way. If this were not the case, they would not spend their valuable time
256
Leadership Factor. Available at: http://www.ejkm.com/volume-3/v3i1/v3-i1-art3-bourhis.pdf [Accessed
17th November 2008]
257
Oh, K.T. & Lee, K.P. (2005), A Review of Frameworks for Online Community Design- with emphasis
on developing online community construct. Available at:
http://dpl.kaist.ac.kr/web_wiki/images/d/d1/Oh2005.pdf [Accessed 14th November 2008]
258
Kondratova, I & Goldfarb, I (2004) Virtual communities: design for collaboration and knowledge
creation Available at: http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/iit-publications-iti/docs/NRC-47157.pdf [accessed 15th
December 2008]
259
Baker, T (n.d.), Online Communities: A Brief Overview. Available at: http://www.sedi.org/dataregv2unified/capnet-summarypapers/online%20communities%20paper.pdf [Accessed 24th November 2008]
260
Broß, J; Sack, H. & Meinel, C. (2007), Encouraging Participation in Virtual Communities: The “ITsummit-blog” Case. Available at: http://users.minet.uni-jena.de/~sack/Material/eSociety2007.pdf
261
262
Nagele, C. (2005), Social Networks Research Report Wildbit Report. Available at:
http://www.wildbit.com/wildbit-sn-report.pdf [Accessed 24th November 2008]
263
Marathe, J. (Durlacher Research Ltd) (2002), Creating Community Online. Available at:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan003006.pdf [Accessed 13th
November 2008]
264
Bruckman, A., & Jensen, C. (2002). The mystery of the death of MediaMOO: Seven
years of evolution of an online community In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar
(Eds.), Building Virtual Communities (pp. 21-33). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
PUBLIC
52/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
participating in the online community (Bruckman265 and Jensen, 2002).
Online people are considered to ‘vote with their feet’, so communities that have been
in existence for a sustained period of time, with continued activity and growth should
be deemed successful (Bruckman and Jensen, 2002; and Riel266 and Polin, 2004).
There are several participatory values to be gained, according Akkinen267 (2005),
from being a member of an online community:
•
Purposive values - Both informational and instrumental values are derived
through community participation.
•
Self-discovery values - Learning and gaining insights into yourself.
•
Maintaining interpersonal interconnectivity - Interacting with others in the
community and maintaining that contact.
•
Social enhancement values - Gaining the acceptance of the other community
members leads to the user feeling more important.
•
Entertainment values - The environment is meant to be recreational and
provide stimulation in relaxing conditions.
Blanchard268 and Horan (2000) believe their three features of social capital (outlined
earlier in section 2.2.7) are the principle factors for a successful online community.
Social networks relate to the virtual civic engagement or levels of involvement of
community members. These should be high. Netiquette should be reciprocated and
maintained as normal social behaviour. Finally, trust is more obvious; without user
trust in others and in the community itself, there will be little to no social interaction.
The success of the online environment is dependant upon offering value to the user,
which involves social capital. Therefore, not only should content be relevant, the
structure of site must be in accordance with the intended audiences needs. Bishop269
(2006) believes it is essential to relate to the members personal goals, plans, values,
beliefs and interests.
Cohen270 (2008) suggests in his article that online communities can define their own
success, in other words they are successful if they meet their own initial goals. “How
many members do you want in the first year? What specific acts of participation are
265
Ibid p22
Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Learning communities: Common ground and critical
differences in designing technical support. . In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. Gray
(Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
267
Akkinen, M. (2005), Conceptual Foundations of Online Communities, p.25. Available at:
http://hsepubl.lib.hse.fi/pdf/wp/w387.pdf [Accessed 24th November 2008]
268
Blanchard, A. & Horan, T. (2000), Virtual Communities and Social Capital. Available at:
http://www.igi-pub.com/downloads/excerpts/garson.pdf [Accessed 27th November 2008]
269
270
th
266
PUBLIC
53/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
most important to your organization? Common measurements include message
postings, event postings, downloads, chat participation, actions taken, and user
ratings made” (Cohen271, 2008). Similarly Lazar272 and Preece (2002) state that
success depends on your perspective or position within the online community. For
community founders, the continual population and use of the community measure its
success. Community leaders would measure success similarly to founders, although
they define success by the appreciation they receive from users. Moderators would
define success as a happy community, all of which appropriately acting. When the
online community is profit based, the success is judged rather differently. Ecommerce companies, such as Amazon, provide a community with the hope that
more users lead to more sales. Whereas some business related communities judge
success by: brand loyalty, brand awareness and image.
Observers of online communities may notice that many are created, populated, and
abandoned; some are readily sustainable, while others never get off the ground. It is
suggested (ten Thij273 and de Nooijer, 2007) that little is actually known in
understanding the features of a successful online community, as they can vary in
typology.
The root of unsuccessful online communities is the strain between individual and
collective rationality. Therefore, the success of the community is dependent upon
promotion of interaction within set boundaries (Kollock274, 1998). Peer-based
reciprocity is essential to establish an effective interest-based community. However,
for this information dissemination to operate, participants have to be able to gain
status and reputation without having any evaluative authority over any other
members (Ito et al. 275, 2008).
For online communities that focus on facilitating social networks, such as Facebook
and MySpace, it is essential to offer profile pages. The profile element of the
community establishes connections between the members. The relationships, which
form individual networks, are often thought to be a way in which to judge how
interactive the user is - the more ‘friends,’ the more active (Lampe et al.276, 2007).
It is important that the site has purpose and that this is apparent to users; for
example Facebook is a casual interaction site to connect with friends, whereas
LinkedIn is more professional; users can write references for co-workers and make
271
Ibid
and Success Factors. Available at: www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/Papers/herre_chapter03.pdf [Accessed
th
5 November 2008]
273
ten Thij, E. & de Nooijer, J. (2007), A framework for exploring relationship between online community
characteristics and regulation principles paper from Social Aspects of the Web, Available at:
th
http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-245/paper2.pdf [Accessed 6 November
2008]
274
Kollock, P. (1998), Design Principles for Online Communities Available at:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/design.htm [Accessed 13th November 2008]
275
15th December 2008]
276
Ibid
272
PUBLIC
54/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
business contacts. “Relationships are the currency of social networks” (Goh277 and
Silverman, 2008). The connections that are made on social networking sites are
generally meaningful; they are the most important characteristic. Social networking
sites must continually reinvent themselves so not to lose popularity. There are new
platforms being innovated all the time and the market is extremely fickle.
Our research suggests that a successful platform for an online community should
attempt to implement a discursive participatory environment. Therefore, all the
elements that comprise the community should have this sole ambition as an
overriding factor. The sociability, usability, tools, technology, content and roles of
community members should all attempt to promote interaction in line with the
community’s overall purpose. Sub-groups may go off topic, however they can reignite
purposeful discussion as members become more interested. There are several
experts who have outlined the core characteristics of successful online communities,
which will now be explored.
6.3 Characteristics
Communities
of
Successful
Online
Learning
This section identifies the features that characterise successful online learning
communities, which form in virtual learning environments. Stanford-Bowers 278 (2008)
identifies four essential components for an effective online learning community:
•
Interaction - is an integral ingredient of an online environment, and has been
shown to lead to higher student persistence rates.
•
Effective Communication - promoting thoughtful discussion and giving
feedback is essential. A community will only exist for as long as the users are
communicating.
•
Participation - a set model of the demands of the course should be set out to
promote participation. Instructors should monitor student’s participation
levels, as well as observing postings to ensure student is compliant with
guidelines.
•
Collaboration – encourages students to become more involved with their
learning. Collaborating with peers and instructors leads to high subject
comprehension.
277
Goh, R. & Silverman, M. (2008), Business Person’s Guide to Online Social Networking p4 Available
at: http://www.duoconsulting.com/downloads/contribute/Guide_to_OnlineSocialNetworking .pdf
278
2008]
PUBLIC
55/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
For a learning community to be successful there must be social interactions to
support collaborative learning (Palloff279 and Pratt, 2005). The authors propose that
there are several characteristics for a successful collaborative online community:
•
Set the stage - initially, outline the importance of collaboration to the
community and ensure that students are clear that they should prepare prior
to participation.
•
Create the environment - for successful participation; the community should
be designed to cope with several modes of interaction.
•
Model the process - the instructor should provide an appropriate role model of
suitable collaboration; it is useless expecting students to just collaborate
effectively. Strong collaboration is usually achieved by effective facilitation.
•
Guide the process - the instructor should not just be a model but a guide once
process commences. Instructors should not only observe but also interject
when appropriate.
•
Evaluate the process - providing evaluation of collaborative process allows
instructor to gain insight into whether students achieved objective.
Lambropoulos280 and Zaphiris (2007) suggest that there are three determinative
factors for a successful online learning community.
•
Firstly, the planning before the implementation of the community should
incorporate good usability. The ease of use is important to facilitate students
learning.
•
Secondly, there should be clear facilitation, where teachers plan work and
facilitate educative environment. The teachers are ultimately learning guides
and should encourage the students to participate by contributing and
completing all relevant work.
•
Finally, the students should be motivated to work, not only the teacher but
also the design of the learning environment should encourage students to
participate. Therefore, students should be made aware of the positives gains
through their contribution.
According to Flood281 (2004) there are five key ingredients for a successful online
learning community, they are:
279
Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2005), Learning Together in Community: Collaboration Online. Available at:
http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/04_1127.pdf [Accessed 25th
November 2008]
280
Lambropoulos, N & Zaphiris, P (2007) User-centered design of online learning communities
Available at: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/clear/download/Paper/lambropoulos_mcnaught.pdf [accessed 15th
December 2008]
281
Flood, J. (2004), Successful online learning- the five Ps. Available at:
http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde14/pdf/flood.pdf [Accessed 26th November 2008]
PUBLIC
56/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
Presentation - it is important to have good graphical design with clear concise
use of language to be appealing. The environment should not only be visually
appealing but the navigation should be easy to retain the attention of the
users.
•
Pedagogy - the current education theories are limited, however an online
learning community provides an effective learning environment. The learner
should be able to feel included, individual, interested and inspired by the
pedagogy.
•
Promotion - marketing the community is essential to achieve success; this
includes planning the incentives of the learning community to its members.
•
Preparation - the mind-set and the study skills of online learning
environments are completely different from convention learning
environments. Therefore, the students must be made aware of the
expectation surrounding self-managed learning.
•
Props - there needs to be support processes in place to assist student
learning. There should be technological support, mentors, tutors and emoderators.
From their research, Khoo282 and Forret (2008) found four key themes for a
successful online learning community:
•
The community should be inherently social and interactive, promoting
interactions between students and between students and teachers.
•
The learning environment should facilitate growth of expertise and
responsibilities. This allows the students to become more constructive
thinkers, independent researchers and better writers.
•
The ways in which community interacts should be constructive; it is important
to find the best possible approach to increase participation.
•
The development of an online learning community depends upon the
availability and the constraints of online technologies. These should be
conducive to the learning environment, providing flexible and accessible
forms of learning, with convenient forms of communication.
In order for an online learning environment to be successful, Knox283 and Gerrard
(2007) state that there must be a structured timetable. They highlight that e-tasks
should be incorporated in the timetable, are to help students organise and implement
effective personal learning systems. However, they also recognise that tight structure
will lead to poor participation rates, so the timetable must allow students freedom
282
Khoo, E. & Forret, M. (2008), Online Learning Communities: A Strategy for Improving Learning.
Available at: http://www.deanz.org.nz/home/images/stories/conference/2008/khoo-etalreviewedpaper.pdf [Accessed 25th November 2008]
283
Knox, H. & Gerrard, C. (2007), Building an Online Learning Community: What Does it Take to Make
it Work? Available at: http://journals.ucfv.ca/rr/RR11/article-PDFs/gerrard-knox.pdf [Accessed 25th
November 2008]
PUBLIC
57/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
while pushing them to contribute. Evidence from the Notschool.net284 project
suggests that in the case of some MYPs no set timetable is required, and that many
youths work better without strict timetables.
There are several core characteristics of a learning community (Smith Nash285,
2004):
•
Control of learning is governed by the students and instructors, it should not
be distributed by instructors alone.
•
The learning activities should be flexible and students should be able to
modify their work.
•
The participants have a shared goal (learning) and therefore parties should
interact to achieve this. There should be motivations incorporated into the
learning environment to encourage social interaction.
•
The learners and facilitators have to be committed to the distribution and
sharing of information to encourage learning.
•
There should be no set principles, students should be encouraged to be
creative and build personal perspectives.
•
Similarly, the subject boundaries should not be as rigid as they are in
traditional education. Investigations transcend subject boundaries.
•
Risking-taking, both intellectually and innovatively, should be encouraged and
rewarded.
Whereas the factors of an online learning environment that affect its success
according to Fontainha286 and Gannon-Leary (2008) are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Good use of Internet technology and technological provisions
ICT skills with the institutional acceptance that ICT is a good mode for
communication
High participation and good communication
Trust
Shared values and understanding
Sense of belonging
Cultural awareness
Sense of purpose
Netiquette
Good, yet sensitive; monitoring, regulating, and facilitating of community
284
Johnson, J. & Dyer, J. Using multimedia in an on-line community for disenfranchised youth p4.
Proceedings of the Digimedia Conference 2005 held in Cairo, Egypt
285
Smith Nash, S. (2004), Successful Online Learning Communities. Available at:
http://www.xplanazine.com/2004/07/successful-online-learning-communities [Accessed 28th November
2008]
286
Fontainha, E. & Gannon-Leary, P. (2008), Communities of Practice and Virtual Learning
Communities: Benefits, barriers and success factors. Available at: http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/8708/1/MPRA_paper_8708.pdf [Accessed 26th November 2008]
PUBLIC
58/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
•
•
User-friendly language
Good coordination and use of time
Resources and sponsorship to build community
The benefits of an online learning community are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enhanced learning environment
Cooperation created
Knowledge sharing, developing understanding and gaining insights from
community
Sense of community with ongoing interactions
Interactions between a variety of people; from experts to novices
Identity development
Practice-based development
However, they outline potential barriers to successful online learning:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student discipline due to the culture of independence
Implied/tacit knowledge
Language used on site must be generalised
Strong community bond may intimidate newcomers
Creating and maintaining the flow of information
Lack of trust will create friction
Misinterpretation of meanings due to being text based
Selectivity of material may not increase knowledge or ICT skills
The speed at which data can be downloaded can negatively impact on student
motivation. Therefore Mason287 (2005) suggests that files are kept as small as
possible and facilitators are advised to encourage students to work on something
else while they wait.
‘The Well,’ as indicated by Nichani288 (2000), demonstrates three significant factors
for successful participation: purpose, leadership and face-to-face meetings. ‘The
Well’ gave its members a reason to participate, built a structured set of guidelines
and organised regular meetings of members. The motivation to participate was
nurtured by the design of the community. These characteristics, summarised by the
author, are the framework for a successful e-learning community.
This research suggests that an online learning community is an evolution of simple
virtual learning environments. The success of online communities, expressed by the
many experts, is reliant on the degree of socialisation incorporated; which is
implemented to replace the lack of physical communication. The development of
Web 2.0 has meant that these environments have become more collaborative and
interactive. As well as having the appropriate collaborative tools, the design of the
virtual learning community must fit its purpose. The language and tools should be
287
approach. Available at: http://videolinq.tafe.net/learning2005/papers/mason.pdf [Accessed 25th
November 2008]
288
Nichani, M. (2000), Learning through social interactions (Online communities). Available at:
http://www.elearningpost.com/images/uploads/comm.pdf [accessed 14th November 2008]
PUBLIC
59/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
planned and able to foster interactive learning. The learning environments should be
regulated to encourage learning and insure proper interaction.
6.4 Characteristics of Successful Mobile Communities
To support a mobile-based platform, El Morr289 and Kawash (2007) believe that a
successful mobile community must have suitable: infrastructure, user interface,
agents, design, and wearable devices that will augment social networks.
Research by Chayko290 (2007) provides a summary of communities that have
successfully converted web communities to a mobile platform, however she
highlights that her list is not exhaustive or mutually exclusive:
•
Discussion-orientated communities – members exchange opinions on a
common interest.
•
Support communities – the community share similar ailment and provide
support to each other.
•
Blogs – mobile community based journal that readers can comment on,
helping to create and maintain community.
•
Social network-based community – a community designed to encourage
social interaction.
•
Open content communities – information created and shared freely between
a community, mostly using wikis.
•
Trading communities – a community brought about by trading goods.
•
Other functional groupings – achieving functional objective, like online
classes, games or projects.
The lynch pin of any social network is information sharing function, therefore a
mobile version would have to incorporate relevant tools to foster this (Markides291
and Coetzee, 2008). However, a mobile social network must be: self-regulating,
protect all types of information and resources, trusted, facilitate users needs
transparently, and resource conscious due to limited memory and process
289
and a look at future perspectives Available at: http://www.yorku.ca/elmorr/Journals/2007-IJWBCMobile%20Virtual%20Communities%20Research-Trends%20and%20Perspectives.pdf [Accessed 26th
November 2008]
290
Connectedness Available at: http://www.cse.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/portable_community.pdf
291
Markides, B. & Coetzee, M. (2008), Trusted information sharing for mobile social networks Available
at: http://www.cs.uct.ac.za/Research/DNA/microweb/WCITD2008/proceedings/papers/p12.pdf
PUBLIC
60/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
performance. Melinger 292(n.d.) believes that success is based on building an
environment that can house creative mobile social software. Integrating these
applications can provide users with software that will ease their lives, enabling them
to keep in touch with, cooperate with, collaborate with and share information with all
varieties of personal contacts.
As well as types of community, there are several essential tools required for a mobile
virtual community according to Heldt 293, Broll and Lehmann (2008): login, logout,
photos, status, search, messages and a friend list. Prodigits294, a British WAPcommunity, offers extra mobile services on their community such as forums, chat
rooms, blogs and polls. According to Buckley295, Conahan and Munoz (2005) the
most instantaneous method of building a mobile community is by inviting an existing
community. By approaching existing affinity groups, the community is automatically
solid. “Mobile communities need to partner with Web entities so that users can move
more seamlessly across platforms.”296
It is the community programmer’s assignment to facilitate community participation
and user-generated content using application tools. It is important not to have
preconceived ideas of the community. “User-generated content is not just a byproduct of community, it is the main catalyst for interaction. Encouraging core users
to post new public entries is the lifeblood of interactivity.”297 Mobile communities, like
web communities, are formulated around interaction. At this point it is apparent that
more likely that asynchronous chat through mobile communities would be effective,
rather than instant messaging.
Buckley298, Conahan and Munoz (2005) believe that mapping interfaces do not work
on mobile devices because of the size of the screen leads to cluttering. Other
scholars such as Ziv 299 and Mulloth (2006) share this view; that although mobile
devices allow people to stay connected to the community, limitations such as small
screens on mobile devices, poor connectivity and issues of privacy and security will
continue to be of concern to users.”300 Melinger301 (n.d.) frustrated with the standard
of mobile instant messaging interfaces designed the Socialight mobile virtual
community.
292
Melinger, D. (n.d.), Socialight: Social Network, meet Mobile Network. Available at:
293
Heldt, S; Broll, G. & Lehmann, P. (2008), Mobile Communities – Requirements and Features for
November 2008]
294
th
Available at: http://prodigits.co.uk/ [Accessed 20 November 2008]
295
th
296
Ibid
297
Ibid
298
Ibid
299
26th November 2008]
300
Ibid
301
Melinger, D. (n.d.), Socialight: Social Network, meet Mobile Network. Available at:
PUBLIC
61/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
The mobile platform created by Subercaze302 et al. (2008) encompasses a
successful business services model. The introduction of video and picture services to
mobile virtual communities allows consumers to see products before purchasing
them. Their structural platform is composed of integrated devices, “relying on an
adequate middleware we integrate mobile devices as services providers and include
them as active resources shared within virtual communities.”303
Figure 3. Subercaze et al.’s Platform for Use-case “Video sharing”
Distinctively, Subercaze304 et al. (2008) propose that their architecture, for a mobile
business community, can evolve from limited predefined services to having an open
set of new applications and tools for mobile communities. They use Dolphin 6.1305,
which is a package providing tools to build your own community site. The mobile
service platform supports the web services, allowing mobile devices to act as service
providers. As with the example of LinkedIn (see 3.3.8) the relevance of this model
lies in the enterprise content, which may be successfully integrated into in future
work packages.
302
Subercaze, J; Maret, P; Calmet, J; & Pawar, P (2008), A Service Oriented Framework for Mobile
Business Virtual Communities, p.8. Available at http://liris.cnrs.fr/Documents/Liris-3422.pdf [Accessed
17th November 2008]
303
Ibid
304
Subercaze, J; Maret, P; Calmet, J & Pawar, P. (2008), A Service Oriented Framework for Mobile
Business Virtual Communities. Available at: http://liris.cnrs.fr/Documents/Liris-3422.pdf [Accessed 17th
November 2008]
305
Dolphin 6.1- Smart Community Builder. Available at: http://www.boonex.com/products/dolphin/
th
PUBLIC
62/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
There are several factors, presented by Chard306 (2008), that are considered as
problematic for implementing successful collaborative mobile environments. Due to
the variations in device capability, it is difficult to design one universal community
model that will fit every device. There are several legal problems with mobile
communities, privacy laws restrict and control the personal data displayed. The
security of individual phones is also at risk from mobile viruses, malware307,
inappropriate content and spam.
6.5 Core Characteristics as Viewed by Academics
6.5.1 Whittaker et al.
Whittaker et al. 308 (1997) identify the core characteristics of online communities as:
•
Members have a shared goal, interest, or need to belong to the community.
•
Members repeatedly interact, participate and share with other users.
•
Members have access to shared resources, while governed by specific
policies regarding that access.
•
Members reciprocate the sharing of information.
•
There is a shared set of social conventions, language and protocols.
6.5.2 Mimeles
Mimeles 309 (2006) states that there are six things required for a successful online
community:
•
Keep all of the content up-to-date.
•
Know your audience – identify the target audience, and prioritise according to
their needs. Focus on categories of people rather than individuals. The
content then must be implemented to suit the audience.
•
Keep it easy, convenient and non-intrusive.
306
307
See Glossary
308
Whittaker, S; Issacs, E. & O'Day, V. (1997), Widening the net. Workshop report on the theory and
practice of physical and network communities. SIGCHI Bulletin, 29(3): 27-30. ACM Press.
309
Mimeles D. (2006), Building Successful Online Communities. Available at:
th
www.ccfbest.org/webtechnology/onlinecommunities.htm [Accessed 5 November 2008]
PUBLIC
63/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
Archive and keep important data in order to better transition leadership.
•
Use the site to assist in recruiting volunteers/members.
•
Integrate online and offline fundraising efforts.
6.5.3 Lazar and Preece
Lazar310 and Preece (2002) also agree that there are a number of different
considerations in order to identify a successful online community and have outlined:
•
Good Usability – Easy and user-friendly software
•
Moderators - Moderators must be responsible; this may mean that they may
be empowered to place barriers in the way of disruptive users.
•
Give Users a Reason to Communicate - People usually interact because of
some shared interest, it is the same for an online community, the users share
similar interests, goals or experiences. The purpose of an online community
is to bring these like-minded people together. Therefore this common purpose
must be identified.
•
Stability – Communities are effective when they have stable populations, and
therefore experienced community members should take responsibility for
maintaining order.
•
Backup hardware/software - If there are not a sufficient number of servers to
run the community then people will no longer have access to relevant
information. Also there should be some technological failsafe so as not to
lose community content or members.
•
Registration - An important tool in regulating the number of people who join
the community and to evaluate information received. This will eliminate some
potential troublemakers, who are not comfortable entering personal details.
•
Community-Centred Design - Designing online communities is about
assessing the needs of your target audience.
•
Politics - Many fear posting because they do not know who is actually reading
it. This must be taken into account when attempting to provide open
discussion.
310
and Success Factors. Available at: www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/Papers/herre_chapter03.pdf [Accessed
th
5 November 2008]
PUBLIC
64/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
6.5.4 Hernandes and Fresneda
Hernandes 311 and Fresneda’s (2003) research has shown that there are several
critical factors affecting the success of an online community:
•
The community should be aware of the knowledge domain
•
The goals of the community should be outlined
•
There needs to be shared understanding between members
•
Members should feel they could trust the environment and others
•
Reciprocity of contributions promote participation
•
Active moderation should take place
•
Participation from experts aids in transferring knowledge
•
Promoting face-to-face events strengthens relationships
•
Use of non-verbal signs, like emoticons to express feelings that text cannot
•
System storage facilities to recover information if needed
•
Members must be knowledgeable to successfully collaborate
•
The community incorporate the knowledge of members in suitable discussion
areas
•
There should be rules and regulations regarding behaviour
6.5.5 Farrior
Farrior312 (2005) highlights several characteristics for a successful online community:
•
Purpose- It is important to identify member’s needs and community goals. It is
important to understand audience, and then brand tagline with an expression
that outlines the purpose.
311
Hernandes, C. & Fresneda, P. (2003), Main Critical Success Factors for the Establishment and
Operation of Virtual Communities of Practice. Available at:
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/download/743/kmss03_32.pdf [Accessed 27th November 2008]
312
Farrior, M. (2005), Best Practices for Building Online Communities between Researchers and
Practitioners – Summary, pp.2-3. Available at:
www.ohrd.wisc.edu/Home/Portals/0/BestPracticesforBuildingOnlineCommunities.doc [Accessed 11th
November 2008]
PUBLIC
65/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
Places- Build a gathering place for the members, such as message boards or
email lists.
•
Profiles- It is important for community members to have a sense of social
identity to build and foster relationships. This will aid them getting to know
each other. Nagele313 (2005) and Lampe et al.314 (2007) support Farrior; he
believes that it is important for the individual to present their identity.
•
Roles- Designing roles for members can encourage participation.
•
Etiquette- Establish the standards of the site by using FAQs, rule updates,
private policy, and finally by outlining rules and guidelines explicitly.
•
Events- Promote community participation by holding regular events; this can
be from chat rooms to face-to-face meetings.
•
Rituals- Create specific conventions for community; celebrating achievements
and sending personal touch emails are two examples of this.
•
Subgroups- Facilitate growth of community by providing members with
possibilities to create subgroups.
6.5.6 Brooks and Oliver
Brooks 315 and Oliver (2002) present seven comparative steps in developing an online
community:
1. Define the purpose
2. Create distinctive environment
3. Promote leadership from within group
4. Define guidelines and codes of conduct
5. Incorporate range of user roles
6. Facilitate sub-groups
7. Allow members to resolve conflicts
Furthermore however, Brooks316 and Oliver (2002) go on to establish some limiting
factors of a community, which need to be monitored:
313
314
Lampe, C; Ellison, N. & Steinfield, C. (2007), A Familiar Face(book): Profile Elements as Signals in
an Online Social Network. Available at: https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/lampe_et_al_2007.pdf [Accessed
3rd December 2008]
315
Brook, C. & Oliver, R. (2002), Supporting the Development of Learning Communities in Online
Settings. Available at: http://elrond.scam.ecu.edu.au/oliver/2002/edmedia2.pdf [Accessed 21st
November 2008]
PUBLIC
66/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
Levels of ICT expertise
•
Levels of ICT experience
•
Access to relevant ICT
•
Use of the virtual learning environment
•
Use of resource centre facilities
Wenger317 et al. (2005) and Broß318, Sack and Meinel (2007) share a similar opinion
to that of Brooks and Oliver. They believe that the technological needs of the
community should be maintained, however only relevant tools should be
implemented, enough to encourage discourse.
Following on from the relevance of ICT, Bradley319 and Drakos (2008) present seven
characteristics to consider when deliberating on purposeful social software
applications:
•
Magnetic- The value of the participating in the community should be apparent
and must have meaning for the users.
•
Aligned- The purpose of the tool should provide direct value for the overall
purpose of the site.
•
Low Risk- When starting always choose low risk option over high reward. Do
not try to change culture of the site with social software.
•
Properly Scoped- Focus the community with limited scope; only expand when
community has reached perceived critical mass.
•
Facilitates Evolution- Select software that will assist in the growth of the
community.
•
Measurable- Success is measured by purpose; the social software can be
measured according to its purpose.
•
Community-driven- The social software should encourage active participation
and user-generated content.
It is important to, when implementing social software, recognise the purpose each
application provides. It is a fallacy that successful virtual communities will
spontaneously occur by installing social software tools.
316
Ibid
2008]
318
Ibid
317
319
Bradley, A. & Drakos, N. (2008), Seven Key Characteristics of a Good Purpose for Social Software.
Available at: http://www.bi-consultancy.nl/rt1/en/docs/col_7_key.pdf [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
PUBLIC
67/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Therefore, there are several considerations before creating your community. These
are: defining your audience, establish goals, determine your technological needs,
choosing your hosts, setting the ground rules and starting small (Baker320, n.d).
Some of these common measurements will be used to characterise online
communities in the next section.
320
Baker, T. (n.d.), Online Communities: A Brief Overview. Available at: http://www.sedi.org/dataregv2unified/capnet-summarypapers/online%20communities%20paper.pdf [Accessed 24th November 2008]
PUBLIC
68/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
7
Case Studies on Online Learning
7.1 Notschool.net
Notschool.net is an asynchronous on-line learning community of young people aged
13-17 who have been outside traditional education systems in the long term.321
This online learning community was developed in 2000 to offer an alternative to
traditional education for excluded teenagers. The project adopted a constructivist
approach to learning. It did not aim to re-integrate these young people back in to
school, but to remove the barriers that restricted their engagement in learning and to
foster an interest in lifelong learning. According to the OECD322, the Notschool.net
project could be considered to be a new model of learning, reflecting the changing
needs of a digital age.
The Notschool.net online learning community comprises a range of young people
excluded from formal education. They include the sick, terminally ill, phobic,
disaffected, pregnant, traumatised, excluded teenagers and travelling families. Over
70% are drawn from the bottom two economic groups and most fit the EU definition
of an MYP. Participants are provided with a computer system and a fast broadband
connection and are able to access the online community 24 hours a day, seven days
a week. They have access to a range of tools and software packages, which allow
easy communication without the reliance on text or significant textual literacy.
The teenage participants are known as researchers. The community is further
composed of mentors all of whom have qualified teacher status. They facilitate the
researchers in their learning. Subject experts are responsible for content provision
although content, which is defined and developed by the young people, is a
predominant feature of the community. Notschool.net does not have a predetermined
curriculum for each participant. Content designed by subject experts provides
scaffolding and potential access to a range of nationally recognised qualifications.
The learning environment is built so the researchers contribute to and define their
own personal content but are able to follow a traditional pre-set curriculum if they
wish. Peer mentors also support the young learners. Regardless of their status
outside the community, the ethos within the environment is broadly egalitarian and all
are expected to abide by the same rules and support its ethos.
Although predominantly UK based, the Notschool.net community has supported a
range of learners from across the world over the past 9 years. Cultural and linguistic
differences have not presented notable difficulties for young learners as a multimedia
approach to dialogue and community has been used. Synchronous and
asynchronous chat has been recognised as contributing to improved literacy
although both mediums support the extensive use of multimedia.
321
Johnson, J. & Dyer, J. Using multimedia in an on-line community for disenfranchised youth p4.
Proceedings of the Digimedia Conference 2005 held in Cairo, Egypt.
322
OECD 2007 Alternative Models of Learning Project Proposal (AML). Paris, France, OECD.
PUBLIC
69/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Research has concluded that Notschool.net re-engages 98% of the young learners
placed on the programme, but it does not attribute this success to a content-delivery
model. Research suggests that community pull and a social network, which
underpins the learning content, contributes significantly to the success of
Notschool.net.
7.2 Not School – Not Home – Schome
Schome is a project initiated by the Open University to explore the potential of
Second Life as an online virtual world. Schome has been designed to overcome
problems within the current education system and meet the needs of individual
learners. The aim is to develop informal learning activities within Second Life to
bridge the gap between school and home.
Schome places emphasis on giving young people greater learning choice,
empowering learners to learn and letting them take responsibility for their learning by
giving them control over the curriculum. The creation and continuation of Schome is
dependent upon a four-step approach. “Firstly, establishing aims and developing
shared understandings about the kind of education system needed for this century.
Secondly, creating a shared vision of what the system would look like that would
allow the meeting of those aims unimpeded by the existing education system.
Thirdly, devising ways of moving from the present system to Schome. Fourthly,
implementing the system.”323 The Schome community is the medium for building
shared understandings and visions.
The main learning platform is Schome Park, an island contained in the ‘Teen Grid’ of
Second Life. The Schome Park Project’s design was informed by the eSIR
Reference Statement. The secondary platform is SchomeBase, the staff
headquarters contained in the ‘Main Grid’ of Second Life. Their research showed the
use of a variety of different media is critical to appropriately meeting the educational
and practical needs of the young people, thus the Second Life environments are
supported with the Schome community website, forum and wiki.
Within the Schome community students are known as SParkers and staff are known
as Schomers. Academics, PhD students and members from the National Physical
Laboratory form some of the worldwide staff. The ethos of Schome is that SParkers
and Schomers are all equal learners because everyone can offer something to the
community.
The curriculum includes everything learners learn and SParkers are encouraged to
develop their own personal projects within Schome Park. There is, however, a
current core curriculum of: ethics and philosophy, physics and archaeology.
In the pilot project 149 students from NAGTY (The National Association of Gifted and
Talented Youth) aged between 13-17 were given access to Schome Park. 23% of
323
Futurelab (n.d.), Teachers as Innovators: Schome. Available at:
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/teachers-as-innovators/stories-of-practice/schome [Accessed 18th
December 2008]
PUBLIC
70/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
participants were GOAL students, NAGTY members who were from socially
disadvantaged or ethic minority backgrounds324.
During the pilot, research showed GOAL SParkers were less frequent in their use of
Second Life. 68% of Non-Goal SParkers logged in to Schome Park, with 41%
spending over an hour in the virtual island. 41% of the GOAL SParkers logged in,
with 15% spending more than an hour in the community. Similar findings were
established surrounding engagement with the forum and wiki; GOAL SParkers
always corresponded less than Non-GOAL peers.
Findings show the age specific skills developed were communication, teamwork,
leadership and creativity. In the pilot’s early stages SParkers did not demonstrate
listening skills and would often ignore peers’ comments. Over time there was a shift
towards more collaborative learning. SParkers not being restricted to working with
peers their own age supported this development. In some cases groups of SParkers,
varying in age, initiated learning projects with PhD staff Schomers who worked
professionally in similar fields.
A limitation of Schome was the requirement of a high spec computer and broadband
Internet connection. When accessed from schools, many had firewalls in place
configured to block Second Life and were not willing to adjust their settings. This
prevented some students from taking part in the pilot study.
7.3 Nisai Virtual Academy
The Nisai Virtual Academy (NVA) is part of the Nisai Group, specialists involved in elearning and training throughout Europe. NVA is a virtual school providing education
to pupils aged 8 to 18 unable to attend mainstream education due to chronic illness,
exclusion, disaffection, NEET, school phobia and pregnancy. Support is also
available to students on the gifted and talented register. NVA work in partnership with
approximately 40 Local Authorities (LAs) and currently meet the requirements of the
National Curriculum in England and Wales, up to and including AS-Level.
NVA focuses on ‘the indivdual needs of our learners’325 and flexible, on demand
provision. Using a Microsoft Learning Gateway as its foundation, a secure learning
platform that supports coursework and collaboration has been created.
Fully interactive, live lessons and assessment take place in online classrooms
controlled by specialist teachers. Within these classes, small groups of students
collaborate on documents and can hear their teacher via microphone but not each
other. There is an option for students to control parts of the lesson and speak to all
classmates. Students are taught to pace themselves and manage their own
324
The Schome Community (2007), The schome - NAGTY Teen Second Life Pilot Final Report: a
summary of key findings and lessons learnt. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Available at:
http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?docid=9851 [Accessed 18th December 2008]
325
McKeown, S. (2008) ‘Virtual’ schooling: education outside school, Special Children. Available at:
http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/virtual-schooling-education-outside-school-3539 [Accessed
19 December 2008]
PUBLIC
71/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
assignments. The classroom is accessible fifteen minutes prior to the lesson’s start
time so students can ‘chat’ with each other. Homework is set after each class and
teachers can be emailed with queries at anytime.
The hour-long lessons are designed to raise academic achievement of MYP who
struggled within the conventional education system. Students are expected to log on
and attend two lessons per week per subject. If a student misses or is unable to
attend a class, the lessons are all recorded and archived. Lessons can be accessed
at any time and in any location. Maintaining engagement with subjects, NVA have
found students also use the archive to help with assignments, re-enforce ‘bits’ they
did not understand and revision.
Within the academy portal, the students’ workspace interface looks like a traditional
school desk. Having a familiar interface promotes confidence in the students when
they first enrol. Email, news, assignments, learning tools and a personal schedule
are all signposted. The interactive lessons are supported with an online community of
learners called the ‘Common Room’. Similar to a forum, it is accessible from their
workspace and is used for independent or collaborative activities and socialising.
Students who would otherwise be learning in isolation are able to work with peer
groups and are encouraged to learn from each other by sharing knowledge and
opinions. NVA have found this approach encourages students to feel ownership over
their work and increases their independence. Self-esteem has also improved as a
result of not being judged or hindered by personal circumstances and in many cases
students go on to college or Higher Education.
To be able to attend, the young people have to provide their own standard computer,
broadband Internet connection and suitable word processing software. NVA state
that they support online collaboration and teaching via bandwidths as low as 28kbps.
7.4 Mixopolis – Intercultural Online-Portal for Young People
Mixopolis is an online community for young people (aged 12-28 years old) with a
migration background and outside of the German school system without a place in
the dual vocational education system.
The project started in 2008 and offers young people with a migration background a
variety of career guiding tools through its online portal. These young people are very
often faced with obstructions and discrimination at this guidance stage326. The project
tries to increase the participation of young people with a migration background in the
educational system and to remove obstructions.
Competences and qualification are the basis for the professional future of the young
people. Mixopolis tries to evince the existing professional competences of the young
people and to strengthen them with the help of digital offers in communication and
learning, in order to increase their integration in the education system and society.
326
Bozay, K (2007). Schulen ans Netz e.V. Available at: http://www.schulen-ansnetz.de/ueberuns/unsereprojekte /mixopolis.php
PUBLIC
72/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
The registered association "Schulen ans Netz"327 is responsible for this project. Since
1996 the association has worked in the area of education and Internet. The German
ministry of education and research328 and German telecom329 co-founded the
educational system.
The target groups of the project are: young people with a migration background in
their career guidance stage, and young people yet to start an educational career in
school, university or a vocational education. Mixopolis brings together these youth
groups into a community.
Mixopolis target participants in education or economy with successful concepts for
the integration of people with a migration background, and educators from the
extracurricular youth education as mediators.
The portal is structured in four parts:
•
There is the "magazine" where information for the young people is
broadcasted. The content is about job and study, society and youth culture
and information about companies as well as success stories and reports for
the young people.
•
In the areas of the community the young people can take part in the forums,
in the "Clubs" or they can create their own Blog.
•
In the training area they find different learning instruments (interactive
modules, simulations, tests an so on) to work with to increase their
competences and qualification.
•
A very important part is the electronic mentoring. In all areas of the portal
there are mentors available for the young people to answer questions. The
mentors try to transmit their own experience to the young people. Most of
them have a migration background themselves and so they know the needs
and wishes of the young people very well.
To take part at Mixopolis, young people can register themselves online. There is no
need to have a migration background or to be outside of the school system
respectively without a place in the dual vocational education system. But it is the
declared aim of the portal to help that specific group of young people. The young
people have to register with their full name and birthday330, but in the portal they can
use a nickname.
327
Schulen ans Netz e.V. Available at: http://www.schulen-ans-netz.de/ueberuns/derverein/index.php
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Available at: http://www.bmbf.de/
329
T-Mobile Deutschland Available at: http://www.t-mobile.de/
330
Terms of use available at: http://www.mixopolis.de/ww3ee/306512.php?sid=
63279751022143622723055865586810
328
PUBLIC
73/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
7.5 TeleMentoring331
In the TeleMentoring-project, honorary mentors undertook job-related mentoring
relations via Internet and supported disadvantaged youths in a vocational orientation.
Young people at the age of 16 to 24 years who were unemployed or threatened with
unemployment (“Mentees”) had been given an opportunity to establish contacts,
through email-based dialogues, with mentors experienced in vocational matters. The
TeleMentoring relationships were set up primarily designed to provide these socially
disadvantaged groups with vocationally oriented and psychosocial support.
In Nordrhein-Westfalen, non-commercial Internet cafés initiated by the Regional
Employment Office and sponsored by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour
(MWA Nordrhein-Westfalen) as well as vocational training courses provided the
necessary infrastructure for the young participants. Here, they were able to utilise
computer technologies free of charge, if necessary, been given on-the-spot
assistance by youth welfare staff. The cooperating educational institutions were
placed throughout Nordrhein-Westfalen. Rural and urban areas were represented.
The project ran from 1999 to 2004 and showed that the young participants built up
self-confidence and motivation. The Mentees liked the combination of individual
support and practical tips on vocational matters. They gladly accepted the help of
mentors. Furthermore TeleMentoring tried to offer the opportunity for personal social
commitment to adults and supported the dialogue between the young and older
adults.
The medium of the Internet and the exchange of experience by e-mail cultivated an
open-minded contact. Besides technical competences especially social competences
of the target group were strengthened. In contrast to traditional mentoring
programmes TeleMentoring was independent of time and space by utilising the
potential of Internet communication.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Labour, Nordrhein-Westfalen (MWA) had
assigned the project 332. The European Social Fund sponsored the project333. Over
the past five years the European Centre for Media Competence (ECMC)334 –
organised, managed and co-ordinated the project TeleMentoring. The project office
was the central information hub for all participants, cooperating partners and
interested public. TeleMentoring was quoted as a supplementary measure besides
the professional vocational counselling of employment offices.
The project is a guide;335 with all the experiences the ECMC has made in the past
five years, it may be used as a checklist to provide a structure for expansion across
more German regions.
331
TeleMentoring Available at: http://www.telementoring-nrw.de/
Ministerium für Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen Available at:
http://www.mags.nrw.de/
333
ESF Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/esf/
334
Europäisches Zentrum für Medienkompetenz - ecmc GmbH Available at:
http://www.ecmc.de/www.ecmc.de/ index.htm
335
Handbuch Mentoring, Available at: http://www.telementoring-nrw.de/download/leitfaden.pdf
332
PUBLIC
74/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
7.6 Cyberhus336
Cyberhus is a Danish charity and online meeting place currently with 17,000 unique
visitors every month. Cyberhus is particularly keen to reach out to less-privileged
children in need of help and guidance from trustworthy adults.
Cyberhus was founded in 2004 and is grown into a popular youth site offering a wide
range of activities for children and teens. At Cyberhus young people can get advice
from trained counsellors through the anonymous chat counselling service.
Browsing the website one will see that Cyberhus consists of virtual rooms. Each
room has a different theme – music, art, IT, beauty and fashion. In each room the
children can express themselves creatively, write reviews, post messages in
discussion forums, get peer-to-peer support through various discussion boards, ask
questions related to teen life and get advice from our twelve skilled advisers and
much more.
Cyberhus place high emphasis on young users' active involvement in building and
improving the website in ways that meet the current needs and interests of their
audience. Reaching out to young people who are disadvantaged or marginalised
from their more privileged peers is Cyberhus' primary goal. They seek to encourage
the use digital technology in ways that improve self-confidence and life-skills,
bringing them closer to achieving purposeful goals. Using the Internet as a primary
medium, Cyberhus strives to bring together communities of interest throughout
Denmark, helping young people gain confidence and acquire new skills. Ideally, the
success young people from disadvantaged backgrounds have, as users of
cyberhus.dk, will empower them to participate in wider society activities.
Cyberhus’ core service is the anonymous and confidential chat counselling service
for children and teens facing problems. All children and young people regardless of
their age can seek help through this service. Cyberhus’ trained counsellors
endeavour to help marginalized and socially deprived children whose lives are
marked by parental violence, sexual abuse, depression, social isolation, etc. So far
the counsellors have had over 3000 confidential conversations with children and
teens online. The children can talk with a counsellor about any problem great or
small, e.g. love troubles, arguments with friends, school bullying, sexual abuse,
domestic violence, loneliness, self-harm, eating disorders, or anything else that is
worrying them. It is a requirement that each volunteer counsellor has a professional
background within the social services field. Hence, most of its counsellors are social
workers or psychologists.
The Cyberhus Mission Statement is: ''to renew the way we [Cyberhus] meet and
enter into dialogue with children and teens. This happens through innovative uses of
Internet-based counselling and activities, which advise, involve and develop the
336
Cyberhus Available at: http://www.cyberhus.dk/
PUBLIC
75/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
children and teens on their own terms. This is done in accordance with our values:
trust, respect and broadness.''
Their Vision is: "to be the preferred virtual and socio-pedagogical meeting place for
at-risk children and teens in Denmark.''
The Project was nominated for the European eInclusion Awards 2008337.
337
Available at: http://www.epractice.eu/cases/cyberhus
PUBLIC
76/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
8
Characteristics of Successful Online Communities
8.1 Summary of the Shared Features of the Most Successful
Online Communities
Having examined a variety of sources the following table highlights the common
success factors identified by selected academics. The ticks correspond to those
characteristics mentioned by each of the academics in their reviewed papers. An
empty box is an indication that the academic(s) did not mention that particular
characteristic or did not relate to it in sufficient detail to warrant the inclusion of the
characteristic against their name.























Lazer and
Preece


Farrior


Broß et al.


Wenger
Nagele


Matzat et al.
Moule
Akkinen
Heldt el at.
Arguello





Kollock










Cohen
Purpose
Participation
Technology
Code of
Conduct
Design
User roles
Subgroups
Brooks and
Oliver
Table 7. Selected academics against selected successful characteristics








As previously noted there are many variables that may affect the success of an
individual community but an examination of the literature has identified a number of
common characteristics that support success across the board:
8.1.1 Purpose
It is essential to identify the needs and goals of the audience. People join
communities to satisfy their personal goals. Therefore, the community should provide
a tagline with an expression of its overall purpose. Although the purpose of every site
is for members to repeatedly interact, through shared resources and reciprocity it is
important to determine the shared goal of the community.
PUBLIC
77/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
The most successful online communities start with a well-defined purpose and then
attempt to re-direct themselves once established (Bradley338 and Drakos, 2008).
Having a defined purpose; helps identify demographic, acts as a measurement of
success, helps define user requirements, sows the seed for community system, and
helps establish good systems of governance.
It is important to assess the competition; most people do not have time for several
overlapping communities (Cohen339, 2008; Arguello340 et al., 2006). One issue that
might present itself is cross-posting; if information is posted over several
communities then it loses its uniqueness, which in turn may reduce incentive of other
members to respond. As well as this, check out the discussions boards on already
successful online community sites, such as Facebook and MySpace. Further, topical
coherence is recommendable as it is more likely that consistent discussions will have
responses, whereas off-topic posts are not as likely to be read or replied to.
The online community should clearly state the benefits of membership. Furthermore,
the community will benefit from a tool, which can invite new users’ friends via email
to the community (Nagele341, 2005).
Akkinen342 (2005) highlights the overriding principle of an online community as
purpose, which is supported by several other principles: identity, reputation,
governance, communication, groups, a synergistic environment, boundaries, trust,
exchange, expression and history. “One potential way an individual can benefit from
active participation is the perception that participation enhances his or her personal
reputation in the network.”343
Further, the entry requirements to an online community site should be in correlation
with its specific demographic. By definition, communities exclude people to include
others, it is an essential characteristic (Kondartova344 and Goldfarb, 2004).
Participation has become more than just accessing online information and culture; it
now incorporates engagement in social and recreational activities online (Ito345 et al.,
2008). A successful community aimed at the youth market must not only be
purposeful, but also entice its audience with relevant content. There are several
338
Bradley, A. & Drakos, N. (2008), Seven Key Characteristics of a Good Purpose for Social Software
Available at: http://www.bi-consultancy.nl/rt1/en/docs/col_7_key.pdf [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
339
th
340
Arguello, J; Butler, B; Joyce, E; Kraut, R; Ling, K. & Wang, X. (2006), Talk to Me: Foundations for
Successful Individual-Group Interactions in Online Communities. Available at:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jaime/CHI06ArguelloJ.pdf [Accessed 19th November 2008]
341
Nagele, C. (2005), Social Networks Research Report Wildbit Report Available at:
http://www.wildbit.com/wildbit-sn-report.pdf [Accessed 24th November 2008
342
Akkinen, M. (2005), Conceptual Foundations of Online Communities, p.25. Available at:
343
Ibid
344
Kondratova, I & Goldfarb, I (2004) Virtual communities: design for collaboration and knowledge
creation Available at: http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/iit-publications-iti/docs/NRC-47157.pdf [accessed 15th
December 2008]
345
15th December 2008]
PUBLIC
78/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
constraints that can inhibit youth participation, one of which is a principal barrier,
economic.
8.1.2 Participation
The heart of a community is its members and their participation levels govern
success. The design of the site should be community-centred, to increase
communication. Success is measured by how effective and how healthy the
community is, which is dependent on participation levels. However, the critical mass
of a community varies, it is specific to each community, some large groups may
intimidate some people.
Participation is an essential characteristic of a successful online community;
(Arguello346 et al., 2006; Marathe, 347 2002) groups that have common interest tend to
have more involvement. Members should have opportunity to participate in and
generate content of the site; therefore there should be disparate communication tools
to enable this. “Participants in a community are provided the opportunity to meet and
transact with other people who share the same values, outlook or objectives,
resulting in an immersive and enjoyable experience.”348
‘Online communities depend on many-to-many interactions between participants with
heterogeneous goals, backgrounds and characteristics.’349 The design of a
community should foster social interaction. Profiles highlight the similarities of
community users and therefore they can search for like-minded people.
Burnett 350 (2000) suggests that, ‘The heart of a virtual community can be found in the
ongoing public discussions that constitute its primary activities.’351 However, those
discussions may drift from the primary objective, because participants share other
interests. Some sort of goal-orientated tool must be in place for information
exchange, but without disengaging membership interest.
Kollock 352 (1998) and Arguello353 (2006) believe that the root of unsuccessful online
communities is the strain between individual and collective rationality. Therefore, the
success of the community is dependent upon the promotion of interaction within set
346
Arguello, J; Butler, B; Joyce, E; Kraut, R; Ling, K; & Wang, X (2006), Talk to Me: Foundations for
347
Marathe, J. (Durlacher Research Ltd) (2002), Creating Community Online Available at:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan003006.pdf [Accessed 13th
November 2008]
348
Ibid
349
Lampe, C; Ellison, N. & Steinfield, C. (2007), A Familiar Face(book): Profile Elements as Signals in
an Online Social Network p443 Available at: https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/lampe_et_al_2007.pdf
350
Burnett, G. (2000), Information exchange in virtual communities: A typology, Information Research
5(4), Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/5-4/paper82.html [Accessed 7th November 2008]
351
Ibid
352
Kollock, P. (1998), Design Principles for Online Communities. Available at:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/design.htm [Accessed 13th November 2008]
353
Arguello, J; Butler, B; Joyce, E; Kraut, R; Ling, K; & Wang, X (2006) Talk to Me: Foundations for
PUBLIC
79/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
boundaries. The size of the group, for instance, may intimidate some people and it is
important to maintain the responsiveness of the community.
8.1.3 Netiquette / Code of Conduct
Establishing a set of standards to be adhered to is extremely important. Having
regulations in place will not only govern the community but will encourage
participation.
“A netiquette policy defines what type of communication is expected, what type of
communication is appropriate, and what type of communication is unwanted.”354 The
set of social conventions employed by a community allows the environment to be
tenable. Regulated policies ensure that the communities associated technology
continues to function effectively.
Online communities generally have a set of social protocols and policies.
Implementing these guidelines provides a framework for social growth and allows for
individual role development. Policies can have a serious impact on social interaction,
therefore they must be carefully planned so not to have a negative effect.
An online community requires a collaborative environment, which entails all users
participating, however to achieve this there must be strong motivating factors.
Further to this there should be well-protected privacy and security measures in place,
as well as visible discussion group moderation and detailed netiquette (Ryan355 and
McGovern, 2003).
8.1.4 Design / User Friendly
In order to increase participation, the design of the interface should be easy to use
and easy to navigate. If people can find discussion areas and other people then they
are more likely to participate. The language the site uses is a common problem, it is
important to know your audience and use language that appeals to them.
Brown356 (2005) states that developing Wenger’s357 (2004) principles for cultivating
communities of practice can be applied to an online community model. The
strategies for designing a successful online community originate from Wenger’s
354
Lazar, J & Preece, J (2002) Social Considerations in Online Communities: Usability, Sociability, and
Success Factors p 25 Available at: http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/Papers/herre_chapter03.pdf
[accessed 05/12/08]
355
Ryan, C & McGovern, J (2003) Next Generation Virtual Communication Available at:
http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~caspar/ATcrc/1.2/ATRCRPaperCommunity.pdf [accessed 27/11/08]
356
Brown, R. (2005), Pragmatic Suggestions for Growing On-line Communities of Practice. Available at:
November 2008]
357
PUBLIC
80/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
principles (see Appendix B). However, Belgrove358 et al. (2008) disagree that the
community of practice model fits a successful template for an online community, as
new members should not have to be guided, as portrayed by Wenger, from a
peripheral role to a more engaged role. However, it seems that Wenger’s model is
conducive of a successful online community template.
The use of language is important when posting to an audience (Arguello,359 2006;
and Daniel, 360 2002). Complex lengthy messages are less likely to be read. It is
important not only to consider the depth of the post, but word choice. It is important
to recognise the language orientation of your audience. There is no use using
complex English to an audience who cannot read it and understand it, or using
definite articles in a debate.
The design of an online community should provide a usable platform, where
information is: “attainable by all citizens regardless of income, education, race, or
other traditionally access-limiting characteristics.”361 Online communities provide
more effective avenues to communicate, especially in relation to distance.
8.1.5 Technology
The technology should suit the requirements of the community; there should be
asynchronous and synchronous communication tools, easy navigation, profiles for
social identity etc. The planning of the software is important, as without applications
in place the community will not communicate.
In a survey carried out by Heldt 362, Broll and Lehmann (2008), the most import
features of an online community were: security, messaging services, blocking
facilities, buddy list, search facilities and profile with picture (results shown in
Appendix C).
“An online community will need to ensure participants have the technological
provision and necessary IT skills to support engagement” (Moule, 363 2006). On
358
Belgrove, M; Griffin, J; & Makepeace, B. (2008), Using e-learning Tools to Build a Community of
th
Distance Learners: A Progress Review and Call for Collaboration. The University of Cyprus, 7
th
European Conference on e-Learning, University of Cyprus 5-6 November 2008, p. 92. Academic
Publishing Ltd: Reading, UK
359
Arguello, J; Butler, B; Joyce, E; Kraut, R; Ling, K. & Wang, X. (2006), Talk to Me: Foundations for
360
Daniel, B. (2002), Building Social Capital in Virtual Learning Communities Available at:
2008]
361
Law, S. A. & Keltner, B. (1995), Civic Networks: Social Benefits of Online Communities, Universal
Access to E-Mail- Feasibility and Societal Implications, Ch. 5. Available at:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR650/mr650.ch5/ch5.html [Accessed 7th November
2008]
362
Heldt, S; Broll, G & Lehmann, P (2008), Mobile Communities – Requirements and Features for
November 2008]
363
Moule, P. (2006), Developing the Communities of Practice, Framework for On-Line Learning p.138
The Electronic Journal of e- Learning Volume 4 Issue 2, pp.133–140. Available at:
PUBLIC
81/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
joining a social network, an individual may need guidance to navigate the community;
showing them what to do and how to do it will increase probability of social
interaction (Nagele364, 2005).
8.1.6 Roles
Designing roles can encourage participation; many successful communities
incorporate good facilitation. Although some scholars believe that roles can have an
adverse affect in general social networking sites, most see them as advantageous,
especially in online learning communities. It is suggested that progression is
moderated, and incentives to participate are provided.
In order to implement a successful online community there must be cohesion
between users rather than a coercive hierarchical community. Maintaining
collaboration of knowledge is the most important characteristic of a successful virtual
community.
8.1.7 Subgroups
Providing sub-groups may take community away from the objective, but will keep
them interested in the community, which will ultimately increase longevity of the site.
Subgroups also reaffirm social ties and can lead to face-to-face meetings.
Subgroups are created to mainly support conflicting competitive interests (Matzat365
et al., 2000) and supply community with balance. They are essential tools to keep
members interested in participating. Subgroups can be set up to help and guide
community users, these can be useful to acquaint them with all regulations and
functions of the community. However, the online community has to successfully
manage these groups in order to effectively achieve their overriding common goals.
364
365
Available at: http://www.ppsw.rug.nl/matzat/online-communities.pdf [Accessed 6th November 2008]
PUBLIC
82/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
9
Conclusion
The review of the literature suggests that the identification of ‘purpose’ is the most
important characteristic to the success of an online community. As shown in table 7,
the majority of the academic papers reviewed recommended that a successful online
community has a predefined purpose. Although there are several objectives for every
online community, such as content creation, sharing material and general interaction,
the site must determine the shared requirements of its audience and this must be
accepted by its participants. By identifying these common incentives the site can
entice members by providing pertinent material. The most successful online
communities are those that begin with a well-defined purpose and then attempt to
identify further requirements from this. One of these further requirements is stating
from the outset the benefits of membership, which is dependent upon a well-defined
purpose.
The function of any community is dependant upon the original purpose that governs
it. The success of a mobile-based platform is contingent on a well-formulated
purposeful design. The success of a community is ultimately determined by
participation through interactions and contributions. Therefore, the members of the
community regulate success, and they will only be attracted to a community that
offers incentives for being there. Buckley366, Conahan and Munoz (2005) mentioned
that success of any mobile online community is based on its members and having
some sort of affinity between themselves. Mobile communities are formulated around
interaction, as are Web-based communities. The design of a mobile device restricts
certain social functions found in Web-based online communities (Ziv 367 and Mulloth,
2007 and Buckley 368, Conahan and Munoz 2005). This literature review confirms that
although there are obstacles to providing a mobile virtual community, for example
screen size and memory, developing a mobile online learning community is a viable
prospect as long as the design is appropriate to the community and fit for its purpose.
The second salient characteristic from the literature (as shown in table 7) is that a
successful online community needs active participation. Once purpose is
established, the community should be designed around promoting participation.
Having an interactive community, sharing information, is the ultimate aim. As the
critical mass for each individual community is different the size of the community is
not a dependable method of measuring participation. The design of an online
community should attract members and provide a basis for interaction. The research
has shown that a successful online community should promote interaction in line with
the community’s overall objectives.
366
th
367
26th November 2008]
368
th
PUBLIC
83/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
The success of a community is ultimately determined by participation through
interactions and contributions. Therefore, its members regulate success, and they
will only be attracted to a community offering incentives for being there. Buckley369, et
al. (2005) comment that success of any mobile online community is based on its
members having some sort of affinity. Mobile communities are formulated around
interaction in the same way as Web-based communities are. Cultivating an online
mobile community requires an assessment of the principles that govern any
community of practice (Wenger’s 370, 2004; Moule371, 2006; and Brown372, 2005).
Providing an environment that can promote social interactions is key, yet knowing
one’s technological limits is a fundamental prerequisite of any success. Mobile Web
2.0 is still developing but has already provided opportunities for successful mobile
communities such as Facebook, MySpace and those mentioned in section 5.2.
If community is to exist its value must be real for its members. True communities are
much more than just web sites, communication tools or gatherings of people (Riel373
and Polin, 2004; and Wenger374 et al., 2002). Communities require member
participation and contribution, ownership, quality support and facilitation, shared
direction, goals and projects (Kim375, 2000; Palloff376 and Pratt, 1999; and Wellman377
and Gulia, 1997). The ‘if you build it, they will come’ attitude is not sufficient. They
may well come but to ensure success people need to stay, interact and contribute. It
is this very interaction and contribution that makes a community of value to its
members. But how do we ensure that interaction, that key to success?
This literature review emphasises that members create the community, not the web
site developers or managers (Barab378 et al., 2001; Kim379, 2000; Wenger380, et al.,
369
th
370
371
372
November 2008]
373
Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Learning communities: Common ground and critical differences in
designing technical support. . In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual
Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
374
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W., M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
375
Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the web: Secret strategies for successful online
communities. London: Addison Wesley.
376
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for
the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
377
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1997). Net surfers don't ride alone: Virtual communities as communities. In
M. A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace. London Routledge
378
Barab, S. A., Makinster, J. G., Moore, J., & Cunningham, D. (2001). Designing and building an online
community: The struggle to support sociability in the Inquiry Learning Forum. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 49(4), 71-96.
379
Kim, A. J. (2000). Community building on the web: Secret strategies for successful online
communities. London: Addison Wesley.
380
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W., M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston:
PUBLIC
84/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
2002). The value of any community is determined by the social interactions of its
members. Designers, developers and facilitators must aim to provide the greatest
opportunity for interaction both technologically and socially. The technology used to
support an online community is key, but not a solution in itself.
Although an online community is not reliant fully on technology, it is an important
factor. A community needs the tools to provide a discursive environment, which suits
the needs of the community owners. The literature review has identified several
technological common requirements, these include: asynchronous communication
tools, synchronous communication tools, usable navigation menus and user profiles.
The technology should be implemented to provide a participatory environment for the
members while in line with the community’s overall purpose. There should be the
correct mixture of tools to increase both the sociability and usability of the
community. Once the relevant tools are in place, it is essential to maintain them to
encourage constant interaction. Due to the variation between mobile device
capabilities it is difficult to predict the precise technology needed for a successful
mobile online community model.
This literature review highlights the important place social software has in ensuring
any community is usable and fit for purpose. The key role played by Web 2.0 tools in
enabling constructivist learning environments across numerous learning contexts,
including those for MYP, are documented. The creative environment Web 2.0 offers,
which has moved online communities from their text base into a world of moving
images and audio, is especially important for those groups who fit the ComeIn
criteria.
There is no set model for developing an online community. Each community is
different; these variables make it impossible to devise a standard set of
characteristics. However, it is possible to have a set of conceptual rubrics, such as
purpose or participation. These conceptual topical headings can help to develop an
online community yet are not conclusive to success. The design of an online
community should encourage collaboration and content sharing while reflecting on
the requirements of its members.
The demand for and use of social networking sites has increased rapidly over the
last couple of years. Young people (including MYP) are using sites like Facebook as
platforms to keep in constant contact with their peers. Facebook identified its
audience (students aged 18-21) and then once established expanded. Its success is
based on its knowledge of its audience. The growth of Facebook represents the
breadth of popularity that social networking sites have. Odell381 et al. (2008) believes
that the design of Facebook is conducive to its success as an online learning
community. The impact of Facebook and other social networking sites has proved
that there is sufficient demand for several varieties of community online.
The demand for social applications on mobile phones continues to grow, and with
this will come a mass use of mobile social networking sites. Mobile phones are
Harvard Business School Press.
381
th
th
UK
PUBLIC
85/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
already considered to be social networking devices. ABI research382 has projected
that this market will be worth in excess of $3.3 billion by 2013. This illustrates the
opportunity that the mobile market has in providing social networking applications. El
383
Morr
and Kawash (2007) believe that this demand can be utilised for educative
purposes, as in the ComeIn project proposal. The implementation of such a system
has to work in line with the important factors outlined by this literature review. These
are purpose, participation, technology, code of conduct, design, user roles and
subgroups. These rubrics can be transferred from the successful computer-based
model to a mobile version.
There are specific essential characteristics for online learning communities. The
literature covered by this review express that success is defined by the degree of
interaction of the members. The development of Web 2.0 has meant learning
environments have become more interactive, collaborative and suitable for their
purpose. The case studies cited indicate that purposeful design of an online learning
community determines success. As with any online community, one specifically
designed for learning is reliant on the interaction and collaboration of its members.
This literature review gives some insight into ensuring participation. The review
emphasises the key role played by facilitation, specifically in relation to learning
communities, to usability that is dependent on the technology (well documented
above) and to purpose as a core component of success.
This literature review has provided evidence to suggest that the ComeIn project
aim384 of providing a mobile learning community for marginalised young people is
attainable.
The characteristics established by this literature review will be explored in WP 3.2,
where experts, researchers, technologists and users will be asked to consider the
characteristics explored and to identify any missing success criteria.
382
Available at: http://www.abiresearch.com [Accessed 25th November 2008]
and a look at future perspectives. Available at: http://www.yorku.ca/elmorr/Journals/2007-IJWBCMobile%20Virtual%20Communities%20Research-Trends%20and%20Perspectives.pdf [Accessed 26th
November 2008]
384
ComeIn Project (2008) Online Mobile Communities to Facilitate the Social Inclusion of Young
Marginalised People p9-10
383
PUBLIC
86/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
10
Appendices
Appendix A
Schweitzer, S. (n.d.), Functionalities of Online Communities of Practice. Available at:
http://java.cs.vt.edu/public/classes/communities/uploads/schweitzer_project_draft.pdf
[Accessed 21st November 2008]
PUBLIC
87/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Appendix B
Taken from Wenger, E. (2002), A Guide to Managing Knowledge: Cultivating
Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press
PUBLIC
88/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
Appendix C
Results of an online questionnaire carried out by Heldt, S.; Broll, G. & Lehmann, P.
(2008), Mobile Communities – Requirements and Features for Success Available at:
http://www.medien.ifi.lmu.de/pubdb/publications/pub/heldt2008miux/heldt2008miux.p
df [Accessed 17th November 2008]
PUBLIC
89/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
11
Glossary
Avatar – is a representation of oneself in a three-dimensional model
Blackberry – is a wireless handheld smartphone, which supports email, telephony,
text messaging, Internet faxing, web browsing and a variety of other functions.
Bulletin Board – is an online application managing user-generated content
e-Safety – electronic safety
FAQ – frequently asked questions
ICT – information and communication technology
IMS – instant messaging service
iPhone – the apple iPhone is an Internet enabled smartphone. The multi-functional
platform offers a range of services from a portable media player to multi-dimensional
web browsing.
Lurking- is ‘prolonged periods of receiving communications without posting. For
many people this may mean never posting in some communities’ (Nonnecke385 &
Preece, 1999).
Malware – is software designed to damage a computer, it is an amalgamation of the
words malicious and software.
Mobile Device – is a miniature pocket-size computing device.
MUD – Multi-User Dimension
MSN – Mobile Social Network
MYP –Marginalised Young Person/People
NEET - Not in Education, Employment or Training
News Groups – a repository for messages posted by many people
Online Forums – is an online discussion site
Smartphone – is a mobile phone that offers several advanced capabilities beyond
that of a typical model. It often comprises PC qualities and runs on a completely
different operating system to a standard mobile phone.
SMS - short messaging service
385
Nonnecke, B & Preece, J (1999) Shedding Light on Lurkers in Online Communities. Available at:
http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/Papers/SheddingLight.final.pdf [Accessed 14th November 2008]
PUBLIC
90/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
SNS – social networking site
VLE – virtual learning environment
Wikis- ‘A wiki—taken from the Hawaiian word for “quick”—is a collection of Web
pages designed to enable anyone who accesses the material to contribute or modify
content using simple tools.’386
386
Steifvater, E (2008) MySpace and YouTube and Blogs, Oh My! Enhancing Your Youth Program With
Web 2.0 Tools Youth Impact (Volume 2). P7 Available at:
http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/files/Youth-Impact-vol-2.pdf [Accessed 19th November 2008]
PUBLIC
91/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
12
Bibliography
• ABI Research. Available at: http://www.abiresearch.com [accessed 25th November
2008]
• Aitken, L. (2008), Bebo, Bebo, Bebo, Bebo Available at:
http://www.contagiousmagazine.com/resources/Contagious_Extracts_15.pdf
[Accessed 17th December 2008]
• Akkinen, M. (2005), Conceptual Foundations of Online Communities, Available at:
• Allen, C. (2005), Innovation and Social Software. Available at:
http://web.lifewithalacrity.com/christophera/FVHA_Social_Software_Keynote_Pres
entation.pdf [Accessed 15th December 2008]
• Altany, A. & Franke, T. (2002), WebCT vs. Blackboard: Report of the Course
Management Task Force. Available at:
www.wcu.edu/it/cio/planning/cmsfinalreport.pdf [Accessed 20th November 2008]
• Anderson, P. (2007), What is Web 2.0? Ideas technologies and implications for
education. JISC Technology & Standards Watch. Available at:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf [Accessed 11th
November 2008]
• Arafeh, S.; Lenhart, A.; Smith, A. & Rankin Macgill, A. (2008), Writing, Technology
and Teens Pew Research Centre Publications. Available at:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/808/writing-technology-and-teens [accessed 24th
November 2008]
• Arguello, J.; Butler, B.; Joyce, E.; Kraut, R.; Ling, K.; & Wang, X. (2006), Talk to
Me: Foundations for Successful Individual-Group Interactions in Online
Communities. Available at: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jaime/CHI06ArguelloJ.pdf
• Avanzato, R (2007) Second Life Virtual Community- Resources for Educators
Available at:
http://www.asee.org/activities/organizations/sections/proceedings/MiddleAtlantic/2
007fall/13-Second-Life-Virtual-Community.pdf [accessed 15th December 2008]
• Baker, T (n.d.) Online Communities: A Brief Overview. Available at:
http://www.sedi.org/dataregv2-unified/capnetsummarypapers/online%20communities%20paper.pdf
• Belgrove, M; Griffin, J; & Makepeace, B. (2008), Using e-learning Tools to Build a
Community of Distance Learners: A Progress Review and Call for Collaboration.
The University of Cyprus, 7th European Conference on e-Learning, University of
Cyprus 5-6th November 2008. Academic Publishing Ltd: Reading, UK
• Best, D. (2006), Web 2.0 Next Big Thing or Next Big Internet Bubble? Available at:
http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/best/uni/WIS/Web2.pdf [Accessed 11th Novemeber
2008]
• Bishop, J (2006) Increasing participation in online communities: A framework for
human-computer interaction abstract from Computers in Human Behavior 23
(2007). Available at: http://zaphod.mindlab.umd.edu/docSeminar/pdfs/sdarticle.pdf
• Blanchard, A & Horan, T (2000) Virtual Communities and Social Capital Available
at: http://www.igi-pub.com/downloads/excerpts/garson.pdf [accessed 27/11/08]
PUBLIC
92/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
• Bowes, J. (2002), Building Online Communities for Professional Networks Global
Summit, 2002. Available at:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN007784.p
• Bourhis, A.; Dube, L. & Jacob, R. (2005), The Success of Virtual Communities of
Practice: The Leadership Factor. Available at: http://www.ejkm.com/volume3/v3i1/v3-i1-art3-bourhis.pdf [Accessed 17th November 2008]
• Bradley, A. & Drakos, N. (2008), Seven Key Characteristics of a Good Purpose for
Social Software. Available at: http://www.biconsultancy.nl/rt1/en/docs/col_7_key.pdf [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
• Broß, J.; Sack, H. & Meinel, C. (2007), Encouraging Participation in Virtual
Communities: The “IT-summit-blog” Case. Available at: http://users.minet.unijena.de/~sack/Material/eSociety2007.pdf [Accessed 24th November 2008]
• Brook, C. & Oliver, R. (2002), Supporting the Development of Learning
Communities in Online Settings. Available at:
http://elrond.scam.ecu.edu.au/oliver/2002/edmedia2.pdf [Accessed 21st
November 2008]
• Brown, R. (2005), Pragmatic Suggestions for Growing On-line Communities of
Practice Available at: http://www.associatedcollegestc.org/cotf/COTFXI/materials/Pragmatic-handout.pdf [accessed 11th October
2008]
• Bryon, T. (2008), Safer Children in a Digital World- The Report of the Byron
Review. Available at:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/byronreview/pdfs/Final%20Report%20Bookmarked.pdf
• Buckley, D; Conahan, S & Munoz (2005) Lessons Learned: Community Standards
– The Early Lessons of Mobile Community – Building Wireless Business Forecast
December 2005. Available at:
http://www.motricity.com/pdf/pr/05_1205.pdf?PHPSESSID=11c4a05123f8fcdf240
28ec06c2fb5a7 [Accessed 20th November 2008]
• Burnett, G. (2000), Information exchange in virtual communities: A typology,
Information Research 5(4), Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/5-4/paper82.html
• Business Wire (2008), MySpace and Facebook Fast Becoming the Leading
Mobile Social Networks, Says ABI Research, 6th October 2008. Available at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_Oct_6/ai_n29478467
[Accessed 20/11/08]
• Butler, B., et al. (2002), Community Effort in Online Groups:Who Does the Work
and Why? Available at: http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/butler.pdf [Accessed
20th Novemeber 2008]
• Boyd, D. (2007), Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked
Publics in Teenage Social Life Available at:
http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf [Accessed 17th December
2008]
• Carroll, F.; Kop, R. & Wooward, C. (2008), Sowing the Seeds of Learner
Autonomy: Transforming the VLE into a Third Place Through the use of Web 2.0
Tools - 7th European Conference in e-Learning, Cyprus (2008), edited by Williams,
R. Academic Publishing Limited: Reading
• Chard, I. (2008), Share, Collaborate, Exploit – Defining Mobile Web 2.0 Available
at: http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/d.quercia/others/mobile2.pdf [Accessed 4th
December 2008]
PUBLIC
93/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
• Chayko, M. (2007), The Portable Community: Envisioning and Examining Mobile
Social Connectedness. Available at:
http://www.cse.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/portable_community.pdf [Accessed
18th November 2008]
• Chincholle, D.; Bjorn, M.; Norlin, C. & Lindqvist, M. (2008), Chat on a phone, not a
PC clone: IMS-based mobile community service, Ericsson Review No. 1, 2008.
Available at:
http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/corpinfo/publications/review/2008_01/files/2_Ch
at_on_phone.pdf [Accessed 12th November 2008]
• Clark, W.; Loksha, I. & Ornelas-Kuh, M. (2008), Facebook and the Emerging
Social Networking Industry Available at:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Classes/BEM106/Papers/2008/Facebook.pdf [Accessed
24th November 2008]
• Clarke, J.; Hunter, J. & Wells, M. (2008), Enhancing the Student Experience Using
Web 2.0 Technologies (Wikis, Blogs and Webcam Recordings) to Encourage
Student Engagement and to Develop Collaborative Learning: A Case Study. 7th
European Conference on e-Learning, University of Cyprus 5-6th November 2008.
Academic Publishing Ltd: Reading, UK
• Cohen, A. (2008), Characteristics of Successful Online Communities. Available at:
http://www.idealware.org/articles/successful_communities.php, [Accessed 5th
November 2008]
• Daniel, B. (2002), Building Social Capital in Virtual Learning Communities
Available at:
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/daniel/daniel.pdf [Accessed
26th November 2008]
• Dimai, B. & Ebner, M. (n.d.), Community without a vision won’t work. Available at:
http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ci/mm/mm1/dimai_ebner%20paper.pdf,
• Dodgeball Available at: http://www.dodgeball.com/home [accessed 26th
November 2008]
• Dolphin 6.1- Smart Community Builder. Available at:
http://www.boonex.com/products/dolphin/ [Accessed 17th November 2008]
• Duffy, P. (2008), Engaging the YouTube Google-Eyed Generation: Strategies for
Using Web 2.0 in Teaching and Learning, Electronic Journal of E-learning, Vol 6
(2). Available at: http://www.ejel.org/Volume-6/v6-i2/Duffy.pdf [Accessed 11/11/08]
• El Morr, C. & Kawash, J. (2007), Mobile virtual communities research: a synthesis
of current trends and a look at future perspectives. Available at:
http://www.yorku.ca/elmorr/Journals/2007-IJWBCMobile%20Virtual%20Communities%20ResearchTrends%20and%20Perspectives.pdf [Accessed 26th November 2008]
• Epsilon Concepts (2007) Netiquette: Be Remarkable Online Available at:
http://www.epsilonconcepts.com/upload/file/Netiquette.pdf [accessed 05/12/08]
• Esteves, M; Morgado, L; Martins; P; Fonseca, B (2006) The use of Collaborative
Virtual Environments to provide student’s contextualisation in programming
Available at: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/02/88/PDF/mICTE2006EstevesMorgadoMartinsFonseca.pdf [accessed 17th December 2008]
• Facebook Available at: http://www.facebook.com/facebook [accessed 02/12/08]
• Facebook Mobile Available at:
http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/Mobile [accessed 03/12/08]
• Farrior, M. (2005), Best Practices for Building Online Communities between
Researchers and Practitioners – Summary, pp.2-3. Available at:
PUBLIC
94/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
www.ohrd.wisc.edu/Home/Portals/0/BestPracticesforBuildingOnlineCommunities.
doc [Accessed 11th November 2008]
Fernback, J. & Thompson, B. (1995), Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?
Available at: http://www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html [Accessed
14th Novemebr 2008]
Flood, J. (2004), Successful online learning - the five Ps. Available at:
http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde14/pdf/flood.pdf [Accessed 26th November 2008]
Fontainha, E. & Gannon-Leary, P. (2008), Communities of Practice and Virtual
Learning Communities: Benefits, barriers and success factors. Available at:
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8708/1/MPRA_paper_8708.pdf [Accessed 26th
November 2008]
Fooks, L. (2006), Some Key Success Factors of an Online Learning Community
Available at:
http://lfooks.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/online_success_factors_wp.pdf
Ford, M. & Leinonen, T. (2006), MobilED – A Mobile Tools and Services Platform
for Formal and Informal Learning. Available at:
http://www2.uiah.fi/~tleinone/mobiled/merryl_teemu_mlearn2006.pdf [Accessed
17th November 2008]
Frengo Available at: http://www.frengo.com/about_aboutus.php [Accessed 3rd
December 2008]
Glasson, G. & Evans, M. (n.d.), Connecting Community Elders and Schools in
Malawi Using Mobile Phones and Web 2.0 Technologies. Available at:
http://www.mmp.soe.vt.edu/Download/ma_aste_present.pdf [Accessed 12th
November 2008]
Global Kids (2007), Best Practices in Using Virtual Worlds For Education, Global
Kids Inc. Available at: http://www.holymeatballs.org/pdfs/BestPractices.pdf
[Accessed 02nd December 2008]
Goh, R. & Silverman, M. (2008), Business Person’s Guide to Online Social
Networking Available at:
http://www.duoconsulting.com/downloads/contribute/Guide_to_OnlineSocialNetwo
rking.pdf [Accessed 26th November 2008]
Gutke, H. & Albion, P. (2008), Exploring the worth of online communities and ementoring programs for beginning teachers Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education 19th International Conference (2008), Las Vegas. Available at:
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/3994/1/Gutke_Albion_SITE_20008.pdf [Accessed 25th
November 2008]
GyPSii (2008), GyPSii’s Location Based Mobile Social Networking GyPSii Product
Description Available at:
http://corporate.gypsii.com/docs/GyPSiiProductDescription050508.pdf [Accessed
25th November 2008]
Haddon, L. (2008), Mobile Access to Social Networking Sites: A UK Survey
Available at:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/pdf/Mobileandsocialnetworking.pdf
Heiden, W. (2007), An Edutainment Approach to Academic Teaching. Available
at: http://www2.inf.fhbrs.de/~wheide2m/publ/ShkodraICT07/acadeduShkodra07.pdf [Accessed 17th
November 2008]
Heldt, S.; Broll, G. & Lehmann, P. (2008), Mobile Communities – Requirements
and Features for Success. Available at:
PUBLIC
95/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
http://www.medien.ifi.lmu.de/pubdb/publications/pub/heldt2008miux/heldt2008miu
x.pdf [Accessed 17th November 2008]
Hernandes, C. & Fresneda, P. (2003), Main Critical Success Factors for the
Establishment and Operation of Virtual Communities of Practice. Available at:
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/download/743/kmss03_32.pdf [Accessed 27th
November 2008]
Hoisl, B.; Aigner, W. & Miksch, S. (2007), Social Rewarding in Wiki SystemsMotivating the Community Available at: http://www.donauuni.ac.at/imperia/md/content/department/ike/ike_publications/2007/refereedconfer
enceandworkshoparticles/hoisl_2007_hcii_social-rewarding.pdf [Accessed 21st
November 2008]
Intuitive Media (n.d.), SuperClubsPLUS & GoldStarCafe go Mobile Available at:
http://www.intuitivemedia.com/ta.html [Accessed 21st November 2008]
Ito, M; Horst, H; Bittanti, M; Boyd, D; Herr-Stephenson, B; Lange, G; Pascoe, C; &
Robinson, L (2008) Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings
from the Digital Youth Project Available at:
http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouth-WhitePaper.pdf
[accessed 15th December 2008]
Jans, G & Calvi, L (n.d.) How to develop a Mobile 2.0 application Available at:
http://soc.kuleuven.be/com/mediac/cuo/admin/upload/How%20to%20develop%20
a%20mobile%202.0%20application.pdf [accessed 03/12/08]
Jeon, J & Lee, S (2008), Technical Trends of Mobile Web 2.0: What Next?
Available at:
http://www.research.att.com/~rjana/MobEA2008/final/mobea2008_submission_61.pdf [Accessed 20/11/08]
Johnson, J & Dyer, J (2005) User-defined content in a constructivist learning
environment p8 Available at: http://www.formatex.org/micte2005/169.pdf
[accessed 24/11/08]
Johnson, J. & Dyer, J. Using multimedia in an on-line community for
disenfranchised youth. Proceedings of the Digimedia Conference 2005 held in
Cairo, Egypt.
Johnson, J. & Dyer, J. (2008) The development of formal and informal learning
online through online communities of practice and social networking. Proceedings
of the 7th European Conference on E-Learning held in Agia Napa, Cyprus.
Johnson, M & Toiskallio, K (2007) Who are the Habbo Hotel users – and what are
they doing there? Available at: http://www.consumer2007.info/wpcontent/uploads/innovation%2016-%20Johnson.pdf [accessed 17th December
2008]
Johnson, J & Dyer, J (2008) Citizens Online & National Centre for Social
Research. (NATCEN: 2, 4 and 6). Digital Exclusion Profiling of Vulnerable Groups
Kadushin, C. & Kotler-Berkowitz, L. (2006), Informal social networks and formal
organisational membership among American Jews: findings from the National
Jewish Population Survey 2000-01. Available at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_4_67/ai_n21167309 [Accessed
20th November 2008]
Kavanugh, A., et al. (2005), Community Networks: Where Offline Communities
Meet Online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (4). Available at:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/kavanaugh.html [Accessed 20th November
2008]
Kelton, A.J. (2007), Second life: Reaching into the Virtual World for Real-World
Learning. Available at: http://www.it.udel.edu/SecondLifeERB.pdf [Accessed 15th
PUBLIC
96/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
December 2008]
• Kharif, O. (2006), Social Networking Goes Mobile, Business Week Online.
Available at:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060530_170086.
htm [Accessed 24th November 2008]
• Khoo, E. & Forret, M. (2008), Online Learning Communities: A Strategy for
Improving Learning. Available at:
http://www.deanz.org.nz/home/images/stories/conference/2008/khoo-etalreviewedpaper.pdf [Accessed 25th November 2008]
• Kietzmann, J. (2004), Mobile Communities of Practice. Available at:
http://www.carstensorensen.com/download/Kietzmann2004.pdf [accessed 18th
November 2008]
• Kirkpatrick, M. (2008) Facebook Mobile Sees 3x Growth to 15 Million Users This
Year. Available at:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_mobile_sees_3x_growth.php
• Knox, H & Gerrard, C (2007) Building an Online Learning Community: What Does
it Take to Make it Work? Available at: http://journals.ucfv.ca/rr/RR11/articlePDFs/gerrard-knox.pdf [accessed 25/11/08]
• Koh, J & Kim, YG (2001) Sense of Virtual Community: Determinants and the
Moderating Role of the Virtual Community Origin. Available at: http://cqpan.cqu.edu.au/david-jones/Reading/ICIS_2001/01TRP14.pdf [Accessed 14th
November 2008]
• Kollock, P. (1998), Design Principles for Online Communities. Available at:
• http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/design.htm [Accessed 13th
November 2008]
• Kuhn, M. & Wattenhofer, R. (2006), Community-Aware Mobile Networking.
Available at: http://www.dcg.ethz.ch/publications/mspe06.pdf [Accessed 17/11/08]
• Laine, M. (2006), Key Success Factors of Virtual Communities. Available at:
http://users.tkk.fi/~molaine3/ml_mastersthesis_310506_public.pdf [Accessed 27th
November 2008]
• Lambropoulos, N. & Zaphiris, P. (2007), User-centered design of online learning
communities. Available at:
http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/clear/download/Paper/lambropoulos_mcnaught.pdf
• Lampe, C.; Ellison, N.; & Steinfield, C. (2007), A Familiar Face(book): Profile
Elements as Signals in an Online Social Network. Available at:
https://www.msu.edu/~nellison/lampe_et_al_2007.pdf [Accessed 3rd December
2008]
• Laurillard, D. (2002), Rethinking University Teaching (2nd ed.) Routledge.
Available at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RDsOAAAAQAAJ&dq=Laurillard+D+(2002)+R
ethinking+University+Teaching+(2nd+edition&pg=PP1&ots=Pc2VLmc3R&source=bn&sig=96qO0TwG6FHSrJ5BLGPV1m86lcs&hl=en&sa=X&oi
=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPR6,M1 [Accessed 11/11/08]
• Law, S. A. & Keltner, B. (1995), Civic Networks: Social Benefits of Online
Communities, Universal Access to E-Mail- Feasibility and Societal Implications,
Ch. 5. Available at:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR650/mr650.ch5/ch5.html
PUBLIC
97/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
• Lazar, J. & Preece, J. (2002), Social Considerations in Online Communities:
Usability, Sociability, and Success Factors, p.25. Available at:
http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/Papers/herre_chapter03.pdf [Accessed 5th
December 2008]
• Lenhart, A. (2006), Testimony by Amanda Lenhart Available at:
http://www.pewinternet.org/ppt/Pew%20Internet%20Project%20SNS%20testimon
y%20-%207%2007%2006%20-%20submitted.pdf [Accessed 17th December
2008]
• Lenhart, A.; Madden, M.; Rankin Macgill, A.; & Smith, A. (2007), Teens and Social
Media- The use of social media gains a greater foothold in teen life as they
embrace the conversational nature of interactive online media Pew Internet.
Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Social_Media_Final.pdf
• Lewis, B. (2007), Social Networking Sites and Students: Monitoring social network
websites and the explosive rise of Facebook amongst students. Available at:
http://www.opinionpanel.co.uk/clientUpload/pdf/SocialNetworkResearch.pdf
• LinkedIn Available at: http://www.linkedin.com/static?key=company_info
• Markides, B. & Coetzee, M. (2008), Trusted information sharing for mobile social
networks. Available at:
http://www.cs.uct.ac.za/Research/DNA/microweb/WCITD2008/proceedings/paper
s/p12.pdf [Accessed 3rd December 2008]
• Marathe, J. (Durlacher Research Ltd) (2002), Creating Community Online
Available at:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan003006.pdf
• Mason, A (2005) Effectiveness and delight in an online learning community: A
learner-centred approach Available at:
http://videolinq.tafe.net/learning2005/papers/mason.pdf [accessed 25/11/08]
• Matzat, U. & de Vos, H. (2000), Online Communities: Which conditions make
them successful? Available at: http://www.ppsw.rug.nl/matzat/onlinecommunities.pdf [Accessed 06/11/08]
• Mazer, J.P.; Murphy, R.E. & Simonds, C. (2007), “I’ll see you on Facebook: The
Effects of Computer-Mediated Self-Disclosure on Student Motivation, Affective
Learning, and Classroom Climate”, Communication Education, Vol.56 (1).
• McCamon, M. (2008), Leveraging the Facebook phenomenon in Education
Communities. Available at:
http://www.imodules.com/s/539/images/editor_documents/Leveraging_Facebook.
pdf [Accessed 25th November 2008]
• McKeown, S. (2008), ‘Virtual’ schooling: education outside school, Special
Children. Available at: http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/virtual-schoolingeducation-outside-school-3539 [Accessed 19 December 2008]
• Melinger, D. (n.d.), Socialight: Social Network, meet Mobile Network Available at:
• Millard, D. E. & Ross, M. (2006), Web 2.0: hypertext by any other name?
Available at: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13085/1/Web2-short-final.pdf
[Accessed 11th November 2008].
• Mimeles D. (2006), Building Successful Online Communities. Available at:
www.ccfbest.org/webtechnology/onlinecommunities.htm, [Accessed 5th November
2008]
PUBLIC
98/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
• Misanchuk, M., et al. (2001), Building community in an online learning
environment: communication, cooperation and collaboration. Available at:
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/19.html [Accessed 20th November 2008]
• Moule, P. (2006), Developing the Communities of Practice, Framework for OnLine Learning The Electronic Journal of e- Learning Volume 4 Issue 2, pp 133 –
140. Available at: http://www.ejel.org/volume-4/v4-i2/moule.pdf [Accessed 25th
November 2008]
• MySpace Available at:
http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=misc.aboutus [accessed
02/12/08]
• Nagele, C. (2005), Social Networks Research Report Wildbit Report Available at:
http://www.wildbit.com/wildbit-sn-report.pdf [accessed 24/11/08]
• Nichani, M. (2000), Learning through social interactions (Online communities),
p.11. Available at: http://www.elearningpost.com/images/uploads/comm.pdf
• Nokia (2008) GySPii Combines Location-Based Service with Social Networking
Available at:
http://www.nokia.com/NOKIA_COM_1/Developers/Success_Stories/Enterprise_&
_productivity/Dev_succ_GyPSii_SC_1.0b.pdf [Accessed 25th November 2008]
• Nonnecke, B & Preece, J (1999) Shedding Light on Lurkers in Online
Communities. Available at:
http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/Papers/SheddingLight.final.pdf [Accessed 14th
November 2008]
• Odell, A., Nevin, P. & Roberts, H. (2008), Education in your face(book)! 7th
European Conference in e-Learning, University of Cyprus 5-6th November 2008,
pp. 271-273. Academic Publishing Ltd: Reading, UK
• Odin, J. (n.d.), Does e-moderating an active online classroom create? Available
at: http://www.aln.org/resources/reviews/pdf/review2.pdf [Accessed 24th
November 2008]
• Ofcom (2008), Social Networking: A quantitative and qualitative research report
into attitudes, behaviours and use. Available at:
www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking
/report.pdf [Accessed 7th November 2008]
• Oh, K.T. & Lee, K.P. (2005), A Review of Frameworks for Online Community
Design- with emphasis on developing online community construct Available at:
http://dpl.kaist.ac.kr/web_wiki/images/d/d1/Oh2005.pdf [Accessed 14th November
2008]
• Olofsson, A. (2007), Participation in an Educational Online Learning Community
Available at: http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_4/4.pdf [Accessed 25th November
2008]
• Owyang, J. (2008), Social Network Stats: Facebook, MySpace, Reunion (Jan,
2008) Forrester Research. Available at: http://www.webstrategist.com/blog/2008/01/09/social-network-stats-facebook-myspace-reunionjan-2008/ [Accessed 27th November 2008]
• Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2005), Learning Together in Community: Collaboration
Online Available at:
http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/04_1127.p
• Petter, C; Reich, K; & Helling, K. (2007), Social Software and the Establishment of
Virtual Communities of Practice in the Tourism Sector, Available at:
PUBLIC
99/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
www.futurestudies.org/english/images/stories/down/cop_elearnignpapers.pdf
Pfeil, U., Arjan, R. & Panayiotis, Z. (2008), Age differences in online social
networking – A study of user profiles and the social capital divide among
teenagers and older users in MySpace. Computers in Human Behavior. Elsevier
Preece, J., Maloney-Krichmar, D. & Abras, C. (2003), History and emergence of
online communities, pp. 6-7, Available at:
http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/paper/6%20Final%20Enc%20preece%20et%2
0al.pdf [Accessed 6th November 2008]
Press Release- Blackboard Inc.'s Merger with WebCT, Inc. Receives Regulatory
Clearance. Available at:
http://www.blackboard.com/company/press/release.aspx?id=812824 [Accessed
20th November 2008]
Rabble Available at: http://rabble.com/ [Accessed 20th November 2008]
Reding, V. (2008), Social Networking in Europe: success and challenges
Available at: http://akgul.bilkent.edu.tr/eu/SPEECH-08-465_EN.pdf [accessed
17th December 2008]
Rheingold, H. (1993), The Virtual Community [e-book] Perseus Books. Available
at: http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/ [Accessed 14th November 2008]
Rheingold, H. (2002), Mobile Virtual Communities. Available at:
http://www.vodafone.com/flash/receiver/06/articles/pdf/02.pdf [Accessed 17th
November 2008]
Ryan, C. & McGovern, J. (2003), Next Generation Virtual Communication.
Available at:
http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~caspar/ATcrc/1.2/ATRCRPaperCommunity.pdf
Schwier, R. A. (n.d.), Shaping the Metaphor of Community in Online Learning
Environments. Available at:
http://cde.athabascau.ca/ISEC2002/papers/schwier.pdf [Accessed 20th November
2008]
Schweitzer, S. (n.d.), Functionalities of Online Communities of Practice. Available
at:
http://java.cs.vt.edu/public/classes/communities/uploads/schweitzer_project_draft.
pdf [Accessed 21st November 2008]
Second Life. Available at: http://secondlife.com/ [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
Sendaula, M. & Biswas, S. (2004), Curriculum Deceleration and On-Line Learning
Communities for Working Students. Available at:
http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2004/papers/1385.pdf [Accessed 20th November 2008]
Seufert, S.; Lechner, U.; & Stanoevska, K. (2002), A Reference Model for Online
Learning Communities International Journal on E-learning January-March 2002,
pp.42-55. Available at: http://sciltest.unisg.ch/seufert/docs/reference-model-onlinelearning-communities.pdf [Accessed 27th November 2008]
Shea, V. (2006), Netiquette- Introduction. Available at:
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/introduction.html [Accessed 5th December 2008]
Shirky, C. (2003), Social Software and the Politics of Group.s Available at:
http://shirky.com/writings/group_politics.html [accessed 2nd December 2008]
Sloep, P. (2006), Peer-tutoring for informal learning in ad hoc, transient
communities. Available at:
http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/690/1/Peter%20Sloep%20%20Social%20Software-Edinburgh.pdf [Accessed 15th December 2008]
PUBLIC
100/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
• Smith Nash, S. (2004), Successful Online Learning Communities. Available at:
http://www.xplanazine.com/2004/07/successful-online-learning-communities
[accessed 28th November 2008]
• Stanford-Bowers, D. (2008), Persistence in Online Classes: A Study of
Perceptions among Community College Stakeholders MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching Vol. 4, No. 1, 2008. Available at:
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no1/stanford-bowers0308.pdf [Accessed 21st November
2008]
• Steifvater, E (2008), MySpace and YouTube and Blogs, Oh My! Enhancing Your
Youth Program With Web 2.0 Tools Youth Impact (Volume 2). Available at:
http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/files/Youth-Impact-vol-2.pdf [Accessed
19th November 2008]
• Stevens, V. (2006), Second Life in Education and Language Learning. Available
at: http://tesl-ej.org/ej39/int.html [Accessed 2nd December 2008]
• Subercaze, J; Maret, P; Calmet, J; & Pawar, P (2008), A Service Oriented
Framework for Mobile Business Virtual Communities. Available at
http://liris.cnrs.fr/Documents/Liris-3422.pdf [Accessed 17th November 2008]
• Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N. & Espinoza, G. (2008), Online
and offline social networks: Use of Social networking sites by emerging adults.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29 (6), pp.420-433. Elsevier.
• ten Thij, E. & de Nooijer, J. (2007), A framework for exploring relationship
between online community characteristics and regulation principles paper from
Social Aspects of the Web, Available at: http://ftp.informatik.rwthaachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-245/paper2.pdf [Accessed 6th November
2008]
• Todor, J. (2007), Social Networks and Online Communities Create Elastic Ties
and Surprisingly Powerful Pay-Offs. Available at:
http://www.thewhetstoneedge.com/papers/socialnetworks.pdf [Accessed 21st
November 2008]
• Tynes, B. (2007), Internet Safety Gone Wild? Sacrificing the educational and
psychological benefits of online social environments Journal of Adolescent
Research Available at:
http://faculty.washington.edu/thurlow/guestlectures/tas/tynes(2007).pdf [accessed
18th December 2008]
• van de Wijngaert, L. & Jager, C. (2007), Correlating Formal and Informal
Relations Through Communication Networks Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, San Francisco, CA
Online. Available at: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p169486_index.html
• The Virtual Toolshed (2006), Online Communities. Available at:
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_21/362000/362551/1/print/VTOnlineCommunities.pdf [Accessed 21st November 2008]
• Wallace, C. & Pichler, F. (2007), Patterns of Formal and Informal Social Capital in
Europe. Available at:
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/7/4/4/pages1
77447/p177447-1.php [Accessed 1st December 2008]
• Wenger, E. (2004), Communities of practice- a brief introduction. Available from:
• Wenger, E.; White, N.; Smith, J. & Rowe, K. (2005), Technology for communities.
Available at:
PUBLIC
101/102
Date:23 /09/2008
Project: ComeIn
•
•
•
•
•
http://technologyforcommunities.com/CEFRIO_Book_Chapter_v_5.2.pdf
Whittaker, S.; Issacs, E. & O'Day, V. (1997), Widening the net. Workshop report
on the theory and practice of physical and network communities. SIGCHI Bulletin,
29(3): 27-30. ACM Press.
Wiberg, C. & Jegers, K. (2003), Satisfaction and Learnability in Edutainment: A
usability study of the knowledge game ‘Laser Challenge’ at the Nobel e-museum.
Available at: http://www.informatik.umu.se/~colsson/cwkjhci03.pdf [Accessed 17th
November 2008]
YouTube. Available at: http://uk.youtube.com/t/about [accessed 2nd December
2008]
Yu, P.; Hu, M.; & Nayeoung, K. (2007), Social network analysis YouTube
Available at: http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~ladamic/courses/si508f07/projects/youtube.pdf [Accessed
19th December 2008]
Ziv, N. & Mulloth, B. (2006), An Exploration on Mobile Social Networking:
Dodgeball as a Case in Point, p.6. Available at:
http://www.poly.edu/management/_doc/nina/socialnetworking21.pdf [Accessed
26th November 2008]
PUBLIC
102/102

2009. Online Mobile Communities to Facilitate the

Transcription

Similar documents

Exploring the Universe - New Brunswick Free Public Library

The Prevention and Public Health Fund

Read Article

The Harvard system of referencing

Thomas Green - 12151184X Oz-Au Yeung – 12151131x Cheung

SSTF - TUHAYE.mxd - South Summit Trails Foundation

Harvard Referencing - DBS Library

Please join us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/einsteinaward

keeping pace with globalization in „valahia” university of targoviste

to pdf of the full article