02.3+Community+Management

//Submitted by Shelley Gibb//

IEC's online learning communities are predominantly managed by a moderator, with the facilitator responsible for the face to face component of the program, taking a passive role online. It is the moderator's role to motivate and engage participants based on the systematic release of learning activities by encouraging, responding, questioning, and weaving conversations amongst the community. Their role is borne of a social constructivist approach to learning, where learning occurs through generated problems rather than provided answers, (Baumgartner 2004), is designed for rather than delivered (Wenger 1998), and is enriched through interaction with others (Bandura 1977) who can add value to interaction because of their common interests and new relationships with other participants (Granovetter 1983). In contrast to a classroom model, the moderator is very familiar with the content but is not a subject matter expert and does not have the capacity to answer complex content questions.

In the Australian online communities this has been successful, however, in the Shanghai based communities participation has been lacking, characterised by learners being reluctant to provide opinions when asked, and only prompted into action following a message of strong concern from the moderator. Interestingly, despite a lack of participation, the overall quality of assessments has been high, which has been recognised to mean that learning has been occurring and leads to a suggestion that the role of the moderator in the Chinese context may not be effective in its current form.

A significant part of the moderator's role at IEC is to shape learner interactions through furthering reflective practice by questioning, which is viewed as "deep learning", and to move participants away from any rote learning style activities which are thought to not align to any desired course outcomes. Chan and Rao (2010) problematise this approach, suggesting that Chinese learners use memorisation as an integrated learning technique to aid understanding, and unlike Western models, view rote learning as a pathway to deeper learning. In considering this, the moderator's actions to move students distinctly away from what Westerners perceive as "shallow learning" toward more immediate reflective practice may have hindered the Chinese particiants' progress in the course.

The practice of asking for individual written accounts may also have increased reluctance to participate, with unfamiliar environment and techniques increasing anxiety about "losing face", and emphasising the learner's role and initiative as distinct from the group, which conflicts with China's collectivist culture (Hofstede 2008). Expressing themselves reflectively in written words may have also been uncomfortable for learners because of their higher context communication preferences as compared with previous Australian students, viewing the written word as explicit and lacking subtlety in terms of situation and relation of other communication styles (Hall 1976).

Another attribute relevant to the Chinese context is the strong teacher-centred orientation of Chinese students (Hofstede 2008, Littrell 2002, p.21), with the teacher described as "the loving father, leading to a leadership style labelled 'paternalism'"(p.21), indicating a high power distance and strong collectivist orientation. This teacher focus is in contrast to the social model espoused in IEC's course, where the role of the moderator, already undermined from the Chinese perspective for not taking on a directive role, is to move participants toward focussing on each other (Salmon 2002).

While the literature suggests that the social learning model is an appropriate fit for the the Chinese context (Chan 2010), this instance highlights that such a transference is complex. In this context, the role of the moderator still holds value, but needs to be thoroughly reviewed and adjusted, along with other components of the program to be more sensitive to the Chinese context.


 * References**

Bandura, A. 1977, //Social Learning Theory//, Prentice Hall, Sydney.

Baumgartner, P. 2005, 'The zen art of teaching communication and interactions in eEducation', //International Workshop ICL2004//, Villach / Austria 29 Sep- tember - 1 October 2004, Villach, Kassel University Press.

Chan, C. K. K. and Rao, N. 2010, "Moving Beyond Paradoxes, Understanding Chinese Learning and Their Teachers" in Chan, C. K. K. & Rao, N. (eds.), //CERC Studies in Comparative Education. Revisiting the Chinese Learner: Changing Context, Changing Education,// Springer Comparative Education and Research Center, The University of Hong Kong.

Chan, C. K. K. 2010, "Classroom Innovation for the Chinese Learner: Transcending Dichotomies and Transforming Pedagogies" in Chan, C. K. K. & Rao, N. (eds.), //CERC Studies in Comparative Education. Revisting the Chinese Learner: Changing Context, Changing Education,// Springer Comparative Education and Research Center, The University of Hong Kong.

Granovetter, M. 1973 The Strength of Weak Ties//, American Journal of Sociology,// vol. 78, no. 6, pp.1360-1380.

Hall, E. 1976, //Beyond Culture,// Doubleday, New York.

Hofstede, G. 1983, The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories//, Journal of International Business Studies//, Fall, pp75-90.

Hoftstede, G. 2008, "Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning", //FUHU Conference on Education and Training in the Multicultural Classroom//, Copenhagen.

Salmon, G. 2002, //eTivities: The key to active online learning,// RoutledgeFarmer, Abingdon.

Wenger, E. 1998, //Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity//, Cambridge University Press, USA.