Reflective Study

Since the early 1990’s, according to Shumar and Renninger (2002), change has evolved and the definition of community from a social standard to one of essential commonality through interests has evolved into physical and virtual interactions in the form of virtual communities. Enduring face to face interactions has inhibited the broad spectrum of durability and flexibility of communications, while the Web provides the scaffolding for a more diverse group to support and grow as knowledge based communities without the inhibitions of traditional kith and kin. (Shumar & Renninger, 2002).
Ideal Virtual Learning Community
• Context: I would like to instill an on-line community for nursing students in order to enhance the learning environment and compliment the current system of classroom instruction. Traditional textbooks will remain the basic resource for student learning and guidance, while an on-line virtual community, corresponding to theory, will further enlighten critical thinking patterns. Curriculum will consist of case study materials and various researched items obtained via the internet and or current course materials. Students will have access to computers within the nursing lab if needed or have the option of using a home computer at their leisure.
• Subject matter: This knowledge based environment will enhance collective knowledge and according to Reil & Polin (2004) provide support to individual participants. Subjects will include older adult wellness, maternal and newborn nursing care, pediatric nursing, and basic medical surgical nursing, as designed for the first year nursing student.
• Target audience: First year associate degree nursing students enrolled in a Community College nursing program.



Planned strategies
• Needs: Facilitator, asynchronous tools such as ANGEL or DL2 with internet technology support, and computer accessibility. The key is to provide effective activities designed in sync with course curriculum requirements and syllabus objectives. According to John Seely Brown (2007), knowledge has two sides, the explicit which is the concept side and the action side; termed tacit knowledge. Tacit cognition develops between student and instructor as shared understanding slowly emerges.
• Goals: Students will be placed in discussion groups in order to work through critical thinking activities as a team. Activities will correspond to the subject content with reasonable due dates for postings. The team will be responsible for all materials in class and on the internet for testing purposes. The facilitator will allow the group to post, then guide the discussion forward for knowledge enhancement. Also, all terms and definitions can be posted on the site for easy reference, as this will enhance theory and increase student understanding of terminology for that particular class. The virtual community will also provide fun activities, such as hangman, word puzzles, and non-graded quizzes to assist students with class content.
• Purposes: Student’s tacit ability to comprehend theory content will be reinforced by synchronous studies. The virtual community can be set as a task-based learning environment, until facilitators become adept at using the Web design and students begin to accept this learning style. Implementing explicit type learning will be a future goal and provide interest throughout the first two semesters of nursing school.
• Interest: Students will log onto the site via a user I.D. and password, mimicking the current DL2 virtual learning site. They will be able to access the site from home or at the college opposite the days to in-class teaching for convenience. Reducing time spent in a designated class room environment may increase desirability of pursuing a nursing career for students who work, have children, or have obligations that interfere with time spent away from home. Distanced learners will benefit from virtual communities, simply from less travel expenses and less time away from family.
• Leadership: The instructor/facilitator will need to design curriculum corresponding to theory, decide due dates for all assignments, facilitate discussions, and collaborate with the students concerning critical thinking case studies. Time will be an issue until the design of the virtual community is completed and may be an issue that persists indefinitely as the community grows.
Framing
It is exciting to realize students can take responsibility for their own learning and current face-to-face pedagogy is not a technique set in stone. Change is not easy for those facilitators who argue that “conventional” practices have always worked and thus resist a break from the current assimilation-type model of teaching (Koschmann, Hall, &Miyake, 2002). Realizing metacognitive and active learning can be enhanced from either asynchronous or synchronous virtual community’s demands interest for any prudent instructor who has the student in mind. The Read, Reflect, Display, and Do (R2D2) model is described by, Bonk and Zhang (2008), as an educator’s tool to delineate age differences, learning preferences and cultural influences of the students making virtual learning an advantage for all. This design suggests provisions of reading materials for the auditory and verbal learners, reflective tasks for the observational learners, display for the visual learners and simulated activities for those tactile and kinesthetic learners (Bonk & Zhang, 2008). Reaching across all venues to stimulate the student’s desire to learn is worth venturing beyond the standard.
Upon, realizing that research has paved the path for virtual educational communities was an eye opener. Different teaching strategies described by Koschmann, Hall, & Miyake (2002) spurred thoughts about incorporating some type of virtual community opportunities within the two year college venue. Educational products, such as CSILE, ANGEL, or DL2, are key components for orientation to design, technical support, and security. Building virtual communities by Renninger & Shumar (2002) teaches us about success and failure, such as MediaMOO, and the spawning of virtual communities from those failures.
The study cited by Oshima & Oshima (2002) discusses the novice and expert learners in an asynchronous/synchronous virtual community environment. Skills for the novice learner lacked in discourse management, which led to a sense of stalled progression. It was clear that instructional support was needed to spur the students in research rebuttals and hypothesis statements. After reading the examples, I realized the two year student nurse would require more collaborative discourse with reflective writings in order to be successful. Perhaps, then, adding reflective studies to understand group concepts would be required for a more complete program.
A paradigm through discussions and blogs indicates success or failure of on-line virtual communities depends on:
 Positive leadership skills
 Integration of a facilitator
 Desire of the institution to incorporate virtual learning on the premise of set goals
 An organized structure such as scaffolding
 Easy navigation through the site
 Updating to meet cognitive levels and futuristic goals
 Technological support
 Lastly, consumer buy-in (Facilitators and College Administration)

Planting the seed at a recent faculty meeting made me realize virtual on-line communities are constantly on my mind. We use interactive television at the present which could serve as the backdrop for on-line pod casts in the future, relieving the instructor/student of set time limits for class. Other nursing programs are on-line, but may not meet the two year student need for instructor guidance. A balance seems to work well with the two year student between mediating on-line student discourse and classroom theory instruction. Any attempt of incorporating Web virtual communities will provide a richer and more advanced understanding of nursing concepts. I will be excited to introduce and develop a virtual community on the Web that will enhance, build, and grow our two year students into future critical thinkers that have the capacity to save lives.

































References

Bonk, C. & Zhang K. (2008). The R2D2 model. In C. Bonk & K. Zhang. Empowering online learning. (pp. 3-5). Jossey-Bass, A wiley imprint. San Francisco, CA.

Brown, J. (2007). Learning, working & playing in the digital age. 1999 conference of American Association for Higher Education. (pp. 1-6).

Oshima, J. & Oshima, R. (2002). Coordination of Asynchronous and synchronous communication: Differences in qualities of knowledged advancement discourse between experts and novices. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying Forward the Conversation. (pp. 55-77). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reil, M. & Polin, L. (2004). Common ground and critical differences in designing technical environments. In S. Barab R., Kling & J. Gray (Eds.) (pp.16-22).

Shumar, W. & Renninger, K. (2002). Introduction: On conceptualizing community. In K. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.) Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp1-22). Cambridge University Press.