The snow storm that trawled across the Midwest gives a good example of how virtual communities benefit and detract from the learning experience. Beneficiary from the fact I can access all of my school work without having to meet with my class or having to brave the weather for meetings with a professor. On the other hand, virtual communities are harder to keep track of and invest time in. They are socially driven rather than a physical responsibility. So, to further my discussion last week of virtual communities, let’s dive into content and structure.
Most of what I’m referring to is from Renninger’s Building Virtual Communities (Chapter 5, 6, and 8). I said last week I’d cover the importance of content and luckily Renninger really goes with the different communication methods virtual communities’ use. Some of these are as old as usenet groups or mailing lists. While both of these methods still exist, I think the proper way to think of the evolution of the internet is the classic Web 1.0 versus 2.0 argument.
1.0
Mostly, this era translates itself as the use of one medium: typed messages. Forums (sometimes called discussion boards), mailing lists, and early chat clients mainly used typed messages to communicate ideas. Not that no other medium existed, but the bandwidth limitations in the late 80s to early 2000s made Voice Over IP (VoIP) and videos a much more rare (and in my opinion, badly implemented) idea. As such, Usenet and other discussion boards created communities through their members’ mutual understanding of topics such as engineering, videogames, politics, or any number of issues.
Mailing lists were a bit before my time. Sure, my university has some that give out updates, but people used these lists to create dialogues between the mailers. My understanding of the process makes it out to be like letter pen pals who discuss things back and forth. The difference between this and a forum were an exclusivity issue. Mainly, this came from mailing lists not being a resolvable address a normal person could type into a search engine or address bar.
With a broad brush, I think of this era of community as being one that tries to bring people together with limited technologies.
2.0
However, the current view of the Internet is one of unlimited technology further typing people together. The inclusion of multiple media websites such as youtube.com (a combination of text, sound, and video) creates an entirely different experience. No longer are users limited, as much, by bandwidth and computer hardware restrictions, but by their willingness to participate. Content is the essential factor still in determining the cliques and circles communities form into. As a constant example, Facebook, which has millions of users and who use a variety of text media to communicate. Facebook is even breaking the wall down between the instant and slow forms of communicating with their announcement to create a messaging system that incorporates email and chat. Google is doing the same thing with its Google Wave two years ago and current chat clients which relay emails as well as communicates with friends.
In Summary…
This is normally where I’d put the “The Future?”, but honestly Web 2.0’s technological innovation and its effect on teaching communities isn’t over. Mobile communication is getting bigger on smartphones, but I feel this technology has yet to reach its ultimate resolution and honestly, speculating on the future with communication technology might lead me farther into science fiction rather than science theory.
I hope everyone in the Midwest braved the weather well and I’m hoping that next week will be a sunnier (and more productive week) for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment