ABSTRACT
The Fielding Institute is a distance-learning program offering mid-career adults PhD's in Human and Organizational Systems, Human Development, and Psychology. Its over 800 students are located all over the world and are linked electronically through the Fielding Electronic Network (FEN). The curriculum is organized into Knowledge Areas and students are expected to contract with faculty assigned to those areas in order to demonstrate mastery and application of the theory therein. The electronic network is often used to negotiate these contracts, to communicate, and, at times, to conduct seminars. It is also a powerful means to create connection and a sense of community in a diverse and scattered student body. The following is a description of a unique electronic seminar that was developed and conducted on FEN by two Fielding students. Its purpose was to create an interactive learning experience as well as to explore the parameters of the distance learning model. The outcome was the generation of an empowering, mutual learning experience, and a new paradigm for an electronic seminar.
"To know someone here or there with whom you can feel there is
understanding, in spite of
distances or thoughts expressed, can make of this earth a garden." Goethe
As the world struggles with global communication, so we struggle daily
with personal communication
and interactions. Communication alone is a difficult and complicated
process which entails a
multitude of systems interacting on different levels. Body language,
non-verbal clues,
environmental effects, culture, and dialects are factors that we learn to
accommodate over time as
we attempt to interact. Societal and scientific advances and discoveries
along with technological
development have given us a different approach to a yet undefined problem.
Complicating the issue
of communication is the fact that we live in and search for community. Our
basic need to connect
on a human level has not only impacted the development of electronic
communication but has
conversely been impacted by it.
Electronic communication comes in several forms to include e-mail,
public electronic forums,
bulletin board systems, pay-for-use services, and electronic network
chatting within an organizational
structure. These forms of communication share several core issues that run
throughout the medium
and seemingly invade every type of electronic communication. Additionally,
they pertain to the face-to-face communication that occurs as we attempt to
build community. These issues are: Virtu
l vs
human contact; Connectedness and coalescence; Shared responsibility,
rules, roles, and norms;
Psychological issues; Spiritual issues; Participation; Vulnerability,
privacy, and ethics; Restriction
and its implications.
We, in an attempt to identify, live, and work with these issues decided
to put together an electronic
seminar to explore and discuss them. Since The Fielding Institute
represents an organization that
relies both on electronic and face-to-face communication, as well as
viewing itself as both a learning
institution and a community of scholars, we hoped that our exploration
would to some extent help
Fielding, its faculty, and students better understand and deal with the
issues surrounding these forms
of communication. Our grandest hopes were that we contributed in some
small part to the
betterment of the institute and its struggle with distance education.
This "Sandbox baby" was conceived following our involvement in some
painful electronic interaction
on HODPROGRAM, a bulletin board on the Fielding Electronic Network. As we
discussed our
experience, we noted the difficulties involved in building community
electronically. We further noted
that the human elements involved in electronic communication often seem to
be neglected in
Fielding's electronic realm, leading to conflict and problems with
decisionmaking. We found this
ironic in a community that prides itself on openness and acceptance of
difference. Consequently,
we opted to create a structure wherein a small group of Fielding students
could explore topics
electronically that would tap into the humanness of grief, conflict, and
interconnectedness. The
purpose of this paper is to review the experience of the electronic
seminar, including findings from
the topics explored, and to discuss our mutual learning in both the
technological and social
psychological realms. Finally, we will discuss the implications of this
work for the Fielding
community and distance learning.
This electronic seminar took place over an 8-week period and proceeded,
for the most part, in the
fashion we had expected. However, some aspects were unanticipated. What
follows is a brief
chronological abstract of the major events that occurred and some of our
own observations around
these events.
After the establishment of some broad, general guidelines, the group entered a phase of "to trust or not to trust." The guidelines were as follows:
Initial participation, following the posting of brief introductions of
the members, was to say the least
slow and minimal. Participation greatly increased during the discussion of
connectedness and
coalescence. This topic included a heated discussion of the definition of
community and created
an opening for conflict. The working through of this conflict (which was
perceived by some as
flaming) was the initial bonding of the group and created a sense of
community. This new "mini-community" was lovingly named the Sandbox, the
term emerging from the conflict itself. The group
moved from this point strongly into a sense of intimacy and trust.
Emotions were shared as were
personally stressful life situations and incidents. Support and nurturing
were overwhelmingly given
by all active participants.
Some interesting issues emerged regarding participation. Some of the
initial core group of people
who agreed to participate in the seminar did not continue while some
continued but only in
observation mode, occasionally indicating their presence. After several
weeks, it became known
that other members of the Fielding community, to include the President,
were silently observing the
progress and development of the interaction. Although we had notified the
community at large that
this was acceptable, we had asked that people indicate their presence on
the board. Only a few
people actually did that while the presence of others became known
inadvertently. Interestingly, this
did not impede the group in any way and in some ways may have encouraged
the group to be more
open and honest.
Midway through the process, active members began to express concerns
about termination or
"death" of the seminar. A mourning process began with some people talking
about becoming
addicted to this "novel" we were co-creating. The actual closure of the
seminar included suggestions
by some of ways in which to continue the work we had begun.
In many ways, the development of this Sandbox Community paralleled the
development of most
small groups or communities. The group moved through an initial phase of
testing the waters,
rapidly into a conflict phase, then into a phase of intimacy and work,
followed by termination. What
was fascinating was that even with the brief nature of the experience and
minimal to no "human"
interaction, all phases of group development appeared and were worked
through. The study of this
facet of electronic community may warrant further investigation in the
future. (McGrath and
Hollingshead, 1994, pp.91-92) Having reviewed the structure and process of
the seminar, we now
turn to a brief summary of the discussion of each of the eight topics that
were tackled by the
participants.
The notion of virtual vs human contact in electronic communication sets
up an artificial dualism.
Seminar participants agreed that since we generate our communication, even
if textual, virtual
communication is human. The removal of context clues in this form
of communication can be both
beneficial and detrimental. Textual communication is a great equalizer and
hopefully prompts us
to be more thoughtful about what we say online. The issue of isolation is
also a factor when
communicating electronically. Although we create connection while online,
the risk of isolating
ourselves from face-to-face contact in the process exists.
Evidence exists that electronic groups go through the same phases of
group development as face-to-face groups. There are some who feel that it
may be difficult to impossible to resolve conflict
online, thereby moving an electronic group towards intimacy. This was not
the case with this
seminar. Conflict emerged and was resolved quickly. The ELCOMM.B(1) group formed a "mini-community" within the
Fielding community and thereby forced a discussion of
he elements which
constitute community. It was concluded that the use of this medium to form
community is forcing
us to re-examine how we define community.
There were few norms established at the beginning of the seminar.
Basically, participants agreed
to norms of openness and honesty. Norms around levels of participation
emerged as the group
progressed. The only established roles were those of the facilitators and
it was agreed that the style
of facilitation was not restrictive in any way. The facilitators
functioned as peers in the discussion,
only serving to move the process forward, a style that the participants
felt comfortable with and
appreciated.
Risk-taking for the purpose of connecting appears to be the main
psychological issue facing those
in community, whether electronic or face-to-face. The group agreed that
the psychological benefit
of being in community is the elimination of isolation. On a technical
level, comfort with the medium
and equipment being used contributes to a sense of psychological well-being.
All ELCOMM.B participants agreed that the electronic medium is a
spiritual medium because it
promotes connection between people. The creation of online rituals to
celebrate or mark life
transitions serves to enhance this aspect.
PARTICIPATION
More than in face-to-face groups, the "unseen" become an issue in
electronic groups. People
appear or disappear easily in this medium, and can be silently
participating without notice. Although
it was asked that others outside of the group who were reading the bulletin
board make their
presence known, few did so. This did not seem to inhibit discussion and
their presence was
acknowledged and ignored.
VULNERABILITY, PRIVACY, AND ETHICS
Despite the open nature of bulletin boards, many participants in online
discussions experience a
false sense of privacy. When this issue is addressed directly, the
vulnerability of participation in this
medium becomes evident as we are uncertain about how and if our
contributions will be used by
others. This discussion of ethics led to consideration of sexual issues
online, including harassment,
the use of innuendo, violation of boundaries, etc.
We generally respond to perceived threat in our culture through the use
of restriction. When
considering online communication and the ethical issues embedded therein,
we begin to see a need
for self-regulation and governance. We agreed that there is a need for the
creation and monitoring
of norms rather than restriction of access and use of this medium.
The major goal in the creation of this seminar was to establish a safe
space on FEN in order to
discuss and wrestle with difficult issues that were not otherwise being
tackled in the Fielding
community. We feel that this goal was met and exceeded through the
experience of the
ELCOMM.B seminar. Despite indications from the literature that the
creation of this type of
environment is difficult to impossible to achieve electronically (Sproull
and Kiesler, 1991; McGrath
and Hollingshead, 1994), our goals were met almost exclusively through
electronic communication.
We drew strength from our human connection, even if that connection was
exclusively online.
The majority of the core group of participants were people with many
years of technical experience.
Several times during the seminar they stated online that they had never had
an electronic
experience like this one. Never had they experienced this degree of
intimacy and trust on an
electronic bulletin board. Participants also commented on the differences
in their behavior online
and off, an aspect about which we have done further research. Our
conclusions are that the
anonymity and perceived safety of this medium allows participants to
explore and experience
components of their personalities that they might not otherwise access.
We ask ourselves what may have been the contributing factors leading to
such a successful
outcome: Was it the facilitation? Was it the norms established or the
loose guidelines for
participation? Was it the level of education of the group? Was it the
absence of faculty input during
the process? Was it the fact that the seminar was topic driven rather than
Knowledge Area driven?
We suspect that all of these factors came together to make this the
experience that it was.
What was created was a "new paradigm" for an electronic seminar. Other
seminars run
electronically through Fielding are Knowledge Area driven. In many ways
they perpetuate an old
model of teaching and learning, wherein students are producing pieces of
work that are to be
evaluated and commented on by an "expert". There is discussion and
feedback, but it relates to the
work that has been presented. This forum by contrast was free-flowing and
interactive. Students
generated the bibliography of readings, set the guidelines, and created the
structure, venturing into
areas previously unexplored on FEN. This was truly an empowering mutual
learning experience.
The implications of all of this are that as a community of scholars we
need to be able to create an
atmosphere of safety in all of our learning settings, whether electronic or
face-to-face. Students
need to be able to speak and debate their ideas without fear of retribution
from any source. Faculty
need to act as "playground monitors" or gentle guides while students "play
in the sandbox",
developing the norms and rules as we go. We are the experts when it comes
to our own learning.
Fielding, as a community which combines electronic and face-to-face
contact, needs to take another
look at the means by which FEN is used. Currently the medium is
underutilized. Mandating its use
does not achieve the goal intended and is a beginning to an end. Instead
we need to pay attention
to the ways in which we orient new students to FEN as it is a powerful
means to bring them into the
community.
Finally, many current models of distance learning maintain a traditional
student\teacher relationship
in interaction with a set curriculum. Fielding has begun to move away from
that model through its
use of its electronic medium. The experience of ELCOMM.B shows us how much
further we are
capable of travelling into the unknowns of cyberspace to explore new worlds
of electronic learning.
REFERENCES
McGrath, Joseph E. & Hollingshead, Andrea B. (1994), Groups
interacting with technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sproull, Lee & Kiesler, Sara (1991), Connections, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
__________________________
Rena M. Palloff, Ph.D., LCSW
John F. Kennedy University
206 Lagunaria Lane
Alameda, CA 94502
Keith Pratt, Ph.D.
Ottawa University
825 W. 7th
Ottawa, KS 66067
We wish to acknowledge Don MacIntyre, President of the Fielding
Institute, for his support of this
endeavor and the ELCOMM.B seminar group for their open, committed participation.
Presented at the Eastern Adult, Continuing and Distance Education Conference, Penn State University, University Park, PA, October 24-26, 1996.
1. The bulletin board we created and used was named "ELCOMM.B," an acronym for electronic community.