Proceedings of the Seventh IASTED International Conference
Web-based Education
March 17-19, 2008 Innsbruck, Austria
ISBN Hardcopy: 978-0-88986-723-9 / CD: 978-0-88986-724-6
A COMPARISON OF FORMAL AND NON-FORMAL VIRTUAL LEARNING
COMMUNITIES
Richard A. Schwier, Dirk Morrison, Ben Daniel
Virtual Learning Communities Research Lab
College of Education, University of Saskatchewan
28 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canada
Richard.schwier@usask.ca, dirk.morrison@usask.ca, ben.daniel@usask.ca
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the pedagogical implications of the
catalysts, elements & emphases model of formal virtual
learning communities [1] for non-formal learning
contexts, drawing on findings from a four-year program
of research on virtual learning communities in formal
learning environments. The paper compares how learners
in formal and non-formal learning environments can
make use of virtual learning communities. Ultimately, we
argue that there is a need to extend basic theory on formal
virtual learning communities (VLCs) to elaborate our
understanding of learning and pedagogical practices in
non-formal online learning environments.
KEY WORDS
Web-based education, community, non-formal learning
1. Introduction
Important questions orbit the design, implementation,
pedagogy and effects of virtual learning communities, and
the socio-educational aspects of learning in these learning
environments. Traditional pedagogy appears to drive the
design of most online courses, making it difficult to
determine the actual contributions of unintended
collaboration in virtual learning communities [2], [3], [4].
At the same time, there is growing attention in the
literature to the need for and design of collaborative
online learning environments [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].
Another aspect limiting our current understanding of how
learners make use of virtual communities is the fact that
existing research focuses almost exclusively on formal
learning environments—post-secondary courses managed
by institutions of higher learning. Formal environments
often require learners to engage each other online in
specific, externally defined ways, whereas non-formal
environments may impose fewer controls on learner
activities. This paper extends what we have learned about
VLCs in formal learning environments to how learners in
non-formal learning environments will make use of VLCs
to enhance informal learning.
610-060 321
2. Formal, Informal and Non-Formal
Learning Contexts
Formal educational contexts are usually characterized by
learners in classes being taught by teachers who deliver
comprehensive, multi-year curricula, which is
institutionally bound to a graduated system of
certification [11]. In sharp contrast, informal education is
often characterized as unorganized, unsystematic, and
regularly unintentional [12]. This type of learning was
described by [13] as the lifelong process by which people
acquire and accumulate knowledge skills, attitudes and
insights gathered from a lifetime of experiences. For the
purposes of this research program, a third category of
education is proposed, one that straddles these two
seemingly polar learning contexts, and this is non-formal
learning. Selman, Cooke, Selman, and Dampier identify
non-formal learning as that which “comprises all other
organized, systematic educational activity which is
carried out in society, whether offered by educational
institutions or any other agency [14]. It is aimed at
facilitating selected types of learning on the part of
particular sub-groups of the population (p. 26). For
example, non-formal education may include such
activities as professional development interest groups or
community education initiatives. These alternative group-
learning contexts are usually characterized by a sharing of
expertise and knowledge amongst the membership, which
may or may not include a “content expert.”
It is clear learners, within the context of non-formal
learning environments, need to exercise various degrees
of self-directedness in their approaches to their learning.
Some authors have characterized the self-directed learner
as learning alone, whether under the tutelage of an
instructor or agency, or completely independent of such
structures [14], [15]. However, we would expand the
notion of independence to being independent of the
structural contexts of education; any particular learner or
group of learners may manifest elements of self-
directedness in their learning, whether it is within a
formal, non-formal, or informal learning environment.
3. Virtual Learning Communities
The metaphor of community has been used to describe a
wide range of contexts, from distributed communities of
practice in the corporate world [16], to virtual community
networks [17], [18]. Communities are collections of
people who are bound together socially for some reason,
and that reason defines the boundary of the community.
A learning community emerges when people are drawn
together to learn, when a group of individuals is engaged
intentionally and collectively in the transaction and/or
transformation of knowledge. Although learning
communities emphasize outcomes in education, their
power resides in their ability to take advantage of, and in
some cases invent, a process for exchanging ideas and
learning collectively. Virtual learning communities
happen when the process of learning takes place outside
the boundaries of face-to-face contact (although face-to-
face and virtual experiences may be blended), and often
outside the boundaries of formal education.
In order to understand the characteristics of
community in formal online learning environments, we
developed a conceptual model of VLCs from existing
literature and later refined it [1]. The model of formal
virtual learning communities included three interacting
categories of characteristics: catalysts, emphases and
elements, and it is this model that will serve as the starting
point for the pedagogical implications offered here. This
model illustrates a theoretical framework that exists in the
larger context of communities of practice and social
capital theory [19], [20].
3.1 Catalysts of VLCs
Communication is a catalyst for community, and when
communication is vibrant, community can emerge; when
communication is absent, community disappears. Four
notions act as catalysts and orbit communication in a
virtual learning community: awareness, interaction,
engagement, and alignment [1], [21]. These are the
products of communication when it acts as a catalyst for
community. Awareness is a prerequisite variable to
communication and it is drawn from theoretical
discussions of social presence and social capital [19].
Interaction includes exchanges between learners and
content, learners and instructors, and learners with other
learners. Engagement is more than interaction; it
describes when interaction becomes mutually beneficial
to the individual and the group. To become a contributing
member of a community, some kind of engagement has to
happen, and ultimately it is important for the tacit
knowledge held by community members on the periphery
of the community to be made explicit. If this does not
happen, then it mitigates the effectiveness of the
community. The third notion is alignment. When
individuals engage in a virtual learning community, some
measure of alignment occurs. Individuals align personal,
private purposes with the collective, public purposes of
the community.
322
3.2 Emphases of VLCs
Formal learning environments emphasize various
purposes, and we suggest these are important to
understanding how any VLC operates. The current model
suggests five tentative emphases: ideas, relationship,
reflection, ceremony and place. Each of these purposes
defines a focus for individual participation. While some
communities are deliberately constructed to promote one
or more of these purposes, any particular emphasis is also
the result of the individual’s intention for using the
community.
3.3 Elements of Formal VLCs
What turns the group into a community rather than merely
a collection of people with a shared interest? Thirteen
elements were identified in a series of grounded theory
studies of online graduate-level seminars and subjected to
social network and modeling analyses [22]. These
elements underscore the idea that communities are a
complex of many factors and variables. Any adequate
understanding of virtual learning communities needs to
recognize that these variables interact multi-
dimensionally.
Historicity. Communities are stronger when they share
history and culture. Conversely, they are weak when
they are based on general interests and abstract ideas.
Identity. Communities foster a sense of shared identity.
Successful virtual learning communities need to have
boundaries—an identity or recognized focus.
Mutuality. Communities spring from, and are maintained
by interdependence and reciprocity.
Plurality. Communities draw much of their vitality from
intermediate associations such as families, churches,
and other peripheral groups.
Autonomy. Communities respect and protect individual
identity. Individuals interact with each other and
have the capacity to conduct discourse freely and
meaningfully.
Participation. Social participation in the community,
especially participation that promotes self-
determination supports autonomy and sustains the
community.
Trajectory. Learning communities are not static; they
create movement in a direction.
Technology. In virtual learning communities, technology
facilitates and development of community, but may
also inhibit its growth.
Social Protocols. Conventions and rules of engagement
are usually prescribed in formal learning
environments, but even in informal learning
environments, participants follow conventional
patterns of interaction.
Reflection. Communities exhibit conversational flow, and
later conversations often make reference to earlier
conversations and interactions.
Intensity. Strong communities exude a sense of urgency,
that involvement in the community is purposeful and
meaningful.
Trust. When people build communities, they commit
themselves to each other through trusting social
relationships.
Learning. Learning is a central element of virtual
learning communities, although the nature of the
learning can be broadly defined and contextual.
4. Comparing Characteristics of Formal and
Non-Formal VLCs
Although a comprehensive comparison of implications
that obtain in virtual online learning environments is
beyond the scope of this paper, we offer a sample of
comparisons here. Also, we want to emphasize that while
we are relatively confident about the composition of
VLCs in formal learning environments, given that they
are based on empirical data, we are speculating about how
these characteristics apply to non-formal learning
environments.
First of all, we suggest that the catalysts and
emphases of non-formal VLCs are similar to those in
formal VLCs. Learners build awareness, interact, engage
and ultimately align with each other over time. The
mechanisms of social capital are at work, and learners
build interest and confidence that the social network will
provide useful avenues of communication. We presume
that one potential difference is that learners may feel
fewer obligations to communicate in non-formal
environments—the social imperative to participate may
be more intrinsic and less based on the extrinsic
inducements that are familiar in formal learning
environments. Strong teacher presence is typical in formal
VLCs, with directed discussion and deliberate strategies
employed to engage learners with each other. In non-
formal VLCs, teachers may not be as directive, and
learner engagement will arise or diminish based on how
compelling the perceived need is to communicate.
Similarly, formal and non-formal VLCs can both
emphasize undulating combinations of ideas,
relationships, reflection, ceremony and place. In formal
VLCs, emphases are institutionally or centrally defined.
Most formal VLCs emphasize communities of ideas,
although other reasons for participating may motivate
individual members. Non-formal communities are also
typically designed with particular emphases in mind,
either institutionally or by groups of participants, and
participants congregate based on shared interests, but
outcomes are individually defined.
Significant differences seem to play out when we
consider the socio-pedagogical implications of VLC
elements in formal and non-formal environments. We will
compare each in turn and provide an example of how the
differences might manifest themselves.
Historicity. Given the confined course timetables in
formal learning environments, a sense of shared history
may occur by the end of a course, or from the reputation
of a course from one offering to the next. An instructor
can promote and nurture historicity, but the temporal
boundaries of formal environments mitigate its growth.
323
Temporal boundaries often exist in non-formal
environments too, so they offer similar challenges. To
promote historicity, a moderator can incorporate what
members have contributed and make their stories part of
the community culture. Explicit mention of the culture,
value and context of the virtual community is possible.
Identity. In formal VLCs, and instructor can use
team-building exercises, develop community logos, and
publicly acknowledge accomplishments by the group and
individual members within the community. Teachers can
articulate the focus or purpose of the community, and
outline the requirements and rituals accompanying
membership in the community. Participants may wish to
remain anonymous or to protect their identities as
communities move from formal to informal. Fictitious
identities may be used to guard identity in some non-
formal settings, yet participants can be encouraged to
engage each other in authentic ways.
Mutuality. In formal VLCs, a teacher can include
group exercises, assignments, activities that require each
member to contribute to the final product. Ask leading
questions that encourage members of the community to
invest in concerns held by other members, and to share
ideas and possible solutions. In non-formal settings,
learners have more control, but team challenges and
problem solving exercises can be used to encourage
participants to self-select groups to maximize the team's
likelihood of solving the challenge.
Plurality. A teacher employing a formal VLC can
encourage membership and participation from and
association with groups related to the learning focus.
These might include businesses, professional associations,
or groups in other countries exploring similar issues.
Similar intentions can be promoted in non-formal settings,
but self-directed learners will decide which peripheral
associations can be revealed. Instructors can encourage
participants to elaborate on their contributions with
examples from other parts of their lives, but ultimately,
learners have more authority over what they offer and
what they do not because there are fewer external
inducements for participation.
Autonomy. In both formal and informal VLCs it is
important to foster individual expression and comment
explicitly on its value. Educators in either environment
will set up protocols for respectful communication and
acquire consensus in the group. Savvy teachers will also
create strategies for settling disputes or inappropriate
behaviour before problems occur. Acknowledging
autonomy is probably even more important in self-
directed learning environments. Explicitly respecting the
choices of individuals, and using consensus-building
strategies are important approaches.
Participation. Instructors in formal VLCs often
promote participation in a variety of ways: allowing
members of the group to shape learning agendas, giving
guidance to new community members, and promoting
opportunities for established members to go outside the
boundaries of the learning event or focus. They can also
encourage lurkers and spectators to participate actively.
While active participation is just as important in non-
formal VLCs, fewer external controls over individual
investments translate into greater control by learners
about their own levels of participation. Educators can
attempt to stimulate discussion by offering intense and
engaging topics for discussion, and suasion is an
important tool, but ultimately learners will determine to a
larger extent how much they will participate. This can
influence the momentum of the group, as dwindling or
intermittent participation by group members can
ultimately erode the incentive that active participants have
to continue trying to communicate.
Trajectory. In formal and non-formal learning
environments alike, educators may employ a number of
explicit strategies to promote an inward-bound trajectory
of participation and to propel the trajectory of the group in
a particular direction. They might ask participants to
describe ways they will use what they have learned in the
community in the future, or conduct "visioning" exercises
to determine new initiatives to be undertaken by the
community. Participants can be encouraged to discuss the
directions being taken individually and collectively in the
learning environment, but ultimately the individual and
group trajectories are determined by the participants.
Technology. In any VLC, formal or informal,
technology provides affordances and imposes barriers. In
any learning setting, it is important to employ technology
that allows meaningful communication, and which is easy
for participants to use. In formal learning environments,
it is critically important to provide support for learning
how to use communication features of the technology-
based system used by the group. In non-formal settings
transparency and ease of use are paramount. Participants
will locate alternative loci for learning if the technological
context for learning is awkward or difficult.
Learning. Learning is one of the key elements that
differ in intent between formal and non-formal learning
environments. In formal environments, a community
moderator will often remind participants of externally
imposed learning intentions, and intervene when
interaction drifts too far away from the learning focus.
One goal of moderators is to muster communication
around a topic. They will also induce individuals on the
periphery of the community to contribute their tacit
knowledge to the explicit knowledge of the community.
Non-formal group learning, by comparison, is often
characterized by a sharing of expertise and knowledge
amongst the membership, which may or may not include
a “content expert." Learning agendas may be more
personalized and diverse within a group, and learning
outcomes may be self-determined. Non-formal learning
environments may articulate central purposes and goals,
but learners will adapt them to satisfy individual
purposes.
Reflection. A moderator can look for linkages in
conversations over time and in some cases even require
participants to comment on how a current conversation
relates to a course topic or conversation thread in formal
learning environments. But in non-formal environments a
324
moderator may encourage participants to reflect on
learning at key stages but, reflection is largely an
individual choice, and opportunities may not be taken.
Intensity. As an explicit strategy, instructors in
formal VLCs will often introduce provocative or
significant social issues related to topics of conversation
to provide context and authenticity for online
conversations, and to ignite controversy and debate in the
community. Similarly in non-formal VLCs, a moderator
or participants can introduce provocative or significant
social issues, but the participants determine authenticity
and relevance. Controversy and debate in the community
may be attractive to some participants, but may cause
other participants to leave the VLC.
Trust. In a formal VLC, an instructor will often spend
a considerable amount of energy trying to build trust
among participants and between the instructor and
participants. She/he might provide opportunities for
members to collaborate on small activities in the
community, or participate in simple, non-competitive
activities, such as co-moderating discussions to promote
the development of trust among individuals. As part of
these activities, an instructor often invokes an element of
co-reliance, such that the success of the team depends on
the participation of everyone in the group. As informality
increases, the development of trust may become more
elusive, as participants choose to trust or distrust other
participants based on episodic experience. Cohesive
groups in non-formal settings, such as cohorts of
employees undertaking voluntary professional
development activities, may offer similar opportunities
for trust-building activities as formal environments, and
trust may emerge as awareness and familiarity among
participants grows.
Social Protocols. In a formal learning environment it
is the responsibility of the teacher to establish clear rules
and expectations for engagement, especially for setting or
negotiating the acceptable and unacceptable ways of
behaving in a community. As the sense of community
grows, the group can review existing protocols and be
given responsibility for monitoring engagement in the
community. In non-formal and informal settings, rules
and expectations are typically the product of ongoing
social negotiation, so they may be more fluid than in
formal environments. In non-formal contexts sub-groups
often form around shared interests, and each sub-group
may elect to use different protocols to govern interaction.
5. Conclusion
In each of these cases, it is important to recognize that the
differences depend, at least partially, on how an educator
or learning leader chooses to operate with the group
online. Any educator, even those in highly formal and
institutionalized learning environments, may elect to use
VLCs in very informal ways. Any given class may be
comprised of formal and informal learning events and
structures. When we discuss formal and informal learning
environments, we refer to those events and structures, not
to whether the VLC is used in a formal learning
institution or as part of a particular program of studies.
Given this caution, we propose that there are
important differences between formal and informal VLCs
and how they can be used to promote learning. As non-
formal and informal learning opportunities continue to
flourish and entice learners, it is important for educators
to find ways to incorporate non-formal events and
structures, otherwise learning will become further
bifurcated into “institutional” and “real-life” camps. In
addition, it is important for educators to realize that non-
formal and informal learning is legitimate, significant and
influential in its own right. Whether or not educators
choose to endorse non-formal and informal online
learning, they will continue to outstrip formal learning
opportunities for most learners.
The research agenda required to address non-formal
VLC questions is large and growing. We suggest that one
of the first research challenges is to identify the shared
and unique characteristics of non-formal virtual learning
communities, and to understand their social and
pedagogical implications. This paper has attempted to
draw some logical comparisons to formal environments
by considering characteristics that have been identified in
formal online learning environments in higher education.
These are speculations that require empirical investigation
to determine whether they are legitimate speculations. No
work, to date, has been done on identifying the unique
features of non-formal VLCs.
Another research challenge is to identify existing
non-formal VLCs and to gather narrative data from
participants about the meaning of the communities to their
learning and lives. By storying the experiences of
participants, we can gain an insight into the ways non-
formal learning environments engage learners and
learning need to be designed to optimize participation and
augment other types of learning structures in an
increasingly diverse learning landscape.
Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by a grant from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
References
[1] R.A. Schwier, A typology of catalysts, emphases
and elements of virtual learning communities. In R.
Luppicini (Ed.), Trends in distance education: A focus on
communities of learning (Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing, 2007, pp. 17-40).
[2] S. Naidu, (2003). Designing instruction for e-
learning environments. In M.G. Moore & W.G. Anderson
(Eds.), Handbook of distance education (Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003, pp. 349-365).
[3] T.C. Reeves, J. Herrington, & R. Oliver, A
development research agenda for online collaborative
learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 52(4), 2004, 53-65.
325
[4] A.J. Romiszowski, How’s the e-learning baby?
Factors leading to the success or failure of an educational
technology innovation. Educational Technology, 44(1),
2004, 5-27.
[5] S. Cox, & R. Osguthorpe, Building an online
instructional design community: Origin, development,
and the future. Educational Technology, 43(5), 2003, 44-
48.
[6] D. Hung, & D.T. Chen, Understanding how
thriving internet quasi-communities work: Distinguishing
between learning about and learning to be. Educational
Technology, 42(1), 2002, 23-27.
[7] P. Kirschner, J.W. Strijbos, K. Kreijns, & P.J.
Beers, Designing electronic collaborative learning
environments. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 52(3), 2004, 47-66.
[8] W.D. Milheim, Strategies for the design and
delivery of blended learning courses. Educational
Technology, 46(6), 2006, 44-47.
[9] E. Murphy, & E. Coleman, Graduate students'
experiences of challenges in online asynchronous
discussions. Canadian Journal of Learning and
Technology, 30(2), 2004, 29-46.
[10] D. Uribe, J.D. Klein, & H. Sullivan, The effect of
computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-
defined problems. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 51(1), 2003, 5-20.
[11] P.H. Coombs, The world crisis in education: The
view from the Eighties (New York: Oxford, 1985).
[12] Selman & Selman, 1998
[13] Lowe, 1982.
[14] G. Selman, M. Cooke, M. Selman, & P. Dampier,
The foundations of adult education in Canada. (2nd ed)
(Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1998).
[15] A. Tough, The adult’s learning projects: A fresh
approach to theory and practice in adult learning
(Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
1971).
[16] C. Kimbel, & P. Hildreth, Communities of practice:
Creating learning environments for educators
(Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 2008).
[17] M. Bullen, & D. Janes, Making the transition to e-
learning: Issues and strategies (Hershey, PA: Information
Science Publishing, 2007).
[18] N. Lambropoulos, & P. Zaphiris, User-centred
design of online learning communities (Hershey, PA: Idea
Group, 2006).
[19] B. Daniel, R.A. Schwier, & G. McCalla, Social
capital in virtual learning communities and distributed
communities of practice. Canadian Journal of Learning
and Technology, 29(3), 2003, 113-139.
[20] B.K.D. Motidyang, A bayesian belief network
computational model of social capital in virtual
communities (Doctoral thesis, University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 2007).
[21] E. Wenger, Communities of practice: Learning
meaning and identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998).
[22] R.A. Schwier, R.A., & B.K. Daniel, B.K., Did we
become a community? Multiple methods for identifying
community and its constituent elements in formal online
learning environments. In N. Lambropoulos, & P.
Zaphiris (Eds.), User- evaluation and online communities
(Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 2007, pp, 29-53).

326