Joyce's Blog

By Neptunerover [CC BY-SA 3.0  (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], from Wikimedia Commons

 

Authors: Anita Fahrenbruch, Constantinos Hatzigeorgiou (Dino) and Joyce Wimmer

We wanted to test the internet on its capability to produce usable learning content on a subject neither of us had any knowledge about. We ended up choosing basket weaving as a topic for our research and doing a Google search on ‘basket weaving’ produced over 25,300,000 hits in 0.55 seconds. We decided to narrow our search to ‘pine needle basket weaving’, which produced over 1,670,000 in 0.59 seconds. Still an abundance of resources to evaluate and compare, now we needed to use our own judgements and decide which of these resources would be useful to us and which we could discard or ignore (Anderson, 2008, p. 41). The search yielded many YouTube “how to” videos, websites which offered instructions, images of pine needle baskets on Pinterest, pine needle basket weaving courses and events as well as information on joining the National Basketry Organization. This corresponds to Weller (2011) as he mentions that content is free, abundant and varied (p. 228).

When we collaborated on our findings, there were a few lessons learned from this activity while reflecting on how we engaged in Weller’s theoretical approach of connectivism ourselves and how we could apply this approach in our teaching practice. While sifting through the abundance of content/resources to determine what is better or not and what is useful, we each became the ‘expert’, actively learning more about this new topic and “connecting specialized nodes of information resources” (Weller, 2011, p.230). By sifting through the vast resources afforded to us, we engaged in learning more and more about our topic (Anderson, 2008, p. 43). We found that abundance creates an issue of quality; therefore, as we selected content we made “connections between fields, ideas, and concepts” (p. 230) and we did so with the learning intent in mind. We needed to decide what would be useful for the learning process of students and what would provide options to learners. This challenged us to be critical of what we curated. From what we found on the web, we determined there was definitely enough information available to help us learn about our topic and possibly be successful in producing a pine needle basket ourselves or teach others how to make one.

Teaching “Basket Weaving 101”

If we were to become the instructors for a pine needle basket weaving course, we would  consider engaging in the following learning theories when designing the content:

(1) behaviourism – breaking down the task of how to make a pine needle basket into step by step instructions

(2) cognitivism – taking into consideration the multiple intelligences/learning styles of our students/participants, offering diverse learning materials such as written instructions and videos

(3) constructivism – “places the focus on the individual who constructs their own knowledge through activity” (p.229), allowing students to engage creatively in the production of their own unique basket design.

(4) connectivism – Weller (2011) “learning and knowledge rest in diversity of opinions, learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes of information resources” (p.230)  Giving students the opportunity to collaborate with each other in adding to the resources already made available.

(5) resource-based learning – “places resources in the foreground of learning, and the learner’s interaction and selection of these” (Weller, 2011, p.228). This connects back into connectivism and the compiling and sharing of selected resources. Students would compile their own resource lists in the form of a collaborate creation of a wiki. “Learning environments are created and used by learners to access, process, filter, recommend, and apply information” (Anderson, 2008, p. 43).

We agree with Weller (2011) that once we engaged in searching for learning materials, content was “abundant, varied and free” (p. 228) and learning was found in “non-human appliances” (p. 230). The learning that occurred, simply through engaging with the web and what it had to offer, was to experience Weller’s connectivism approach. As Anderson (2008) says “a goal of connectivist learning is to create new connections…to expand upon and build learning networks” (p. 43). We definitely connected over the art of basket weaving. Together we expanded our knowledge on a craft that had been unfamiliar to us and together we became ‘experts’. At least until something new about pine needle basket weaving becomes available on the web, something we have not discovered yet.

References

Anderson, T. (2016). Chapter 3: Theories for Learning with Emerging Technologies. In Veletsianos, G. (Ed). Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning: Foundations and Applications. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Weller, M. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance. Spanish Journal of Pedagogy, 249, 223–236.

 

 

Photo by Sweet Ice Cream Photography on Unsplash

The articles by Ertmer and Newby and Merrill were quite thought provoking. Ertmer & Newby (2013) describe the three different learning theories of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism in relation to the design of instructional situations to enable learning. Ertmer & Newby (2013) claim that “[l]earning theories provide instructional designers with verified instructional strategies and techniques for facilitating learning as well as a foundation for intelligent strategy selection” (p.43). Merrill (2002), on the other hand, looks at prescriptive design principles that are common to the various instructional design theories (p. 43). The five principles that Merrill (2002) discusses are the following: (1) problem-centred, (2) activation, (3) demonstration, (4) application and (5) integration. When looking at the different perspectives, I feel that I can align with Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” because this emulates what we presently do in our clinical setting. However, when actually deconstructing each of the phases in Merrill’s model, the learning theories that Ertmer and Newby discussed in their article is interwoven in them. The following will depict examples and explanations of how this is applied.

In the context of our clinical setting, the instructors discuss real-life examples of patient care and present case scenarios to the groups of students. The groups are then expected to work together to try and solve an issue while facing different obstacles that may arise in the care of their case patients. This is based on the knowledge that was learned in previous theoretical courses. This aligns with the following principles and learning theories:

• Merrill (2002) describes Principle 1 as problem-centred where “learning is promoted when learners are engaged in solving real-world problems [and solve a progression of problems]” (p. 45). This concept of the principle also relates to the constructivism learning theory where “[l]earners build personal interpretations of the world based on individual experiences and interactions…. Knowledge emerges in contexts within which it is relevant” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).
• Principle 2 – activation phase where “learning is promoted when learners are directed to recall, relate, describe, or apply knowledge from relevant past experience that can be used as a foundation for the new knowledge” (Merrill, 2002, p. 46). This correlates with the learning theory of cognitivism. “Cognitive theories stress the acquisition of knowledge and internal mental structures…[they] focus in the conceptualization of students’ learning processes and address the issues of how information is received, organized, stored and retrieved by the mind” (Bower & Hilgard, 1981 and Jonassen, 1991B, as cited by Ertmer & Newby, 2013)

The instructors demonstrate technical skills to their groups of students. The instructors first explain the purpose of the skills, demonstrate the specific skills and then ask the students to apply the skills to certain situations. While the students are performing the skills, the instructor will offer feedback to improve the skill or offer positive reinforcement if the learner is doing well. Once the instructor observes that the student is doing well, then another approach/method of the skill will be demonstrated to address any difficulties that may arise in a situation. Instructor demonstrations supports the following:

• Principle 3 – “learner guidance” concept of demonstration where “(a) learners are directed to relevant information, (b) multiple representations are used for the demonstrations, or (c) multiple demonstrations are explicitly compared” (p. 47).
• Principle 4 – application phase where “learning is promoted when learners are required to use their new knowledge or skill to solve problems” (p. 49).
• Behaviourism learning theory emphasizing on having “observable and measurable outcomes in learners”, “mastering early steps before progressing to more complex levels of performance” and “use of reinforcement to impact performance” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 49).
• Cognitivism emphasizes that the learner is actively involved in the learning process in an environment that allows and encourages students to make connections with acquired knowledge. (Ertmer & Newby, 2013

The case scenarios and demonstrations presented to the students during the clinical setting all lead up to the last Principle of Integration where “learning is promoted when learners are encouraged to integrate (transfer) the new knowledge or skill into their everyday life”.  The new knowledge and skills attained and the reflections of these experiences (experiential learning) can then be applied when the students treat real patients in the clinic and in the community. The learning theories which align to this phase are behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism.

As one moves along the behaviourist-cognitivist-constructivist continuum, the focus of instruction shifts from teaching to learning, from the passive transfer of facts and routines to the active application of ideas to problems (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 58)

As demonstrated above, Merrill’s “first principle of instruction” as well as the learning theories discussed by Ertmer and Newby are used in the instructional design of our clinical setting. Referring to Weller (2018), he mentioned that “education is a complex, highly interdependent system” (p. 48). Ertmer & Newby (2013) state in their discussions that the question instructional designers should ask is “Which theory is the most effective in fostering mastery of specific tasks by specific learners?” (p. 61). There are various types of learners with various learning needs who come with different prior knowledge and experiences who are taught by many educators with various teaching styles and expertise; therefore, there is not one best theory.

 

 

References:

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.

Weller, M. (2018). Twenty years of EdTech. EDUCAUSE Review, 53(4).

 

When researching the history of educational technology, there is an abundance of sources and perspectives on the topic. I have chosen to do the history of educational technology in the classroom and decided to narrow the topic to the 1900’s. I found that there was a lot of technology introduced at this time which is now very relevant in our classrooms today. Please enjoy!

Educational Technology in the Classroom – The 1900’s

 

References:

educatorstechnology. (2014). A Wonderful Visual Timeline of the History of Classroom Technology. Retrieved from https://www.educatorstechnology.com/2014/03/a-wonderful-visual-timeline-of-history.html

OurICT. (2017). The Ultimate History of Technology in Education. Retrieved from http://www.ourict.co.uk/technology-education-history/

Teach Thought Staff. (2017). [Graphic] The History of Technology in the Classroom. Retrieved from https://www.teachthought.com/technology/13-examples-of-the-evolution-of-classroom-technology/

Timeline of Educational Technology in Schools Infographic. (2014). Retrieved from https://elearninginfographics.com/timeline-of-educational-technology-in-schools-infographic/

Xtel. (n.d.) The Evolution of Classroom Technology. Retrieved from http://www.xtel.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Classroom-Technology-Timeline.pdf

 

 

In my previous blog about the history of educational technology, I commented how the definition of educational technology has evolved and still is. Different authors had emphasized the importance of technology, or the importance of the learning process while others considered both aspects. Reiser (2001) pointed out that “technological advances, new ideas and theories regarding the learning process, and new views of how to promote learning and performance in classrooms and in the workplace” has influenced the field and demonstrates the ever-changing environment.

After reading the articles by Weller (2018) and Reiser (2001), one can see how their viewpoints differ. Weller (2018) chose to examine and strictly focus on technologies when looking at the history of EdTech while Reiser (2001) looked at and discussed the two perspectives of design and technology.

Reiser (2001) gave a very comprehensive definition for instructional design and technology. His definition included the six categories of activities/phases which are analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation (ADDIE) and management (these phases are still being used by instructional designers and training developers), as well as looked at the importance of research and theory in the field (Reiser, 2001, p. 57). Additionally, Reiser (2001) not only looked at the incorporation of media but noticed that the learning process and the promotion of learning and performance is of importance. When exploring the topic of research and theory in educational technology, one will see there is a remarkable growth of research which looks at how technology influences students’ learning and interactions between themselves and other learners as well as with their educators and resources/instructional content as shown in the four editions of the Handbook of research on educational communications and technology by J. Michael Spector (2014). In his books, Spector (2014) “provides one small glimpse of the revolution that is unfolding”. For these reasons, I find that Reiser’s claims are still relevant in today’s world of innovation.

Although Weller (2018) showed dissatisfaction when looking at the history of educational technology and the overall incorporation of technology in education, he made a very good point when he stated that “education is a complex, highly interdependent system”; therefore, it would not be easy to use technology from a different industry and apply it to education. Core functions of education such as content, delivery and recognition need to be considered first before a technology is implemented (Weller, 2018, p. 48).

One lesson from the past applied to the present

When reviewing the readings from Reiser (2001), one of the developments which resonates with me is the instructional principles related to constructivism. This requires learners to collaborate and solve real-life, complex issues from different perspectives and take responsibility in their own learning and knowledge construction processes (Driscoll, 2000, as cited by Reiser, 2001). When considering this concept, I feel that this can be applied where students from different disciplines such as dentistry, medicine, nursing, pharmacy and speech language pathology can work on a case scenario together. Currently, we do this during face-to-face discussions when everyone is able to attend; however, if we were to incorporate this by using a platform like Collaborate Ultra, this would enable students from different professions and different locations to learn from each other, see the different perspectives in treatment recommendations and recognize the importance of their roles in patient care and how they can work together towards a common goal of helping the patient.

One lesson from the past, but having a concern

When considering the other developments that Reiser (2001) discussed, knowledge management is one that would be a challenge. “[K]nowledge management involves identifying, documenting, and disseminating explicit and tacit knowledge within an organization in order to improve the performance of that organization” (Rossett, 1999, as cited by Reiser, 2001, p. 64). Although, we have the technology to support this at work i.e. intranet, groupware, content management systems (CMS), etc. and can organize and disseminate the knowledge, having the time to use them efficiently and effectively is very difficult in our day-to-day hustle and bustle of work. As pointed out by Greg Hughes, a contributor on a panel discussion on EdTech, there is a “[l]ack of time for effective CPD [Continuing Professional Development] and training. Regular use is the best way forward, but any introduction of new technology needs careful planning and regular time for practice and training” (Vickers, 2017). Some educators find that to use this technology, they need the time for proper training; however, this can be difficult with a heavy workload of preparing and teaching courses for face-to-face or online delivery (using a learning management system, LMS) and meeting with students before or after classes. Unfortunately, there never seems to be enough hours in the day.

 

References:

Culatta, R. (2018). ADDIE Model. Retrieved from http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/addie/

Spector, J. (2014). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed. ed.). New York, N.Y.: Springer.

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-64.

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57-67.

Vickers, H. (2017). Edtech: keeping up with the pace of change. Retrieved from https://edtechnology.co.uk/Article/edtech-keeping-up-with-the-pace-of-change

Weller, M. (2018). Twenty years of EdTech. EDUCAUSE Review, 53(4).

There is an abundance of resources available on the topic of educational technology (edtech) also known as instructional technology. There are many definitions (some of them contradictory) of what educational technology is because this field has evolved throughout the years and still is. For example, one definition stated that instructional technology is “the media born of the communication revolution which can be used for instructional purposes alongside the teacher, textbook and blackboard” (Commission of Instructional Technology, 1970 as cited by Saettler, 1990, p. 6); however, the commission then later changed the definition to one which presented a different perspective on the effectiveness of instruction and based it on the process of design, implementation and  evaluation of the overall learning and teaching processes which looked at using a combination of the human resources as well as the non-human resources to achieve specific goals (Commission of Instructional Technology, 1970 as cited by Saettler, 1990, p. 6). Other definitions offered by other sources and as shown above are based on either putting significance on the device itself, the process of learning itself or both.

The history of educational technology can date back to as far as when cave paintings communicated stories and events to others to learn from. It has progressed exponentially since then due to the incorporation of media such as video and audio, the introduction of learning theories and technology such as computer devices, software and applications which has made learning more mobile, flexible and interactive.

Although educational technology has grown and evolved, is it an asset or a hinderance? Edtech has been viewed by many as a “potential salvation of educational systems… in great need of improvement” (Collins & Halverson, 2009; Stallard & Cocker, 2014 as cited by Reeves & Oh, 2017) while others feel that edtech compromises “the best practices of traditional educational approaches” (Cuban, 2013; Thomas and Brown 2011 as cited by Reeves & Oh, 2017). For educational technology to be successful, there should be no barriers to implementation i.e. lack in funding for required equipment and investment in proper leadership. It is recommended that there is faculty/staff training and assistance of technology use, equipment and service accessibility and the institutional expectations that edtech will be implemented effectively by developing objectives to address needs of the learner as well as the needs of the educator.

 

References:

Educational Technology. (n.d.). In Edutech wiki. Retrieved Sept. 7, 2018, from http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Educational_technology#Goals_of_Educational_Technology

Educational Technology. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved Sept. 7, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_technology

Kim, J. (2012). 3 Goals and 3 Challenges for our Educational Technology Leaders. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/3-goals-and-3-challenges-our-educational-technology-leaders

Murray, J. (n.d.). Technology in the Classroom: What are Good Tech Goals? Retrieved from http://www.teachhub.com/technology-classroom-what-are-good-tech-goals

Neal W. Topp , Robert Mortenson & Neal Grandgenett (1996) Six Objectives for Technology Infusion into Teacher Education: a model in action, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 5(1-2), 57-69, doi: 10.1080/0962029960050107

Reeves, T., & Oh, E. (2017). The goals and methods of educational technology research over a quarter century (1989-2014). Educational Technology Research and Development: A Bi-Monthly Publication of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology,65(2), 325-339. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9474-1

Saettler, P. (1990). The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qfwnDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=history+of+educational+technology+in+canada&ots=zugsI3lhrv&sig=pBBbpqpY7o9y12yX4d-lxh7rwUM#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20educational%20technology%20in%20canada&f=false

[SMARTEduEMEA]. (2011, Oct.3). The history of technology in education [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFwWWsz_X9s

 

Images:

DRAC Rhone Alps, Ministere de la Culture/AP Images. (n.d.). Cave painting. [Digital image]. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/journey-oldest-cave-paintings-world-180957685/

Irsara, F. (Photographer). (n.d.). Person using MacBook Pro. [Digital Image]. Retrieved from https://unsplash.com/photos/67l-QujB14w

What does Copyright mean?

According to Merriam-Webster (2018), copyright is “the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell or distribute the matter and form of something such as a literary, musical or artistic work”.

“Ideas are not protected by copyright – just the unique expression of an idea” (Wrobel, 2016, slide 4).

What is the purpose of a Copyright and who owns it?

A copyright gives the creator control of the use of their creations for a set period of time. If the creator is an employee of an organization, then the employer will own the copyright. However, there were three exceptions to this rule. An employee will own the copyright if it is negotiated between parties in a (1) union agreement, (2) contract or sponsorship agreement and (3) publication agreement (Wrobel, 2016, slide 7).

What are the alternatives to copying?

Wrobel (2016) describes on slide 18 of her presentation the alternatives to copying to prevent copyright infringement. She shares the following points:

• Send a link instead of a copy
• Use public domain resources
• Use open access and open education resources
• Paraphrase (and remember to use citations)
• Purchase a resource

What are the copyright statements that should be used?

The copyright statement examples that were given were the following:

• © creator’s first and last name and the year it was created as well as the statement “All rights reserved.” For example: ©John Smith, 2018. All rights reserved.
• Creative Commons License – the different types of licenses can be found on https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

What is Royal Roads University’s Fair Dealing Policy?

The Fair Dealing Policy was described on slide 15 of the presentation.

Figure 1: RRU Fair Dealing Policy (Wrobel, 2016)

Prior to Melanie Wrobel’s presentation, I really have not explored the use of copyright. Her presentation was very informative and helped me to understand the copyright process more.

 

References:

Copyright. (2018). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copyright

Wrobel, M. (2016, June 13). A Guide to Copyright [Video file]. Retrieved from: https://moodle.royalroads.ca/moodle/mod/page/view.php?id=245370

 

My cohort posed some really good questions for Dr. Veletsianos. Some of the takeaways that I will be reflecting on while I think about my thesis and future research projects are the following:

When thinking about a research question, don’t focus on the technology itself– look at issues that we have in education and through research, explore the solutions.

Tools and Resources that Dr. Veletsianos uses in research:

• Traditional tools when conducting interviews – audio recording device, computer or iPhone
• Surveys – survey creation tools i.e. Qualtrics 360 (to conduct complex branching), Google Forms. Depending on the complexity of the project, Dr. Veletsianos will determine which one to use.
• Larger projects (with multiple groups) – Dropbox or Google docs – to write or edit documents collaboratively
• To find articles and resources – Library, Google scholar
• To organize articles – Mendeley
• Qualitative analysis software– Deduce, Invivo – tagging with codes
• Descriptive stats and regressions – Excel
• One important integral resource – Colleagues –Very important to bounce ideas off each other, co-write and co- analyze data.

One must remember: Technological and human resources are not all applied to every research project.

When thinking about disseminating our research, we must keep in mind that “researchers should solve real world problems and have real world solutions” (Veletsianos, 2018). In order to reach our broader audiences, we must consider using blogs, social media, placing ads in local papers and speaking with journalists. We have to understand who our audience is and what their expectations are because we can impact communities that we are interested in reaching.

Dr. Veletsianos had some wise words for us which will definitely help us to grow and evolve as future researchers.

 

References:

Image: Research (clip art). (2017). Retrieved from http://www.clipartpanda.com/clipart_images/scientific-research-research-59353352

Veletsianos, G. (2018, August). George Veletsianos on Research [Mp4]. Victoria: Royal Roads University.

 

 

 

Coming up with a good research question can be a daunting task if you don’t know your focus. I had a colleague who was working on a thesis where her question was not specific enough. After she collected data, she realized that her project evolved into a topic that she did not want to address; therefore, she unfortunately had to start the whole process over. Byrne (2017) suggests that “researchers often develop a set of questions at the end of their literature review and add/amend/delete them as they do the actual research and engage with the field and their own research materials”.

“A research question should be: (1) clear and specific, (2) state the focus of investigation in the research, and (3) not be answerable with a yes/no response” (Royal Roads University Writing Centre, n.d., para.7).

When I did a Google search, I found a great mnemonic which describes the criteria of a good research question, FINER. Hulley, Cummings, Browner, Grady, Newman and Thomas (2007) describes FINER as the following:

Feasible – Adequate number of subjects, adequate technical expertise, affordable in time and money, and manageable in scope.

Interesting – Getting the answer intrigues the investigator and her friends.

Novel – Confirms, refutes or extends previous findings and provides new findings.

Ethical – Amenable to a study that institutional review board will approve.

Relevant – To scientific knowledge, to clinical and health policy, and to future research.

I hope to keep all this in mind when it is time to develop a strong thesis statement.

 

References

Byrne, D. (2017). Developing a Researchable Question. Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://methods.sagepub.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/project-planner/developing-a-researchable-question

Hulley, S.B., Cummings, S.R., Browner, W.S., Grady, D.G., & Newman, T.B. (2007). Designing Critical Research, 3, 20. Retrieved from http://www.med.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/courses/EPIB660/2010/EPIB%20660%20-%202010-%20session%202%20-%20pdf%201.pdf

Thesis statements/Research questions/Problem statements. (n.d.). In Royal Roads Library Writing Centre. Retrieved from http://library.royalroads.ca/writing-centre/writing/structure/thesis-statements

Please click on the image. Enjoy!

“A virtual community is defined as an aggregation of individuals or business partners who interact around a shared interest, where the interaction is at least partially supported and/or mediated by technology and guided by some protocols or norms” (Porter, 2004).

Where do I see myself going with my online blog? Do I see it evolving? When planning about how to create my digital presence and digital identity, I feel that the above definition helped guide me in the right direction. I feel that with my blog I would like to create a virtual community where I share my interest of education in dental hygiene and/or education and technology with fellow learners, colleagues, future students, researchers, etc. My thoughts are supported by Barab and Duffy (2000) who stated, “communities (1) have shared histories and cultures, (2) have shared goals and practices, (3) are part of something larger than the individuals participating in them, and (4) reproduce, with member roles in the community shifting, evolving, maturing, and changing”. The community would have mutual respect for each other and would feel safe enough to collaborate freely and authentically.

 

 

---

Barab, S.A. and Duffy, T.M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In Theoretical foundations of learning environments, edited by David H. Jonassen and Susan M. Land: pp. 25-55. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Porter, C.E. (2004). A Typology of Virtual Communities: a Multi-Disciplinary Foundation for Future Research, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1), JCMC1011, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00228.x