3        (In)Forming Virtual Learning Communities through Group Portraits

Community and collaboration require interaction. Interactivity is a central feature of an active community, whether off or online. Community formation requires a desire to exchange information and work together for common goals. A community must be cognizant of a shared purpose to continue its identity as a community. Ethnographers of virtual communities, Vanessa Dirksen and Bas Smit (2002), define virtual communities “in terms of their inherent social activity, the interaction between groups of people and information and communication technology (ICT), and the meanings attached to it by its members” (p. 67).

Many educators recognize the value of forming a sense of community among their students; whether at a school, in a program, or in a course for profound learning that has lasting impact on individuals (Reisman, 2003; Werry & Mowbray, 2004). According to Sorel Reisman (2000), a professor of information systems, who since 1964, has been involved in electronic computing communities, “the notion of electronic communities can be best realized from within a particular application environment in which ‘community members’ share common values, objectives, and goals” (p. xii). Students enrolled in an online course do not necessarily share the instructors’ objectives. Furthermore, with differences in geographical location, time zones, academic discipline, age, and cultures represented in some online courses; students who take a course are not aware of a shared purpose with others in the course. In this paper, I explore the forming of virtual learning communities through the creation of group portraits, which requires sharing information and working together. If community “entails most of all that its members have something in common with each other and hold a specific ‘sense of belonging’” (Dirksen & Smith, 2002 p. 68), then an initial class assignment should help the participants find commonality. This is one goal of the group portrait assignment.

A task or assignment that facilitates an on-going community requires reflection concerning one’s role in that community and the process of community forming, as well as a commitment to generating and meeting group goals. Roles that are involved in accomplishing a task include an initiator, opinion and information seekers, opinion and information givers, harmonizer, summarizer, synthesizer, and decision-makers. When there are few people in a group, one has to take on more roles, and alone one has to take on all the roles to accomplish something. Awareness of the role(s) one has assumed in a group task and what is missing can help avoid discord and stagnation within a group.

Toward the beginning of online art education courses, I ask smaller groups of about five members within the larger class to strategize and reflect on their involvement in finding common ground to generate a group portrait. The following are my insights into the patterns that emerged from this process among many groups. I present threads and unique departures in the strategies five different groups used to come together to create a group portrait. Additionally, I summarize a range of responses to the group portraits by those outside the group, which reflect views of community and community-building.

The process is as important as the product in the group portrait assignment. The strategies of how strangers come together to find common ground, and to articulate in text or a visual, are something from which we all can benefit. I looked for patterns and themes in student reflections concerning the process of developing a group portrait in order to highlight insights into strategies that work, and challenges and obstacles toward building a virtual learning community. Students sent their comments about the process to me privately or posted their reflections under the portrait in the discussion board. I analyzed the process and products from an arts and visual literacy course that I have taught each summer online since 1999 to understand how a group of strangers inform the forming of a virtual learning community.

During the first week of the four-week online course, I ask students to create and post a visual symbol that communicates something about them. They are then asked to look at all the personal symbols that students had created and sort them into categories that made sense to them. Whatever strategy they chose to sort the symbols, the naming of the categories revealed individual and shared beliefs. Reflections on the categorization system employed were focused on responding to the question: “When you did this task, did you bring a dominating MINDSET to the task?”.

The group portrait assignment, developed in team teaching with art education colleague Jane Maitland-Gholson, builds on the self-symbol assignment and is presented in the online course as follows:

In GROUP PAGES “talk” to your group via email, file exchange, group virtual classroom (virtual classroom is real-time so if you chose to use this feature arrange a time to meet virtually), and/or the GROUP Discussion Board. Introduce yourself to your group – “get acquainted.” Get acquainted by looking at each other’s home page and discuss each other’s contents in the GROUP PAGES “group discussion board” or use the real-time “group virtual classroom” chat feature. Read how they categorized the work of others. Consider the mindset they have identified for themselves. Think about what they have revealed about themselves. Identify characteristics that you share as a group and how, when you put yourselves together, you form a unit that is unique. THAT is the “raw material” for the portrait you create.

Work with your group in GROUP PAGES to come to a consensus about what you share and prepare together to post this SHARED vision or statement (e.g., it could be explanatory, descriptive, persuasive, or creative text; poetry; visual or like a comic book or storyboard; a carefully crafted dialogue vignette; visual statement; visual concept map; animation; an audio, . . .) as a “group portrait.”

>>After working with your group in GROUP PAGES and coming to a consensus, one member of the group will post the final portrait with ADD NEW THREAD (label in subject line with your group number – and add a group name besides the number) to the COMMUNICATION Discussion Board FORUM “Final Group Portrait.”

>>>Individually REPLY under YOUR group’s portrait in the COMMUNICATION Discussion Board FORUM “Final Group Portrait” with reflections on process and meaning of the group portrait to you, i.e., discuss how the portrait represents the group. Comment on the OTHER group portraits with a REPLY to their portrait posted.

Remember that in reflecting on the process of developing the group portrait most of your process will be invisible to me since I wanted you to have the option to dialogue privately amongst your group in group emails. Therefore, add reflections after the final portrait is posted in your “group portrait” thread with the reply button. If you wish your reflections to be private email them to me directly. I find the process as important as the product and recognize that the strategies of how strangers come together to find common ground, and to articulate in text or a visual, is something all of us need to know how to do no matter what our career path. If you were to categorize the symbols now after learning more about those in your group would there be changes? How have you moved from surface reading to deeper reading of the visual symbols? Visual literacy involves participation in image creation, including individual and shared meaning construction.

Many reflected that they would categorize the symbols differently after creating the group portraits. One reason given frequently was that they had not thought about all the ways a specific image could be seen or interpreted until they discussed the symbols’ meanings with others. What some thought was obvious to everyone, or the literal, most straightforward way of seeing the image, many discovered was actually an interpretation unique to them. Additionally, some people shared the same category name, but for very different reasons. This further exploded the idea that there is one obvious way of seeing something. In forming a community of diverse people, it is important that individuals understand and avoid surface viewing, which is the adherence to one interpretation and that there is a true or obvious or objective way to see something. Deep viewing requires generating multiple interpretations, sharing, and discussing these interpretations with others in a continual inquiry into the meanings embedded in visual culture. Even in a text-based virtual community there are references that conjure up images. Visual culture “transcends the limitations of the senses, to include visions of things that may not be possible in the real world. Mental images are the substance of cognition” (Smith-Shank, 2004 p. 10).

Several participants indicated that insights into the intentions of the person (maker/artist) who selected the image as a self-symbol altered their categories. For example, one student wrote: “If I were to categorize the symbols in my group after knowing more about them it is very possible that my categories would change. This is because my feelings, attitudes, and/or preconceived notions about what the symbol represented would change”. This insight demonstrates significant awareness concerning how we create meaning. Our gender, culture, knowledge, and formal educational methods that we have experienced influence our perception of visual information and how we will interpret imagery. Understanding one’s own mindset opens possibilities for trying other ways to organize and interpret visual information and to understand the different approaches taken by others. Understanding ideological differences will improve our ability to work with others. Trying out other “mindsets” will provide a broader base from which to solve problems. The virtual learning communities that I am interested in developing are of diverse people working together to understand and solve complex social issues, using the power of images and visualizations as visions of social justice and environmental responsibility.

3.1     Strategies and Obstacles for Developing Virtual Learning Communities

The commitment of time is the greatest obstacle to forming a virtual learning community, while also the most rewarding way to learn about others. Investment in such an enterprise requires giving one’s time.

I had not requested that the students use the virtual chat feature to develop their group portrait, since it requires participants of different time zones to find a common meeting time. However, several students desired to have a more immediate exchange, to stimulate an exchange, and organized within their groups a virtual chat, and others agreed to meet online at the same hour.

I did not prescribe or suggest a method to develop the group portraits. My goal was for each group to develop their own strategy. The group of five people usually began with each writing something about self, often explaining the meaning of their self-symbol. They initially also discussed the categorization system that they used to group all of the students’ self-symbols. They also reflected on how they organized information, such as dualistically, linearly, on a continuum, or holistically. An assigned text about mindsets provided a shared vocabulary to consider their organizational system. Typically, there was a lacuna in the dialogue while each looked for an image to suggest as a group portrait until they came back to the group’s message board to suggest an image or idea. Group members first interpreted the image and then decided if the impression the image gave was a shared commonality among the group members. Some members contributed importantly by providing ideas or images as choices, and other members by bringing greater meaning to the choices. Group e-mails to group discussion board, to virtual chats, to full class discussion board posts were the communication tools used –usually in this sequence.

Their camaraderie began to appear in their encouragement of each other. This suggested a view of learning that all could excel and that learning is not a competition, but something that is achieved with support from peers in the class. Some pointed out it was “more fun” and “easier” with all involved. I observed and students described to me specific processes as they emerged in the most recent arts and visual literacy course, Summer 2004. Twenty-six students explored how trust, support, and motivation to interact and generate content or share information – aspects of community – resulted from the task assigned, the technology, and the students’ initiatives. According to Ridings and Gefen (2002), who conducted a comparative quantitative study of 40 online communities, “communities will not achieve their goal, information exchange, without trust” (p. 123). Group participants who meet for a short time in a course are not likely to achieve a sense of community, of belonging, without finding common ground. To find common ground, participants must perceive a level of trust in order to take the social risk of exposing one’s preferences, opinions, and ideas.

3.2            Group Portraits: Finding Common Ground

I begin an analysis of the process of finding common ground by strangers randomly grouped together with an overview of the names the groups gave themselves as well as a brief literal description of their image as a reflection of what they learned about each other that they felt was the most prominent common ground. The B’s portrait is a waterfall. Cultivation of Notions’ portrait is of a watering can pouring water drops on light bulbs growing like sunflowers. Cycle This!’s portrait is a poem arched over a circle of combined self-symbols. Independent Thinkers’ portrait is of hand-drawn puzzle pieces that contain different mindset symbols that fit together, with a centerpiece called “group” with a spiral mindset symbol. Tree Huggin’ Calvin’s portrait is of exposed roots of a huge tree.

Most students in the class interpreted the group portraits in more metaphoric ways, and referred to universal human themes, rather than focusing on the categories given to the individual self-symbols. One student reflects on what she had learned from the group portrait process in this way:

In analyzing a person more closely I may be able to come to a different conclusion based on analysis and my changing perception of that person. I have moved from surface into deeper reading of the symbols by considering dual meanings that can exist in one image and also seeing that relationships and observations of similarities can be made between images that I may have thought previously unalike or without relationship to one another. Also, in creating a larger image made up of smaller categories I can link images in not just a criteria of similarity, but also in addressing opposing themes that exist. The most important part of this exercise was creating a shared vision through individual thought.

The B group selected a photograph of a waterfall with text along the edges and over the top of the image that conveyed the title, photographer’s name, and copyright owner. The consensual shared meaning given to the work by group one is that it conveyed “falling into place”. According to one female member of the group, “[w]e weren’t incredibly picky, and seemed to have the same style in organizing our discussion and finding something to agree on”. A male group member agreed with her that the process was easy. He reflected:

Since we all had similar categories it was easy to decide on a symbol that fit all of our ideas. We were all really straightforward and basic, so it was amazing how it worked out so well. I think the waterfall not only represents all of our ideas flowing together, but also coming down with tremendous force to create something deeper at the end.

Others, outside the group, noted that the B’s portrait “forms one big picture”. Several emphasized that the image also signifies “falling into place”. Interpretations included “moving parts”, “you each take your own path but form together in this one waterfall”, and the “waterfall is falling into an uninterrupted world with new ideas, personalities and cultures”. Several outside the group complemented the choice to represent a group. One metaphorically read the waterfall photograph as “at the beginning or the top of the waterfall you were all very different, but over time and mixing you became more meshed and realized that you had various things in common”. Another adds:

One of the ways that I first interpreted it was that your ideas crashed and collided a lot, much like the water does when falling into a pool. And, then I saw the idea that it could also represent very strong ideas coming together in a pool. It is certainly a beautiful picture, which represents how beautiful group work can be when everything comes together.

Another outsider to the group used the words “flow, fall, and fluid” to describe the image and that it “represents a smooth transition from independent work to a group setting”. Similarly, another interpreted the waterfall photograph as “soothing and comforting with this great rush of energy”. The interpretations of B’s group portrait suggested their belief that common ground could be found among diverse people. Such a realization opens communication concerning differences in such a way that community does not become dysfunctional nor members silenced.

The Cultivation of Notions group selected for their group portrait a screen print image with layers of blue, green, and yellow flat shapes in which a small hand pours from a huge watering can. Water drips on large light bulb plants. The scene is contained in a light bright blue oval. A male group member posted the group portrait created by a female in the group. The other three members agreed with a consensual interpretation that “this symbol shows the diversity of our group, but the common thread amongst us are new ideas”. Others added that it represents different personalities and another believed that it represented group effort. A third interprets the portrait to mean “interweavings of ideas and also the conflict; roots like ideas in a group don’t always grow in perfect harmony and will often conflict”. Like the B’s group portrait, this one was interpreted as representative of a process of forming a virtual learning community. For example, a male student in the Notions group states:

Even more than I liked our group’s representation, I liked how it developed as an idea itself. Through positive reinforcement, members of our group were able to nurture the ideas of each other [...] With this assignment, we were able to develop and grow a “seed” of an idea together [...] To me, the water represents the encouragement and stimulation that working with others can bring to personal intellectual growth.

Others, outside the group, noted that the graphic represented “a symbol of knowledge and how it grows”, and “leads to imagination”, and “a growing of ideas and visions. This class maybe is like the water and the students are the growing plants with bright ideas”. Others commented that “it incorporates everyone”, suggests “new and fresh ideas,” shows “literally how ideas can be cultivated”, and “given the right care, can produce tangible results”. These comments are from students who did not have access to the Notions’ group discussions, yet their view of a process of learning together that encourages difference and individuality is conveyed in statements such as “watering various thought processes or differences that you found among your group” and “a small community that acknowledged one’s presence”, “the cultivation of individual ideas”, “diverse people”, “ideas breaking outside whatever boundaries exist”, “an encouraging environment within the group”, “nurturing different ideas, perhaps all stemming from the same original topic, but going in different directions”, and “commonality”. One student suggested that the graphic would “make a great ad for some biomass company”.

The Cycle This! group created for their group portrait a poem whose text arched over a circle filled with a smooth blend of their individual symbols. The poem is:

Down the spiral of the thoughts we go

Where we will stop only time will tell

my time cometh any day now

then time for rebirth slowly life goes on

as we step into the light waiting for the new dawn

finally we see our common ground

A female group member describes: “Our group was very similar in our way of thinking, as we also realized that we had a lot of non apparent similarities”. A male student adds, “We are all creative and everyone had something important to bring to the table, even though we all have personal images that differed somewhat. This final group image also showed the compatibility of all of our pieces”. A third female member affirms that the portrait

symbolizes our circular view of life and that everything that ends must begin again. Our individual images were not so much reflections of aspects of our personalities, but were testimonies to our similar views of life. This view of our images is somewhat deeper from my original reading, and more meaningful than the generic “mind, body, spirit” categories I had originally placed them in.

For the Cycle This! Group, according to a male participant, the final product evolved “very quickly – in the discussion the idea of cycles and circles came about. We chose them to be our main theme since we all felt we could identify with such an idea”. Two participants posited that all members of the group wrote the poem. One overview of the process shared with me was that:

The process for this project went fairly smoothly. First, I emailed everyone searching for a time to meet at a virtual chat. I felt that this would be the quickest and easiest way to exchange ideas with each other. Then, after everyone wrote back saying they could come, K posted her idea on our group page: that each symbol has something to do with the continuity of life. Everyone in the group liked that idea, so we came to the chat with similar ideas in mind. During the chat, R showed us a picture he thought would aptly express our circular way of thinking, and everyone immediately agreed to use the image. Then we thought of using a poem to explain what the image meant to all of us. One person agreed to start the poem, with others continuing it, one line at a time. This process went slowly at first. No one could think of anything to include. Eventually, however, the ideas started flowing and before we knew it, we had a poem that beautifully captured our sentiments about the picture and our life views.

Another reflects on her learning by stating:

The project has deepened my understanding of how we categorize images. I have also gained new insights on how to work with other strangers to conceive something that represents all of us; for example, my view that we are all connected was reinforced. It didn’t take too long in the chatroom to realize that we had many things in common.

Over half of the rest of the class, outside the group, expressed that they were impressed with the creativity in creating the image and from looking at the image they surmised that the group worked cohesively. I believe that the process of creating the group portraits provided practice to self-organize virtual communities, enabled strangers in a short time to identify shared interests, and generated participant content. According to Dirksen and Smit (2002), “the real value of the virtual community is said to lie in the spontaneous gathering of people with shared interests, that is, the self-organizing principle” (p. 69). The group portrait activity prepared these students to initiate communities of learning within the course and beyond.

The Independent Thinkers created a green-outlined puzzle in which each of the five members was represented as a puzzle piece containing textual descriptors and a mindset symbol. The middle puzzle piece, outlined in red, was labeled GROUP and included a spiral mindset symbol. As in other groups, a male in the group concluded that the group portrait shows that people’s differences can be joined into one community while still fostering difference. A female student adds that the graphic “shows how each person in the group is their own person yet when put in a group you all form to create a bigger picture”. Students, both inside and outside each group, interpreted the portraits from all five groups. They found similarities in the group portrait process and meaning, and noted how the portraits expressed the process of forming a community of learners. For example one stated

To me the puzzle is a reflection of how things come together. Everything comes together one piece at a time, and so did our group. It started with one person contacting another, etc. [...] By working with the group, I now can see how our mindsets can help people understand our personality. For example S had a continuum mindset, and working with her I could tell that as a person she likes to have everything flowing together. She was the one who kind of brought our group together and got us going.

Each group had one or more initiators asking for ideas, others suggested ideas or provided analysis. All expected to give their opinions and consensual agreement was the decision-making style adopted by all groups. Another in the Independent Thinkers group described how the image conveyed the process in this way:

It is a symbol of how a number of very independent and individual people form a group. It is representative of how all of our different mindsets come together to make a collective one. All of us also decided that the categorization process that we undertook as individuals was a lot like piecing a puzzle together. It also represents that we all have an equal share in the group and that one piece is no more important than another. Another element that it reflects is that none of us is more correct than the others in our categorizations, since a puzzle piece often fits with many others. In conclusion, I thought this symbol was an extremely appropriate one because it represents us as individuals and as a complete picture.

Another member described the process similarly: “As a group we decided on a puzzle because it is representative of the way in which very independent thinkers can come together to form a group and a complete picture”. Their group portrait as a puzzle “represented both the opposing and similar facets of each individual’s symbol”. While some groups found the process easy and fun, other(s) groups did not. The process required someone to assume the role of initiator. The following describes the difficulties experienced by the Independent group, which lacked an initiator:

This project was definitely difficult to complete. The most difficult part was finding a means to communicate. With all of us in different locations the communication process was pretty difficult. Also, the task becomes difficult when you never get the opportunity to discuss with your group members in person; it is harder to tell what kind of people your group members really are. After struggling with figuring out the essence of who my group members are the task didn't get much easier; unfortunately, I think we waited a little long to begin. However, the idea of a puzzle seemed to fit us really well.

Another provides further insight into the group’s process and what the portrait meant to her:

My group’s final portrait was astonishingly well done. The puzzle itself has deep meaning describing all of our mindsets and various unique characteristics that each set us apart [...] For me personally this puzzle shows that you may not share all characteristics with each individual that you come across, but there are so many different aspects that make up a person and their thinking, that you are almost guaranteed to find a similarity among the individual. This project was extremely different from any project I have done. It demanded extreme concentration and communication with various individuals who you knew nothing about [...] I have to say that organizing everyone together was somewhat challenging, but it was definitely an eye-opener to the real world [...] sharing our views, allowed us to learn why people make certain decisions and what certain aspects trigger them to do so. After viewing my group’s home pages throughout this period it seem to add something more to the meaning of their symbol.

The Tree Huggin' Calvins group selected a photograph of large entangled tree roots exposed above the ground. The consensual shared meaning given to the work by the group is that the “roots interweaving with each other [...] is much like each of our group members coming together to make a single product”. Additionally, the photograph of entangled tree roots symbolized to several “stability and strength”. The group discussed characteristics of tree roots and found metaphoric meaning in

how some bigger ones choke the others, showing a struggle or conflict. But the roots all belong to the same tree so it is some sort of inner struggle within the whole. Trees to me represent a consistent cycle. And the many layers inside the tree tell the story that cannot be revealed unless the tree is cut or falls.

One member initiated the discussion by suggesting that the other participants select arboreal images that she would post. The group members each gave their opinion and came to a consensus that the “tree of mystery” roots was the most suited to representing their group. One responded to the initiator’s suggestion that the tree would best represent protection of the environment if the name of the group was Tree Huggin Calvins in reference to a comic that they had circulated. The initiator implored members of the group to respond more often. She wanted more interaction. A male responded that his four emails to the group were sufficient interactivity. Expectations of the level of responsiveness differed among this group, which caused discord often followed by compliments to each other’s contributions. The student that complained about lack of interaction stimulated community since interaction increased due to her complaint. Each responded that they were all involved. One of the member’s interpretation of the group portrait conveyed the sequence of the process in her statement that it “symbolizes coming together, working together, getting tangled, frustration, nature, growth, strength”. A male group member agreed and suggested it is time to post the portrait to the full class discussion board, asking who will do this. Another offered to post it and reminded all to respond to the other group’s portraits in the full class discussion board. Others encouraged and complimented each other. The controversy early in the process provoked each member to help the other group members.

Others, outside the group, commented that the photograph of “the roots weaving together shows how each person is separate but also interconnected to other people in various ways”. Three others agreed with this interpretation. One had “never really thought of a tree’s roots reflecting on the differences of people”. Several emphasized the characteristics of strength and stability to decipher the meaning of the roots as a group portrait. However, an outsider to the group questioned whether the tree roots showed shared similarities. This stimulated a defense by several participants who posted comments regarding group commonalities apparent in the image.

Ridings and Gefen’s (2002) research on the development of trust in virtual communities found that it was most important to trust others’ abilities and benevolence/integrity, which occurs when there is a “perceived responsiveness, disposition to trust, and perceptions regarding the degree to which others confide personal information” (p. 115). Issues of different expectations of responsiveness impacted the level of trust in the Tree Huggin Calvins group. Personal information had been shared in explaining self-symbols, categorization systems, and mindsets. Some in the group perceived more willingness to share information and, therefore, more productivity in the group than others. With expectations and perceptions openly expressed, this group was able to work through their differences and build a supportive community of learners as they proceeded through the other group activities in the course, such as discussing controversial public art.

3.3     Characteristics of Virtual Learning Communities

Perception is never passive, nor neutral. Images do not “flood in, essentially without error”, as the empiricist philosophers of the 18^th and 19^th centuries believed (Gregory, 2001 p. 57). Perception is active interpretation, or meaning-making. Psychology scholar, Richard L. Gregory (2001), founder and editor of the journal Perception, argued “perception is not stimulus driven” (p. 51). In other words, what we see is not primarily based in sense stimulus, but more from past knowledge and situational contexts. A virtual learning community is informed from shared perceptions. Activities, such as the group portrait that draw out individuals’ beliefs and values in such a way that commonalities are sought, helps to form learning communities.

Contravening what is perceived as the obvious(,) helps to reveal stored knowledge (i.e. mindsets, categorization systems we use, art traditions that we prefer, life experiences, education, associations, etc.) that we utilize for “reading” the visual. Such interventions with conventions provoke alternatives to reach better (i.e. more flexible) interpretations. Intelligence is commonly equated with flexibility, activity, and purpose. These characteristics are also found in successful virtual learning communities.

Many students who have participated in the group portrait project marveled at how readily diverse participants found common ground and shared values. The portrait process, or some procedure that utilizes its community-building techniques, could function as a powerful negotiating strategy. Imagine corporate lawyers finding common perspectives for a group portrait with labor representatives. They would find common ground. “I never met a [hu]man I did not like”, claimed the American humorist Will Rogers. If seeming adversaries come together they will find commonalities. Creating a vision together could be a great ice-breaker for political parleys, whether internationally or intranationally. Imagine powerful political opinions(,) imaging images together, rather than pressured by ideology or Machiavellian interests into driving the wedges of discord further. Finding common ground creates community.

3.4     References

Dirksen, V. & Smit, B. (2002) Exploring the common ground of virtual communities. Working towards a workable definition. In: Kisielnicki, J. ed.: Modern organizations in virtual communities. London: IRM Press, pp. 67–75.

Gregory, R.L. (2001) Action potentials to potential actions. In: Parks, T.E. ed.: Looking at looking. An introduction to the intelligence of vision. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 51–71.

Reisman, S. ed. (2003) Electronic learning communities. Issues and best practices. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Ridings, C. & Gefen, D. (2002) The development of trust in virtual communities. In: Kisielnicki, J. ed.: Modern organizations in virtual communities. Hershey, PA: IRM Press, pp. 115–125.

Smith-Shank, D. ed. (2004) Semiotics and art education. Sights, signs, and significance. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Werry, C. & Mowbray, M. eds. (2004) Online communities. Commerce, community action, and the virtual university. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

© Keifer-Boyd, K. (2006). (In)Forming virtual learning communities through group portraits. In B. Hipfl & T. Hug (Eds.), Media communities (pp. 293-306). New York: Waxmann Münster.