2.4 Rules, Roles, and Responsibilities

2.4 Rules, Roles, and Responsibilities

Rules

“A clear set of rules makes the interactions easier and the overall organization more stable.”” - Community Canvas Framework

Although, in general, we may assume that the community is a self-administering body, it is not good to test that assertion by not preparing for the worst. As the Community Canvas Framework points out, thriving communities make rules, responsibilities, and agreements explicit - this way, members are not left confused about what is asked of them. It also has the effect of leading members to take the community and their fellow members who agreed to the rules more seriously. Because rules follow from the community's success definition, we should first ask what our success definition is and what conditions are necessary to meet that goal. Following the section on success definitions, it is recommended here that the HGSE community consider success to be met when members receive the support they need to take ownership of their engagement with the community in a connected and meaningful way.

Responsibilities

When we think of responsibilities and commitments, we might ask what is required of members so that the community can succeed. Although it is important to set such expectations, it must be balanced with a precise, thorough understanding of how the community succeeds. There is a tension between requiring participation in the community and motivating it in other ways. Peter Block argues that we cannot hold community members accountable; individuals must want to be accountable. We must also allow them the freedom to take ownership of how this accountability to the community looks. A teacher may be attempting to approximate their community vision - maybe, a place where many people share a dialogue - more closely by requiring participation in a discussion board. However, suppose the required activities (such as discussion boards) are not designed to have the intended effect on the community of creating a rich and meaningful dialogue. In that case, the received message will not be about that effect. Instead, it will merely be demonstrated that the teacher holds power over the student to participate. The activity must not be gratifying to participate in since participation must be required.

This finding is an important realization to share with the community because it connects the requirements and commitments of members back to shared values. It should be made clear that students are encouraged to engage with the community, not merely as a course requirement, but also because it actively enriches their learning experience and that of others. If the minimal engagement or duties are not connected directly to values such as learning, inquiry, or supporting classmates - but rather to random metrics such as the number of Yellowdig points received - the likelihood is more significant that they will seem arcane or frustrating to fulfill. The "buffet option" is an excellent choice for HPL moving forward because it helps address the tension between requiring community participation and making sure that participation is meaningful. It provides the opportunity to demonstrate engagement with the community in various ways that may be more meaningful to an individual.

One post is a good starting place for minimal engagement while sending the message that students are ultimately responsible for their own learning. All students will have weeks of varying difficulty and will participate at different levels of engagement. On average, however, we see those community members who are more proactive and attempt to engage in as much as possible leave the community feeling better connected. Faculty and TFs might also take care to model more dynamic behavior and patterns of inquiry in the community.

Conflicts

"Many communities tend to be conflict-shy, as they hope to optimize overall trust and social cohesion. Even more so it’s important to define in advance if the rules get enforced and if yes, by what entity."

• Community Canvas Framework

It is essential to define rules for conflict ahead of time explicitly. These may be interrelated with the group's rules for etiquette - how members expect to be treated by and commit to treating other members. This etiquette in the case of HPL relates directly back to HPL's core goals of promoting equity and diversity and fostering an exceptional community of practice. It is good to know what expectations are for member treatment of one another if only help members feel that there are structures to facilitate member contact. Rules and regulations are also make up a facet of the community that benefits from member input. By lending their voice and experience to the conversation on rules and etiquette, members experience a sense of co-ownership in the standards of proper behavior communication. As CCF writes, "Ideally, the expected member behavior isn't just a written rule, but built into rituals and experiences." An example might be a particular protocol for communicating with members on a discussion board - for instance, committing to always offer a compliment or appreciation to someone before sharing constructive feedback on their work.

The Cornell Center for Teaching Excellence shares protocols for creating a sense of shared ownership in group rules:

• All together or in groups, have students suggest ground rules for the course community and how they will hold members accountable. Everyone votes and signs off on it.

• Small groups can also develop their own agreements, including plans for conflict resolution.

These protocols would seem to benefit from being introduced into a small group instead of the entire course. Maybe TFs could encourage each small group to create a set of ground rules for discussion all its own. If it is too difficult for members to be involved in creating the rules (as we may find in HPL), it is at least a positive step if members explicitly agree to or acknowledge the rules. CCF suggest that this acknowledgment can manifest as a ritual for entering the community, "such as the signing of a 'social contract'". Major provides a few general guidelines instructors can start with, including the following. Notice how each rule carries explanations that relate back to the goals of the course and member experiences in it.

• Participate "Everyone is responsible for the course, and your participation is key to its success."

• Follow the golden rule "Treat others as you would like to be treated. This rule ensures that we are respectful of each other."

• Don’t flame/engage in personal attacks '“Flaming” means to insult someone over the computer. In this course, no one should engage in personal attacks. All communication should be respectful and free of ridicule, condescending comments, or other disrespectful communication."

• Don’t type in ALL CAPS "Typing in all capital letters is the equivalent of yelling online."

• Respect other members’ privacy "Given the content of the course, some class members may share things, such as events from their lives, that may be germane to the class, but these should be considered private communications. Please note, however, that “private” does not mean confidential, as administrators have the right to review course documents."

• Keep it PG-13. "This is a college-level course, and we are all adults. It can come back to haunt you, however, if you write something that’s not appropriate. For this reason, keep communications at a level that would be appropriate for a younger audience. Such rules can set the tone for the entire term." (Major, 2015)

One other important consideration for rules is the rules which regulate discussions on Slack. These rules could be introduced to members with some general onboarding message that members receive when they join Slack, asking them to share a bit of themselves (more on that in the following section on Channels and Platforms). Additionally, we should ask if these kinds of rules would only apply to general channels on Slack and what kind of rules should apply to student-created channels and groups on the platform. Should each small group be able to create its own rules? Should these students expect their posts to be moderated by faculty? It may disincentivize authentic and spontaneous participation if students feel that community members are reading their posts in a more official capacity. Maybe there is a need for a rule that faculty members cannot join member-created channels unless invited to do so (general channels and affinity channels created by staff and faculty would still be on-limits).

Roles

I have now shown two models which claim to illustrate the passage of a member through the community. Both describe a process through membership roles - as Lave and Wenger describe it, "legitimate peripheral participation", the member process from the periphery into full participation. This involves a change of roles of sorts. As students improve academically, they become more comfortable and more involved with the class and their classmates. They assume leadership roles and act as mentors to others students. Ideally, as the course continues, increasing numbers of students take advantage of student collaboration outside of class. With this is seen an increase in shared accountability, which Peter Block says knits the social fabric together. However, this cannot happen without the member's participation and movement toward the center. Critically, it can also not happen without the member taking on more responsibility, more accountability.

Students

The primary roles for students in this course are as community members, members receiving mentorship ("mentees"), and members offering mentorship ("mentors"). As we touched upon earlier, individual engagement requirements for students should be connecting back to shared values and improving their own experience in the course. However, HPL's core value of Professional Identity also indicates that members are in the process of becoming responsible for others' learning. In an ideal membership, individuals act as mentees by trusting the community as a place to learn, grow, and change. Nevertheless, members can also act as mentors by reflecting and reporting back to the group about their learning process and enabling others to do the same. These relationships and commitments make up the core of our community of practice, and we should take care to communicate them to members explicitly.

Teaching Fellows

TFs can interface directly with a group of students, as a small community, and as individuals. Although sometimes TF cohorts seem to be a good "fit" or beget several close relationships, in 2020, not all students connected deeply with their TF cohort. This variability may be because TF meetings were not required, and groups were not optimized for time availability. It is also difficult to account for the variability between people and how optimal community involvement looks. In supporting our success definition, the TF's role should be to ensure that each student finds the support they need to take ownership of their learning and community engagement. TFs should certainly provide introductory structures for the community and engage their group as best as possible. However, instead of feeling responsible for community formation, they should also ensure individuals have ample other ways to meet these community needs. This need is particularly relevant for people who do not feel their requisite community engagement is coming primarily from the TF group

TFs also have the freedom to engage in the broader community, both to create value and model proper engagement and inquiry.

Instructor Presence

Instructors are needed to engage and cultivate connections in a community. They use various types of tools to do so, but it is their visible presence as a teacher - and, by way of example, as a learner - that brings value to the community. However, scale is a challenge when contributing to the community. Therefore, it may be advantageous to embed instructor posts displaying active learning - behaving like a good learner, relearning, questioning, etc. - in prominent, visible places throughout the course. By demonstrating that "they are engaged in a community of practice in their profession and that they are contributing members, not just passive recipients of content", instructors model the proper behavior of a member of a community of practice. (Gauthier, 2016) By actively modeling what shared ownership of the community looks like, instructors can invite members into a more dynamic dialogue.

Citations:

Community Canvas, The. (2020). The Community Canvas Framework. Retrieved from https://community-canvas.org/

Cornell Center for Teaching Innovation. Building Community and Belonging. (n.d.) Retrieved May 06, 2021, from https://canvas.cornell.edu/courses/1848/pages/building-community-and-belonging

Gauthier, L. (2016). Redesigning for student success: Cultivating communities of practice in a higher education classroom. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(2), 1-13. doi:10.14434/josotl.v16i2.19196

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Major, C. H. (2015). Teaching Online: A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press., doi:10.1353/book.38784.