1. bookVolume 20 (2017): Issue 1 (June 2017)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Learners on the Periphery: Lurkers as Invisible Learners

Published Online: 23 Jan 2018
Page range: 192 - 212
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English

Lurkers, who are also known as silent learners, observers, browsers, read-only participants, vicarious learners, free-riders, witness learners, or legitimate peripheral participants (our preferred term), tend to be hard to track in a course because of their near invisibility. We decided to address this issue and to examine the perceptions that lurkers have of their behaviour by looking at one specific online learning course: CLMOOC. In order to do this, we used a mixed methods approach and collected our data via social network analysis, online questionnaires, and observations, including definitions from the lurkers of what they thought lurking was. We then analysed the data by using social network and content analyses and interpreted the research findings using the concept Community of Practice, with the Pareto Principle used to delimit types of learner. Our research findings revealed that lurking is a complex behaviour, or set of behaviours, and there isn’t one sole reason why lurkers act the ways that they do in their respective communities. We concluded that for a more participatory community the more active, experienced or visible community members could develop strategies to encourage lurkers to become more active and to make the journey from the periphery to the core of the community.

Keywords

1. Anderson, C. (2004, October 1). The Long Tail. Wired Magazine. Wired [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

2. Beaudoin, M. (2003) Learning or Lurking? Tracking the ‘Invisible’ Online Student. In U. Bernath & E. Rubin (Eds.), Reflections on Teaching and Learning in an Online Master Program - A Case Study (pp. 121-130). Retrieved from https://www.unioldenburg\de/fileadmin/user_upload/c3l/master/mde/download/asfvolume6_ebook.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

3. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson.Search in Google Scholar

4. Dennen, V. P. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1624-1633.10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.003Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

5. Dron, J. (2016). p-Learning’s unwelcome legacy. TD Tecnologie Didattiche, 24(2), 72. http://dx.doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/89110.17471/2499-4324/891Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

6. Egan, C., Jefferies, A., & Johal, J. (2006). Providing fine-grained feedback within an on-line learning system - identifying the workers from the Lurkers and the Shirkers. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 4(1), 15-24.Search in Google Scholar

7. Farzan, R., DiMicco, J. M., & Brownholtz, B. (2010) Mobilizing Lurkers with a Targeted Task. Proceedings of the 4th International lAAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM ‘10).Search in Google Scholar

8. Fritsch, H. (1997). Host contacted, waiting for reply. Final report and documentation of the virtual seminar for professional development in distance education. Oldenburg: Bibliotecks und Informationssystems der Universitat Oldenburg (Virtual seminar held January -March).Search in Google Scholar

9. Gourlay, L. (2015). ‘Student engagement’ and the tyranny of participation. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(4), 402-411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.102078410.1080/13562517.2015.1020784Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

10. Hagel, J., & Arthur, A. (1997). Net gain: Expanding markets through virtual communities. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Search in Google Scholar

11. Hill, P. (2013, March 10). Emerging Student Patterns in MOOCs: A (Revised) Graphical View. E-Literate [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://mfeldstein.com/emerging-studentpatterns- in-moocs-a-revised-graphical-view/Search in Google Scholar

12. Hrastinski, S. (2008). What is online learner participation? A literature review. Computrs & Education, 51(4), 1755-1765.Search in Google Scholar

13. Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78-82.Search in Google Scholar

14. Juran, J. M. (1975). The non-Pareto principle; mea culpa. Quality Progress, 8(5), 8-9.Search in Google Scholar

15. Kizilcec, R. F., Piech C., & Schneider E., (2013) Deconstructing Disengagement: Analyzing Learner Subpopulations in Massive Open Online Courses. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge-LAK’13, 170-179. ACM New York.Search in Google Scholar

16. Kollock, P., & Smith, M. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. In S. Herring (Ed.), Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

17. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

18. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2002). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. In R. Harrison & F. Reeve (Eds.), Supporting lifelong learning: perspectives in learning (pp. 111-126). Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar

19. Lee, J., & McKendree, J. (1999). Learning vicariously in a distributed environment. Active Learning, 10, 4-9.Search in Google Scholar

20. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, The (n.d.). Lurk. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/lurkSearch in Google Scholar

21. McDonald, J. (2003). Let’s get more positive about the term ‘lurker’ - CPSquare Class Project. Retrieved from http://www.cpsquare.orgSearch in Google Scholar

22. Munzel, A., & Kunz, W. H. (2014). Creators, multipliers, and lurkers: who contributes and who benefits at online review sites. Journal of Service Management, 25(1), 49-74. doi 10.1108/JOSM-04-2013-011510.1108/JOSM-04-2013-0115Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

23. NetLingo (n.d). Lurkers. Retrieved from http://www.netlingo.com/dictionary/l.phpSearch in Google Scholar

24. Nielsen, J. (2006, October 9). Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute. Nielsen Norman Group [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/Search in Google Scholar

25. Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2001). Why lurkers lurk. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston.Search in Google Scholar

26. Nonnecke, B., Preece, J., & Andrews, D. (2004). What lurkers and posters think of each other. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 195-203. IEEE Computer Society.Search in Google Scholar

27. Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top 5 reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201-223.10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

28. Rafaeli, S., Ravid, G., & Soroka, V. (2004). De-lurking in virtual communities: A social communication network approach to measuring the effects of social and cultural capital. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International conference on System Science.Search in Google Scholar

29. Ridings, C., Gefen, D., & Arinze. B. (2006). Psychological barriers: Lurker and Poster motivation and behavior in online communities. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18, 329-354.Search in Google Scholar

30. Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities the key to active online learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 4(1).Search in Google Scholar

31. Sun, N., Rau, P. P. L., & Ma, L. (2014). Understanding lurkers in online communities: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 110-117.10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.022Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

32. Sweeney, J. W. (1973). An experimental investigation of the free-rider problem. Social Science Research, 2(2), 277-292.10.1016/0049-089X(73)90004-5Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

33. Waite, M., Mackness, J., Roberts, G., & Lovegrove, E. (2013). Liminal participants and skilled orienteers: Learner participation in a MOOC for new lecturers. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 200-2015.Search in Google Scholar

34. Walker, B., Redmond, J., & Lengyel, A. (2010). Are They All the Same? Lurkers and Posters on The Net. eCULTURE, 3(1), 155-165.Search in Google Scholar

35. de Waard, I., Koutropoulos, A., Özdamar Keskin, N., Abajian, S. C., Hogue, R., Rodriguez, C.O., & Gallagher, M. S. (2011). Exploring the MOOC format as a pedagogical approach for mLearning. Proceedings of mLearn 2011, Beijing, China.Search in Google Scholar

36. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

37. Williams, B. (2004). Participation in on-line courses - how essential is it? Educational Technology & Society, 7(2), 1-8.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo