Thanks for an interesting post - it's the first time I've come across 'social loafing.' I'm just wondering how the conditions change when we shift the focus away from group-based learning contexts towards a more self-directed engagement with distributed online environments. Here, it would seem learners may be at different stages in their learning trajectories and lurking can be legitimised as peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Thanks for your comments Andy. It's interesting to note that Lave and Wenger's concept of legitimate peripheral participation leads eventually to central participation, as the actor gradually assimilates the culture of the environment. The difference with social loafing is that the actor has no intention of gradually engaging more, and remains at the periphery.

To clarify, lurking is not the same as loafing. The first is a legitimate activity, because it enables the actor to take in what is happening before deciding to eventually participate. Loafing by contrast, is where the students has no intention of making any contribution to the process.

I guess lurking - even for the most apparently intractable student - retains at least the potential for engagement and participation, whereas labelling a student as a 'loafer' would seem to negate any hope of motivation.

Steve,
Having lurked for a few moments as I read the above comments, I wanted to ask if you have any sites for me to look at the use of wikis with young (afed 7-9) primary age children. I am starting up a wiki and would like to read up.
So far it's too early to know if I have lurkers, loafers, shirkers or shruggers!

Hi, great post on a subject I’m fully invested in. I am equally curious about some of the language we use to describe learners behaviours.

Darcy Markham has a great article http://escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=education/tecplus about the labels we use in education. She explores our “root metaphors”, the “language of labels” and “cultural biases”.

In the article she quotes Vygotsky saying “language determines the development of thought rather than thought determining language”. She also discusses our presuppositions and suggests that “it is imperative that we examine the presuppositions on which we base our decisions”. To me this suggests that the language we use to describe and think about learners will impact how we see them and how we respond to their behaviour.

I wonder if we are metaphorically shooting ourselves in the foot when we use labels like “lurkers’ and “loafers” in any educational context. Clearly you have worked past the labeling to find innovative solutions to the problem behaviour being discussed in your post but will others be able to also? Or will some educators attach the label so firmly that they will not even try to engage these learners?

Hi, interesting subject; this post reminds me of a similar phenomenon in the psychology literature called 'bystander apathy'; a phrase used to describe bystander non-response to medical emergencies in crowd situations (Darley & Latané, 1968). Most CPR classes now advise first responders to specifically point to someone in the crowd and assign them an individual task such as calling 911.

This same technique might be useful for social loafers in online environments. Lam, Chua, Williams & Lee (2005) recommend providing clear individual guidelines for each person as an important part of building an effective and high-functioning virtual team. Having an effective facilitator who assigns tasks to those who tend to back away from participation might be really helpful within a discussion forum, and I liked your suggestion of the rotating responsibility. I wonder how effective this would be, though, for those students who loaf due to feelings of inadequacy or shyness?

Darley, J.M. & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8(4), 377-383.

Lam, W., Chua, A., Williams, J.B., & Lee, C. (2005). Virtual teams: Surviving or thriving? Proceedings of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference. Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/41_Lam.pdf

Hi Steve,

I am glad to made the distinction between lurking and loafing. Like you, I see a distinct difference between the two. I see similarities between lurking and the early stages of Lave & Wenger's legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice. Lurking to me is similar to acclimatizing yourself to the terrain and understanding group norms and expectations before jumping in and participating.

Thanks Clint - there has to be a distinction, because those who socially loaf (or freeload) in a collaborative online environment are often the same ones who don't pull their weight in traditional learning environments. I agree, that checking out the terrain of a new environment is natural, and can constitute a kind of legitimate peripheral participation, so there is nothing wrong with lurking.

Some nice ideas there Shari - thanks. I might try them myself to see if they make any difference. Anyone else have any feedback on these?

As a high school English teacher who was striving to find ways to engage students in reading and writing (especially boys... sorry guys) I turned to digital platforms. Many of the same boys who were disengaged during class tended to lurk in the wiki or whatever tool we were using. I was ecstatic! They were reading and thinking critically about what they'd read. I expect that if there'd been enough time, they may have started to participate openly - that's my theory. They had previously been reluctant to attend to anything the other students were producing but were now reading and considering the perspectives of their peers. Can this be a bad thing?

Pam it's a good thing, and I'm glad to hear of this success. Lurking as I have clear is not a negative thing - it is often a predlude to more active participation in the community. Good luck with future projects of this kind. They sound well worth doing.

Hi Steve,
I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a friend re. an email list we're both members of.
She said that the term 'listening' is much more useful than 'lurking' - the former has positive connotations & implies that something could happen, the latter a much more sinister feel.

Hi all - just a quick note to say that my colleague, Dr Kathy Seddon, developed a taxonomy for assessing contributions to online discussions that you can see here: http://bit.ly/bGBQRJ She refers to lurkers as 'readers' rather like the 'listeners' Emma mentions. SHe did some research into readers on our programmes and we now encourage all to remember how much learning may well be going on, even if the individual 'reader' does not contribute. It has real implications for facilitation as well as evaluating the learning experiences of participants.

This is a great discussion Steve. Instructors and facilitators will most likely always have to deal with this in online environments. I like how you delineate between the lurkers and loafers. It is helpful to realize that there are different motives for each. Motives can be hard to judge at times. There are helpful tools and methods that instructors or facilitators can use in online environments. One such method is using what has been called “check points.”
“The facilitator should plan and use process checks as part of project activities. A process check is a planned ‘check point’ for communication, reporting and questioning.” (Bailey, M.L. & Luetkehans, L., 1998, 5)
It looks like educators will be stuck with this behaviour. What I like about your blog is that you point out that the motives are not necessarily wrong on the behalf of the students who find themselves lurking. Understanding that what are the underlying causes of this behaviour can help educators find more creative ways to engage such students without passing judgment.
Tim Henry
Masters Student RRU

Bailey, M.L. & Luetkehans, L. (1998). Ten Great Tips for Facilitating Virtual Learning Teams. Distance Learning ’98: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Retrieved Jan 28th 2008.

How can we effectively deal with the loafer? Too often we do nothing due to fear of upsetting team harmony (Lam, Chua, Williams & Lee, 2005).

Thank you for this topic, Steve.

Bailey (1998) suggests that keeping 3-4 members per team is advisable, rather than having larger groups. When assembling teams, Bailey's recommendation is to strategically consider the team members' talents and to assign specific tasks.

Shari, I agree that the diffusion of responsibility is an occurrence common in group environments in or outside of online learning settings. It is more likely to manifest itself when responsibility or tasks are not specifically assigned to individual members.

When there are more people responsible for the same task, loafing is easier because individual group members assume that someone else will complete the task. Collaborative problems within the group may encourage loafing, as a discouraged member can give up and leave the task completion to the rest of the group.

•Bailey, M.L. & Luetkehans, L. (1998). Ten Great Tips for Facilitating Virtual Learning Teams. Distance Learning ’98: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI. Retrieved Jan 28th 2008.

Great post Steve, thanks - and really useful comments too.

Surely, if there is a defined goal, one of the advantages of working collaboratively is that each individual has to put less effort in.
Obviously in an educational setting, the goal is not just the production of the artefact, but for learning to occur; I think one issue is that the learners often do not seem to appreciate that!

Obviously group size will depend on the task and timeframe. Although I have seen groups of 3 or 4 show good learning results, even with as few as 4 people I almost always see one "loafer". In group projects with 6 participants, I seldom see more than 2 people putting any real effort in - when they are in an educational setting.

I see different behaviour when there is direct financial incentive (in the workplace, for instance). I think one of the issues may be that a reasonable proportion of "learners" I encounter actually are not there to learn if they can avoid it, just to gain a qualification. So they invest the minimum effort necessary to achieve that goal.

On-line lurking and socializing.
Social networking via the Internet has become acceptable and I would postulate that individuals who electronically socialize are more active participants in on-line forums, blogs, wikis, etc. However there are many who do not wish to socialize on the Internet and are, dare I say, more focused on using the computer and its networks for a specific task. It’s like going to a grocery store: do you stop and chat with people and take your time looking at items or are you on a mission?

Dialog cannot occur without participants and obviously a lurker is not participating. However socializing is not necessarily productive dialog (other than for the purpose community building)and I can sympathize with lurkers as they perhaps wish to focus not on socializing but on the real reason they are reviewing the topic. Perhaps once the lurker feels compelled to participate only then has the dialog has become meaningful to the lurker.

Good points Randy, but I think that lurkers are actually participating in their own way. They are at least reading and watching what is going on, and in that way they are being proactive by actually visiting the site or discussion group in question.

When they actually decide to cross the line and comment of otherwise create content, they have probably been lurking for some time, scoping out the rules, what is allowed and not acceptable and so on.

My view is that lurking is better than not participating at all. What do others think?

Hi Steve.
I agree the statement that lurkers are actually participating in their own way and this is better than non-participation for that individual.
I would also like to point out that the community involved will however not be aware of this participation until the lurker does cross that line and actually contribute.
In sympathy of lurkers I would also say that there is always context, motivation, and personality behind our actions. Is it apathy, intimidation, non-compliance, or another, perhaps social, reason we lurk? I may not understand why or what it takes for someone else to "de-lurk" but we each should be able to internalize our own reasons.
Thanks for the dialog and voice.

Thanks to all of you who have contributed so far to this post. I'm surprised and gratfified to think that this post has become a useful forum for so many discussions around online participation - and delighted that there are so many great comments and diverse ideas represented. Do keep them coming everyone!

A really though provoking piece. I am trying to transfer the ideas to blogs and discussions in the work place, where a deafening hust can sometimes fall. I am wondering if it could be that, in some cases, they are not contributing because either:
- they don't have anything new to add
- they feel they have to add something very polished and well researched and never get round to it
- they are used to being the recipients of information and don't realise that the world has changed and they are expected to contribute.

I have been lurking your posts for more than a year. Great material. I did not mean to be a loafer. However I contribute in other areas in so many ways ( medicine, healthcare, rheumatology) than in this specific one. So I try to change the chip lurking-loafing-participating according the platforms. I think than competency, skills , attitudes and personality , even cultural traits modify our online interaction. If you discover the best way to promote interaction then ¨bingo¨.