Education: Online Learning Sense of Community

Building social interaction and facilitating
a sense of community within an OLE.

Author: Diane Michel
March 20, 2006

Abstract:

Learning is a process that occurs within a social context.We learn from one another through the sharing of experiences, collaboration, negotiation and articulating ideas.OLE’s may lead to a sense of isolation by participants who are physically separated from one another.OLE’s need to facilitate social learning by building a sense of community and belonging among students.It is this paper’s intention to understand the importance of learning within a social context, and provide strategies for creating a sense of community within an OLE.

Keywords

OLE, community of learners, sense of community, social interaction, social presence, feelings of isolation in online learning environment, alienation OLE, learning in social context

Introduction: Learning Theory

Social constructivism championed by Vygotsky took the approach that learning is accomplished socially and that people learn through the viewpoints of others (Nicholson, 2005).Young and Collin, (2004) note that knowledge is fostered by interaction and negotiation within a social group.Dabbaugh (2005) touches further by stating that learning can be thought of as an evolving process in which learners participate in shared learning activities.Through social interaction they collectively construct knowledge. Learning in essence involves interaction with others in a group or community.Allert (2004) concurs when stating that learning is actually a result of co-participating within a community.

Dabbaugh (2005) presents that knowledge is brought about by participating within a group or community of practice.It involves inquiry and learning from members of the group.Dabbaugh (2005) also contends that learning occurs through enculturation, which is an understanding of how knowledge is to be used.Young and Collin, (2004) point out that socially constructed knowledge and meaning are built historically and culturally through social interaction.

Social interaction is not just something to make online classes more interesting or motivating.Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems (2003) state that social interaction is a necessary ingredient for collaboration and effective learning.The authors feel that many studies have shown that social interaction is the key for effective group learning.Social interaction is important for feelings of affiliation, forming impressions of others, building social relationships, and developing a true community of learning.

A person interacting with another person in a supportive manner helps the learning process.Slavin (as cited inSmaldino, Russell, Heinich, & Molenda, 2005)points to research in which cooperative social learning was shown to provide better knowledge acquisition, and helped participants to remember content more effectively. Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems (2003) believe that learning on a deep level and remembering what has been learned occurs as a result of interaction and dialogue.

Toporski and Foley (2004) note that learning within a social context also brings about authentic learning which is germane to the cultural context of the group.Blair and Hoy (2006) contribute that effective distance learning favors social and collaborative approaches.

Problem Statement

Learning has been shown to be a socially mediated activity.However learning online is usually accomplished by students and teachers separated from one another by both time and distance.Weisgerber and Butler (2005) note that students used to traditional face-to-face instruction, may be unable to overcome the impersonal feeling of computerized learning environments. Weissman (2003) points out students may feel frustrated working alone without proper access to resources, or social interaction from instructors and fellow students.He also states the quality of communication or lack thereof, in the learning environment can have a large impact on the learner’s motivation.McInnemey and Roberts, (2004) found that students, who study within an online environment, may feel their attempts to socially interact with their instructor and fellow classmates are frustrating. Consequently feelings of isolation result from perceiving themselves as being an “outsider” or not belonging to the group.They found that students frustrated with technical problems, or content difficulties could also have increased feelings of isolation and being alone.Those feelings could adversely affect a student’s decision to continue studies online.Rovai and Wighting (2005) also point out that a sense of isolation and lack of community may be one of the many factors in higher drop out rates for distance education courses over traditional classroom courses.

Rovai and Jordan (2004) suggest isolation, and the subsequent feelings of disconnect-edness and lack of support may lead to student burnout. Their studies also state that students who have insufficient interactions with peers, and teachers may have higher drop out rates.

Rovai (2003) notes that physical separation and distance contribute to a sense of being alone and isolated.He cites literature in which online students report feeling disconnected, isolated, and distracted.They also report increased frustration from the lack of personal attention, which could affect their overall persistence in a distance education program.Rovai and Jordan (2004) report that students who do not feel they fit in with the group are potentially at risk of quitting.

Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2003) present that asynchronous distributed learning groups are typically designed to support communication and collaboration by participants.However, they often have difficulties with achieving the quality and depth of social interaction needed to achieve a feeling of connectedness. The authors contend that there are two reasons for this.The first reason is that just because an OLE has made social interaction technically feasible, it doesn’t necessarily mean learners will use it.The second problem is that instructors ignore socio-emotional support and focus mostly on students completing regimented educational tasks.This is a form of “simulated” interaction that isn’t at the proper level necessary for true group dynamics to occur.

Vonderwell’s (2003) studies of twenty-two online students revealed that some students felt interactions were less personal, and they missed “one-on-one” relationships with their instructors.Some students reported no real social interaction in group discussions.They reported that their learning teams didn’t give a feeling of cohesiveness, and that the teams were basically just groups of people.

Lack of face-to-face interaction in an OLE, also creates additional problems with the nuances of communication.Hall (as cited by Baker 2004) states that it is estimated that 60% of all human interpersonal communication is non-verbal.A host of rich non-verbal clues such as proximity, motion, facial expression, posture, and eye contact that are used to communicate a variety of messages in a typical classroom are absent online.Lack of immediacy, which is a type of pro-social communicative behavior, can also affect an online environment.Mehrabian (as cited by Baker, 2004) states that non-verbal behaviors promote immediacy, and sensory stimulation.These result in more powerful and pro-social interactions that can have a positive influence on learning. Additionally, Csibra andGergeley (2005)state that in face-to-face instruction, both teachers and learners create a baseline for teaching context by sending and receiving various non-verbal signals.Weissman (2003) concurs that online instructors miss out on the benefits of non-verbal communication.A significant amount of clues and indicators of student interest or comprehension are lost, as online instructors can no longer see and measure reactions from student’s eyes, facial expressions, or body language.

Rovai and Wighting (2005) state that students who have a sense of community will feel greater satisfaction with a course, and feel that they have learned more.A virtual world does have the capability of providing a sense of community and reaping the subsequent benefits of social learning.Rovai and Wighting’s (2005) conclusions on a study involving 314 students revealed that students could indeed feel connected and a sense of belonging, despite only knowing one another in a virtual community.

This paper will show that by building a sense of community, one can hope to eliminate feelings of student isolation that have the potential to exist within an OLE.Even though students are separated by distance and time, an OLE can promote feelings of support, belonging, and acceptance, which are essential to social interaction and enhanced learning.A sense of community generates numerous benefits for the students.Those benefits include richer more meaningful collaboration, deeper understanding, facilitation of memory and stronger achievement.Guidelines will be provided on how a sense of community can be created.This will be accomplished by providing examples of successful OLE’s and expanding on what elements within those OLE’s provide a sense of community.It will also present suggestions as to how one can foster community, and what various tools and applications can be used to accomplish this goal.

Significance to the OLE Area of Study

Rovai and Wighting (2005) note that improving students’ sense of community and belonging enhances retention and overall student satisfaction with online studies.Conrad (2005) reported significant academic benefits from purposeful online community building for graduate students.When learners perceive a sense of community, the learning process was facilitated and strengthened through mutual commitment. An environment with a sense of community is more engaging, and is conducive to higher levels of interaction and thought.Values of trust and support, along with welcoming and respecting other’s perspectives are ideals that are important to open and purposeful learning.Rovai and Wighting (2005) report conversely, a sense of alienation, can reduce the sense of community, dampen student achievement and may increase drop out rates.Students dropping out of OLE’s are opportunities forever lost for the student and school.
Since learning occurs and is enhanced through social interaction, it is necessary to build an OLE that facilitates interactivity, community building and collaboration.Without quality interaction the learner suffers, and the promise of the OLE fails.

Sense of Community Defined

Wright (2004) notes that Samuel Sarason was one of the first to coin the phrase,”sense of community in his 1974 book “Psychological Sense of Community”. He defined that a sense of community involved a person having a perception that they were similar to others within a group, and understanding that they were interdependent by giving and doing for other members within that group.They also shared the feeling that the community was a larger, stable entity that they could depend on.

Sense of community and its definition however, is not necessarily well understood in concrete terms.Conrad (2005) reports in her multi-year studies of online graduate students, that the learners themselves sometimes have a difficult time articulating a clear meaning to the word “community”.Some learners have trouble distinguishing between the terms “support” and “community”.Although a sense of community is known to be useful to distance learners, Gilbert (2004) states that he doubts his organization (TLT) will ever reach a unanimous decision as to what the true meaning of community is.Conrad (2005) states that the term “community” is often interchanged with other terms such as community of enquiry, knowledge community, global online community, sense of community, learning community, or communities of practice.But she defines community as a “general sense of connection, belonging, and comfort that develops over time among members of a group who share purpose or commitment to a common goal”.Learners in her classes stated that community came as a result of sharing common purpose, time and space.Learners understood the community as a part of their learning, and appreciated it as being a critical part of their learning successfully online.

With a sense of community, Rovai andWighting ( 2005) point out that students will feel supported by one another and emotionally connected to others.They work cohesively acknowledging the different perspectives that one another brings to the group, and they respect those differences. Rovai (2003) states that those students who have a sense of community will feel connected and trust one another.They are committed to helping one another with their learning goals and they believe that their educational pursuits will be successfully met through that commitment.It can be assumed therefore that students who have a sense of community will care about one another, and will take steps to insure each member’s success.

Benefits of Building a Sense of Community

Rovai (2003) explores in great detail the benefits of a sense of community.His findings indicate that a sense of community enables members to feel “connected” to a group.He notes with this connection there comes a feeling of belonging and acceptance.Rovai goes on to state that a sense of community brings about a feeling of group “spirit” in which friendships are nurtured and bonding occurs.Conrad(2005) found that students enjoyed the support they received from their online community and viewed it as a valuable resource.They considered their fellow members as friends or “like family” whom they could depend upon.In addition, a sense of community opened the doors for intellectual exchange and growth within a nurturing climate.Rovai (2003) elaborates that as time passes in a developing community, members of the group begin to demonstrate genuinely care for one another.With this feeling of acceptance, members begin to build trust and a willingness to open up to others.Confidence is built within the security of an accepting group, which allows students to take risks, admit when gaps in knowledge exist, and ask questions when needed.Even more importantly, students showed the expectation that others will indeed care enough to lend a helping hand when approached.Rovai (2005) found that a community provides support and scaffolding, which in turn allows its members to flourish.Rovai also notes in his earlier studies (2003) a more casual and open environment nurtures diverse interactions.These interactions empower learners to negotiate meaning and explore new perspectives.He relates that subsequent mentoring and knowledge sharing opens the door to increased innovation and problem solving.

Sergiovanni(as cited by Rovai and Jordan, 2004) spoke of the need for authentic community in educational settings.This helps bring learners and teachers together as they share values, meaning, and goals.A sense of community and the shared meaningsdiscussed within context results in more authentic learning.Toporski and Foley (2004) note that it has long been held that learning is best achieved when new knowledge is placed within an authentic context.

Conrad (2005) notes that as a community of learners, members enjoy a humanistic learning lifestyle.This lifestyle contains valuable elements of social support, comfort, tolerance and ease.Learners towards the end of a two-year stay together as both distance and face-to-face learners described their community in terms of a positive, sharing support network that cared for one another.Such a community provided a feeling of “humanness” to their experience, and created a sense of safety and expectation. Conrad notes learners used their community in both a cognitive and emotional sense.The community fostered their quality of learning and also provided comfort to themselves and others.As the sense of community evolved, students were able to help themselves succeed in academic achievement.The connection they enjoyed provided better collaboration on group projects, increased sharing of resources, helpful assistance by others on individual projects, and increased comfort in online discussions and postings.Others reported that it reduced their concerns over grades and competition. At first thought of as a technology that would help online learning, students began to view community as a condition that embraced them as individuals.Resulting relationships moved past course boundaries with students actively supporting one another in other aspects of their lives, and reflecting on the effects of community as if it was created as one of the program’s learning outcomes.

How a Sense of Community can be Created

In her multi-year study of online graduate students Conrad (2005) found that adult learners felt that they, their instructors and the administration were responsible for designing and creating a sense of community.Those who tended to be more enthusiastic and positive about online learning usually included more individuals in who was responsible for creating and maintaining community.They also felt good instructors helped to create a sense of community by being socially present, energetic, responsive to student needs, and being knowledgeable on the subject matter. Perry and Edwards (2005) feel that exemplary instructors can facilitate creating a community of inquiry.Competent online instructors accomplish this through thoughtful social, cognitive and teaching presence.They challenge their students to high standards by engaging in a variety of affirming behaviors.They show encouragement, and value students as individuals.They craft useful and thoughtful responses that show cognitive presence.They affirm students by recognizing potential, validating learners and treating them with respect. White, Roberts and Brannan (as cited by Perry and Edwards, 2005) indicate in order for successful learning to take place, one must first create a “humanized” environment that respects and encourages the learners.

Kreijns, Kirschner and Jochems (2003) suggest that in order to foster a sense of community, instructors should think of how to produce interactions that encourage stronger relationships, group forming and positive interdependence.The instructor should be proactive in monitoring and weaving discussions, and interactions.Conrad (2005) cites a review of literature and surmises that teacher immediacy is one of the key components in creating a sense of community.

In addition, Conrad (2005) states in order to build a sense of community, she indicates students should be given opportunities to meet face-to-face.In blended courses that combined face-to-face residencies of three weeks along with distance courses students reported feeling an “enormous surge” in feelings of connectedness and overall satisfaction with the program in general.By communicating well face-to-face, students were also able to communicate better online and vica versa.Students reported after having the opportunity to interact face-to-face that their online course was more “engaging”.One learner indicated that if students got to know each other well enough on a personal level through face-to-face interaction their online collaboration would become quite powerful.Gilbert (2004) also reports that providing face-to-face interaction in the beginning of a course helps to build community.Through initial meetings, cohorts become familiar with each other’s needs and goals.Those ideas become important to one another and students were able to reflect on those as they planned future activities.There was a persistence of community with reunions of the group occurring even after the course was over.Some students reported feeling lonely, a sense of loss or needing a “fix of community” when they needed to move on from the group.Some even attempted to recreate the group, by meeting up again in forums designed for new learners of a program.The idea of sustaining a community once built is an admirable one.Nicholson (2005) reports that alumni often feel shut out from being able to further contribute ideas to programs they once were members of.Once the final course is taken, communication is effectively cut off and a dynamic, thriving community is reduced to thin air.He advocates allowing alumni to continue being able to contribute to certain forums as a way of extending the community to the professional world.This also provides a medium for sustaining important peer relationships that have developed over the course of program.

Nicholson (2005) elaborates further on the importance of extending the idea of community to the external world.Students belong to more communities than just a specific online course. They include but are not limited to, peer groups, their school or department, and the university.By also opening the doors to expert guests, alumni, other departments, and faculty one extends the scope and power of the community.Communal scaffolding can occur from a variety of sources.New and fresh perspectives from the outside “real world” can help to answer student questions and concerns about their careers and future.By bridging the professional world with the student world, important connections can be formed which benefit both parties.Many professional organizations, and cooperatives that hope to be the new homes of future graduates, would welcome the chance to contribute to the online life of students.

Nicholson (2005) also indicates the importance of bringing people together physically if possible.He suggests providing activities at the start of the program or residency.Some particularly good suggestions include distance students meeting alumni in their local area.Another idea he presents is informing students when faculty or staff members are attending conferences, so that they might arrange an in-person meeting.Field trips of student groups can also allow distant and local students to meet one another in interesting shared learning experiences.

Conrad (2005) indicates that a sense of community grows from the participants themselves, and that it cannot be artificially made or given.Course designers and instructors can create the incubators or space to facilitate community development, but they cannot force it to occur. Kreijns, Kirschner, Paul & Jochems (2003) agree that social interaction cannot be assured just because it is technically feasible to do so.However once created, Conrad believes (2005) a sense of community is a sustainable condition that grows through the bonds of its members.Even when instruction is perceived as poor, those members with a strong sense of community can go “underground” to sustain the group and continue to support one another in their efforts to succeed.

Conrad (2005) found 27 different strategies that helped to grow and build community.They include: regular and active participation by members, willingness to share problem solving activities, personal contact with one another, timely feedback, clear responsive communication, and frequent visits to the OLE.She also found, that members need to be willing to invest adequate time, utilize open and warm communication, and be willing to share their backgrounds in order to build trust.She recommends a climate that encourages honesty, the free exchange of thoughts and ideas, provides trust and support, and is considerate of others.In final, she states members should be encourage one another to participate through supportive dialogue.

Tools for Facilitating a Sense of Community

Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, and Shoemaker (as cited by Nicholson, 2005) studied online MLS students over a one-year period.In their work they found it important to start students off with an initial face-to-face meeting, and provide a combination of synchronous and asynchronous tools, which elicited active involvement from the students.They indicated having many different modes of communication available was an important factor for student success.Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2003) however, contendthat just because a person is placed within a group, it doesn’t guarantee they will collaborate with others.Many instructors just naturally assume interaction will occur after providing various applications for communication.Although the availability of rich media may contribute to a more suitable environment for communication it doesn’t guarantee that it will.Therefore the instructor must be particularly adept at monitoring discussions and being proactive in creating opportunities for social interaction and interdependence.They accomplish this through thoughtful questioning, intervening in discussions when necessary, group forming exercises, and other deliberate processes.In order to build community, Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2003) present that people should be allowed to chat, discuss, argue, and confide.In doing so they find others with common interests €“ talk with them, share information, and listen to one another.Opportunities should be allowed for impromptu encounters, social, and off-task communication.

Another critical component of a communication tool is its indicator of social presence.Swan and Richardson (2003) state that social presence is affected by degree in which the medium can communicate that a person is “real” in an online environment.Student’s perceptions of social presence affect student outcomes, and contribute greatly to their overall satisfaction with a course.Short, Williams and Christie (as cited by Swan & Richardson, 2003) contend that social presence differs among various media.Different types of media will affect the nature and purpose of the interaction.

McInnerney and Roberts (2004) indicate that three protocols can be built into online courses so that a sense of community can be promoted.They propose using synchronous communication tools to compliment asynchronous communication.Wang and Newlin(as cited by McInnerney and Roberts, 2004) advocate synchronous chat rooms to aid in promoting a greater sense of social presence.McInnerney and Roberts (2004) state that synchronous chat rooms and the more free-style type of communication they provide can help promote student’s online sense of self.Utilizing these tools students can evolve to group “insiders” who no longer feel separate from the group.The second protocol they suggest is a warm-up period in which students are encouraged to develop their online sense of “self”, and understand others in the group.Wegerif, (as cited by McInnerney and Roberts, 2004) spoke of how students felt an informal warm up period could help them get comfortable with and develop their online persona.This important time could help them get to know one another in a more relaxed setting, familiarize themselves with their preferred communication style, and understand mutual levels of commitment.An informal period also gives teachers a chance to instruct on how to properly post within a forum and provide gentle corrective guidance.The third protocol that McInnerney and Roberts advocate (2004) is making sure the OLE adheres to certain course guidelines for successful online communication.This includes keeping on target with the objectives of the course, respecting the ideas of others, and providing clear instruction.

Nicholson (2005) believes a sense of community can be created by providing additional pathways for communication.However it is important to remember that community is fostered by the quality of socio-emotional interaction, not the quantity of task-driven interactions (Rovai, 2002).Neverthessless, Nicholson provides various suggestions for synchronous and asynchronous communication to be used by students, faculty, guest experts, and alumni.

Forms of Communication to Promote Sense of Community: (Nicholson 2005)

1. instructor weekly webcasts for Q & A

2. open discussion forums as opposed to only email

3. structured live chat times, instant messengers

4. student web pages

5. conference call round table discussions

6. audio/video introductions by students & teachers

7. office telephone hours

8. informal student discussion areas

9. chat room social hours

10. mailing lists for students with individual interests

11. instant messenger

12. professional forums for alumni, guest speakers

13. in-person meetings, field trips, experiences

14. external expert hybrid meetings for physical/distance

15. residency experiences

16. students put in touch with their local alumni

17. video based chat

It becomes apparent that Nicholson believes in creating strong presence among members of the group.Chats, web casts, round table discussions, video introductions and face-to-face meetings are a vital part of his community building toolkit.However it must be assumed that not all of the tools would be made available for a course.Such an environment would most certainly be too much of a good thing, and create a media and time overload for both students and teachers.

Nicholson (2005) elaborates on the various positive and negative factors of using different types of communication tools.He states that email messages between faculty and students don’t really add anything to the sense of community for a course, and that open forums are preferable so that all can share in the information.Instant messenger software may also help to create a sense of connection among the group. Even if the students don’t use the instant messenger (IM), just seeing the fact that the professor or others are present can help.There are pitfalls for IM including new users being bombarded by messages until discovering they can become “invisible”, or in the case of free IM devices, outside robots sending advertising messages.However if used judicially the author contends that instant messaging creates a sense of social presence that just isn’t available with other technologies.As for live chat software, he states that setting chat room social hours can help to create more spontaneous communication.However he warns that live chat has the potential to be a source of chaos.Some students may unintentionally dominate the conversation by replying to every comment, or others may feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of posts. There are ways to address this however, through products that allow facilitated group chat.Managing chat with guidelines and rules on when and how to post, and also dividing students into small groups can help keep order the environment.Weekly web casts of Q and A sessions with instructors responding to student questions are another possibility of community building synch-ronous communication.

Nicholson warns that social communication can be stifled in an OLE, since it’s main point is to stay focused on content and classroom tasks.In answering this problem, student forum areas should be built where casual discussion and questions can be posted.In addition, students can be designated server space to create their own web pages or upload audio and video clips.

Halladay and Riedel (2004) also take note of the various forms of community building communication.They include items previously mentioned by Nicholson (2005) such as threaded discussions, online chat, personal web pages and instant messaging.But they also include personal blogs, and newsgroups as community building devices.They also note various specific tools that can be used to promote communication that include Voice over IP (VOIP) devices such as NetMeeting, Horizon Live, WebEx, and Groove.

Ham (2005) suggests having OLE students build their own biographical profiles complete with photograph as a way of increasing social presence.Students can review profiles as a way to understand their fellow classmates, and connect with those of similar interests.Profiles would basically be a snapshot of a person’s biography, personal and contact information.Ham notes that strict privacy should be protected, and profiles could be tailored with different types of views depending on the person’s role viewing them.Other ideas to facilitate interaction include creating anonymous types of “water cooler” forums in which students could pose questions that they might not otherwise risk for fear of embarrassment.As for bringing more nuances of communication to life, he suggests using emoticons as a way of indicating emotional responses in typed discussions.A final noteworthy suggestion was for the instructor to post office-hours and providing synchronous IM.This way they could reach out to students, therefore showing social presence and immediacy for their concerns.Providing the correct online tools for seamless communication, and community building can be challenging.When evaluating and implementing online tools, Bates (as cited by Halladay & Riedel, 2004)provided a model called ACTIONS:

1. Access €“ How flexible and accessible is a particular technology for the specific group?
2. Cost €“ What is the unit cost per learner?

3. Learning €“ What is the learning curve for implementation?

4. Interactivity & user friendliness €“ What sorts of interactions does it facilitate?

5. Organizational Issues and barriers to implementation

6. Novelty €“ How new is the technology?

Halladay& Riedel (2004) stress that it is essential that whatever tool is chosen it must be simple and easy to use.Lack of training and familiarity with the application can cause frustration with the class and overall program.The tool should be “transparent”, and students should perceive its use as seamless.It should not have cumbersome installation procedures, or difficult hardware setups.Hardware, software and bandwidth required for operation should not exceed what the average user has.It is critical to remember that the overall goal is for the application to help the learning community, not be a burden.Unforeseen hidden costs, in terms of staff and student time, and continual subscription fees can be a startling reality.

Halladay & Riedel (2004)recommend tracking and monitoring new communication tools in order to evaluate their performance over time.This can be accomplished by creating a database of support issues, time and money expenditures, overall opinions of tool performance, and a record of set-up experiences.In this way the institution can compile viewpoints from a variety of perspectives including students, faculty and staff.It can then use this information as a means to evaluate products, and eventually craft a set of best practices for the institution.This can be a significant help in deciding how online collaborative tools can be improved, which ones provide the best solution, and how support can be bolstered.

On the issue of choosing communication tools, Gilbert (2004) recommends devices he calls “low-threshold applications” (LTA).They are considered low-threshold because they have low costs associated with them in terms of purchase price, training time, support and on-going maintenance.He states that the application should be reliable and accessible by users, easy to learn, inexpensive and non-intimidating.The LTA should be observed to affect the learning process in a positive way.It should not represent increased workload, or unduly challenge the user.

Informal interactions have been shown to be an important element for successful collaboration. (Castillo, Favela, Perez-Fragoso, & Santamaria-del-Angel, 2004). Castillo et al, developed a system called CENTERS, which is an instant messaging and presence awareness system.It was developed to encourage informal interaction within an OLE.

Providing opportunities for informal discussion and interactions help student’s attitudes towards technology.It also increases their interactions with classmates and instructors. Students within the study of CENTERS noted that using the system gave them interaction opportunities equal to that of a traditional face-to-face course. It helped reduce the feelings of isolation students may feel and also increased the amount of collaboration that occurred among learners.The informal interaction improved instructional effectiveness and had a marked affect on student performance and attrition rates.

Students reported that being aware of others connected to the website through CENTERS reduced their feelings of isolation, made them feel as if they were being “accompanied ” as they studied course materials, and closer to the group through their interactions.

Teachers utilizing the system often sent messages to students greeting or welcoming them, which may have helped them establish a stronger social presence.Students who utilized the system interacted more, were willing to take more courses of the same nature, and also recommend the course to fellow students.

Blair and Hoy (2006) note that in their online courses for writing students, smaller class sizes helped to build a better sense of community. Small class sizes also aided in students feeling more comfortable with one another.A level of comfort is required in order for students to give and receive constructive criticism.After reaching a degree of familiarity, the writing students felt more at ease in exchanging drafts or receiving feedback.They report that open forums for students fostered a sense of community by offering them a way to generate ideas, collaborate, and discuss class issues.Within the study they also found creating specific forums helped to define areas for interaction and encourage questions.A FAQ forum provided a means for students to ask about the course or further understand requirements.An introductions area allowed students to get to know one another on a more informal basis.There also was an area for virtual power point presentations so that students could quickly summarize their proposed writing themes, and bounce ideas off one another for major projects.A midterm course assessment in which students could discuss anonymously what was working effectively in the course and what was not, was also an effective technique.Blair and Hoy (2006) also note building community doesn’t happen just because there are discussion forums and required weekly postings.Conrad (2005) also agrees with this point.Blair and Hoy discussed that students all had varying degrees of obligation to others, and different expectations as to interaction.Some students were disappointed not to receive much interaction or helpful ideas from others. They note that there were significant differences in motivation among students.This was especially so among younger students or those who were not used to self-directed learning models.In addressing this, they felt it was important for students to have early dialogues about their overall expectations for critiques, and communication styles.Blair also developed specific guidelines for participation as a way to ensure student activity.Students also took a VARK learning styles inventory and then shared the results of their scores with fellow members.This was done in hopes of shedding light on their preferred modes of learning and communicating.

Blair and Hoy (2006) note that rethinking the metaphors associated with community are necessary for the online environment.Not all communication needs to be accomplished in a public space. A virtual community includes private and public dialogues, which are valued equally by instructors and teachers.In their view it is important to enlarge the concept of community to recognize and provide opportunities for private communication.This concept is particularly important in classes that utilize critiques as part of the learning process. Students can also express their concerns in a non-threatening area.In their studies involving online writing students, they noted that some students preferred working ahead, finishing assignments early and communicating directly with the instructor in order to avoid less motivated classmates.

Conclusions

Social interaction is a necessary ingredient for collaboration and effective learning, therefore building community with an OLE is a noteworthy and worthwhile effort.A sense of community humanizes the online learning experience, and brings distant learners together in a sharing, supportive environment.A climate rich with community is an energetic, and dynamic space in which its members are socially present, caring and responsive to one another’s needs.It encourages active participation; better sharing of resources, and no doubt reduces feelings of isolation and frustration.The quality and depth of social interaction creates connectedness and promotes effective collaboration.It is important to remember that sufficient interaction will not occur just because a variety of tools are available.Community is encouraged and sustained by those who recognize it as being an integral part of the learning process.Students, instructors and administrators together create a community of inquiry, which is affirming to the students, tolerant of different perspectives and enthusiastic about learning.An instructor through their expertise is able to facilitate the process and produce interactions that encourage support, trust, and positive interdependence.

Further research is indicated on how a sense of community can provide tangible, measurable results in terms of increased academic success.Another area of great interest is exploring the extension of community to external groups, and how that may be accomplished.In other words, how can members of the OLE invite experts, alumni, and other professionals into support dialogues with members of their group?How can that be accomplished without being disruptive, and what benefits can be derived from such an undertaking.Lastly, and a very important to consider is, at what point does community building become a distraction from the actual learning process?Can there be too many tools, and/or too many opportunities for social interaction?At what point do we become too zealous in our approach, and reach a technological, and social overload?

In conclusion, building community, no matter if it is a physical place, or a virtual world, allows us as humans to answer to our call for defining our world with and through others.Everything we do, say and learn is accomplished as a result of others or for their benefit.Therefore, endeavors and learning environments, which encourage community, provide more authentic meaning to our learning processes and lives.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

References
William Morris (as cited by Smith, 2002).
Fellowship is heaven, and lack of fellowship is hell; fellowship is life, and lack of fellowship is death; and the deeds that ye do upon the earth, it is for fellowship’s sake ye do them. (A Dream of John Ball, Ch. 4; first published in The Commonwealth 1886/7)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

References
Allert, H. (2004). Coherent social systems for learning: an approach for contextualized and community-centred metadata. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2, 1-30.

Baker, J.D. (2004). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom.Internet and Higher Education, 7(1),1-13.

Blair, K., Hoy, C. (2006). Paying attention to adult learners online: The pedagogy and politics of community. Computers and Composition, 23(1),32-48.

Castillo, J.C.,Favela, J., Perez-Fragoso, C., Santamaria-del-Angel, E. (2004).
Information interactions and their implications for online courses. Computers & Education, 2, 149-168.

Csibra, G., Gergely, G. (2005). Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy:processes of change in brain and cognitive development.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintain community in cohort-based online learning.Journal of Distance Education, (20)1, 1-20.

Dabbagh, N., Bannan-Ritland, B.(2005). Online learning:concepts, strategies, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Driscoll, M.P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gilbert, S.W. (2004).If it ain’t broke, improve it.Thoughts on engaging education for us all.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(1), 39-53.

Halladay, M. & Riedel K. (2004). Community building and octive. Best Practices in E-Learning Online Conference, Calgary: University of Calgary. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://www.dltoday.ca/Files/CommunityBuilding_OCTIVE.pdf.

Ham, P. (2005).Applying research to design online learning environments.Proceedings of the Second International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, Bankok, Thailand.International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management 13(1). Retrieved March 16, 2006, from http://www.journal.au.edu/ijcim/2005/
specialaug05/PP26.pdf

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research.Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335-353.

McInnemey, J.M., Roberts, T.S. (2004). Online learning: social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Educational Technology & Society, 7(3), 73-81.

Nicholson, S. (2005). A framework for technology selection in a web-based distance education environment: supporting community-building through richer interaction opportunities.Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 46(3),217-233.

Perry B., Edwards, M. (2005). Exemplary online educators: creating a community of inquiry.Turkish Journal of Distance Education 6(2).

Richardson, J.C., Swan, K. (2003).Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. JALN, 7, 68-88.

Rovai, A.P., Jordan, H.M. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 5(2).

Rovai, A.P., Wighting, M.J., (2005). Feelings of alienation and community among higher education students in a virtual classroom.The Internet and Higher Education, 8, 97-110.

Rovai, A.P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance.International review of research and in open and distance learning. 3(1).

Rovai, A.P. (2003). The relationships of communicator style, personality-based learning style, and classroom community among online graduate students. The Internet and Higher Education, 6 (4), 347-363.

Rovai, A.P. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: a comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2).Retrieved March 2, 2006, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/192/274.

Smaldino, S.E. Russell, J.D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2005). Instructional technology and media for learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Smith, M. K. (2001) Informal Education Archives. ‘Community’ in the encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from
http://www.infed.org/community/community.htm.

Swan, K., Richardson, J.C. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. JALN. 7(1).

Toporski, N.,Foley T. (2004). Design principles for online instruction: a new kind of classroom. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 5 (1). Retrieved March 5, 2006, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde13/articles/toporski.html.

Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences andperspectives of students in an online course: a case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77-90.

Weisgerber, C., Butler S.H. (2005). Towards a theoretical framework for the design of interactive online distance learning systems. Texas Journal ofDistance Learning. 2(2), 44-57.Retrieved March 5, 2006 from
http://www.tjdl.org/articles/v2i2/design/index.cfm.

Wright, S. P. (2004). Exploring psychological sense of community in living-learning programs and in the university as a whole. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved March 3, 2006 from University of Maryland at College Park site, http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/psych/Stephen_Wright_dissertation.pdf

Weisman, E. J. (2003). An evaluation of online learning environments (OLE) on the adult at-risk population. The Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 18, 142-154.

Weller, M.(2005). The distance from isolation: why communities are the logical
conclusion in e-learning. Computers & Education: an International Journal.

Young, R. A., Collin, A. (2004). Introduction:constructivism and social constructionism in the career field.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 373-388.

………………………………………………………………………………………
Copyright: Diane Michel (2006). All Rights Reserved.