The following represents reviews I conducted articles relating to the importance of “sense of community” to help alleviate isolation and frustration for online learners.
Article 1
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.
Problem Presented in Article
Sharing experiences, and collaboration are doorways to richer dialogue, and deeper levels of learning. Two pitfalls exist that hamper such levels of communication. Just because social interaction is technically feasible within an OLE doesn’t necessarily mean learners will. Interaction must be intentionally designed within the course. The second pitfall is the fact instructors must focus primarily on meeting learning objectives and covering content rather than fostering socio-emotional relationships. Just completing assignments online is a narrow type of interaction that isn’t at the proper level necessary for true group dynamics to occur. Instructors should think of how to produce interactions that encourage group cohesion, a sense of belonging and positive interdependence. By being proactive in monitoring and weaving discussions and interactions, instructors can help to create a sense of social presence and true community.
Summary
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 community of learning. Collaboration results in students learning to think more critically and on a deeper level. Learning through collaboration means knowledge will be more apt to be remembered for a longer period of time (Garrison, 1993). Collaboration amplifies the development of social and communication skills particularly when participants are working with loosely defined, authentic situated learning environments. They develop social and communication skills in order to solve their challenges, build relationships and work in ways that enhances group cohesion. The authors cite work by Hiltz (1998), who said that, “the social process of developing shared understanding through interaction is the €˜natural’ way for people to learn”.
Social interaction influences whether or not collaborative learning is effective. Just because a person is placed within a group, doesn’t guarantee they will collaborate with others. The author contends that many instructors just naturally assume interaction will occur. Somewhat akin to thinking, “We built the virtual coffee house. So interact already!”
The authors cite work by Rourke (2000) in which he summarized students must feel part of a group in order to truly collaborate. Supported by that sense of belonging, students feel more open to taking the necessary risks needed for true collaboration. Students who feel comfortable with one another, are more likely to present tentative ideas, ask for help, critique others, and accept other’s criticisms without feeling threatened. Once students feel connected to one another they are able to engage in active collaboration and see that working together is valuable. The authors note that studies by Wegreg (1998) showed that a sense of community allows for people to feel like their concerns or opinions will be treated with empathy and respect. Therefore, they need not be anxious or defensive in their communications. In order to build community people should be allowed to chat, discuss, argue, and confide. In doing so they will find others with common interests €“ and will learn from them. Opportunities should be allowed for impromptu encounters, social, and off-task communication
Reactions
This is an interesting and useful position. Social interaction does indeed create stronger collaboration. One feels a sense of affiliation, as group members are “real people” who are identified with, cared about and supported. By allowing students to create a social presence, content learning moves to a new level through more lively discussions and sustained interest.
It is not clear how individuals on tight schedules, and no-nonsense attitudes to getting work done, could ever be truly “super sociable” in an online learning environment. Nor would a school probably enjoy their class being turned into a sort of friendship love-fest. But providing opportunities for students to be seen as real social beings and not just a login name is a good step forward. Understanding where a person is coming from, their interests, and motivations can be helpful. It would be particularly useful in developing stronger alliances, richer collaborative experiences and longer more sustained relationships for networking purposes.
References for Future Research
Gilbert L. & Moore, D.R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology 38, 29 €“35.
Gunawardena , C.N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 1, 147 €“166.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Learning together and alone: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Allyn & Bacon: Boston.
Rourke, L. (2000). Operationalizing social interaction in computer conferencing. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual conference of the Canadian Association for Distance Education. Quebec City.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T, Archer, W., Garrison, D.R., (1999), Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based, computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14, 51 €“70.
Rovai , A.P. (2001). Classroom community at a distance: a comparative analysis of two ALN-based university programs. Internet and Higher Education, 4, 105 €“118.