Diane-Michel.com

Review of Article:

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.

Problem Presented in Article
Students, who study within an online environment, may feel their attempts to socially interact with their instructor and fellow classmates are frustrating. Isolation is the result of feeling like an “outsider” or not belonging.   If a student feels isolated, they obviously will not feel satisfied with the online learning environment.   Being frustrated with technical problems, or content difficulties can exacerbate their feelings of aloneness.     This can adversely affect a student’s decision to continue studies online.   The author quotes Curry (2000) that “The attrition rate of online learners is brought about in a large sense by a sense of isolation.”

Summary
A sense of community is “a sense of belonging to a social structure.” (Marshall, 1998)   The author cites Clifton (1999) who stated that a level of trust must be involved in order for a sense of community to develop.   Otherwise when people don’t trust each other, don’t share the same values, norms or expectations, people lapse into self-interest and displays of status.

Conrad (2002) believes that online educators perform a real service by making online communities a priority.   An online community provides a safe nurturing environment.   Such an environment creates happy learners who are comfortable, and more apt to complete their course of online study.

OLE environments can benefit from both asynchronous methods of communication and synchronous.   The authors quote Aitken and Shedletsky (2002), “We think of asynchronous communication as the “backbone and muscle” for course content, and online chats are the heart and hustle of our web-based classes.”   By making use of synchronous chat rooms, a sense of social presence develops which in turn leads to a greater sense of community.

Wegerif (1998) believes that helping students become “insiders” (those comfortable with the medium, and class) can be facilitated through the use of chat rooms, and informal communication styles with students.   Insiders are more apt to feel confident, and successfully finish the course.   Wergerif (1998) also suggests that a “warm up” period be utilized in OLE’s.   This is done in an informal setting where people can be familiar with each other’s communication styles, online personalities, and levels of commitment.

Reaction
Students need a sense of community in order to not feel isolated in an OLE.   Allowing for more free form styles of communication such as chat rooms in addition to formal postings creates a stronger “human” connection.     Building a safe, nurturing environment for study will help students build confidence and stay focused on completing their online studies.   Creating opportunities for the same sort of impromptu interaction that face-to- face students enjoy will help to humanize and warm up the online learning environment.

References for Future Research

Aitken, J. E., & Shedletsky, L. J. (2002). Using electronic discussion to teach communication courses. Communication Education, 51, 325-331.
 
Cereijo, M. V. P., Young, J., & Wilhelm, R. W. (2001). Factors facilitating student participation in asynchronous web-based courses. The Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18, 32-39.

Clifton, R. A. (1999). The education of university students: A social capital perspective. College Teaching, 47, 114-118.
 
Goffman, E. (1990). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin Books.

Hopper, K. B. (2003). In defense of the solitary learner: A response to collaborative, constructivist education. Educational Technology, 43, 24-29.
 
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 
Wilson, B. G. (2001). Sense of Community as a Valued Outcome for Electronic Courses, Cohorts, and Programs, Retrieved July 19, 2004 from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/bwilson/SenseOfCommunity.html.

Recently, Leslie Burkhardt of the Pennsylvania College of Optometry (PCO) was kind enough to write and ask me about how time constraints influence students in online environments. I hope I can address her question adequately.

She wrote:
“In essence, as I interpret it, your line of inquiry is attempting to find Rovai’s third variable, and your hunch is that a major component of this variable is time. People who have time to devote to learning, also are more likely to be able to take the time to get to know other students. Is this distillation a correct interpretation of your research proposal? Can you provide a brief comment on where you are currently in your pursuit of this research question?”

Short answer:
From my real experience as an online grad student for three years: Yes, most adult students people don’t have a lot of time. They have constant time pressures and constraints. They may be writing papers at midnight or five in the morning to finish the course. They don’t have time for synchronous communication nor really care about “bonding” with one another. However, if the participants understand that developing and nurturing connections within the group will produce real and tangible benefits, they will be more proactive in taking part. They must have an instructor who understands the importance of building a sense of community, and constantly facilitates it.   Adult learners need to know what’s in it for them, how it can help them, before they are willing to donate precious time to anything.

Long Answer:
During my three years of research for my Graduate degree in Computing Technology in Education, I focused on online learning environments. Time and time again, I wrote on how important it was to develop and foster a sense of community within online learning environments.

Unfortunately as you know, the trade off for convenience of online learning is that we are separated from others in both time and space. Usually participants never have the chance to meet, see or bond with the instructor or fellow classmates. In effect then, some people may have little impression or connection to the others in the group. People may see each other as just a “user name”. They respond and write to them in order to meet the class requirements, but little else happens. They may not identify personally with one another. There is no feeling of social presence, or even that there are indeed real people behind all those postings.

With no real chance for a social connection the group can’t bond. Some students may feel lost, isolated. Without seeing or ever meeting one another it is hard to feel any sense of true caring, responsibility for one another, or personal connection. Therefore, we miss important opportunities. At one time or another we all need to find someone who can help us with a question. Members who care about each other share their newly found discoveries and new knowledge. This kind of knowledge sharing is unattainable in a cold, “just do our assignment kind of atmosphere”. Building, fostering and taking part in community opens the world up for exciting collaboration, trying out our newly discovered knowledge in thought provoking discussions, and even future job opportunities. Learning is accomplished not only on our own, but through our social interactions.

As you know in graduate programs, the courses become progressively more challenging. Isolation and subsequent frustration may intensify as time goes on. At the same time, job pressures could be mounting, and family members start to wonder why your constant paper writing and assignments seem more important than them. The probability for choosing to  quite the program at this point  could increase.

Facilitating a sense of community, and participating in it does indeed take time. But as in all things if the benefits are made clear in the beginning, most students will see it as an integral part of their education experience. In fact they would feel “cheated” if they didn’t get it. Who wouldn’t want to connect with people who are interested in the same things they are, and who could possible help them in their jobs, their future, or get through rough patches in the course.

The class must be taught by an instructor who truly understands how important it is to create and foster a sense of community within their environment from the get-go. When we belong to a helpful group, we feel less isolated and frustrated.

A sense of community within a learning environment  helps in many ways.   Students pull together, help and support one another, actively seek each other out to collaborate and create better work, feel comfortable enough to admit when they don’t know something, feel responsibility for each other’s success, cheer each other on, and generally just help one another connect as people.

Alas, most people simply don’t have the energy at the end of the day to truly devote themselves to being completely socially present in an online community. But if it is properly facilitated and encouraged from day one, students will understand the benefits and take part.

We will never be able to take the busy lives and time constraints of adults out of the equation. However, people will generally take the time to invest in the group if they see there are real and tangible benefits for them to do so. Just like you will make the time and sacrifice to nurture a friendship if you can see the intrinsic value of that relationship for you.

Thank you Leslie, I hope I’ve helped a little!
Diane Michel

Web 2.0 Learning Platform: Harnessing Collective Intelligence. Please enjoy this thoughtful paper on how technology is changing the way we learn and teach. Web 2.0 Technologies and Education

In short, in today’s world everyone is both a teacher and a learner combined. We all know the old adage of the teacher being the ultimate source of knowledge as being simply not true anymore. Social constructivism emphasizes that learning takes place as we interact with one another and the world. Specificially we learn within authentic situated context. Simply put we learn when we can see the real purpose and understand how the new knowledge can benefit us. Learning within a community of practice or a collective intelligence environment provides us with something that is immediately useful, therefore infinitely more memorable.

Web 2.0 learning involves a “decentralization of authority” according to the authors of the paper. It also provides an architecture of participation, specifically exposing metadata to allow purposeful searches, and useful community produced “stubs” for saving data on comments and interactions.

References:

Rogers, P., Liddle, S., Chan, P, Doxey, A., Isom, B. (2007). Web 2.0 learning platform: Harnessing collective intelligence. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_
storage_01/0000019b/80/34/ec/cb.pdf

A phenomenological investigation of a sense of community within an adult online learning environment.

Abstract:
Learning is a process that occurs within a social context. We learn from one another through the sharing of experiences, collaboration, negotiation and articulation of ideas. This study’s intent is to understand the importance of a sense of community for online learning environments. This study will provide insight into students’ perceptions of what a sense of community is, and the benefits they receive as a result. The study will also explore if students and teachers perceive the benefits achieved from developing a strong sense of community outweigh the extra work required to build and maintain social presence, and promote connectedness within a learning group.

Introduction: Research Purpose
The purpose of this study will be to understand if a sense of community within an adult online learning environment positively influences student learning outcomes, and their perception of the quality of their educational experience. The study will explore whether or not a sense of community promotes feelings of group support, and facilitates the social construction of knowledge. This is an important question because it has been noted in literature and numerous studies, (McInnerney & Roberts, 2004; Rovai, 2002; Rovai & Wighting, 2005) that distance learning students often feel isolated, which may lead to frustration if they feel unsupported in their efforts to learn. As a result of their isolation they may choose to quit their studies. Universities suffer the consequences as a result with higher student attrition rates. However, considerable time and effort must be expended in order to successfully produce social presence and sense of community within an OLE. This subject matter seems to have not yet been fully discussed in available research. Is the increased effort that must be put forth by both students and teachers in order to achieve a sense of community deemed worthwhile? Or the time and effort hurts students by serving as a distraction? Reflective statements from students on their individual experiences of building and promoting a strong sense of community should be explored in detail in a variety of courses. Under what circumstances is it appropriate and necessary to take the time to build and nurture a strong sense of community? The study is attempting to understand if busy adult students may feel distracted by the continual demands for social interaction and social construction of knowledge by the learning group.

The study will be a qualitative phenomenological study of 300 volunteer students who are enrolled in graduate level online education courses. The research will study students for a period of two years. The research will be particularly focused on understanding the online learning students’ direct reflective statements throughout their studies about their interactions and experiences within their courses. The study will follow students starting at the very beginning of their studies as they start their most fundamental classes and continue to monitor their reflective statements and feelings as they progress to increasingly more difficult courses that require increasing amounts of group collaboration. Their reflective statements about their sense of community, the benefits of having a learning community, and other pertinent information will be gathered from surveys, online chat, individual interviews, and discussion logs. The statements will be collected and categorized within the main thematic areas. Those include sense of community, social presence and perceived workload involved with developing and
maintaining social presence. As a result of these explorations, discoveries will be summarized that will show if building a strong sense of community within every online learning environment is indeed a worthwhile and essential endeavor, or should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Problem Statement
Weisman (2003) reports that learning online exclusively can be an isolating experience for students. Students may feel frustrated working alone without proper access to resources, or social interaction from instructors or 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. 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 in Vonderwell’s study reported no real social interaction in-group discussions, and that learning teams didn’t give a feeling of cohesiveness. They felt their teams were “just groups of people”. A sense of community has been shown to enhance the quality of the educational experience, (Rovai 2002; 2005). The problem is identifying whether or not building a strong sense of community in all cases for all online environments is a necessary and foregone conclusion that class designers/instructors must make. The study wishes to explore students’ reflective statements about their sense of community, and what benefits they reap from it, in a variety of online classes and learning situations. The study will attempt to discover if at times building and interacting with the learning community becomes a distraction. Adult graduate students may eel that they are simply too busy to truly dedicate themselves fully and passionately to the care and maintenance of a social learning community. They may choose instead to intentionally limit their interactions or become passive observers within online courses. They may also choose not to develop their own social presence, or provide means of mutual support for other members. Some students may actively seek group belongingness while others disengage as a coping measure to simply complete the course quickly and efficiently.

Significance of the Study
Rovai & Wighting (2005) point out that improving students’ sense of community and belonging enhances retention and overall student satisfaction with online studies. Conversely they state a sense of alienation, can reduce the sense of community, dampen student achievement and may increase drop out rates.

Rovai & Wighting (2005) also indicate poor experiences within the classroom environment can lead to negative feelings about the school in general which would again point to higher drop out rates. They contend when learners perceive a sense of community their learning process is made easier and more comfortable. However a review of literature reveals building a sense of community takes considerable effort. Rovai (2002) states that a sense of community involves individuals feeling a sense of mutual responsibility, and “commitment to shared goals”. Conrad’s research (2005) shows that instructors must develop a social presence and be seen as a “real person”, and in addition provide a sense of immediacy, and constantly monitor and guide their online students. Most available literature does not take into account the real time and effort it takes to maintain a true thriving learning community. Nor does current literature consider what instances is the actual building of community an extravagance in terms of time, money and personal effort.

Research Questions
Do students perceive the quality and depth of their learning experience to always be enhanced by an online learning environment that promotes a strong sense of community, or at times is it considered a distraction? The first aim of the study will be to discover if a sense of community does indeed facilitate feelings of comfort, less isolation and a sense of belonging within a group of distant learners who have never actually met. The second aim is to understand if a sense of community among group members always leads to mutual feelings of support, more fruitful collaboration, and increased mutual social construction of knowledge. In final, the study will determine if students feel the added burden of creating and maintaining a sense of community through social presence is indeed worth their time and effort.

Literature Review
First it is necessary to understand fundamental theories on social learning. Vygotsky, (1981), championed the idea that learning is a process that occurs through social participation and interaction. Human behavior (learning) cannot be isolated as a separate entity but must be defined within its social and historical context. The fundamental ideas of Vygotsky (1981) include that knowledge is built through other’s experiences, ideas and assistance as well as personal experience. Lave & Wenger (1991) contend that situated learning occurs through membership and active participation in what they call ” communities of practice”. Lave & Wenger (1991) also state that reciprocal and active relationships between learners calls for strong social networks within the classroom.

Driscoll (2000) states that in order for learning to occur, (particularly those engaged in constructivist learning processes) one must “provide for social negotiation as an integral part of learning.” She emphasizes that theories of social negotiation and socially constructed knowledge are fundamental in the positions of such noteworthy education and psychology experts as: Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, Cunningham, and Honebein,. She also states that constructivist learning must also “support mutual perspectives and the use of multiple modes of representation. ”

McMillan and Chavis (1986) state that a sense of community has essentially four components. Those elements are:
1. Membership – Members feel a sense of belongingness to a group.
2. Influence €“ Each member’s opinion matters to one another and can influence others.
3. Integration & fulfillment – Each member has a “shared faith” that their own needs will be met through the group’s commitment to shared goals. For example, if a member has a question others will offer assistance.
4. Shared emotional commitment €“ Members will share their experiences, and personal history together.
McMillan and Chavis’s ideas on sense of community are widely accepted “because of (their) theoretical base and their qualitative empirical support.”, according to Blanchard (2005).

Fisher, Sonn, and Bishop’s work, (2002) “The psychological sense of community” proposes that people just naturally feel more supported as a positive consequence of sense of community. They feel they can relate more fully to one another as people, “aspire to new goals beyond their previous personal interests”, and have feelings of “social connectedness.” An important aspect of their findings is that individuals who indeed feel lonely or isolated “will invest more energy in seeking a sense of community and support.” A critical conclusion that the study reached is that students who feel such intense isolation “will move (on) to another school or educational delivery medium to satisfy their basic needs”

Rovai & Wighting (2005) who performed quantitative research on feelings of alienation and community, showed an “inverse relationship between alienation and a sense of community.” The quality of the study “Feelings of alienation and community among higher education students in a virtual classroom” is deemed excellent, in that the instrumentation used is considered valid including the Dean Alienation Scale, and the equally reliable standard, the Classroom Community Scale, (Rovai, 2002). In the study there was no differential attrition, and it utilized a convenience sampling of 117 volunteer college students in 6 online graduate courses, with a 93% volunteer rate.

The classroom community scale, Rovai (2002) is deemed valid and credible in that it was “developed, refined, and field-tested” with a volunteer sampling of 375 graduate students enrolled in 28 different online courses. Rovai reports that he used two internal consistency estimates for reliability. “Cronbach’s coefficient α for the full Classroom Community Scale was .93 and the equal-length split-half coefficient was .91, indicating excellent reliability.”

According to Conrad (2005), there is a large amount of literature that proves a sense of community is important for the successful educational outcomes for online learners. She cites the following sources in reaching her conclusion: (Gundawardena & Zittle, 1997; Harasim, Starr, Teles, & Turoff, 1996; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; Rheingold, 1993). She states, a sense of community feels like home. It’s a safe place where members feel mutual trust and respect. She explains that it provides an ” €¦invitation for intellectual exchange, and a gathering place for like-minded individuals who are sharing a journey that includes similar activities, purposes and goals.”

Rovai’s numerous studies conclusively show how important a sense of community is within an online learning environment. 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 (2002) reached substantial conclusions on a quantitative study entitled “Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning and persistence in learning networks”. The study involved 314 students within 26 graduate courses in an online environment. The volunteer rate was 65.9%, with 314 out of 478 students participating. The study results showed a significant relationship between a student’s sense of community and their “perceived cognitive learning.”

His study “provided evidence that a significant relationship exists between classroom community and perceived cognitive learning.” He also concluded those who have a significant sense of community and “perceive greater cognitive learning” do indeed feel less isolated, feel more satisfied with their coursework, and the results are less attrition for the university. His studies revealed that students could indeed feel connected to a group and feel a sense of belonging in a virtual community. The research showed that students with a stronger feeling of community felt they learned more. A sense of community therefore adds a greater feeling of satisfaction with a course. Conversely the study revealed that a sense of alienation, can reduce the sense of community, dampen student achievement and may increase drop out rates. However, Rovai cautions against firmly suggesting a “causal relationship between sense of community and cognitive learning.” There may indeed be an unknown third variable that may be present that is related to the other two variables that may explain the relationship the results.

From the above mentioned study by Rovai, (2002) he determined that if the learning environment fosters the feeling that the students are indeed a part of a group that is working on a “valuable and worthwhile endeavor” and that they are indeed interconnected with one another, “It may be possible to reduce feelings of alienation and increase sense of community within the context of a virtual classroom.” Some significant reflective statements from the students include: “I think we all came away with a sense of family; it has made responding to each other comfortable.” Anther student’s comments included “I was very apprehensive about this class but the other members have helped me feel good about it €“ especially through the use of discussion boards”.

In a qualitative study of 17 online graduate students who began studying together as a group in May of 2002, Conrad study published in 2005, gathered the participant’s significant statements about community. The study does seem to be valid, but the studied group is rather small. She collected data five times throughout the two years of the program. First she administered a questionnaire, to gather their perceptions about online learning, and a sense of community. After they completed their first course (n=14) she administered a second questionnaire with some of the questions repeated. The third data gathering included a research assistant who interviewed 11 volunteer students for 60 minutes each. The interviews were taped and transcribed. 18 months after the start of the program she again sent out a questionnaire in which participants (n=13) were asked about their sense of community and how it affected their feelings of the course. Her fifth data collection included meeting with 6 students utilizing a focus group interview two years after they began the program. She analyzed the data inductively by reviewing her questionnaire results, and transcripts. From this she organized the data and it’s interrelationships, categorized it and came up with themes. Did the sense of community indeed help them academically in their studies? She states that, the students did indeed indicate they felt more comfortable in discussions and postings. Six of her participants pointed out that they felt there was more open sharing of resources, and five talked of increased collaboration on projects.

In her conclusions, Conrad (2005) also summarized her data and created a “Participants’ Thematic Notions of Community”. Participant’s significant statements included items relating to friendship, relationship, familiarity, collaboration, common purpose, support, technology, group/place/exchange, and group. Students reported 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. Producing this type of social presence surely would require significant amounts of an instructor’s time, which is one of the issues this study would like to address.

How can one create a sense of community? According to the findings of Perry and Edwards (2005) in their qualitative study of nursing students, it would seem that it does take considerable effort. They found that exemplary instructors facilitated creating communities of inquiry. Although the study does not give much detail into the methodology as to how the students were selected, nor the number of students in the population, it is felt their findings seem logical. They report that competent online instructors accomplish building a community of inquiry 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.

Shea (2006) performed an extensive study of 2,036 college students who took classes solely in an online environment. The intent of his study was to ascertain what students felt contributed to a sense of community in an online learning environment. His hypothesis was that students’ perception of teaching presence is directly associated with their sense of learning community. The impressive sample involved students from 32 state universities, 470 instructors and 581 courses. The selected target population is credible due to its strong population validity. In all the study gathered 2,314 evaluation questionnaires. The study showed that “directed facilitation” from the instructor, that is an instructor who took an active and social presence, was deemed very important to building the sense of community within the course.

References

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

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

Fisher, A.T., Son, C.C., Bishop, B.J. (2002). Psychological sense of community:
research, applications and implications. New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum.

Galef, B.G., Zental, T.R. (1988). Social learning psychological and biological
perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. Boston: Pearson.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. legitimate peripheral participation,
Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

McInnerney, 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.

McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: a definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology. (14)1, 6-23.

Perry, B., Edwards, RN. (2005). Exemplary online educators: creating a community of
inquiry, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 6(2). Retrieved March 25,
2007, from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde18/articles/article6.htm

Rovai, A.P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community.
The Internet and Higher Education. (5)3, 197-211.

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., 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.

Shea, P. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online
environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1)

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

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The development of higher forms of attention in childhood. The
concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, N.Y.: Sharpe.

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.

MIT’s Center for Collective Intelligence hopes to answer the question: “How can people and computers be connected so that collectively they act more intelligently than any individuals, groups, or computers have ever done before?”

Klein (2007) addressed the inherent problems of large-scale projects involving collective intelligence, inhis paper “Achieving collective intelligence via large-scale on-line argumentation“. He notedthat there are limits within current technologies for “large-scale deliberation.” He stated that while email, instant messaging, open forums, wikis and blogs do allow for individuals to interact globally there are “serious shortcomings from the standpoint of enhancing collective intelligence.”

The content captured by such tools is notorious for often being unsystematic, highly repetitive, and of highly variable quality. At its best (as with Wikipedia) a carefully nutured community process can be effective at capturing short descriptive articles about non-controversial topics, but all those approaches tend to break down when faced with the need to come up with coherent responses to complex problem that involve many competing perspectives. In such cases, discussions can be hijacked by a narrow set of “hot” issues, small voices can be lost, and achieving or identifying consensus becomes almost impossible.”

Klein (2007) stated that tools such as argumentation or rationale capture are a way to help enable brainstorming on controversial topics. They can help organize interaction by having users “structure their interactions into a network consisting of three kinds of entitites:

1. Issues (questions to be answered)
2. Options (alternative answers for a question)
3. Arguments (Claims that support or detract from some other statement.)

Challenges in Creating Large Scale Collective Intelligence
In search of creating large scale collective intelligence banks to solve critical pressing problems such as global warming, reacting to medical epidemics, etc, Klien (2007) has identified numerous design issues.

1. How do we avoid needless duplication?
Explanation: When there are many contributors working concurrently, and the sheer volume of entries grows, it is no longer possible to capture an argument structure within a single screen. It therefore is increasingly likely that someone will introduce an issue, option, or argument aht has already been posted by someone else.

2. How do participants converge on the key issues?
Explanation: Converging on key issues is unlikely to occur prior to posting into the system, as it might in a small-scale setting, especially a facilitated one. This suggests that tools and/or procedures should be made available to enable deliberations about the structure of the argumentation, and not just the content.3. Sheer volume of posters and entries increases exponentially in larger systems.

3. How do we ensure wide participation in entering/editing content?
Explanation: People are reluctant to replace, or modify work by someone else, even if the posting has serious failings. Reluctant to offer diverging opinions if the bulk of the existing arguments all seem to point in another direction.

4. How do we ensure that the argument is structured correctly?
Explanation: In an open system, we can expect that many of the participants will not be experts in how to structure argument maps effectively. This suggests that a large-scale argumentation system needs to support a continuum of formalization, allowing people to enter content in the form that they are comfortable with, be it extended prose or fully-structured argument maps.

5. How do we ensure succinct argumentation about options?
Explanation: We need some tools and/or procedures to summarize and even replace discussion threads with more succinct forms.

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

Additional Resources:
Wearesmarterthanme.org: Creating a book of business best practices written collaboratively.

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

References
Klein, M. (2007). Achieving collective intelligence via large-scale onl-line argumentation: MIT Center for Collective Intelligence.Retrieved January 1, 2008, from http://cci.mit.edu/publications/CCIwp2007-01.pdf

Collective Intelligence

Collective intelligencecan be defined as an organically grown bank of knowlege, which providesthe group with a totalsum of knowledge that is fargreater than what each individual member could produce or realize on their own. Information within collective intelligenceis organizednaturally according to each member’s interest and intention. Members of the group become smarter by collaboratively definingand organizing information to aid in each other’sunderstanding.Collective intelligence isone of thecornerstone concepts of Web 2.0 technologies.

PARC research is nowresearching and developing concepts related toaugmented social cognition. They define augmented social cognition as being:

Supported by systems, the enhancement of the ability of a group to remember, think, and reason; the system-supported construction of knowledge structures by a group. (Chi, 2007)

When PARC becomes focused on a particular dimension of research it behooves us to take notice. PARC has continually produced revolutionary technologies over the years that have completely changed the way we live and work. They created the ability for us tonetwork computers using the Ethernet, created graphical user interfaces (GUI), object oriented programming, and laser printing to name just a few of their breakthroughs. (PARC, 2007) PARC at this time has over “170 researchers from the physical, computer, biological, and social sciences (80% of whom hold doctoral degrees). “Employees come from 46 different countries, and include native speakers of virtually every major language. This diversity contributes to an environment in which collaboration is multi-dimensional, cutting across cultures, laboratories, and scientific disciplines.

Here is Ed Chi’s presentation on augmented social cognition within Google Talk. The video is entitled: “Social information foraging and collaboratve search: Augmented social cognition from social foraging to social sensemaking.” (Chi, 2007)

Additional Resources:
Social information foraging and collaborative search: PDF

Rememberance of things: Information foraging

References

Chi, Ed. (2007). Augmented social cognition. Retrieved December 31, 2007, from http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2007/05/augmented-social-cognition.html

Chi, Ed. (2007). Social information foraging and collaborative search: Augmented social cognition from social foraging to social sensemaking. Retrieved December 31, 2007, from http://www.parc.com/research/projects/collaborativesystems/default.html

PARC Research. (2007). Retrieved December 31, 2007, from http://www.parc.com/research/projects/collaborativesystems/default.html

What is Podcasting?
Podcasts are essentially episodes of programming delivered via the Internet. They can useaudio, video or PDFs or a combination of all three. Content publishers utilize RSS feeds which contain metadata, allowing for the broadcast to be catalogued and searched.The term “podcasting” according to Laurie Patterson of the IEEE, (2006) is essentially a combination of words referring to Apple’s portable MP3 player, theiPod and broadcasting. (However it is reallynot necessary to utilize an iPod to listen to podcasts. Any computer or MP3 player can play a podcast.)

When did Podcasting Begin?
The term “podcasting” is believed to have firstbeen coined by Ben Hammersley. On February 12, 2004, Mr. Hammersley wrote an article entitled “Audible Revolution“for the San Francisco Guardian:

With the benefit of hindsight, it all seems quite obvious. MP3 players, like Apple’s iPod, in many pockets, audio production software cheap or free, and weblogging an established part of the internet; all the ingredients are there for a new boom in amateur radio. But what to call it? Audioblogging? Podcasting? GuerillaMedia?

According to the IEEE’s Computer.org, in an article entitled: “The technology underlying podcasts“:

Tristan Louis, who was involved in developing W3C standards for the merger of TV with the WWW, first proposed the idea of podcasts in 2000. Dave Winer, a developer of XML dialects, along with other individuals, further developed RSS (Really Simple Syndication or Rich Site Summary or RDF Site Summary)

The idea of downloading audio files to listen to at their convenience struck a chord with many computer users. Instead of downloading a podcast to an MP3 player or iPod, users could listen to the downloaded audio files on their PCs.

Interest in podcasts has increased exponentially. On 28 September 2004, there were 24 Google hits for “podcast.” Two days later, there were 526 hits, and three days after that, 2,750 hits were recorded. The number of hits reached 100,000 by mid-October of that year, and Google recorded more than 100 million hits a year later. At the end of May 2006, Google had more than 319 million hits.

Why use Podcasts?
Podcasts provide an entirely new and exciting path to reach your students.Barriers for learning such as distance, and time are erased; asteaching is nolonger constrained toa pureclassroom activity.Podcasts are a highly convenient medium, which is compatible across numerous hardware platforms. Podcasts can be downloaded from the Internet and listened to whenever students need to review or study. They provide flexible opportunities for study in a highlyportable format.Many learning styles are accomodated through podcasting, as the mediumcan include audio, video, powerpoints as video, or written PDFs. Podcasts can help students practice and review new knowledge, orand as a result improvetheir overall academic performance.

How are podcasts delivered?
Podcasts are first downloaded to a computer via the Internet. Podcasts can be delivered by a simple click of a hyperlink, or automatically deliveredby the studentsubscribing to a RSS feed.The user can listen to the content immediately, or choose to copy it onto an MP3 player. Podcasts can also be automatically downloaded with Wifi connectivity for Palm handhelds and pocket PCs. In addition, podcasts can also be easily distributed through networking sites such as Podcastalley.

What formats are podcasts in?
The standard format for podcasts is usuallyMP3, which allows for easy transfer to a variety of equipment. Your audience already has all the tools necessary to hear, see and experience your message beyond the classroom. These days all school campuses are bustling with students carrying MP3 players, iPods and of course laptop computers.Podcasts can be played on PC’s, Mcintosh computers, palm computers.

Podcasting is Economical
There is good news for budget conscious teachers, podcasting is an extremely economical medium. First of all students can download your broadcast for free.Secondly, serving up podcastscan be accomplished with minimal costs.The reason being, MP3 recordings and the XML used to identify the recording can be placed on any Web server. As for the end user, it is possible to get a 1GB MP3 player for about $50.00. (It isn’t necessary to always go top dollar and purchase the latest Zune or Apple IPod, despite the cool blitz of advertising. For a review of MP3 players you might try checking out these PC Magazine’s reviews.)

Engaging students on their turf
Listening to a podcast isa natural for today’s technologically saavy student.Podcasts provide a way to enliven lessons using a medium that students are completely familiar and comfortable with.The small portable MP3 players are particularly useful for students with tight time constraints. Lessons can be listened to whenever and wherever the student sees fit. For example, time pressured adults will truly appreciate the opportunity to squeeze in some quality study time in rather unconventional ways. Clever multi-taskers can review the week’s lessons while at the gym, during the morning commute, cleaning up the house, or sipping coffee at the local coffee shop. One is only limited by their imagination thanks to the small, highly portable, and inexpensivequalities of MP3 players.

How do Podcasts work?
Podcasts utilize an XML protocol called RSS €“ which help to identify the author, title and content of the broadcast in metadata. The metadata helps people to understand if they want to subscribe to the broadcast or not. Podcasts are posted to a Web server along with the XML document.

How do I make XML for a Podcast?
The W3C provides clear specifications for RSS (real simple syndication). RSS is an XML application.

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

Resources for Teachers

1. How Stuff Works: All about Podcasting
2. O’Reilly: What is Podcasting?
3. Podbean.com: Create a podcast and have it hosted in just a few minutes for free.
4. Podcasting Toolbox: 70+ Podcasting Tools and Resources
5. The Ultimate RSS Toolbox: 120+ RSS Resources
6. Apple.com: iPods in education -profiles of universities using the medium
7. PDF: Getting started with iPods in the classroom
8. Apple workshops on Podcasting in education
9. Apple’s distinguished educators’ series using iPods
10. Audacity: Free cross platform audio editor
11. Levilator: A free program that helps keep audio levels constant between speakers on your podcast.

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

Universities Who Utilize Podcasts
The best way to learn is to be inspired by others. Perhaps listening to these free podcasts from some major universities can help start you on the right path!

1. Stanford University
2. John Hopkins University
3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
4. University of California, Los Angeles
5. Yale University
6. UC Berkley
7. UC San Diego
8. Vanderbilt
9. Caltech
10. University of Edinburgh
11. Oxford
12. Columbia University

………………………………………………………………………….

References
………………………………………………………………………….
Apple.com. (2007). iPod in Education: Learning to Go. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from Apple.com: http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/podcastsfaq.html

Apple.com. (2007). Making a podcast. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from Apple.com: http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/podcaststechspecs.html#metadata

FeedForAll.com. (n.d.). FeedForAll & FeedForAll Mac software. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from Feedforall.com: http://www.feedforall.com/

GigaVox Media. (n.d.). The Levelator. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from Conversationsnetwork.org: http://www.conversationsnetwork.org/levelator

Patterson, L. (2006, October). How things work: The technology underlying podcasts. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from IEEE.org: http://www.computer.org/portal/site/computer/
menuitem.5d61c1d591162e4b0ef1bd108bcd45f3/
index.jsp?&pName=computer_level1_article&The
Cat=1055&path=computer/homepage/
1006&file=howthings.xml&xsl=article.xsl

PCMag.com. (n.d.). MP3 players. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from PCMag.com: http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,2705,2359,00.asp

RSSBoard.org. (n.d.). Really Simple Syndication best practices profile. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from RSSBoard.org: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-profile-1

RSSBoard.org. (n.d.). RSS Validator: Really simple syndication specifications, tutorials, and discussion. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from RSSBoard.org: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-validator

Watson, S. (n.d.). How podcasting works. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from HowStuffWorks.com: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/podcasting.htm

Podcastalley.com. (n.d.). What is a podcast? Retrieved December 11, 2007, from Podcastalley.com: http://www.podcastalley.com/what_is_a_podcast.php

Comparative Organizer: Situated Cognition
Author:Diane Michel

Representative theorists

1. Jean Lave €” A social anthropologist whose studies focus on learning through social interaction and situated learning. Significant breakthroughs achieved by “reconceiving” ideas of “learning, learners, and educational institutions”. Doesn’t believe that learning only exists in a person’s mind but is a part of, and is transformed by one’s social interactions. Theories touch upon cognition and perceptions transforming as a result of every day life and one’s interactions within their community of practice. Working in conjunction with Etienne Wenger developed the ground breaking book entitled Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (1991).

2. Etienne Wenger €” Primarily known for his work on communities of practice. Developed the concept along with Jean Lave while studying social apprenticeships and learning. Explores the ideas that human knowledge is fundamentally acquired by social interaction. Cognition, perception and action occur within a social context. Learning is not “just a one-to-one relationship with a master, but a relationship with a whole community of people with apprentices at different levels.”

3. Lev S. Vygotsky €“ Pioneered theories that social interaction was a critical part of cognitive development. Focused on development occurring as a result of the social and cultural context in which it is embedded.

4. Brown, Collins and Duguid €“ Theories focus on cognitive apprenticeships, and knowledge as “situated, being in part a product of the activity, context, and culture in which it is developed and used.” Real life situations in which knowledge is used cannot be separated from learning and cognition.

Key-factors that influence learning

1. Learning is a result of social interaction, collaboration and situated practice within an authentic context.

2. Critical to the learning process is the need for connecting to the “real world “. Knowledge taught in an abstract fashion and out of context may create learning that is merely symbolic and inert. Students may be unable to utilize the new knowledge because they lack the understanding of how it pertains to solving real life problems. They may know “what” but they don’t know “how”.

3. By showing and demonstrating the practical, useful qualities of new knowledge, it is therefore given relevance and meaning. It will then have a stronger chance of being used and remembered by the student.

4. Learning is accomplished by doing. Students must be given a chance to participate in relevant activities pertaining to the new material. By being given a chance to practice and do what “experts in a subject matter do”, successful learning of knowledge and its application to the real world is demonstrated.

5. Knowledge is transferred as teachers model behavior and articulate what they are thinking as they perform a specific task. This is intended to reveal their cognitive processes for solving the problem at hand. This helps the student to understand the steps involved, the sequence in which they are performed, and why they are performed.

6. Cognitive apprenticeship €“ learning occurs as an active participant in an authentic community. The community acts as a real world classroom for the learner. Success results from interaction within the group, acceptance and subsequent sharing of meaning & knowledge.

7. Learning cultural processes of problem solving within a community of practice is also an integral part of successful situational learning.

Communities of Practice

1. A community of practice is a group of people that are organized informally or formally that socially interact with each other and engage in common activities or pursuits. They collectively learn from one another as they work in their shared endeavor.

2. The community of practice focuses on a shared mutual goal. Through association and collaboration they develop shared meanings, ideas, resources and tools. Through their sharing of knowledge & problem solving techniques they collectively increase their expertise within their field of practice.

3. Legitimate peripheral participants (accepted members of the group) are allowed to share within the resources of knowledge. Membership implies a shared competence that distinguishes and creates autonomy within the group.

4. Eventually the newer participants of the group progress and evolve into mentors themselves. This process insures the continual renewal and growth of the organization and community at large.

5. Participating within the actual lived practices of a culture leads to stronger understanding of the group and it complexities.

6. Communities of practice lead to the fruitful expansion of knowledge, as true practitioners share, inspire, and solve problems jointly. The unique aspects of an informal culture encourage growth to occur at a faster rate, as traditional boundaries are crossed and former barriers to expertise are removed.

Role of the teacher/instructor in the learning process:
Instructors should…

1. Act as a coach who leads the student to understanding and greater awareness. The teacher is not a dictator of rote information. Provides strategies for the student to solve problems.

2. Create real life situations or scenarios that demonstrate how knowledge can be effectively applied. Learning tasks should be embedded within context and teachers should encourage the type of thinking that would actually be used in the real world.

3. Focus on realistic approaches to problem solving and approaching problems from multiple perspectives. Create activities that reflect the complexities that are present in the real world. Not everything is black and white.

4. Demonstrate and model correct behaviors for performing a task. Articulate the cognitive processes that occur as the problem is being solved. Explain the thought processes, reasoning, and problem solving strategy. Explain how and why they are doing something.

5. Once the student is ready to put into practice their new knowledge, the instructor monitors and acts as coach that assists them with problem solving.

6. Support students through the concept of scaffolding. As they attempt more difficult tasks then they are accustomed to, they will need support, encouragement and guidance. As the learner become more proficient, utilize fading by taking away cues slowly.

7. Encourage experimentation so that the student can try their own methods and strategies. The student should begin to form their own unique mental model to solve problems and thus make their own discoveries.

8. Empower the students to assess the situation, think and work independently. Self sufficiency is the ultimate goal. Encourage them to think and act like they would in a real world situation.

9. For those students involved within a community of practice outside of the school: encourage active participation, social interaction with members, seek out mentors, share group knowledge & resources, and engage in the actual cultural practices and problem solving tasks of the group.

10. Assessment of progress through questioning & review of experience, summary statistics for online learning environments, and completed student portfolios.

Types of learning

1. Collaborative learning through the social construction of knowledge

2. Learning correct processes by example. Learning occurs through situated modeling of expert behaviors and accepted practices.

3. Problem based learning

4. Can be unintentional rather than deliberate

5. Learning “how” in addition to learning “what”

6. Knowledge construction rather than reproduction

7. Learning is co-produced by the active engagement of the learner and the situation they find themselves in.

8. Incidental learning (spontaneous, learning from mistakes, networking, experimental)

9. Cognitive apprenticeship €“ acquiring, developing, and using cognitive tools in an authentic domain

10. Exploration and independent discovery – students try out their own ideas and in the process discover new methods and processes

Basic strategies

1. Show how newly acquired knowledge can be directly applied to the real world.

2. Embed learning opportunities within authentic problem solving environments.

3. Provide a mental model for students to understand cognitive processes and strategies.

4. Verbalize and reveal the exact thinking that is occurring as a sample problem is being solved.

5. Encourage students to think and act in practice situations just as they would in the real world.

6. Support collaborative efforts and social interaction as a means to discover and create knowledge.

7. Articulation & reflection €“ Foster reflective practice. Have students articulate their cognitive processes as they work through a situation. Have them reflect upon their successes and also on how they might improve in the future. Use
   “mistakes” as a way to provide constructive feedback and increase understanding.

8. Gently coach providing feedback, hints and encouragement. The teacher then gradually scales back with hints and advice as the student becomes more independent in their problem solving capabilities. Utilize scaffolding to
   guide the learner from what is currently known to what will be known.

9. Finally, allow students to test out and practice their new knowledge in authenticsituations through lab work, field work, work placements, or membership in a community of practice. Let the student take an active roll in their progress.

10. Students who join within a community of practice should be encouraged to fullyengage themselves, by participating and sharing the knowledge of the group, taking advantage of the resources made available to them: the tools, symbols, and
    expert problem solving processes.

11. Create methods to assess competencies and measure the success and effectiveness of learning.

Major Strengths

1. Anchored instruction within authentic, realistic context.

2. Thinking and doing brings about solidified knowledge that can be actively demonstrated.

3. “Knowing that”and “knowing how” are together within one framework. Thus, knowledge is no longer decentralized and abstracted.

4. Opportunity to actually practice skills and knowledge without the pressures of being expected to have fully mastered the skill set.

5. Learner is more engaged as an active participant in the learning task as opposed to being a passive receiver of knowledge.

6. Introduction to the nuances of a culture within a community of practice.

7. Creates a sense of belonging and identity for the student as they are accepted into a community of practice.

8. Teacher no longer an omniscient authority in the classroom, but rather serves as a guide to knowledge.

9. Ability to assess the student’s successful implementation of knowledge into the real world, by seeing firsthand their actions in performing specific tasks.

10. Providing internships creates a variety of experiences that a school may not be able to provide within the financial, and time constraints of the institution.

11. The opportunities to learn from real world subject matter experts provides deep connections to knowledge and connects the student with reality not abstract notions.

12. By tapping into the idea of learning from communities of practice, students understand that life long learning is achievable from other than the traditional classroom.

13. Weaknesses

14. Financial costs can be significant to find or develop authentic situations for students.

15. Constant monitoring, diagnosis of external situations is time consuming for the instructor especially in dealing with a large group of students.

16. Assessment of progress may be difficult. Traditional paper and pencil tests no longer appropriate to assess learning. Difficult to ascertain exactly what constitutes valid evidence of successful learning within a community of practice.

17. Apprenticeships must be well planned with goals for learning specifically outlined. Achievable goals must be defined and agreed to by all concerned. External apprenticeship experiences can be difficult to monitor.

18. If utilizing a community of practice approach, learning is highly dependent upon the quality of the group, the immediate learning environment, and members’ willingness to share information freely.

19. Apprenticeships/internships can turn negative if allowed to turn into a type of servitude that is solely centered on tedious tasks.

20. The roll of problem solving as in life, may not have clear cut absolute answers.

21. Learning is dependent upon the quality of the supervisor and dedication to the true growth of the apprentice. Can be difficult to tell if the supervisor will indeed provide quality guidance or is just looking for a source of labor.

22. Theoretical “big picture” perspectives and guidance may be left out of the learning process.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
References

• Abdullah, Mardziah Hayati (1999). Problem-Based Learning in Language Instruction: A Constructivist Model. Eric Digest. Retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-2/problem.htm

• Benson, Alexis (2004). Review and Analysis of Vygotsky’s Thought and Language. Retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://web.archive.org/web/20010209010341/129.7.160.115/INST5931/Vygotsky.html

• Brown, Collins, and Duguid. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI?resources/
  museumeducation/situated.html

• Cutshall, Tom (2002). Cognitive Apprenticeship Lesson Plan. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from http://www.arches.uga.edu/~cutshall/edit6400/
  cognitiveapprentlessonplan.html

• Driscoll, Marcy P. (1994), Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

• Lankard, Bettina A. (1995), New Ways of Learning in the Workplace. ERIC Digest No. 161. Retrieved November 13, 2004, from

http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed385778.html

• Lave, Jean. (1999). Chapter 8. Everyday Life. Retrieved November 13, 2004, from http://www.si.umich.edu/ICOS/Presentations/041699

• Murphy, Elizabeth (1997). Characteristics of Constructivist Learning & Teaching. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from http://www.cdli.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle3.html

• University of Western Australia (2000). Alternative Modes of Teaching and Learning. Alternative modes to delivery. Retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://www.csd.uwa.edu.au/altmodes/to_delivery/apprenticeship.html

• Unknown (2004). Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934). Retrieved November 13, 2004 from http://web.archive.org/web/20010802101038/

http://www.bestpraceduc.org/people/LevVygotsky.html

• Unknown (2004). Social Development Theory (L. Vygotsky). Retrieved November 13, 2004 from http://tip.psychology.org/vygotsky.html

• Wenger, Etienne, (2004). Interview with Etienne Wenger on Communities of Practice. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=119473

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
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.

MIT OpenCourseWare is supported through the generosity of people like you, who believe that unlocking knowledge can empower minds. Read the rest of this entry »