FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LEARNING COMMUNITY IN AN ONLINE GRADUATE PROGRAM

The purpose of this article is to disseminate the preliminary results of the first year of a 3-year longitudinal case study being conducted by an interdisciplinary research team of five faculty members investigating the question, “How was an effective online learning community developed among the first cohort of students in an instructional design and technology master’s degree program?” Instructors in the program from elementary, secondary, special education, reading, and educational leadershi departments with expertise in distance learning, adult learning, and multimedia are guiding the Community of Learners Research Project. This project is significant because most previous studies have explored how online learning communities emerge within the context of a single academic course taken online for a semester. No studies have identified the characteristics of an effective community spanning an entire program and determined whether certain community-building approaches were perceived by students to be more effective than others. Furthermore, prior studies have investigated the development of an online learning community from one or two authors’ perspectives, but few studies have synthesized the multiple perspectives of five reflective practitioners responsible for effectuating program refinements.

The metaphor of community is used to describe a wide range of scenarios, both real and virtual. According to Schwier (2001), all communities are collections of individuals bound together for some reason, and those reasons define the boundaries of each community. In a postmodern context, community is increasingly difficult to define because human ties are no longer limited by geographical proximity. Several researchers (Misanchuck & Anderson, 2001; Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Kollock & Smith, 1997; Jones, 1995, 1998; Paloff & Pratt, 1999, 2003; Rheingold, 1993; Roschelle & Pea, 1999; Rovai, 2001, 2002; Schaefer & Anudsen, 1993; Schuler, 1996; Shields, 1996; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2003) share a common interest in defining communities enabled by the Internet. Terms used interchangeably to refer to this phenomenon include online learning communities (Chang, 2003; Jonassen, 1993, 1996; Lock, 2002; Palloff & Pratt, 1999); communities of practice (Brown & Issacs, 1995; Johnson, 2001; Rogers, 2000; Wenger, 1998); and virtual communities (Brook & Boal, 1995; Lockhard, 1996; Rheingold, 1993; Schuler, 1996). A definition by Rovai (2002) captures the essence of an online learning community as “mutual interdependence among members, a sense of belonging, connectedness, spirit, trust, interactivity, common expectations, shared values and goals, and overlapping histories among members” (p. 2). Chang (2003) synthesizes its salient features: “(1) spontaneous learning and active knowledge construction by individual learners; (2) idea sharing and information provision for all members of the learning community; and (3) distributed knowledge and expertise” (p. 27).

In the realm of higher education, according to Morrison and Shrivastava (2001), academic online communities are more formalized “groups of learners and instructors, supported by instructional and learning resources, pursuing common knowledge-interests in an online environment” (p. 3). Each academic online community represents a unique entity in terms of its course content, learning objectives, community norms, students, faculty, and administration. Shapiro and Hughes (2000) view learning in the academy as a “particular kind of information system” (p. 97). Several scholars (Dede, 1995; Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, & Robins, 2000; Hiltz, 1998; Hiltz, Coppola, Rotter, Turoff, & Benbunan-Fich, 2000; MacNeil, 1997; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Tu & Corry, 2001, 2002; Tu & McIsaac, 2001) believe that online academic communities defy definition because they so rapidly evolve beyond traditional educational frameworks as new research, technology, and applications emerge. Currently, no value neutral, purely administrative or technical way of building an online learning community in a distance learning program exists; professional educators cannot manufacture them. Educators can, however, facilitate the development of community consciousness by acting as responsible and effective members of the communities they inhabit to produce learning environments that are “more rational, meaningful, productive, satisfying, humane, democratic, and enhancing of learning” (Shapiro & Hughes, 2000, p. 101).

The first cohort of students worked primarily in educational fields as teachers or trainers in K-12, postsecondary, corporate, and industry settings either within the state or in other states; no students from foreign countries participated. A mix of aspiring Web entrepreneurs, teachers, academics, IT specialists, and instructional designers, students were planning for careers or employment as instructional designers or developers. Those entering the program had well-defined project ideas in mind for creating online courses, Websites, multimedia products, application software, training, and tutorial projects. They contributed a substantial amount of professional knowledge and experience to the community, yet all sought to acquire a deeper conceptual understanding of learning theory and instructional design in order to produce more effective instructional products.

Students began the program in August 2002 and completed 30 units consisting of 10 online courses completed over 20 months. Taking two courses in 16-week term segments to fulfill their degree requirements, they also met in a face-to-face, 2-day orientation session, “Boot-up Camp,” and a 1-day “Mid-point Symposium” that supplemented the online community-building activities. Twenty-two students enrolled, and 18 students—8 female and 10 male—completed the program, earning a master’s degree in instructional design and technology. Longitudinal research on the program is ongoing, and the preliminary findings will be expanded to incorporate two additional cohorts of approximately 18-25 students each.

The interdisciplinary nature of this program attracted faculty with a diverse set of technology skills and content area expertise within the university’s college of education. Current members of the workgroup, each of whom teach at least one course in the program, espouse the virtues of online learning and view it as a powerful tool for forming a close-knit community focused around shared program goals. Faculty remain united under a single umbrella to carry out the student-centered educational mission of the program. They participated in a planning process encompassing a year-long collaborative, deliberative, “bottom up” approach to course and program design and delivery and continue to collaborate through regularly-scheduled workgroup and research group meetings.

The research is being conducted in a large, urban, comprehensive BA and master’s degree institution in a western state serving an ethnically diverse student population. The university enrolls approximately 33,000 students and employs 1,800 faculty members. A pilot project initiated by the university president and vice president, the program is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) and is administered by a program coordinator with oversight by the dean of education. Distance learners receive services made available to students on campus such as remote access to the library and bookstore.

Blackboard’s e-learning course management software, selected to deliver the university’s first distance learning graduate program, became the context for the community. Each course made extensive use of Blackboard’s asynchronous collaborative tools, especially the online discussion forums. Multiple discussion forums related to weekly course topics were created by each course instructor and functioned as a container for all discussions pertaining to course topics. Discussion threads, subsets of each discussion forum, enabled students to branch out from the designated topics, thereby increasing their control over the learning environment.

A qualitative case study method (Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1989, 2003) was used to research the phenomenon of online community development in this program:

Faculty reviewed recent distance learning literature related to online learning communities in higher education and categorized the vast array of theoretical propositions into a conceptual framework of representative studies. The conceptual framework, comprised of eight research-based elements, served to guide data collection and analysis. Thus, the case study method proved useful “as a receptacle for putting theories to work” (Eckstein, 1975, p. 100).

Triangulation was accomplished by collecting data from multiple sources:

1. Secondary Source Data. Coresearchers consulted secondary source materials integral to program development including planning, design, delivery, and evaluation documents. Coresearchers reviewed documents prepared for national, regional, university, and college committees including advisory councils, workgroups, faculty presentations, Academic Senate, and WASC accreditation. At the programmatic level, coresearchers obtained university-approved course proposals and syllabi for 10 courses comprising the program: hardware and authoring environments; research practices in instructional design and technology; instructional design issues for technology-based instruction; instructional approaches to learning and cognition; planning, designing, and evaluating technology-based instruction; instructional strategies pre-K through adulthood; Webbased teaching and learning; emerging technology and issues in instruction; practicum in instructional design and technology; and master’s project independent study.

2. Discussion Board Archives. Students’ verbatim comments were archived from the discussion boards of four 15-week courses. Each course contained approximately 15 asynchronous threaded discussion forums facilitated by the course instructor. This data set included approximately 60 discussion forums with an average of 125 postings per forum, totaling 7,500 messages. A distinct advantage of using archived transcripts for conducting case study research is that it reduces participants’ reactions to the presence of faculty researchers.

3. Students’ Written Records. During Boot-Up Camp, students wrote personal narratives projecting their professional goals; at the Mid-point Symposium, students wrote responses to a reflective prompt, “Being an Online Student.” Both sets of reflective documents were made available to the research group for the purpose of ascertaining students’ perceptions about participating in a community of learners.

4. Focus Group Data. A focus group for students was conducted by an outside program evaluator in two 1-hour sessions split into two parts: a brief, 10-minute questionnaire followed by a 45-minute discussion about students’ perceptions about the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Both sessions were tape recorded with the consent of the participants. A faculty focus group was also conducted in a single 75-minute session and was tape recorded with participants’ consent. Results of both evaluations were provided to the students and to the faculty.

5. Student Exit Survey. Coresearchers critically reviewed the literature regarding online academic learning environments and synthesized a conceptual framework from representative studies to identify “best practices” for enhancing online learning. Thus, the prior development of theoretical propositions guided the design of the survey instrument. A Web-based interview protocol was posted within a week of students’ completion of the program. The survey was designed to elicit thoughtful, in-depth explorations of each student’s perceptions about community development. Survey questions consisted of 14 open-ended questions and one question consisting of 21 items configured in a Likert-like scale ranging from strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, strongly disagree, and no response. Fifteen of the 18 students submitted the confidential survey online, for a response rate of 83%.

The research-based conceptual framework became the lens through which community development reflecting eight programmatic areas was analyzed. The research team determined to what extent the characteristics of effective online learning communities converged with or diverged from students’ perceptions of community in this program. Researchers sorted through raw data from the sources identified, searching for correspondences between the theoretical constructs and the data collected. The eight theoretical constructs were rank ordered in terms of their significance from students’ perspectives. Trustworthiness was arrived at through data triangulation, consensual validation, member checks, and critiques of multiple drafts of scholarly articles generated by the lead author. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics ranking students’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of practices for facilitating the growth and development of an online learning community. Community-building experiences across the program were organized from most important to least important (1 = most important, 8 = least important) from students’ perspectives.

In traditional educational environments, whether real or virtual, the delivery of curriculum and instruction is the central focus of the educational enterprise; the development of community as a foundation for learning is often ignored. Palloff and Pratt (1999) remind distance educators that “attention needs to be paid to the developing sense of community within the group of participants in order for the learning process to be successful” (p. 29). Instructors need to actively support “the natural development of relationships” (Schwier, 2001, p. 6) within these learning communities. This theory aligns with Conrad’s (2002) work suggesting that the creation of an online learning community serves as the foundation for a successful learning environment. Moreover, Stepich and Ertmer (2003) propose that while community engagement cannot be mandated, it can be nurtured by instructors who maintain the goal of developing a sense of community within their online classes.

Throughout the program, students perceived community to be the sine qua non for learning, and the vehicle through which community evolved incrementally. Ninety-three percent of students responded affirmatively to the statement: “I feel I have been a member of an online learning community in this program.” Rovai (2001) identifies four components of a developing classroom community, while Palloff and Pratt (1999) highlight other stages in the coalescence of online learning communities. What is significant in both of these stage models of community development is the fact that virtual communities do indeed develop over time (Davenport & Hall, 2002; Johnson, 2001; Stepich & Ertmer, 2003). “Each member of the cohort was an integral part of the learning community. We all came to the program with our own strengths and weaknesses and looked to the community to fill in the missing areas.” Students linked community and group membership and defined the online learning community that evolved as:

• “a group of individuals sharing resources and learning together for a common purpose;”

• “a group of learners who gain knowledge in an online environment that allows for more personal, meaningful interaction;”

• “a group of students sharing resources, ideas, and concerns;”

• “a group of learners who use remote connection tools to engage in common learning tasks;”

• “a group of people bound by some commonality in which interpersonal interactions take place;”

• “a group of learners who are able to gain knowledge in an Internet-based environment to learn more about topics of mutual interest.”

R. E. Brown (2001) contends that when students perceive a close connection to an online learning community, they often place a higher priority on learning and spend more time devoted to it. Students commented that community involvement made them feel more committed to attaining the shared goals of the program (93%); community membership enhanced their sense of self-worth and efficacy (80%); and engagement in the community decreased their sense of isolation and increased their social support for learning (74%). While students almost unanimously agreed that an online community had formed, one student qualified her response, adding, “I found it less meaningful than a place-based community.”

From a theoretical perspective, Lave and Wenger (1991) locate “learning squarely in the processes of co-participation, not in the heads of individuals” (p. 13). The authors locate learning in increased access to participating roles in expert performances. A student confirmed this: “I felt that leaders and experts emerged through the discussion boards.” When learning is viewed as situated activity, it has as its central defining characteristic a process called “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991). As newcomers participate in communities of practice to master knowledge and skills, they move toward full participation in the practices of the community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Given this orientation, the authors view learning as a “special type of social practice associated with the kind of participation frame designated legitimate peripheral participation (LPP)” (p. 18). As such, the notion of LPP provides a window into community formation. One student said, “The exchange of experiences, ideas, and prior knowledge is more natural when all members feel socially connected to the community.”

The literature substantiates that as students acquire the ways of engaging in an online community, they learn how to enter a distinctive community of practitioners (Brown & Issacs, 1995). Gradually, they see themselves as full members of the community, where their “changing knowledge, skill, and discourse are part of a developing identity” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 122). Without this changing identity, students lack a firm sense of themselves as members of communities. Since Lave and Wenger (1991) link identity/mem-bership and motivation, it would appear that students who see themselves as lacking membership may take isolationist stances common among disaffected learners. By contrast, if students see their learning activities as being part of an accepted learning community, then the motivation to sustain and enhance that community may well cause students to value and contribute to their newly found identity. As such, they will likely begin to identify with other learners, thus adding to the learning community in productive ways.

A community of practice is an essential attribute of a successful online learning environment (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Most communities of practice evolve and reshape themselves according to the needs of the learners who comprise them (Squire & Johnson, 2000; Wenger, 1998). As another indicator of community importance, 93% of the students expressed a desire to participate in a community of practice after graduation by joining local, national or international organizations to stay connected. One student reflected, “I now feel better prepared to join the professional community of instructional design.”

The literature contends that communities founded on social constructivist pedagogy (Schweir & Balbar, 2002; Weasenfirth, 2002; ) tend to create conditions conducive to the development of an online academic learning community. Dykes and Schwier (2003) highlight important research (Collinson, Elbaum, Haavind, & Tinker, 2000; Salmon, 2000) asserting that the use of online discussion forums support social constructivist learning (Maor, 2003) by engaging learners, asking them to express their knowledge, and interacting with others as they negotiate, co-create, and expand meaning. According to Tam (2000), “Traditional educational values of replicability, reliability, communication, and control constrast sharply with the seven primary constructivist values of collaboration, personal autonomy, generativity, reflectivity, active engagement, personal relevance, and pluralism” (p. 6) typically found in constructivist online learning environments.

In this case study, 93% of the students strongly agreed or agreed that they “experienced a constructivist learning environment.” They participated experientially in learning activities that incorporated active learning, experimentation, exploration, and applying theory to practice. Students engaged in selfdirected learning by following multiple pathways to create personal meaning. One student wrote, “The process of learning required me to travel over the same path many times. My interactions with other students, watching other students ahead or behind me on the path, allowed me to revisit my learning in the same or slightly different way.” Feedback from others, collaboration, and especially teamwork (or as a student put it “forcing us to work in groups”) became powerful forces for engendering learning. “Although I normally loathe working in groups in traditional school settings, I found this online setting to best promote community development,” a student reflected. Immersion in a constructivist learning environment actually changed students’ perceptual frame about how they learned best. “I feel I have been able to directly apply my new frame of reference to the way I train others. The program’s focus on constructivist theories and practice made me feel that I really know how to adopt certain constructivist elements in e-learning, when prior to the program I couldn’t realize it.”

Additionally, 86% of the students affirmed that they experienced a learning curriculum, rather than a teaching curriculum, in which a field of resources (print, electronic, and human) was made available to them. As Lave and Wenger (1991) point out, communities of practice are distinguished by having a learning curriculum rather than a teaching curriculum. A learning curriculum is the field of resources that learners make use of while participating in a community of practice, whereas a teaching curriculum limits learning by structuring the resources and controlling participants’ access to them. This can be contrasted with a correspondence course, in which students simply access the existing course curriculum, respond to it, and submit assignments individually. Certainly current research (Johnson, 2001; Rogers, 2000) suggests that students from online learning communities may come to learn more from the information added by their class members than what was originally presented by the instructor.

Students’ perceptions of learning in a constructivist environment in this program are consistent with Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of legitimate peripheral participation, a theory rooted in social constructivism in which social presence is the “primary, generative phenomenon, and learning one of its characteristics” (p. 34). The literature confirms that in true communities of practice, learning is “distributed among co-participants” (p. 15). Often times, researchers exploring constructivist learning environments report, “there is very little observable teaching; the more basic phenomenon is learning” (p. 92). A student commented, “I looked forward to posts by particular individuals because I developed a great respect for their opinions.” There may be no special lectures, classes, or uses of language designed to engage apprentice learners. Instead, researchers describe learners doing things in the company of other—more expert—participants.

It is important to note that when the constructivist learning environment became too unstructured in a few group-managed projects or when individual members went off on tangents “doing their own thing,” students reported that community cohesion diminished.

In a constructivist environment, given the limitations of time, distance, and access to students, the instructor can never truly be “in control” of every learning situation (Simonson et al., 2003). As such, instructors in constructivist learning environments tend to rely on students to maintain focus on the course objectives, guide discussions, and remain integrally connected to the course content as active learners. Moreover, Bielaczyc and Collins (1999) write that a culture of learning is promoted in learning communities, leading to the community goal of learning and of sharing that knowledge (Stepich & Ertmer, 2003). Palloff and Pratt (1999) reiterate: “key to the learning process are the interactions among students themselves, the interactions between faculty and students, and the collaboration in learning that results from these interactions” (p. 5).

In a constructivist paradigm, knowledge is created collaboratively and interactions among students provide the major direction for knowledge acquisition. The work of Wang, Sierra, and Folger (2003) provides strong support for the need for collaborative learning strategies as a factor in building constructivist environments. In fact, Johnson (2001) describes learning in online communities as generating collaborative knowledge that is greater than the knowledge of any individual. Furthermore, the ill-structured problems and issues likely to be encountered in online communities of practice often call for knowledge that is beyond that possessed by any one member of the learning community, including the instructor. Ninety-three percent of the students agreed, “I was called upon to solve ill-structured problems, work collaboratively in groups to learn, and negotiate my learning goals.” For this reason, the instructor’s role shifts as he or she “guides learners in attaining their goals by helping them develop cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies” (Johnson, 2001, p. 47).

Twigg (2001) highlights research demonstrating that members of successful online learning communities often take on the role of the instructor more often than do students in traditional classrooms. In addition to providing a valuable contribution to the online learning community, this experience may have great value when students enter the work world (Twigg, 2001). Rogers (2000), who adapted Lave and Wenger’s (1991) theory of legitimate peripheral participation to investigate online learning communities, discovered that students actively engaged in the class community in a manner that emphasized learning as a joint enterprise. Rogers (2000) supports other research (Berge, 2002; Schallert, Reed, Hailey, & the D-Team, 2003) in his discussion of how learners who view knowledge as dynamic and negotiable are able to build their own representations of knowledge while also contributing to the learning experiences of their colleagues in the class. Ultimately, Lave and Wenger (1991) suggest that learning is a relationship among people. In fact, according to these authors, the “social process, includes, indeed it subsumes, the learning of knowledgeable skills” (1991, p. 29). Without the ability to work closely with trusted teachers and discuss learning issues and questions regarding course content, online learners may never develop the ability to later solve learning tasks independently. Thus, the social transactions so characteristic of a constructivist learning environment are crucial as newcomers begin to see themselves as legitimate members of a community of practice—or an online learning community.

One of the first considerations when building an effective online learning community in a graduate program is the faculty’s determination of a relevant teaching-learning-assessment paradigm that utilizes sound pedagogical theory linked to effective assessment methodology (Speck, 2002). Such a paradigm considers learning as a process in which students have opportunities to explore ideas and make mistakes. Faculty used multiple measures, but primarily assessed learning through the process of writing (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). There is an emphasis on higher order critical thinking skills embedded in discussion questions, rubric development, projects and papers (Jeong, 2003; Weigel, 2002). In this program, 87% of students agreed that when they received positive feedback on their progress as learners, their sense of community improved. “Positive evaluations of my work made me feel included in the community,” a student confirmed.

Table 2 identifies the assessment paradigm employed in this program by listing the multiple assessment tools used, the assessment outcomes, the purposes for each assessment activity, and the impact of assessment on community development.

Due to the recent explosion of online degree programs, the literature also discusses the importance of evaluating online learning degree programs with clearly articulated criteria for consistent evaluation (Lim, 2001). Regional accreditation agencies have been working towards standards for assessment at the program level (Allen, Seaman, & Seaman, 2003). “Best Practices” documents, such as The Sloan Consortium’s (n.d.) publication Sloan C’s Effective Practices, are guiding program evaluation. Program effectiveness is being measured in terms of its alignment with the institutional mission, provisions for program oversight and accountability, provisions for faculty support, provisions for student support, and implementation of evaluation and assessment measures (Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2001).

Researchers contend that an instructor’s presence and social interaction influence students’ motivation, course engagement, and learning achievement (Jung, Choi, Lim, & Leem, 2002; Shin, 2003). In learning communities, instructor-to-student interactions are similar to expert-novice relationships. Building on the theories of Vygotsky (1962, 1978), especially the zone of proximal development, Rogoff (1991) envisions learning as including the participation of a novice learner in a jointly constructed activity in which an expert assists the novice by providing guidance, feedback, and explanation, enabling the learner to internalize the cultural ways of performing the activity. Recent research (Wenger, 1998) suggests that it is through repeated and varied experience in supported routine and challenging situations that learners become skilled practitioners in the activities of their communities. In this view, learning is a joint activity between a beginner and an expert, with the expert guiding the novice in this jointly undertaken activity by providing demonstrations, giving explanations, and offering support. “Cognitive science research has helped us understand how learners develop a knowledge base as they learn. An individual moves from being a novice in a subject area toward developing competency in that area through a series of learning processes” (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000, p. 237). This practice, in turn, brings a sense of cohesion to the community (Rogers, 2000). Rogers’ (2000) work demonstrates that Wenger’s (1998) core concepts of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire are present in effective online learning communities.

New learners also require the assistance of more experienced peers (e.g., one student in this program referred to a peer as a “pseudo instructor”) as they enter online communities of practice. The importance of “more capable peers” is significant when viewed through the lens of social learning theories (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1991; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, 1991; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). Online instructors who establish close working relationships with their students are often effective in recognizing the developmental needs of their students. This scaffolded approach to teaching and learning suggests that effective learning and teaching do indeed occur in the company of more experienced others (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1991; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, 1991). Researchers agree that “e-moderating” (Anderson & Reed, 1998; Collinson et al., 2000; Dykes & Schweir, 2003; Salmon, 2000; ) in virtual communities is a complex process. Instructors build a community of learners so their students can test, examine, and clarify the many ideas and conceptions they bring with them to the online classroom. Moreover, an open environment allows students to gain access to the craft knowledge and the thinking processes of their more experienced peers and instructors. Thus, a successful learning community enables students to reexamine preconceived notions of what it means to be a student in the context of a supportive environment.

In the online classroom, according to Palloff & Pratt (1999), “the instructor is represented predominately by text ... demonstrated by the number, length, and quality of his or her posts” (p. 153). Students’ responses to open-ended survey questions in this study indicated that the instructor’s presence in the discussion boards was critical to building community. “When one prof summarized what cohort members wrote for the week and we were cited by name for our contribution, this increased our sense of community.” When professors “were extremely positive and encouraging,” students’ motivation to learn increased. Students appreciated their instructors’ community building actions such as their sustained presence on the discussion boards, supportive phone calls, and “good response times for emails and the thoughtfulness and caring they exhibited.” When it was necessary for two new professors to join the program for a brief stint, students recognized this anomaly, immediately noting that “the new profs didn’t seem to understand they were stepping into a developed community.” Students’ recommendation for enhancing future community development through instructor-student interactions included standardizing community norms regarding instructor participation.

Researchers have classified the kinds of social interchanges that occur in online discussion forums (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998; Rochelle & Pea 1999; Schallert et al, 2003; Scheffel, Omdal, & Usrey, 2000). Critical discourse is paramount among them, and as Hudson (2002) suggests, variations of critical discourse are evident, such as “personally directed feedback . critical analysis . critical thinking . critical theory . dialectical theory . dialogue as action . and critical consciousness” (Hudson, 2002, p. 55). Common to all online critical discourse activities is the “shared exploration of thought processes that lie behind ideas, not just the logic and data in isolation, but also at the human needs and relationships that underlie the issues” (Hudson, 2002, p. 54). Community in this program developed primarily through text-based critical discourse spanning multiple discussion forums. Instructors and students challenged each other to critically evaluate the course content and to apply their new learning to solving problems of practice based on reasoned rationales. The exit survey revealed that 80% of students strongly agreed or agreed that they learned by engaging in online discussions that challenged them to “think critically.” However, text-based learning appeared to be a problem for a few students, one of whom confessed, “I was overwhelmed with the amount of text, especially when I am used to getting information directly, all at once, and in a combination of presentations, both verbal and visual.”

Every online student carves out a special social role, persona, and status in the group when engaging in critical discourse. Students invent different electronic personalities, may recreate themselves online, or may assume multiple identities (Hudson, 2002; Jones, 1995; Pratt, 1996; Shcaffer & Anundsen, 1993). Since discussion boards archive written records reflecting students’ critical discourse, the paper trail tends to magnify students’ sensitivities. Students tend to protect themselves from the peculiar harshness of the online learning environment, devoid of body language and verbal cues, and adopt polite, superficial online personas. Hudson (2002) discusses “resilient vulnerability” (p. 62), a disposition that students can be assisted to develop as a necessary attribute for engaging comfortably in critical discourse.

Cadieux (2002) studied 111 community college students and found that students who experienced critical discourse in face-to-face (F2F) discussion groups compared with online discussion groups reported stronger feelings of spirit, trust, and interaction in F2F. Further complicating matters, Jun and Park (2003), after analyzing text from 1,002 postings from both American and ESL students, found that ESL students were less likely to engage in critical discourse and initiated postings far less frequently than American students. International students’ postings were generally sympathetic responses to others’ opinions and reflected powerless language such as disclaimers, hedges, and tag questions. Critical discourse, therefore, can be impeded by cultural misunderstandings.

Conversely, psychological benefits accrue from critical discourse; as one student observed, “Online discussions are a gift from heaven for me ... I feel safe to convey my thoughts.” Critical discourse can precipitate psychological and spiritual issues identified in the literature by Palloff and Pratt (1999) as “core issues in the formation of community” (p. 38). They express concern about traditional American cultural values that extol “rugged individualism” (p. 38) and that mitigate against “a high level of psychological connection with others” (p. 38). Spirituality increases each learner’s level of openness through critical discourse and builds connectedness where acceptance for who we becomes the “psychological benefit of community” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999, p. 39).

Critical discourse is influenced by gender, as discussed in the literature (Kirkup & Priimmer, 1990), but in this case study, students perceived a “good mix in the gender category.” Mann and Stewart (2002) note that the Internet, a traditional male stronghold of computer science and technology, has reflected prejudice against female users. Studies are beginning to report changes in the high rates of Internet usage for women, but also “women’s enjoyment and satisfaction with online learning” (Mann & Stewart, 2002, p. 35). Rovai (2000) asserts that gender issues surface in discussion boards with females manifesting a stronger sense of community than their male counterparts. Effective communities alleviate gender issues through critical discourse. Furthermore, critical discourse can be influenced by ethnicity or disability. Such issues did not impact this community, with students reporting that gender, ethnicity, and disability issues were “almost non-existent.” However, the cohort was not as ethnically diverse as students expected. A student observed, “We were nearly all white professionals who needed to develop a critical awareness of the role of gender and ethnicity, even if it was not well represented.” Students expressed a preference for a more diverse cohort drawn from different geographic regions across the country as a way of enriching critical discourse.

Students beginning virtual academic programs may feel lacking in social connections to one another, which may lead to feelings of isolation (Anderson & Misanchuck, 2001). Seventy-four percent of students in this program reported that they used social networking to decrease their sense of isolation and increase their feelings of inclusion. “When I first started this program I didn’t consider or know anything about an online community. It became apparent eventually, of course. And actually without it, I am not sure I could complete this program, as there have been times when I was feeling burned out and overwhelmed and wondered if I could sustain the effort.” Students listed social interactions online, group projects, and group discussions generating “large, passionate responses” as positive attributes of peer-to-peer interaction. Face-to-face meetings at the orientation and at midpoint made them feel most included in the community; as a student reflected, “The bootup, midpoint and commencement experiences were necessary since relationships needed to be established in order to gain a sense of trust with peers. I don’t feel I would have felt as much of a sense of drive completing the program had I not established relationships with my peers by meeting face-to-face. It would have been much easier to quit halfway through if it had all been online.” Role differentiation was another positive aspect of peer-to-peer interaction. Evoking an overall “evenness” in the community where “we knew each other’s strengths and were able to seek help from others in this community,” students appreciated the division of labor. Students invented amusing ways to characterize the contributions of their peers by creating community archetypes such as “the geek,” “the resident skeptic,” “the devil’s advocate,” “the lost soul,” and the “APA guru.” Evidence of peer-to-peer acceptance was reflected in the following comments:

• “Interaction on the discussion board is what made inclusion happen.”

• “We asked each other for ideas and we were always flattered to share our knowledge.”

• “Private e-mails that were either jokes or social, unrelated to a specific assignment, contributed to the feeling of inclusion.”

• “I made sure to work in groups with different members throughout the program so I did not feel excluded.”

It is worth noting that, while positive interactions with their peers contributed to students’ sense of community, only 26% stated that the most meaningful learning came about through their interactions with others. This supports research by Jung et al. (2002) who found collaborative interaction may increase students’ sense of community, but it does not necessarily increase learning achievement.

Negative peer-to-peer interactions had detrimental affects on community coalescence. For example, after being snubbed by another student when she requested help, the student said: “Needless to say, I did not e-mail [that person] ever again.” Another student was concerned when complaining, name calling, and finger pointing from a peer closed down her participation. Subgroups within the community formed where K-12 teachers collaborated and students from business and industry “clung together and developed their own sense of community,” creating some tension between groups. Also, more expert students intimidated novice students with less advanced technology skills and these students felt excluded until “the technocrats reached out.”

From a theoretical perspective, peers may encourage or discourage each other from enrolling in online courses or programs, as well as influence a peer’s satisfaction with the online learning experience (Irani, 1999; Jung et al., 2002; Shin, 2003). Jung et al. (2002) found that students’ satisfaction with online learning environments was strongly related to the amount of active interaction with other learners, noting that small group activities can enhance learning motivation. Shin (2003) reports this as well, noting that peer interaction is more likely to affect students’ course completion rate and motivation towards distance learning than their perceived academic achievement. Shin failed to find any relationship between peer relationships and learning achievement. Shin documents previous research (Egan & Gibb, 1997; Kirkup & Priimmer, 1990; Morgan & Thorpe, 1993) that suggests “peer contact or interaction can enrich a distance student’s learning experience, including the areas of satisfaction as well as cognitive development” (p. 80), but notes that her own study indicates that the effect of students’ peer interactions is “more evident in an affective domain such as attitude, satisfaction, or motivation toward distance learning rather than in a cognitive domain of learning” (p. 80). Jung et al. (2002) investigated academic, collaborative, and social interactions with attitude, satisfaction, participation, and learning toward online learning and found that collaborative interaction among students did not increase learning achievement.

From a technical standpoint, online learning communities are considered to be the fourth generation of distance learning (Lauzon & Moore, 1989). According to Bray (M. Bray, personal communication, October 9, 2004), the first generation used print materials such as books and pamphlets to mediate learning, while the second generation used audio technologies such as radio and telephone. The third generation of distance learning technologies focused on the use of video to deliver instruction. These technologies included television and video-based teleconferencing (Moore & Kersey, 1996). Fourth-generation online learning communities must meet the technological needs of learners, including reliability and stability of the technology. Technology has an impact on community development, according to A. Brown (1997). Computer-mediated learning systems involve a wide variety of synchronous and asynchronous learning tools to facilitate communication (Huang, 2000). Synchronous learning tools allow users to communicate at the same time. Examples include chat and personal computer-based video conferencing. Examples of asynchronous learning tools include e-mail and discussion forums and allow the users to participate in discussions at different times (Firdyiwek, 1999).

A wide range of electronic tools are available to distance educators and are widely used in a variety of distance education settings (Cohen, 1999; Dede, 1995; Eastmond & Lawerence, 1997-1998; Fahy & Archer, 1999; Firdyiwek, 1999; Harmon & Jones, 1999; Kanuka & Anderson, 1998). Huang (2000) has identified the most widely used of these technologies, such as e-mail, online discussion groups, online resources, CD-ROM, and online courseware. Online courseware provides a common set of tools that facilitate the design, delivery, and management of an online course (Firdyiwek, 1999). These systems use the World Wide Web as the user interface and allow the designer to select the communication tools to be used in the course (Huang, 2000).

Online delivery systems have several attributes that are critical to successful learning, including cognitive theory, media theory, theory of motivation, and theory of social context (McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996; Smith & Dillon, 1999). Social learning theory is also critical to understanding how learning occurs in online environments by examining the impact that media has on group learning (Chen, 1997; Jonassen, Campbell, & Davidson, 1994). While online environments can be used completely for individualized learning, Evans and Nation (1989) maintain that interaction is a critical component of real understanding. Since online environments do not involve face-to-face contact, online interaction becomes a critical aspect of distance learning (Comeaux, 1995; Gosmire, 1995; McDonald & Gibson, 1998; McHenry & Bozik, 1995). Given the wide range of tools available to the instructional designer, online environments can be created that facilitate interactions between and among students and teachers (Huang, 2000).

However, Riel (1996) argues that building a community is not the same thing as building a physical space. Tools such as listservs, Webpages, and videoconferencing do not define community. It is the partnerships and interactions between and among people that foster or hinder community development within an online learning environment.

Computer-mediated communication in this program was accomplished through Blackboard e-learning course management software. Focus group data from this study indicated that students rated their satisfaction with Blackboard at 3.7 out of a possible 5. Seventy-three percent of the students generally agreed that Blackboard was easy to navigate and ease of technology use reinforced their sense of community. Students found Blackboard to be functionally well designed, accessible, effective in facilitating discussion, and relatively easy to use. However, computer-mediated communication can become an impediment to community development. When the system was slow and occasionally unavailable, or if unscheduled downtimes occurred, the community was disrupted. Fifty-three percent of the students surveyed responded that they agreed or strongly agreed that when there were technical difficulties with using Blackboard, their sense of community was diminished; 43% of the students said if they could not get access to the course their sense of community was decreased.

Students perceived a few difficulties associated with electronic pedagogy. A few files stored in the system were inadvertently deleted after 1 year and resulted in the loss of valuable information. Updated versions of the Blackboard software required new learning, which overwhelmed students already carrying a heavy workload. Students identified software limitations such as the ability to send multiple attachments without using zip files, a less-than-seamless library interface, and glitches communicating from a Mac platform as technical obstacles impeding community involvement. There was also some confusion in students’ minds about synchronous interactivity. The program is asynchronous, but improved chat features prompted thinking about how synchronous features might be better incorporated to enhance community building.

Technology itself was not a major factor impeding students’ learning in this study. Effective and frequent communication on the part of the instructor and positive peer-to-peer communication appeared to be more important than the technology. Instructional strategies matched to the content and a variety of online tools, especially discussion forums, were equally important to students’ success. Students with low-tech skills enjoyed learning the software programs such as FrontPage and Dreamweaver; high-tech students apparently enjoyed an open-ended approach to learning. Learning in a Web-based environment was especially beneficial to students in this program because they were immersed in the very technologies they were studying. “I think our Master’s program is more valid since we are becoming experts in instructional media by using it to get our degree,” a student remarked. Instructors anticipated negative comments about the technology, but found that students were generally supportive, or at least neutral, about learning in a computer-mediated environment. The quality of the instruction and frequency of communication seemed to minimize technology issues. Overall, students affirmed that learning via technology was an important dimension of a developing community as these selected quotes reveal:

• “Technology can help or hurt education. It is just a tool as we have seen many times during our program. If students are sitting in cubicles working on computers for hours on end, this certainly increases isolation. Students who are creating a multimedia-learning object together as a group project would experience a decrease in isolation.”

• “I started this program believing that various media (audio, video, hyperlinks, etc.,) were powerful tools and caused learning. Now I see that these media are simply the vehicles for delivering information that is packaged using principles of instructional design that match the learners’needs.”

• “In a normal classroom environment you do not hear everyone’s voice. You hear everyone’s voice here . you have to participate . technology facilitates this.”

Approval for the program, from the college’s faculty-run curriculum committee, from the Academic Senate, and from WASC accreditation, was secured prior to students entering the program. Thus, only 47% of students said that institutional support contributed significantly to community building. Perhaps students rated it lowest because support was seamlessly integrated into the program. This program, an extension of the brick-and-mortar campus, reflected institutional support in three key ways: (1) the mission of the program was aligned with the philosophy of the university, which is “to create classroom communities where learning is interactive and dynamic” (WASC Substantive Change Proposal, May 13, 2002); (2) university policies were reshaped; and (3) bureaucratic procedures were modified. Specifically, policies for developing distance learning courses were provided to faculty, instructor evaluations were migrated online, academic calendar changes were accommodated, and a Program Council provided oversight to ensure a check-and-balance governance structure.

Five individuals, responsible for institutional support activities such as processing applications, ordering books for the program, setting up communication channels between the program administrator and university administrators, coordinating scheduling, creating a student database, using library information technology, consulting on Web application design and development, and collaborating with program librarians, were interviewed by the program coordinator. Eighty percent of the support providers strongly agreed or agreed that they saw themselves as providing institutional support for the online learning community. Fifty-four percent of the support providers also strongly agreed or agreed that the online learning community became an extension of the campus community. Garrison and Anderson (2003) project that institutions of higher education will face continual challenges regarding institutional support for distance learning; foremost among them is transforming educational transactions towards the ideal of a “community of inquiry” (p. xiv).

“The sense of community seems so obvious and transparent that it’s a taken-for-granted assumption in online learning. When we step back for a moment and realize the tremendous impact of our cohort’s culture on learning, we begin to realize that learning is not about content—unless we reframe content to include people, places, and things in our learning community.” This student’s comment synthesizes the substantive evidence presented in this case study regarding how an e-learning community formed within a graduate program. Students cited community-centered approaches to learning as most essential for building community, followed closely by the establishment of a constructivist learning environment. Student assessment and program evaluation paradigms, consistent with constructivist learning environments, strengthened community. Positive interactions among all community members, instructors, students, and support staff engendered community development but did not correlate with academic achievement. Relatively seamless computer-mediated communication afforded significant technological support for community development. Engaging in critical discourse across multiple discussion forums enhanced students’ capacities as critical thinkers, which fostered a knowledgebuilding community. While case study research is not generalizable, these research findings can inform best practice in programs where online learning communities exhibit similar circumstances.